“You know we’re going to control the insurance companies.”
--Joe Biden, Vice President
We all know that Biden suffers from diarrhea of the mouth. If you ever want an “honest” opinion of what the Administration is doing, just ask Biden. Eventually it will slip out. He will usually babble utter nonsense for awhile, and then when you are least expecting it, provide you with the proof you have been looking for all along.
I decided to post this as its own discussion rather than as a running comment stream within my Slaughter Rule article because I believe Biden’s statement deserves front page attention.
If you live in a district where your Congressman/women is on the fence, inundate their office with phone calls! Make no mistake, Obama’s end game is 100% control. With health care they will have it. Health care is the back door to gaining entry into EVERY aspect of our lives. ALL OF OUR ACTIONS from what and how much we eat, to where we live, to how much time we spend on the internet, to who we spend time with have health implications. And those health implications have costs attached to them.
March 18, 2010 5:57 PM
Vice President Biden said today that that the fact that President Obama cancelled his trip to Indonesia and Australia next week is not an ominous sign for the prospects of the health care reform bill on Capitol Hill.
Biden addressed a range of topics on the issue of health care, including the criticisms that nervous lawmakers are directing at the White House over its handling of the bill; the debate in the Catholic Church over the health care bill, and what he is telling Members of Congress as they get closer to a vote.
TAPPER: This is another pushed, missed deadline possibly. Certainly not a good sign for health care reform, but what does it symbolize to you?
BIDEN: Oh, I don't think it has. Look, what it symbolizes is the president of the United States thinks this is an incredibly important initiative and he should be in the country, in the States, when in fact the Congress votes on it. And I think the fact that the House deadline slipped a day, I don't think it means anything.
TAPPER: Do you think the fact that it's been so tough to do this, there were deadlines in August and then December and then March 18th and then Saturday and then Sunday, do you think the fact that this has been so tough, does it give you any moment of pause that maybe the American people fundamentally don't want this bill --
BIDEN: No, no, no.
TAPPER: -- they're not confident in this bill.
BIDEN: Look, here's the deal. This has been tough from day one. It's been tough for 40 years, all right? We are so close to doing what no one else has ever come close to doing, that it doesn't surprise me at all. For example, when I spoke to the cabinet members -- I call cabinet meetings occasionally on the Recovery Act -- and I said, guys, what made you think any of this would be easy. People have been trying to do this since the turn of the century, the 20th century. So no I don't take -- I really don't think it says that at all.
It says the Republicans have been very skillful in using legitimately every tactic in the book -- legitimate tactic -- every procedural way to slow down the process to prevent an up-and-down vote. And we're getting close, they're running out of runway.
TAPPER: You are down here talking about the stimulus bill and you're down here talking about the Middle Class Task Force --
BIDEN: Yes.
TAPPER: -- but you're working the phones.
BIDEN: That's true.
TAPPER: You're talking to members of Congress. What are you telling them and what are you hearing back from them?
BIDEN: Well, I'm telling them two things. One is that, look, this is going to be something when the American people realize -- once it's passed -- that, A, it does take care of preexisting conditions; B, you're insurance rates aren't going to skyrocket; C, the insurance companies aren't going to be running the show like they were before; D, you're going to be in a position where you can keep your insurance that you have. That once the American public realizes that, you're (Congress) going to get a reward for this. They're going to be rewarded. But right now, though, all of the effort that's been placed near the side, the tens of millions of dollars spent by the insurance industry to misrepresent what this bill, if it doesn't pass, then it's like, well, Gus, guess what, we've saved you from death panels. Guess what we -- so the benefit for the American people is also a political benefit. They're going to see what we've been saying is true.
TAPPER: Do you think that they'll see that by November, cause -- ?
BIDEN: Yeah.
TAPPER: Are you worried at all? Because some of the parts of the bill that you guys are in favor of --
BIDEN: Right, right.
TAPPER: -- don't take effect for several years.
