Health care Bill- ? How do we pay for this?

[pooldude]

Fair enough. Thank you for engaging in a very civil & informative dialog with me.

[Crazy Levi]

so being against government fraud and waste, excessive taxation, and believing freedom of choice still means something is stupid?

?

When did I say that? Thinking that a public option somehow puts us on the road toward Nazism makes someone stupid.

[SmokeyRamone]

so being against government fraud and waste, excessive taxation, and believing freedom of choice still means something is stupid?

?

When did I say that? Thinking that a public option somehow puts us on the road toward Nazism makes someone stupid.

I was responding to this quote by Crazy Levi when I said that:

There is not tiny group of people in the US who are convinced that this is the first step toward our country becoming Nazi Germany. And what's scarier than Nazis?

I'm not kidding. Do you see the kind of stupidity we have to live with in this country?

I never said anything about naziism, he did, and since he was quoting something I said, I assumed his inference was that my resistance to Obama's plan is rooted in stupidity, to me a government option isn't about socialism or naziism, or anything else other than competence, and considering how much money our government wastes, I don't think they're competent enough to efficiently run a government health care plan, expand the existing ones that are already hemmoraging money

[SmokeyRamone]

I'm not a big fan of Howard Dean, but he's making some great points:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091216/ap_ ... rhaul_dean

WASHINGTON – Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean argued Wednesday that the health care overhaul bill taking shape in the Senate further empowers private insurers at the expense of consumer choice.

"You will now be forced to buy insurance. If you don't, you'll pay a fine," said Dean, a physician. "It's an insurance company bailout." Interviewed on ABC's "Good Morning America," he said the bill has some good provisions, "but there has to be a line beyond which you think the bill is bad for the country."

"This is an insurance company's dream," the former Democratic presidential candidate said. "This is the Washington scramble, and it's a shame."

Dean asserted that the Senate's health care bill would not prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions and he also said it would allow the industry to charge older people far more than others for premiums.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., a prominent House liberal, protested the absence of any government-run insurance option in the Senate bill.

"We can't let the perfect be enemy of the good," Weiner said on CBS' "Early Show," "but we are reaching a tipping point."

When House and Senate negotiators go to conference to work out a compromise bill, Weiner said, "We should move away from some of the things the Senate has done and move back to where the House is. You need to contain cost. You do that with a public option."

[SmokeyRamone]

oops, it looks like that pesky Constitution may be getting in the way of a good old fashioned bribe:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091223/ap_ ... eal_states

COLUMBIA, S.C. – The top prosecutors in seven states are probing the constitutionality of a political deal that cut a funding break for Nebraska in order to pass a federal health care reform bill, South Carolina's attorney general said Tuesday.

Attorney General Henry McMaster said he and his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington state — all Republicans — are jointly taking a look at the deal they've dubbed the "Nebraska compromise."

"The Nebraska compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution — as well as other provisions of federal law," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said.

McMaster's move comes at the request of Republican U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint of South Carolina.

In a letter to McMaster, Graham singled out the deal to win Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson's vote on the massive health care bill the Senate is expected to adopt Thursday. Nelson held out as fellow Democrats worked to get 60 votes to foreclose a GOP filibuster and the bill was amended to shield Nebraska from the expected $45 million annual cost tied to expanding Medicaid programs.

"We have serious concerns about the constitutionality of this Nebraska compromise as it results in special treatment for only one state in the nation at the expense of the other 49," Graham and DeMint wrote.

Nebraska wasn't alone in getting Medicaid breaks. Vermont, Louisiana and Massachusetts also got help with their programs.

Along with Texas, officials in Washington, Alabama, Colorado and Michigan confirmed they were working with McMaster.

North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said he wasn't sure what could be done while the federal legislation remained under debate. Officials in the other states did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile on Tuesday, Tennessee's Republican Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey called for his state's attorney general to investigate the deal.

Ramsey, McMaster and Michigan's Mike Cox are running for governor in their states.

"Whether in the court of law or in the court of public opinion, we must bring an end to this culture of corruption," McMaster said. The negotiations "on their face appear to be a form of vote buying paid for by taxpayers," he said.

McMaster is encouraging a South Carolina citizen to step forward to sue to challenge the measure if it is signed into law. "We'll assist anyone to the extent that we're able," McMaster said.

Also Tuesday, U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said Republicans need to stop complaining about deals their colleagues made.

"Rather than sitting here and carping about what Nelson got for Nebraska, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Let's get together and see what we can get for South Carolina," Clyburn said.

For instance, Clyburn expects states will get more help covering Medicaid expansion costs. Critics say the federal government's coverage of 91 percent of those future costs will disappear, leaving states with huge holes in their budgets. Clyburn says the legislation the federal share should be 95 percent, with states picking up no more than 5 percent.

