An Irrefutable Argument (Two, Actually) Against the Slaughter Rule and ObamaCare
The unconstitutional Slaughter sleight of hand on Sunday will allow Democrats to vote for ObamaCare, and then later claim they didn’t.
It’s purely an exercise in political cowardice. And I can prove it.
First:
If they’re not going to claim they didn’t vote for it, then why are they doing it this way?
Second:
Any argument to the contrary is hereby deemed to have been refuted.
My blog, my rules. And that is what I have decided.
Normally, on this blog, we make our arguments and stand behind our words. But why should we be forced to stand behind our words, if our opponents are redefining terms so their cronies in Congress don’t have to stand behind theirs?
The people who support the Slaughter rule are rewriting the English language. They are calling a non-vote a vote, by “deeming” it to be what it is not. Their justification? They have the power to do it, so fuck you.
If they are going to use their raw political power to redefine the very language of our Constitution, we should treat their arguments with no more respect.
And so I hereby use my own raw power to declare the “Slaughter the Language rule”: the arguments of people who support the Slaughter rule are hereby “deemed” to be incorrect. Don’t respond to them. Just explain to them that their arguments have been deemed to be lacking in logical support.
(This is actually less offensive than the Slaughter rule, because I am deeming incorrect something that already is incorrect.)
If these people are going to make a mockery of the Constitution and the English language itself, we should make a mockery of them. Starting now.
I don’t think this ObamaCare will see the light of day, but in the off-chance it does, the Republicans will just have to deem it repealed when they retake Congress this November.
GeneralMalaise (f0137a) — 3/19/2010 @ 6:45 amThis leadership learned its lessons in or from the 60’s. Rule of men etc.
Good analogy Pat. We deem your argument out of bounds. It’s a typical lety debating strategy. Can’t win on the facts or points, redraft the rules (and apparently, shred the constitution where necessary).
Chris (6b0332) — 3/19/2010 @ 6:46 am“Any argument to the contrary is hereby deemed to have been refuted.”
Without a vote huh?
Someone told you there would be no vote. They lied to you. They might be the same people that lied to you about other things in this health reform, like “Death Panels” and that the mandates are “unconstitutional.” But apparently you’re so smart you like going back for more. And even after the vote on Sunday, my guess is you’ll still go back for more.
imdw (de7003) — 3/19/2010 @ 6:58 amOf course the mandate is unconstitutional.
Show me the sentence in the Constitution that gives the Congress this power. You are aware that Congress’s powers are specifically enumerated, right?
Secret Squirrel (6a1582) — 3/19/2010 @ 7:01 amIs there a way that someone can be “deemed” to be a troll without having to read their comment?
Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 3/19/2010 @ 7:02 amBut socialized medicine is good – my grandchildren and great grandchildren -paying for my health care is great
Joe (dd01fd) — 3/19/2010 @ 7:04 ammuch better, and more accurate to boot!
win/win
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/19/2010 @ 7:07 amComment by Secret Squirrel — 3/19/2010 @ 7:01 am
ARE YOU DOUBTING SOMETHING imdw SAYS?!?!?!
Gerald A (a66d02) — 3/19/2010 @ 7:09 am“Show me the sentence in the Constitution that gives the Congress this power”
I see at least three provisions that can be used to justify a mandate: They can tax incomes. And they can regulate commerce among the states. And they can do things necessary and proper to regulate commerce.
Explanations of these are easy to find if you just look for them. Try to stay away from the facebook pages of former politicians.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
imdw (812311) — 3/19/2010 @ 7:10 amThe Libs have succeeded brilliantly in one thing: The public still doesn’t know what’s actually *in* the bill and most would hate much of it if they knew, but the WH has managed the message down to the last minute so that passing the bill is something the remaining rubes can understand–a horse race–a tournament–a win or loose game–a heart pounding “do they have the votes” piece of theatre. This tactic has also kept the old networks focused and under control rather than allowing a discussion on the merits. This was very evident in the coverage I viewed and Tivo’d last evening. It was all about vote counting and the CBO score. The anchors expressed not the slightest interest in what new secrets the latest version of the bill might contain or what nasty surprises might be in store for all Americans(such as the IRS thing). I cannot believe this power grab is happening right out in the open in the USA.
elissa (5602f9) — 3/19/2010 @ 7:15 amHa. I’d laugh harder if they weren’t actually trying to do this, I think.
htom (412a17) — 3/19/2010 @ 7:33 am“Is there a way that someone can be “deemed” to be a troll without having to read their comment?”
