“Slaughter Solution” Is Unprecedented According To GOP. Except They Used It A Lot.
Tweet
Media conservatives have falsely characterized a legislative proposal reportedly being considered to finalize health care reform in the House as unprecedented, undemocratic, and unconstitutional. But the rule in question is an accepted part of House procedure, and Congress repeatedly used the rule under GOP leadership, according to a former GOP staff director of the House Rules Committee.
It’s like they’re hypocrites who don’t think people will check them when they make these statements.
Well, the MSM won’t, at least.
38 Responses to ““Slaughter Solution” Is Unprecedented According To GOP. Except They Used It A Lot.”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
the bush years never happened.
Coming tomorrow: the GOP rips Dems for having a ‘caucus,’ saying that it is unprecedented, anti-democratic, and racist.
Shorter OW: two wrongs make a RIGHT!
Having a majority of legislators pass bills to be signed into law is wrong, and un-Constitutional, except if Republicans do it.
Every time you use the right wing phrase ‘mainstream media’ or it’s initials ‘MSM’ you give credence to their craziness. It’s corporate media, not mainstream media.
Of course, it became OK right around Jan 21, 2009. Up until then, it sucked. How long do you think you can play this “They can’t say ‘You did it, too’ but we can” game and “Somehow, now that we found out you did it, now we can, even though it was wrong when you did it” game ?
I seem to remember a blog headline a few weeks ago : This Is Not A Game
Where did I see that ?
When did I say this procedure was wrong? I didn’t. It’s a legislative maneuver. It happens. Its within the rules.
Corporate media is the mainstream media.
If semantics really matter, then go with “Corporate Media,” as it’s both more accurate and counter to the wingnutz’ use of “MSM” (and wingnutz would never adopt the former). Around these parts everyone gets what you’re saying; a few disingenuous trolls pretend not to. But if semantics matter.
The use of the Frank Luntz inspired “Slaughter Rule” is more annoying.
I have had some fun schooling another Brit for using it and not doing research on what the rule is.
This, like the lies about ACORN, will continue to float around like an unflushed turd in the toilet bowl of right wing falsehoods about anything to do with President Obama and the Democratic Congress, facts be damned.
Frank,
If you are saying that liberals complained when Republicans did this, why can’t you produce a citation? Shouldn’t that be easy, with Google and all?
See the comments above you…
Better Shorter OW: Payback’s a bitch
I see your b.s. opinion, but not any actual democrats against using this procedure.
Actually Republicans complained when the dems used it a few times in the 70′s and 80′s, then (just like reconciliation) used it three times as frequently once they got into power.
Now that they’re out of power they’re calling it “unconstitutional”, as if it’s any less constitutional than the filibuster which they hated when they were in power but now think is the very bulwark of the constitutional system.
But of course there’s some Calvinball reason why the republican uses of these procedures were way way different. Some wingnut who thinks any idea that can’t fit on a bumper sticker is “pseudointellectual” will be along any minute to explain to us all the nuances.
It’s impossible to take these people seriously any more.
See the comments above you.
Nope, no citation there either. Why are we looking at it?
Frank DiS: How long do you think you can play this “They can’t say ‘You did it, too’ but we can” game and “Somehow, now that we found out you did it, now we can, even though it was wrong when you did it” game ?
Please show where that game has been played. Please show where folks said it was wrong before to use the established rules but now it’s OK ’cause our side is doing it?
LOTS of examples of Repub and wingnut hypocrisy and swooning on the fainting couch. Frank doesn’t seem to have any problem with those.
Some wingnut who thinks any idea that can’t fit on a bumper sticker is “pseudointellectual”
Nailed it.
Please show where that game has been played. Please show where folks said it was wrong before to use the established rules but now it’s OK ’cause our side is doing it?
Pelosi, Slaughter went to court against GOP’s self-executing rule in 2005
You’re welcome.