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said the federal legislation is "well intended," but called it "fundamentally flawed in the same way the stimulus efforts were in that the states and the taxpayers are left footing the bill."

Sanford this spring was the nation's only governor to take a state legislature to federal and state court to block federal stimulus money.
__________________

I'm sure a lot of people will write this off as sour grapes on the part of the republicans, but there's a lot of questionable shit going on with this bill, the mandate, the fact that Obama's meeting behind closed doors with Big Pharma and the insurance companies to help shape public policy, all of the bribes that the democrats have had to dole out to fellow democrats to get this passed, there's a lot about this bill that stinks, and I'm glad at least parts of it are going to get kicked into the court system now, as opposed to after it's passed

[absolutely fabulous]

oh, at the get go,
it was republicans who were hindering the process, although "they didn't bring ANYTHING to the table" and weren't the majority vote..
was it in oct-nov that there was a concession to look into purchasing insurance over state lines (is that too complicated?- i don't know..) and tort reform.
i haven't heard anything about that since, is that in the new bill that hasn't been read, yet? just wondering.

seems it's the democrats holding themselves back now.

i would say that NB senator holding out on the abortion issue is all right with throwing away his morals for a swap.
how many others got bought for healthcare?
(and it's suppose to be deficit neutral with these extra add ins?)

[absolutely fabulous]

oops, it looks like that pesky Constitution may be getting in the way of a good old fashioned bribe:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091223/ap_ ... eal_states

COLUMBIA, S.C. – The top prosecutors in seven states are probing the constitutionality of a political deal that cut a funding break for Nebraska in order to pass a federal health care reform bill, South Carolina's attorney general said Tuesday.

Attorney General Henry McMaster said he and his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington state — all Republicans — are jointly taking a look at the deal they've dubbed the "Nebraska compromise."

"The Nebraska compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution — as well as other provisions of federal law," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said.

McMaster's move comes at the request of Republican U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint of South Carolina.

In a letter to McMaster, Graham singled out the deal to win Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson's vote on the massive health care bill the Senate is expected to adopt Thursday. Nelson held out as fellow Democrats worked to get 60 votes to foreclose a GOP filibuster and the bill was amended to shield Nebraska from the expected $45 million annual cost tied to expanding Medicaid programs.

"We have serious concerns about the constitutionality of this Nebraska compromise as it results in special treatment for only one state in the nation at the expense of the other 49," Graham and DeMint wrote.

Nebraska wasn't alone in getting Medicaid breaks. Vermont, Louisiana and Massachusetts also got help with their programs.

Along with Texas, officials in Washington, Alabama, Colorado and Michigan confirmed they were working with McMaster.

North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said he wasn't sure what could be done while the federal legislation remained under debate. Officials in the other states did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile on Tuesday, Tennessee's Republican Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey called for his state's attorney general to investigate the deal.

Ramsey, McMaster and Michigan's Mike Cox are running for governor in their states.

"Whether in the court of law or in the court of public opinion, we must bring an end to this culture of corruption," McMaster said. The negotiations "on their face appear to be a form of vote buying paid for by taxpayers," he said.

McMaster is encouraging a South Carolina citizen to step forward to sue to challenge the measure if it is signed into law. "We'll assist anyone to the extent that we're able," McMaster said.

Also Tuesday, U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said Republicans need to stop complaining about deals their colleagues made.

"Rather than sitting here and carping about what Nelson got for Nebraska, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Let's get together and see what we can get for South Carolina," Clyburn said.

For instance, Clyburn expects states will get more help covering Medicaid expansion costs. Critics say the federal government's coverage of 91 percent of those future costs will disappear, leaving states with huge holes in their budgets. Clyburn says the legislation the federal share should be 95 percent, with states picking up no more than 5 percent.

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said the federal legislation is "well intended," but called it "fundamentally flawed in the same way the stimulus efforts were in that the states and the taxpayers are left footing the bill."

Sanford this spring was the nation's only governor to take a state legislature to federal and state court to block federal stimulus money.
__________________

I'm sure a lot of people will write this off as sour grapes on the part of the republicans, but there's a lot of questionable shit going on with this bill, the mandate, the fact that Obama's meeting behind closed doors with Big Pharma and the insurance companies to help shape public policy, all of the bribes that the democrats have had to dole out to fellow democrats to get this passed, there's a lot about this bill that stinks, and I'm glad at least parts of it are going to get kicked into the court system now, as opposed to after it's passed

ah, sorry, didn't read your post, but, i agree with investigations on who's getting what for this bill.
florida is to get a grandfathered clause on medicare advance, yet no other states?