No “deeming” needed and he would not survive an up or down vote. But – truth be told – he was “passed” a long time ago.
GeneralMalaise (f0137a) — 3/19/2010 @ 7:43 amimdw… your comments are deemed irrelevant.
either orr (7cffdd) — 3/19/2010 @ 7:50 amAs are you, troll.
When the revolution comes, be very afraid.
Health care is not interstate commerce.
Michael Ejercito (526413) — 3/19/2010 @ 7:52 amI thought part of it was that the house didn’t want to approve the senate bill as is. They had some amendments they wanted included. But the house doesn’t trust the senate to put the amendments in because the senate is broken. I thought they were looking for a way to pass the bill and amendments at the same time.
time123 (fd0080) — 3/19/2010 @ 7:58 amThe goal being to force those changes on the senate, or at the very least make it absolutely clear that they had only supported the senate bill with the changes.
I see at least three provisions that can be used to justify a mandate
I suppose anything can be used if you want to.
Gerald A (a66d02) — 3/19/2010 @ 8:06 amI warned during the election of the dangers and the damage that unencubered democrats were going to do – to wit Dee Dee was a no vote, john mcCain would have never signed such a bill
I guess when 5% more people lose their jobs, others see their children struggling to find jobs, millions of immigrnts coming to compete – as goes america so goes the world – I guess when things get really bad enough – people will learn never ever to vote democrat
I hate to see it but the people are getting what they deserve. If I were the republicans i would let them rip this country for the next few months
Lying, cheating, closed bills, backroom deals, if peole are so cavalier to be so careless with their precious paid in blood right to vote then people get what they have coming to them, sad but true.
EricPWJohnson (1edc81) — 3/19/2010 @ 8:07 amsorry cant type on this dying craplaptop
EricPWJohnson (1edc81) — 3/19/2010 @ 8:08 amdon’t bother in the future…. none are so blind as the dim wit that thinks it can “see”
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/19/2010 @ 8:09 amEric, i think McLame would have been compelled to sign this crap sandwich out of “bipartisanship”….
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/19/2010 @ 8:11 amSo now a Dem congressional critter admits on camera that “if you don’t tie our hands now, we’ll keep on stealing.” Unbelievable.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/18/dem_congressman_if_you_dont_tie_our_hands_we_will_keep_stealing.html
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/19/2010 @ 8:15 amOh yeah – and Coburn just said this morning that he’s going to block the entire bill for months if they try to pass it. Only true socialists could put into motion this kind of reaction.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/19/2010 @ 8:16 amYou might be missing the interesting point here. They can’t get sixty votes in the Senate, so they must pass it through reconciliation. The House demands some changes to the Senate bill, so they have to pass the Senate bill tied to their amendments, and the Senate can then pass that result with a simple majority.
The reason the Slaughter rule is necessary is not to protect vulnerable Representatives from the wrath of their constituents. It is to protect the House from being screwed by Obama, who they don’t trust.
Alternative: simply pass the Senate bill as is, then agree to a reconciliation meeting where the House changes are added, followed by a simple majority vote in the Senate to pass the whole package.
That won’t work, because the House justly fears that after step one, pass the Senate bill as is, Obama will immediately sign the dang thing without the amendments. They don’t trust him not to do that, so the deemed passed maneuver is required.
Protection from the constituents’ wrath is merely a secondary benefit.
Bart (6c6299) — 3/19/2010 @ 8:17 amThey have the power to do it, so fuck you.
And in the notorious words of the former (with “former” being probably more a matter of semantics) close advisor and spiritual guide of the current occupant of the Oval Office, “goddamn America!”
Mark (411533) — 3/19/2010 @ 8:21 amHow do we know that the next Congress will continue to pay for this? Doesn’t the “can’t bind successive” things, and the two year limit, come into play?
htom (412a17) — 3/19/2010 @ 8:24 amWhy don’t we just deem all posts by Patterico as irrefutable?
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/19/2010 @ 8:27 amCan they add an amendment where, should the Reconciliation bill pass, that Obama is deemed to have been impeached?
Constituent: What?! You guys impeached Obama??!?
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/19/2010 @ 8:30 amCongressman: I didn’t vote for it!!
If Congress has the power to do this under the Commerce Clause, the simplest things they could do would be to impose nation-wide tort reform upon their allies in the legal community, thereby reducing a great pressure upon the escalation of health-care costs; and then they could allow interstate commerce in health-care insurance, allowing consumers to pick and choose among the thousands of different policies available in the country that would best fit their individual needs.