Key point:
The left seems to be having difficulty understanding the difference between routine legislation and major legislation that represents the biggest policy change in 40 years.
But to place the American private health care system under government control — effectively socializing one-sixth of the U.S. economy — that has never been done before.
And it won’t be done with this bill either. If you were trying to draw a distinction between the uses of self-executing rules, you fail.
And that headline is a bit misleading. Pelosi and Slaughter did not “go to court” against the use of a self-executing rule. They filed amicus briefs in a case someone else was bringing. And they weren’t carrying on about how the use of the rule was “changing the rules” or an attempt to “jam it through.”
They tried a judicial maneuver. They failed.
Sure, because federally imposed mandates on EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN to buy health insurance, pushing millions more Americans onto gov’t run (and paid for) Medicare and setting up gov’t run “comparative effectiveness panels” to determine what treatments doctors and hospitals should and should not be reimbursed for can in no way be construed as putting “American private health care system under government control”.
That was an awfully wordy way for you to say “is not!”, Quaker.
Quite the little black helicopter scenario you’ve cooked up there, Davey.
because federally imposed mandates on EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN to buy health insurance,
from insurance companies
pushing millions more Americans onto gov’t run (and paid for) Medicare
What?
and setting up gov’t run “comparative effectiveness panels” to determine what treatments doctors and hospitals should and should not be reimbursed for
What? Keeping track of which treatments actually, you know, work? Tyranny!!
can in no way be construed as putting “American private health care system under government control”.
You got that last part right. Congrats!
Pelosi and Slaughter did not “go to court” against the use of a self-executing rule
But 11 senior House Democrats did:
Please note, Quaker, the Democrats “carrying on” because they were “disenfranchised” from the Constitution’s “deliberative process”.
Where’s the self-executing rule part?
I don’t see it in your links.
Quite the little black helicopter scenario you’ve cooked up there, Davey.
No black helicopters needed, Quaky. Under both bills, the mandates are imposed by the gov’t (in this case, by the IRS), not by insurance companies. What part of that are you having difficulty in comprehending?
pushing millions more Americans onto gov’t run (and paid for) Medicare
What?
My mistake. It’s Medicaid, not Medicare. As in “Expand Medicaid eligibility up the income ladder (to 133% of the poverty line in the Senate bill and 150% in the House bill).”. And after many employers realize it’s cheaper to pay the fine for non-coverage than to pay for the (now more expensive) premiums, there will be a lot more people needing to get their coverage through Medicaid.
The changes to Medicare, on the other hand, are mostly cuts in payments to providers. Which, using liberal logic, means more people will be covered with higher quality treatment for all. Hurray!
What? Keeping track of which treatments actually, you know, work? Tyranny!!
Sure, what could go wrong when the gov’t is in charge of determining which treatments work?
This is the same legislation (Deficit Reduction Act of 2005) as in my previous link.
And I just love the quote from Henry Waxman (D): “I think there’s a serious constitutional infirmity with a proposal that didn’t pass both Houses in the same form”.
the mandates are imposed by the gov’t (in this case, by the IRS), not by insurance companies. What part of that are you having difficulty in comprehending?
The “government takeover of one-sixth of the economy” part. If the government mandate says you have to have health insurance, and you have to buy it from an insurance company, where’s the part where the government takes over one-sixth of the economy?
after many employers realize it’s cheaper to pay the fine for non-coverage than to pay for the (now more expensive) premiums,
What?!?
Sure, what could go wrong when the gov’t is in charge of determining which treatments work?
I dunno. You forgot to say. You showed me an article that NICE (which the Daily Mail erroneously calls a “rationing body”) reported their findings on some highly experimental, very expensive medications.
Did they get it wrong?
This is the same legislation (Deficit Reduction Act of 2005) as in my previous link.
I got that.
You seem to be making some sort of inference that the DRA used a self-executing rule. I’m still looking for an explanation.