BIDEN: Well, that's true, but very important parts take effect right away. For example, can no longer be denied insurance for preexisting conditions. You're not going to be in a position where you paid into a health insurance plan your whole life and all of a sudden it's, whoop, you hit your cap, we're not going to cover you anymore. There's going -- they're going to see there are no death panels that kick in.
There's a lot of good stuff that's going to happen right away. They're going to see that if you like the insurance you have, then keep the insurance you have. There's no -- they're going to see that if you want to join with a whole lot of other people to help drive down your insurance costs like big companies are able to do, you're going to be able to do that.
So, but there's things that not everything is going to kick in. This takes some time to kick in, but they're going to see right off the bat the horrible aren't real and there's some very good things that become apparent immediately.
TAPPER: You're a observant Catholic.
BIDEN: Sure.
TAPPER: And there's a big debate right now within the Catholic Church about this bill, and a lot of these last few members that you're trying to get are Catholic democrats who oppose abortion. And I'm wondering, first of all, how you can side with nuns over bishops?
BIDEN: That's easy. I love the nuns.
TAPPER: And, second of all, what you're telling I assume that some of the people you're calling are these Catholic Democrats because you.
BIDEN: Sure.
TAPPER: Because you have the same faith.
BIDEN: Yes. I mean, they happen to be similar (ph). I'm not calling them because of that. I'm calling a lot of people who have other concerns about the bill.
TAPPER: Right. But they are among those who you're calling?
BIDEN: Right. Yes. They are among them. Look, when you've got guys like Bob Casey, coming up with a proposal, along with Ben Nelson of Nebraska, that keeps the principles of the Hyde Amendment, which says no federal dollars can be spent in order to pay for abortion, that principle is imbedded in the bill that's about to be passed, God willing. That is, the bill, God willing, will pass.
And so but there's a whole lot of disagreement on exactly whether they'll do the exact same thing the Hyde Amendment does. I've supported the Hyde Amendment for 36 years of the United States Senate. Well, it wasn't around 36 years. For the entirety of the time it's been around. And so I assured them, and this will not allow you to take any subsidized government money you get and say, with that money I'm going to go now I can go purchase an insurance plan that provides for abortions. The principle is intact. And so I I'm confident even the bishops, once this bill is passed and see how it operates, are not going to have the concern any longer.
TAPPER: When you talked to these members of Congress, you told me what you tell them. What do you hear back from them? Do you hear back from venerable members who are worried this bill will cost them their jobs?
BIDEN: Well, I yes. Some of them I say they say, well, Joe, look, man, I mean, you know, you guys haven't massaged this very well. And, you know, this thing has gone on so long, I don't know. And my response is, hey, man, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I'm telling you, you know, pre-existing, they're going to be covered. You know we're going to control the insurance companies. You know people aren't going to lose their health care with their employer like is being advertised. So you've got to if you really want to make sure that you get the benefit of what you've already done, vote for the bill.
And I look, Jake, I really, truly believe that the worst place to be, as a legislator, is being in the position where your side is being pummeled for an idea and there's misrepresentations about all the bad things the idea is going to generate. And then the idea fails and then they go, see, I told you Jake was for it. And had I not stopped, Jake, there would have been death panels.
13 Comments
MrsSheila
"ObamaCare" is merely the gateway to a single-payer plan. This has been the goal all along.
Obama said early on that's what his intention was, but that it would have to be implemented gradually.
He promised to "fundamentally change" this nation. What did people think he meant? Or did they even think before voting?
Flyguy
My insurance company won't raise my rates, they just won't be in business anymore because there is no profit margin.
I guess Fucking Joe will leave me his address or I can just show up on his fucking door with my cancellation notice.
Thanks to years of dumb fucking public education, millions of people nod their heads like dogs. These are the people Uncle Joe is talking about. The lazy, stupid, fat, ignorant assholes that procreate like they are in a contest but can't find Canada on a map.