That is what they could do under the Commerce Clause, but that is not what they have chosen to do; which is to impose a mandate, and/or tax, upon every individual taxpayer or business in the country, which is not an enumerated power, under any clause of amendment contained within that document.
And, imadeemedwus is still irrelevant to life on this planet.
“When in the Course of human events…”
AD - RtR/OS! (b083e4) — 3/19/2010 @ 8:30 amFor some reason firedoglake is considered the most accurate vote count, they have the GOP needing only 5 more Dem votes to defeat (including leaners).
Krauthammer may think it’s going to pass, I think the world is going to be in for a shock.
skwiself (b69230) — 3/19/2010 @ 8:37 amSure, it is, unless the doctor is manufacturing everything in his/her office that he/she uses the treat the patient. Even then, Wickard says you’re still wrong.
More importantly, I see Pat is determined to deny that his cherished Republicans used this tactic over 30 times (according to AEI’s Norm Ornstein) when they controlled Congress. Weird how one can just deny recent history.
I deem this as good got the goose as it was for the gander.
timb (449046) — 3/19/2010 @ 8:55 amanother deemed troll appears.
SPQR (8475fc) — 3/19/2010 @ 9:00 amEvery where I turn–lawyers (and law makers–the majority who are lawyer) seem to think that any law they right can trump physical laws and human nature–all the while twisting the language into a meaningless morass.
Patterico–Do you see any salvation in our future?
BfC (5209ec) — 3/19/2010 @ 9:02 amHmmm. Timb, I in no way care to fence about this, but remember:
The first sentence is deliciously ironic, given Eric Holder’s recent commentary regarding OBL. I keep expecting Dick Cheney to send him a thank you note. But the lapdog press just sits there, after years of excoriating the Right for saying. Exactly. The. Same. Thing. Or even less.
I want you to remember the rest of those words very clearly, about sixteen months from now. Just keep in mind: if it is wrong way, it is wrong the other. And if you are consistent, bravo. VERY few progressive Leftists are at present. And you can certainly point fingers at Republicans if you wish; I don’t support hypocrites, myself (and any political argument that begins “Yes, but” is lost from the start).
But I don’t feel that Patterico has been particularly hypocritical, as you seem to believe. Please show us where, in the past, he has supported this kind of literally antidemocratic bonehead political move.
And as I imply, you should be screaming about it to the DNC. Because the Democrats will lose their edge very shortly, and the Republicans are just delighted to have morons like Pelosi being so openly hypocritical. On tape.
Not only will it help empower Republicans, but it will give the far Right cover to do things that will send you out into the streets to protest.
“Slaughter Rule” indeed. Bank on it.
Eric Blair (2fc1ba) — 3/19/2010 @ 9:03 amDee Dee was a no vote, just as much as she was a republican, which means she was probably a yes vote. She’s a hyperliberal game player, and though that election was a massive screw up, and it was the GOP’s fault it was a screw up, Scozzafava was worse than Myers in that she would have been harder to replace, while Myers will very likely be replaced quickly.
I agree, though, that Mccain would never have signed a bill passed in this manner. I may not agree with him on everything, but he has basic honor.
Anyway, Scozzafava betrayed her party and her donors and her staff. Opposing her is about a hell of a lot more than any particular vote she’d have made… she was a bad person and shouldn’t be in any sort of power.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 3/19/2010 @ 9:03 amDis-in-genu-ous. Many aspects of health care may be and are interstate in nature, health insurance is not. Because the guvvmint says so. And this bill is a restructuring of the nation’s health insurance. Not its care.
skwiself (b69230) — 3/19/2010 @ 9:06 am“…Health care is not interstate commerce…”
Well, it is; and, it isn’t.
It isn’t as currently constituted for individuals and small businesses.
But, it is, when looking at National Labor Unions and the health-care packages that they negotiate for their members nation-wide.
It either is, and the privileges granted to one should be available to all (14th-A); or, it isn’t, and Congress has no voice in this matter, and all of those collective bargaining agreements will have to be re-done with health-care contracts unique for each and every State that the Union represents workers in. But, individual States have different mandates on coverage, that would put the Unions into the possible position of securing varying benefits for its’ members depending on their State of Residence and denying to some what is available to others based on that residence, and not on their employment.
A Lesson:
AD - RtR/OS! (b083e4) — 3/19/2010 @ 9:07 amWhen Congress sets out to do anything in a “comprehensive” manner, run – do not walk – as far away, as fast as possible (and get those calls and emails going so as to freeze their communications on The Hill).
