• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Filibusters and Reconciliation

AvalonXQ said:
What Cantor said could be reasonably argued to imply that the solution for insuring uninsured Americans is not best found in a new federal law.
Click to expand...

And coming from the Minority Whip of the U.S. House of Representatives, it means he wants to do nothing but leave it up to the states (i.e. to leave the status quo in place).

Or is Cantor running for office in his state legislature and promoting some healthcare reform there?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
And coming from the Minority Whip of the U.S. House of Representatives, it means he wants to do nothing but leave it up to the states (i.e. to leave the status quo in place).
Click to expand...

Either that, or he wants federal reforms that will remove hurdles to action by the states.
 
Dumb All Over said:
There is another way of circumventing the filibuster without getting rid of it all together, albeit it's pretty difficult to accomplish. If you can create a sooper-dooper oober majority of one party or the other, then a filibuster is easily defeated.

Hmm...I'm trying to remember the last time any party had that kind of majority and what they did to pass their legislation.
Click to expand...

You don't have to remember so far back. The Senate had to come up with a super majority vote (3 times I think) to pass their version of the healthcare reform bill in the face of a filibuster. This isn't "another way" of circumventing the filibuster--this is the primary way of doing it.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Either that, or he wants federal reforms that will remove hurdles to action by the states.
Click to expand...

No, he said he wants the states to initiate programs to allow the 30 million uninsured (that the Democrat-proposed reforms would cover) to get coverage.

Here's the exact quote:
Cantor said:
We could start by creating universal access programs at the state level to allow those who are being denied coverage by their insurance company right now the ability to access insurance.
Click to expand...

He can't do what he's saying here in his current office. So he's making it sound like he's in favor of addressing the uninsured, while he is, in fact, only in favor of leaving things as they are, and hoping a few of the states address the problem.
 
AvalonXQ said:
What Cantor said could be reasonably argued to imply that the solution for insuring uninsured Americans is not best found in a new federal law.
Click to expand...
leftysergeant said:
Well, the problem is that the only alternative is to leave it to the "free market."
Click to expand...

Really? Let's look a bit earlier in the thread at what AvalonXQ was referring to:

JoeTheJuggler said:
On Meet the Press this morning, Cantor said the Republicans are in favor of the states adopting programs to help those 30 million uninsured get insurance.
Click to expand...

Apparently you (lefty) don't think state government exists.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Apparently you don't think state government exists.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I don't think House Minority Whip Rep. Cantor sits on any state legislature.

My question again, given the fact that Cantor is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and not a member of any state legislature, how does his statement differ from saying he proposes to do nothing about the uninsured?

Avalon suggested that he was proposing to remove federal barriers to such programs, but the fact is, since Massachusetts already has such a program, such barriers don't exist. So again, Cantor is really proposing that Republicans in Congress would prefer to do nothing at all about the problem of the millions of uninsured.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
He can't do what he's saying here in his current office. So he's making it sound like he's in favor of addressing the uninsured, while he is, in fact, only in favor of leaving things as they are, and hoping a few of the states address the problem.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So if he doesn't think the organization that he's a part of is best equip to fix the problem, that implies that he wants things left as they are?
Are you a member of Congress? If not, doesn't this same logic imply that YOU want things left as they are, since you're not in the organization that you think should fix the problem?



Quite frankly I'm surprised and excited that at least one person in government isn't so solipsistic as to think their office is always the answer.
 
leftysergeant said:
That Washington State might pass something reasonably useful does not help a sick child in Alabama.
Click to expand...

Wow. Lefty discovers something obvious and ignores something obvious, all in one post. Well done, that's not easy.

So, lefty, does Alabama have a state government?
 
All problems are not federal problems; all solutions are not federal solutions.
Health care should be a state, not a federal, issue.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Interesting. So if he doesn't think the organization that he's a part of is best equip to fix the problem, that implies that he wants things left as they are?
Are you a member of Congress? If not, doesn't this same logic imply that YOU want things left as they are, since you're not in the organization that you think should fix the problem?



Quite frankly I'm surprised and excited that at least one person in government isn't so solipsistic as to think their office is always the answer.
Click to expand...

Please read through the Meet the Press transcript I linked to. In the context of what Congress proposes to do at a federal level to address the nation's many millions of uninsured, Cantor's response was to say that programs should be set up at the state level.

Again, given his office, and given the context of the conversation, is there any difference between his statement and the statement, "I propose we do nothing"?

If I ask my brother how he's going to clean the alley behind his house, and he replies that he'll leave it for his neighbor to do, isn't this the same as him saying he does not intend to clean up the alley behind his house?

It would be different if Cantor said he doesn't think the uninsured is a problem for the nation, but is only a problem for some states. But he made noises that sounded like he was suggesting a course of action he would take, but in fact what he was proposing he would do is nothing.
 
AvalonXQ said:
All problems are not federal problems; all solutions are not federal solutions.
Health care should be a state, not a federal, issue.
Click to expand...

And if Cantor were being honest, he would have said that. But he didn't.

That's exactly the point I'm making. He did not say, "I propose we don't address healthcare at the federal level." He made noises that sound like he's going to do something, but he really intends to do nothing.
 
AvalonXQ said:
All problems are not federal problems; all solutions are not federal solutions.
Health care should be a state, not a federal, issue.
Click to expand...

are the American people not one people?

that's like saying civil rights should have been left to the individual states to deal with.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
He made noises that sound like he's going to do something, but he really intends to do nothing.
Click to expand...

I disagree.
I read the transcript. He made it clear that he intends to do what the Republicans have talked about doing for the beginning -- tackle the malpractice reform and inter-state insurance policies. And, yes, he wants universal coverage policies to be state rather than federal, and he says so clearly.
That's not the same as "doing nothing" -- that's just not doing what you want.
 
Ziggurat said:
So, lefty, does Alabama have a state government?
Click to expand...

Sure. And they have a reputation for enacting some brain-dead measures. They even used to tolerate the savage beating of people jsut exercising normal human rights.
 
parky76 said:
that's like saying civil rights should have been left to the individual states to deal with.
Click to expand...

How is it like that?
I said some issues are state, not federal issues, and I believe health care is an example.
How does that imply that I think civil rights is another example?
 
AvalonXQ said:
How is it like that?
I said some issues are state, not federal issues, and I believe health care is an example.
Click to expand...

why should health-care be a state and not a federal issue?

it seems to me that only the Federal government has the power and resources to deal with such a monster. wouldn't u agree?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom