Re: The Health Care Reform Effert - Part Deux They'd easily be able to get 50+ senators (or 50 and Biden) to vote for a public option. There's just no doubt. Yes.
Re: The Health Care Reform Effert - Part Deux 150% agree. If the House dems pass the Senate bill verbatim - it is on the president's desk, and it is almost a lock that he would sign. Any thought of trying something new is a huge gamble. Ignore any and all republican talk - republicans have clearly stated a single word - NO. They will not allow any new healthcare reform bill to come up for a vote in the senate. It will be filibustered and it will die. They will not accept anything. The easiest way to understand that is Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football. The repubs will say yes/maybe/try again all day long, but only an idiot can't realize they will pull the football away at the last second. As for Pelosi - I bet she is BS'ing. Only the liberals in the House have any true objections to the Senate bill. And minimal left-wing pressure on them to accept something can realistically get them to vote yes. Pass now, fix later. Blue Dogs don't have the #s to beat that. It's a clear choice to the House and Obama - get something, or get nothing.
They should absolutely force a real filibuster. All that time talking, and the reeps could maybe spell out what their ideas are for solving the health care situation - or maybe explain why they think doing NOTHING is the best course of action. It would also highlight some of the other stuff that has been filibustered in the past - like civil rights. That might make an interesting comparison.
Re: The Health Care Reform Effert - Part Deux I'll tell you what I find strange about the reps position in all this. If one of their number, (although I've no idea if this Snowe woman is the one to do it), would just accept that they have SOME responsibility to try and provide decent governance, even in opposition, then that would stand them in good stead in the future. The truth is I suspect that if the democrats started governing effectively, (a big 'IF', I'll grant you), there just aren't enough votes in the tea-bagger and birther demographic for them to get elected so if they EVER want to get voted into power again they'd better stop spouting right-wing talking points, (and bald-faced lies like 'death-panels' and similar nonsense), and actually try and provide some leadership from a right-wing perspective. TBH, this is what happened here when the tories moved ever further to the right and spent the entire time in opposition contemplating their own navel, (particularly about the 'European question'). It's only NOW that they stand a chance of being elected and that's partly due to the economic position and the Iraq war but also down to this type of thing... http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/25/david-cameron-on-ivan The Tory leader has frequently referred to Ivan in speeches, and to the importance of the NHS to his family because of the care his son received from birth. Here are some of his comments Unless the reps change course course significantly I could see them being out of office for a generation if Obama manages to get his act together.
Re: The Health Care Reform Effert - Part Deux 2 of them kinda already did that. Jim Jeffords and Arlen Spector. Fed up with republican BS, they left the republican party. Whether it was a selfish decision on re-election, the end result was that they have voted with dems on progress (as opposed being obstructionist pricks like Lieberman) yes and no - 1) Its more than just Obama - it is refreshing to see him abandon the super-powered executive role that Bush took. Obama's self-chosen role is probably much more aligned with the strict constitutionalist role of the executive - where Congress has the most power. But that does mean he handed a lot of power back to Congress, where the dems are incredibly inept. 2) There's a lot of pain in the country, basically because of the effects of actions undertaken before Dems took leadership roles in 2 or 3 branches of our government. Actions have long-lasting consequences. And if people are in pain and don't see good improvement, they will vote out whoever is in power, even if the opposition might make things worse. Long-range thinking is not a strong point of US electoral politics
I think the Republican Party - traditionally having been the minority party in Congress in recent years - has found it works most to their advantage when they block the Democrats from doing anything. If nothing gets done, people want "change" - and the only other option is the Republicans, so that's the party strategy. If they worked together with the Democrats and got things done, people would say "Hey, this is working well, let's leave things as they are." The pressure on individual members of Congress to toe the line is immense, and any Republican that reaches across the aisle gets hammered by the Republican base. I think that's why you see them obstructing progress lock-step with one another.
Then by all means, play it again, Sam. Trap those lousy republicans into opposing a healthcare takeover a second time, I double dare ya.
I don't understand the "takeover" talk - how is it a takeover? The public option? There is solid public support for the public option.
Re: The Health Care Reform Effert - Part Deux Wow..... you are really writing from the other side of the world. Americans voted for Obama because they were afraid of a sinking economy, over-hyped by an Obama-adoring press and he ran on a platform of "I'm change, I'll do things in a bi-partisan way, vote for me." One year in, he's an absolute flop, and has spent an entire year putting our national debt in hyperdrive, and trying to cram down a corruption-ridden healthcare plan that would exempt unions, Nebraskans and the Amish from its worst effects. Some of his failures (in liberal's eyes) can also be considered his highlights - - He hasn't closed down the Gitmo prison, and he's continued to bomb Islamic extremists, even more so than Bush. The economy is in freefall; just yesterday it was reported that another 1/2 million people gave up looking for a job, unemployment is at 10%, unemployment+underemployment=17%, and yet his most pressing matters seem to be scaring the shit out of Wall Street with more Chavez-esque regulation and take-overs. If he had a smaller ego, he'd direct Pelosi and Reed to come up with some baby-steps for health care reform, include medical-malpractice limitations and small-business perks to attract some GOP support, and pass a smaller bill; claim victory, then focus on a bi-partisan bill to aid economic recovery. You can bet that is not going to happen.