WAR!
JasonRines
I am rarely in agreement with someone like Fox's Bill O'Reilly. But he made an opinion that if the public option remained the focus of the legislation, it would probably pass. I have to say I agree although I will state an opinion I believe is more relevant. That opinion is that I don't like the idea of a government forcing a population to buy anything. That is exactly what this bill does. It is a slippery slope once this form of governance becomes law.
Using the 'Slaughter' rule means a 51% percent majority can pass a bill. That is troubling in and of itself of where the political system is at. The United States is supposed to be a Republic, requiring a 60% supermajority to pass legislation. What does 51% mean? That means we are a Democracy, like the Greeks of old. This quote from Alexander Tytler comes to mind:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
TLaCour
@JasonRines:
Yikes! We agree on your first point (nice quote from Tytler, too) but some important corrections are in order.
We agree, of course, that any government - be it elected or hereditary - requiring the People to "buy" something or be criminals for "living without having purchased" is Tyrannical. The thrust of the bill is certainly anti-Liberty. The method of its passing is another can of worms.
Here there are problems, though:
"Using the 'Slaughter' rule means a 51% percent majority can pass a bill. That is troubling in and of itself of where the political system is at. The United States is supposed to be a Republic, requiring a 60% supermajority to pass legislation. What does 51% mean? That means we are a Democracy, like the Greeks of old."
Certain terms and misunderstandings therein need fixing. "Republic" has nothing to do with % of votes required to pass something, it only means persons are chosen (Representatives, Senators, etc.) to whom are given the authority to "make the decision" instead of retaining the practice and right of "making the decision" by direct vote by citizens, which is called "democracy." The United States as a whole, and all the States themselves, are best characterized as democratic republics, since the People choose those representatives by vote. But majority vote is not requisite. In many modern cases, a plurality is sufficient (e.g. when Presidential Electors are chosen every few years). Representatives in a Republic don't even have to be chosen by vote: Roman Senators (and lots of other office-holders) were not elected by the People (good summary at Roman Senate).
In theory, a republican legislative body could assign any % they wanted for passage of a measure. The U.S. Constitution does NOT specify any "X%" vote for passage of measures by either House, except that it specifies certain supermajorities (2/3 to expel a Member, for the Senate to ratify a treaty, to override a veto, etc.).
In practice, we have always used the >50% rule for passage of measures in either House (except where the Constitution requires supermajorities). No 60% rule is inherent to "what is a Republic" nor is it required by the Constitution. The current 60% rule applies ONLY to cloture (vote to end debate so that an up-or-down vote on the actual measure can occur), then only the normal >50% is required for passage.
A decent history of the filibuster and related requirements for supermajorities to get to an up-or-down vote are at Filibuster and Filibuster (United States Senate).
In the House, unending debate (now called "filibuster") was used until 1842, and related delaying tactics were ended in 1890. Debate has since been tightly controlled and limited, and up-or-down votes cannot be blocked by a minority (still, as always, only a bare majority required for passage).
In the Senate, rules adopted in the first session (1789) forbade any such tactics. Senate Rule changes in 1806 made the "filibuster" possible, but no one used it until the debate of re-chartering the Bank of the U.S. in 1837. There was no formal way to end debate in the Senate from 1806 until 1917, when a rule was adopted allowing a two-thirds supermajority to invoke cloture. That rule was changed to the current three-fifths (60%) supermajority in 1975.
TLaCour
Thanks for posting Biden's blatherings, JJ, always entertaining and informative as he is. Of course you're right, that "information" is rarely about the substance (he usually gets that wrong) but about the intent, and he fortunately seems blithely ignorant when he gives away the true motivations of his fellow Devilrats.
HeeHee!
Flyguy
I want Congress on this plan. Let them pass whatever the hell they want. Fuck them.
But I want these bastards to get to live the dream we all will. Mother fuckers.