And I just love the quote from Henry Waxman (D): “I think there’s a serious constitutional infirmity with a proposal that didn’t pass both Houses in the same form”.
What do you like so much about that quote? It doesn’t seem to fit the current situation.
And in the previous case, the Democrats were claiming “constitutional infirmity” because a text error mean that both the House and Senate did not pass the identical bill (it was the same “self-executing” rule that kicked in and modified the House bill without a revote). That goes way beyond “deeming” that a major, controversial bill has been voted on and passed when it never actually was (because you know you can’t pass it with an actual vote).
(it was the same “self-executing” rule that kicked in and modified the House bill without a revote)
No, that’s just wrong.
Public Citizen brought suit on a technicality. The Senate passed a version of the Deficit Reduction Act. Before sending the bill to the House, a clerk made a change in the bill. The House voted on the changed bill and sent it back to the Senate. The clerk then reversed the change he made earlier.
Result: the House and Senate passed different bills. Hastert signed off and said the two houses had passed the same bill, although that wasn’t the case.
This is what Public Citizen took to court and what Pelosi, Slaughter, and all the others joined in on.
They didn’t sue on deem-and-pass. Here’s the text of the Public Citizen complaint. Go nuts.
The “government takeover of one-sixth of the economy” part
I believe the quote was “place the American private health care system under government control”. And even if this bill doesn’t fully accomplish that, it’s undoubtedly the first step in doing so. To quote Madame Speaker herself: “Kick open that door, and there will be other legislation to follow,” she said. “We’ll take the country in a new direction.”
Unfortunately, the majority of this country doesn’t want to go in that direction.
What?!?
Surely you don’t expect that those evil fatcat CEOs will keep paying for expensive insurance premiums when the gov’t gives them a cheaper alternative, do you?
reported their findings on some highly experimental, very expensive medications.
Ho hum, nothing to see here, move along. Did you miss this example, Quaker?
I guess it’s only a concern if you happen to be one of those patients, huh?
Unfortunately, the majority of this country doesn’t want to go in that direction.
Ah, Teh American People were polled. With more apologies to Slacktivist, you keep playing Family Feud, we’ll keep playing Jeopardy.
And even if this bill doesn’t fully accomplish that, it’s undoubtedly the first step in doing so.
Oh, I see. It’s not in this bill, it’s in some imaginary future bill. Undoubtedly.
Unfortunately, the majority of this country doesn’t want to go in that direction.
I incorporate by reference remarks offered at 3:23 p.m.
Surely you don’t expect that those evil fatcat CEOs will keep paying for expensive insurance premiums when the gov’t gives them a cheaper alternative, do you?
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Neither, apparently, do you.
Ho hum, nothing to see here, move along. Did you miss this example, Quaker?
I didn’t. What was the reason for NICE’s decision in the face of such remarkable effectiveness? You present that decision as evidence of malfeasance on the board’s part, but you don’t seem to know anything about the decision other than what the Daily Mail tells you.
Twice the life expectancy? Is that 20 years instead of 10? Six months instead of three? Ten seconds rather than five? By what criteria did NICE decline to certify the drug in question?
You have no idea, do you?
Sure, what could go wrong when the gov’t is in charge of determining which treatments work?
As long as you’re explaining stuff to poor, little, misguided me, how about telling us what happens when for-profit insurance companies are in charge of determining which treatments work? Everybody gets everything they want or need, right?
Sweet!
Davey cites an article in the Daily Mail that claims NICE and the British NHS have “betrayed” cancer patients. Those eeeeeeevil bureaucrats are withholding life saving treatment, doncha know?
The article is based on a report by a charitable organization, the Rarer Cancers Forum.
And just who is the Rarer Cancers Forum? Would it be cynical of me to suggest the Rarer Cancers Forum is nothing more than a drug industry front group?
Well, would it?
Haw!
Go nuts.
Pretty sure the wingnuts already have.