Only Congressional Democrats could turn a paper cut into a sucking chest wound. And I'm about out of patience for the liars and charlatans who assert obvious falsehoods sans any kind of supporting evidence (and the idiots who believe them). Here's a tip: Teabaggers are extremely vocal, but not only are they a minority amongst the people at large, but they are a minority amongst conservatives! Polling clearly shows support for health care reform and support for more liberal ideas than what's in the current bill (such as a public option). Support has flagged for this version for two reasons; first it's not liberal enough. 56% of Americans favored the House version of the bill or something even more liberal. And second - because people believe GOP lies like "death panels".
Re: The Health Care Reform Effert - Part Deux This is perhaps the most stupid thing I've ever read on here. If Obama was approaching his job with any kind of ego at all, he's be on the Hill cracking heads, instead of letting Congressional Democrats ******** up their Constitutionally-mandated jobs. You know - he'd be "The Decider".
Re: The Health Care Reform Effert - Part Deux You're frustration with the delayed march to Socialism is delicious.
Re: The Health Care Reform Effert - Part Deux The NY Times has an interesting article today on what congressional aides are discussing could be in a smaller bill. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/health/policy/22health.html?hp ¶Insurers could not deny coverage to children under the age of 19 on account of pre-existing medical conditions. ¶Insurers would have to offer policyholders an opportunity to continue coverage for children through age 25 or 26. ¶The federal government would offer financial incentives to states to expand Medicaid to cover childless adults and parents. ¶The federal government would offer grants to states to establish regulated markets known as insurance exchanges, where consumers and small businesses could buy coverage. ¶The federal government would offer tax credits to small businesses to help them defray the cost of providing health benefits to workers. ¶If a health plan provided care through a network of doctors and hospitals, it could not charge patients more for going outside the network in an emergency. Co-payments for emergency care would have to be the same, regardless of whether a hospital was in the insurer’s network of preferred providers.
Andy, don't pay attention to Topper. He doesn't know anything about anything. He thought Bush was a good president. You'll notice he hasn't posted around here since November last year. He didn't post when the Dems ran the table on special elections in the house. He basically comes in here and posts drivel when his team is winning, and then scurries away like a filthy cockroach when they're losing. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMlPE1lV_5Y&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- Balls Beer for Health Care Reform, the Full Version[/ame] I think y'all will enjoy this.
"Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd said today that Democrats may need to take more than a month off from the health care debate to regroup, saying it is up to President Obama to lead the way. Dodd is the first congressional Democratic leader to suggest such an extended break, signaling that Democrats’ may be much further from a workable endgame strategy than they have suggested in the days since Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat and ended the Democrats’ 60-vote majority." http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0110/As_health_care_cools_Senate_Dems_tackle_jobs.html
Re: The Health Care Reform Effert - Part Deux Wow that looks so sensible. I would also add that insurance companies cannot, for any reason, drop anybody who was honest on their application and pays their premiums on time. I do have a general question about pre-existing condition coverage. Most want to see it, but how would it work financially? Removing morality from the equation, the government would basically be forcing a company to lose money on a transaction. Imagine the government telling you that you had to sell your house for less than market value, or telling Ford that they had to sell some cars at a loss. I would propose one of the two following alternative for dealing with pre-existing conditions. Either 1. Change the tax code deductions for insurance companies to ensure that any patient they are forced by law to take with preexisting conditions will be at worst revenue neutral or 2. Make any person denied coverage for preexisting conditions automatically eligible for Medicaid. While I currently oppose the monstrocities before congress, I have no problems paying more in taxes for a healthcare safety net in this country.
Andy, don't pay attention to stuperdave. He doesn't know anything about anything. He visits this forum everyday for the Socialist Circle Jerk, seeking self affirmation. He was raised by a union thug or was coddled by his mother and seeks the same from his government. He thinks people are too stupid to make their own decisions so they need a super-smart government centralized in Washington to make decisions for them. When someone says, "I'm from the government, I'm here to help," he actually believes them.
I think that too.... and I became sure of it when GWB was actually reelected! Fool me once.... well, we all know how that one goes!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4aQCiRjvZY"]YouTube- Hitler Finds Out Scott Brown Won Massachusetts Senate Seat[/ame]
1. It was derivative the first time it was posted. 2. You're not the first to post it. 3. You sure as hell don't need to post it in multiple threads. Thanks.