Eric, timb is selective in what he thinks about goose ganders and sauce, since Pelosi thought that a “deemed” debt limit extension was unconstitutional.
But hey, what’s timb without selective memory, deceptive editing and outright invention?
That’s right – missing.
SPQR (8475fc) — 3/19/2010 @ 9:10 amPITCHFORKS AND TORCHES!!! TAR AND FEATHER THE BASTARDS!!! THEY ARE FUCKING THE CONSTITUTION SO FUCK THEM!!!
J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3) — 3/19/2010 @ 9:11 amedited for accuracy, clarity, content, and to increase shareholder value.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/19/2010 @ 9:20 amnow FOAD. i deem thee worthless.
Speaking of missing….
I long for the day that timb’s pix is on a milk-carton.
AD - RtR/OS! (b083e4) — 3/19/2010 @ 9:20 amthe milk would curdle on content with the container.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/19/2010 @ 9:24 amAnyway we can program a rock hard fist to pop out of imdw, timb, dogcrap’s,… monitor? Then, cartoon like a note comes fluttering out that they are deemed irrelevant, a troll, and their comments lies are rejected.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/19/2010 @ 9:30 amComment by redc1c4 — 3/19/2010 @ 9:24 am
I laughed – it felt good.
AD - RtR/OS! (b083e4) — 3/19/2010 @ 9:31 amthe strike went on strike.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/19/2010 @ 9:32 amWhat a debacle.
I originally mused that some employers (such as WalMart) might be secretly happy with the idea of ObamaCare because the expense of dealing with employee medical benefits would be shifted largely to working-stiff-schlub taxpayers throughout America. Or a variation of, as one example, the cost of healthcare for illegal immigrants being shouldered by hospital emergency rooms legally required to accept any and all incoming patients.
But in the world of President “Goddamn America,” the reality is that as much as possible is being done to put a chill on the nation’s economy, if not mood in general. Or similar to what Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt did — who both caused taxes to soar — during the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Mark (411533) — 3/19/2010 @ 9:45 amWhen Caterpillar moves the rest of its business to Mexico, or some other place that is business-friendly, and the Illinois economy collapses, then I guess we’ll all be signing up for Obamacare, assuming there are enough workers to pay for it.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 3/19/2010 @ 9:51 amya gotta type out “strike”….. its an undocumented feature. %-)
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/19/2010 @ 9:55 amnot to worry: your share will be covered by tax credits!
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/19/2010 @ 9:56 amMore probably is that Caterpillar just finally goes bankrupt. They’ve been under a lot of margin pressure for a long time due to foreign competition.
Obama thinks it is just fine if we buy bulldozers from China from now on.
SPQR (8475fc) — 3/19/2010 @ 9:59 amtesting:
htom (412a17) — 3/19/2010 @ 10:18 amtestAha! lt strike gt text lt slash strike gt !
htom (412a17) — 3/19/2010 @ 10:20 am“…bulldozers from China …”
No. The new green is manual labor. You don’t need bulldozers when you have millions out of work. This is what was meant by shovel-ready projects.
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/19/2010 @ 10:22 am51, Corwin, we had that system once, but the Liberals tried to outlaw it. It was called a chaingang.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/19/2010 @ 10:28 am“It’s purely an exercise in political cowardice.”
Yup.
Frankly, I’m surprised the Dems haven’t used the SCOTUS to do their dirty work for them, just like they did with abortion.
All they have to do is get a few “justices” to conjure up a “right to health care” like they conjured up a “right to kill babies”…and communist health care is a done deal, and a vote that they can be held accountable for is no longer a problem.
Dave Surls (cda7bc) — 3/19/2010 @ 10:34 am…shovel-ready projects and Chinese ‘dozers:
The late, great economist Milton Friedman once observed a construction project in the PRC, and commented that the work would go much faster if they used mechanical construction machinery (bulldozers, etc), and was rebuffed by his host with the statement that this was a jobs project.
AD - RtR/OS! (b083e4) — 3/19/2010 @ 10:39 amFriedman’s retort: If what you are concerned about is jobs, you would be digging this with tea-spoons, not shovels.
“Health care is not interstate commerce.”
If medical marijuana is in interstate commerce, so is the insurance industry.
imdw (1f837b) — 3/19/2010 @ 10:50 amThere are things going on in medicine that the general public doesn’t know about. The tendency of doctors to shift to cash practices is growing and the acceptance of Medicare and Medicaid is falling. The big concern over at Sermo is a possibility of requiring membership in Obamacare for license renewal. I think the 14th Amendment may get some attention.
The wait for medical care will really zoom. Obama will get the credit. The health insurance companies will go away as the “shall issue” law takes force and the “mandate” is too weak to be enforced. I think that is actually the agenda. The insurance companies, about half of which are non-profit, by the way, will become public utilities with guaranteed profit margins.
I think the only industry in good shape will be the IRS which will hire 16,500 new agents to manage health care.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/19/2010 @ 10:50 am“I think the only industry in good shape will be the IRS which will hire 16,500 new agents to manage health care.”
and count on them to make decisions like the one to send agents to a Sacramento car wash to collect $.04 and associated penalties…
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/scavenger/detail?blogid=111&entry_id=59241
GeneralMalaise (f0137a) — 3/19/2010 @ 11:06 amWelcome to the United States, now the world’s largest Banana Republic…
Mark (411533) — 3/19/2010 @ 11:09 amEven if they decided to take an up or down, direct, non-deeming vote on both bills simultaneously (HR3590 and the Reconciliation Bill), it would still be unconstitutional for Obama to sign only one of them.
Andrew (011b3b) — 3/19/2010 @ 11:16 am“More importantly, I see Pat is determined to deny that his cherished Republicans used this tactic over 30 times (according to AEI’s Norm Ornstein) when they controlled Congress. Weird how one can just deny recent history.”
Weird how you just say untrue things without blinking. You come on here and directly accuse me of denying something I have never denied. I would like you to take that back.
I had never heard of this tactic before and I damned sure never supported it, nor would I.
Also, you’re already deemed wrong …
Patterico (bf7277) — 3/19/2010 @ 11:51 amAndrew:
Why?
Patterico (bf7277) — 3/19/2010 @ 11:52 amI’m borrowing this from someone, but maybe we can just deem Obama impeached–or deem Pelosi and Reid recalled–or maybe we can just deem ourselves king of the universe and not subject to these petty little laws that Obama is trying to impose on us.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 3/19/2010 @ 11:54 amHi Patterico. Article I, Section 7, Clause 3 says that a “vote” on legislation cannot take effect unless the president approves it. If there’s a single vote in the House, then that would have to be approved in its entirety before it can have any legal effect.
In Clinton v. New York, the Supreme Court said:
If the exact text approved in a House vote is not the exact text that the President signs, then it’s invalid. Don’t you think it would be weird for the House to vote FOR the Cornhusker Kickback and simultaneously vote AGAINST the Cornhusker kickback? The whole thing is unconstitutional, no matter if they use “deem and pass” or not.
Andrew (011b3b) — 3/19/2010 @ 12:09 pmDid I hear that there was another Dem that switched from yes to no this afternoon?
JD (251541) — 3/19/2010 @ 12:15 pmanother demonstration of why you should STFU: everyone knows that “medical marijuana” is a homegrown industry.
your stupidity has been deemed unprecedented.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/19/2010 @ 12:16 pmP.S. There’s much more to the “Slaughter Rule” than merely “Deem and Pass.” The two are not synonymous, and the Slaughter Rule is much worse.
http://www.redstate.com/andrewhyman/2010/03/18/the-gop-did-deem-and-pass-the-gop-did-deem-and-pass-big-deal/
Andrew (011b3b) — 3/19/2010 @ 12:17 pmI find no mention of “Deem and Pass” in Rule-7.62!
AD - RtR/OS! (b083e4) — 3/19/2010 @ 12:18 pmbut they’re going to need more shotguns…….
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/19/2010 @ 12:18 pm“Weird how you just say untrue things without blinking.”
He’s a lefty. Comes with the territory.
Dave Surls (cda7bc) — 3/19/2010 @ 12:19 pmDo Zombies blink?
AD - RtR/OS! (b083e4) — 3/19/2010 @ 12:24 pm“another demonstration of why you should STFU: everyone knows that “medical marijuana” is a homegrown industry. ”
Um. You know I’m referencing a supreme court case here, right?
imdw (842182) — 3/19/2010 @ 12:27 pmI like how this poster at redstate.com’s forum words the heart of the matter, in a matter plain and easily understandable for all—except for a variety of liberals:
Mark (411533) — 3/19/2010 @ 12:34 pmAs if everything the Court says is infallible.
The amount of mis-jurisprudence that has come out of that venue in the last 160-years is absolutely staggering, starting with Dred Scott, but not limited to it.
I would think that someone who complained so loudly about Citizens United would have some reservations about investing Court decisions with infallibilty.
AD - RtR/OS! (b083e4) — 3/19/2010 @ 12:35 pmsince you are, by accepted definition, always wrong, it doesn’t matter what you post.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/19/2010 @ 12:40 pm“I think the only industry in good shape will be the IRS which will hire 16,500 new agents to manage health care.”
I would think they currently have enough agents, if they’re able to send a number of agents to a Sacramento car wash to collect $.04 in back taxes.
GeneralMalaise (f0137a) — 3/19/2010 @ 12:46 pmPerhaps you should read trenchant comments on your own blog? Try this Congressional Research Service Report.
Try this blog entry from one of the more reasonable people toiling away at AEI.
In the end, this is a case where something you don’t like originated with your caucus.
timb (449046) — 3/19/2010 @ 12:52 pm^We deem thee an idiot, please go back to your village.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/19/2010 @ 1:06 pmyou’re still wrong, so you can shut up now.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/19/2010 @ 1:22 pmAt a bare minimum, article I, sec. 7, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the following conditions be met before a bill becomes law: “(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President.” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448 (1998).
GeneralMalaise (f0137a) — 3/19/2010 @ 1:32 pmWhile it’s true that “reconciliation” has been used by both sides of the aisle, it’s always been used for relatively small, procedural items… until now. Never for a “signature”, life-changing issue… certainly not for the single biggest power grab ever attempted by the federal government.
Again… if the DemocRATS believe this to be the right thing for America, let them vote on it and suffer the consequences.
GeneralMalaise (f0137a) — 3/19/2010 @ 1:39 pmIs this finally the post where I get to deem that I am allowed to visualize my foot up imdw’s ass?
sybilll (2a1a58) — 3/19/2010 @ 2:39 pmi’m not sure there’s any room, given where his head and shoulders are…..
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/19/2010 @ 3:04 pmthe only way dim wit will ever see daylight is to hope Obamacare covers the installation of plexiglas belly buttons.
timb,
You said I denied something I never denied.
Take it back. Second and final warning.
Patterico (bf7277) — 3/19/2010 @ 3:43 pmHey, imdw: “Death Panels” are in the Senate bill. Go to page 1,001 of the 2,074-page monstrosity and there it is: “The Independent Medicare Advisory Board,” whose stated mission is…
…that on top of Medicare cuts already promised to make it Now, many people accuse Sarah Palin of being a hypocrite because as Governor of Alaska, she designated a day for encouraging consultation with health professionals regarding end-of-life care. She was following suit along with several states that participated in the first National Healthcare Decisions Day (April 16, 2008). From the NHDD site, the problem that the day was initiated to solve:
That is a vastly different goal than that of the President, who, in his ABC News White House discussion of health care, followed up an answer to a question regarding whether his reforms would allow a 100-year-old woman to receive a heart transplant with the following statement:
So let’s review: Governor Palin wanted people to increase awareness of their options for end-of-life care for themselves or their loved ones. President Obama wants people to talk about ending their lives or the lives of their loved ones to – ultimately – save the government money.
Re-read his quote, and tell me that isn’t what he meant.
Big freakin’ diff.
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 3/19/2010 @ 5:28 pmcorrection: “…that on top of Medicare cuts already promised to make it solvent.”
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 3/19/2010 @ 5:29 pmThat’s timb being timb.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/19/2010 @ 5:31 pmAnd I’m getting sick of the Dems throwing that back into the faces of the GOP when it objects to profligate deficit spending by the current
Presi(D)ent and pretending it’s some kind of brilliant answer.
It’s as ridiculous as a man maxing out his family’s credit card on power tools right after berating his wife’s overspending on shoes. He may say with sanctimony that she wasn’t so concerned about putting the family into debt, but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s compounding the problem, does it?
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 3/19/2010 @ 5:39 pmtimb said, in what could well be one of the last comments he ever leaves on this blog:
I never denied any such thing. The Congressional Research Service doesn’t say I denied it. Norm Ornstein doesn’t say I denied it.
The next comment published by timb on this blog will substantiate that claim (that I denied this), which he can’t do, or will retract and apologize for it.
If he wants to continue to play dumb about what he claimed and what I am demanding, let him play dumb in moderation.
Patterico (c218bd) — 3/19/2010 @ 7:06 pmtimb – Was deem and pass ever used in a situation where the underlying bill had not previously been debated and voted on in the relevant chamber?
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/19/2010 @ 7:18 pm#88: i’ve got $5 on moderation.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/19/2010 @ 7:41 pm