[LadyJaneGrey]

I'm not a big fan of Howard Dean, but he's making some great points:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091216/ap_ ... rhaul_dean

WASHINGTON – Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean argued Wednesday that the health care overhaul bill taking shape in the Senate further empowers private insurers at the expense of consumer choice.

"You will now be forced to buy insurance. If you don't, you'll pay a fine," said Dean, a physician. "It's an insurance company bailout." Interviewed on ABC's "Good Morning America," he said the bill has some good provisions, "but there has to be a line beyond which you think the bill is bad for the country."

"This is an insurance company's dream," the former Democratic presidential candidate said. "This is the Washington scramble, and it's a shame."

Dean asserted that the Senate's health care bill would not prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions and he also said it would allow the industry to charge older people far more than others for premiums.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., a prominent House liberal, protested the absence of any government-run insurance option in the Senate bill.

"We can't let the perfect be enemy of the good," Weiner said on CBS' "Early Show," "but we are reaching a tipping point."

When House and Senate negotiators go to conference to work out a compromise bill, Weiner said, "We should move away from some of the things the Senate has done and move back to where the House is. You need to contain cost. You do that with a public option."

This kind of illustrates what my concerns about the health care bill are - the idea of being forced into buying health insurance, and that companies would still be allowed to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

[SmokeyRamone]

it's nice to see our eseteemed president is a man of his word:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100106/ap_ ... e_overhaul



WASHINGTON – Congressional Democrats and President Barack Obama began work in earnest Tuesday on difficult issues still standing in the way of their national health care overhaul after months of tortuous debate. Topping the list: How to help Americans pay for insurance premiums.

At a White House meeting that stretched into Tuesday evening, the president and Democratic congressional leaders agreed on fast-track negotiations that would bypass the need for a formal conference to resolve differences between the House and Senate health care bills.

Obama "also stated his intention to work with leaders to strengthen affordability ... beyond what is in the Senate bill," said a House leadership aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private.

The president met with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. Joining the discussion by telephone were Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who were out of town.

House Democratic leaders will head back to the White House on Wednesday afternoon. Staffers from the House and Senate will meet with administration aides this week to formally begin sorting through issues — with the White House taking a lead role in settling disputes.

Republicans aren't invited, and they complained that the Democrats intended to deliberate behind closed doors — though lawmakers often do so in the final stages of such complex legislation. Separately, the head of C-SPAN, the nonpartisan public affairs network, called for letting the sun shine in on the discussions — as Obama once had promised.

House Democrats face the virtual certainty that they will not get the government-run insurance plan liberals had sought, a point Pelosi acknowledged after meeting earlier in the day with key committee leaders.

"There are other ways to do that, and we look forward to having those discussions," she told reporters.

Obama wants to sign sweeping legislation to extend insurance coverage by the time of his State of the Union speech, expected in early February. Separate bills passed by the House and Senate would require nearly all Americans to get coverage and would provide subsidies for many who can't afford the cost — but they differ on hundreds of details. Pressure to get a final bill means Democratic congressional leaders are likely to bypass formal negotiations as they reach for a deal.

In exchange for losing the federal "government option," House Democrats are pressing the Senate to make premiums more affordable for Americans. The outcome of the talks could mean savings of hundreds of dollars for families buying coverage through new insurance supermarkets created by the legislation.

Pelosi said she wants the final product "to ensure affordability for the middle class, accountability for the insurance companies, (and) accessibility by lowering costs at every stage."

White House officials say the bills have 95 percent in common. Maybe so, but the remaining issues could be hard to resolve in the few weeks Obama has in mind. Among them: whom to tax, how many people to cover, how to restrict taxpayer funding for abortion, whether illegal immigrants should be allowed to buy coverage in the new markets with their own money. The list goes on.

Concerns about affordability are paramount. Major subsidies under the bills won't start flowing to consumers until 2013 at the earliest. Even with federal aid many families would still face substantial costs.

The House bill would provide $602 billion in subsidies from 2013-2019, covering an additional 36 million people.

The Senate bill would start the aid a year later, providing $436 billion in subsidies from 2014-2019, and reducing the number of uninsured by 31 million.

The House would provide much greater financial help for households making as much as three times the federal poverty level, $32,490 for an individual, $66,150 for a family of four, according to a side-by-side analysis prepared by House Democratic staffers.

The Senate bill would provide greater assistance for households one rung up the income ladder, making between three and four times the federal poverty level, or up to $43,320 for an individual and $88,200 for a family of four.

The differences can add up.

For example, under the House bill, a family of four making $44,100 would pay no more than $2,425 a year to buy coverage in the new insurance markets. Under the Senate bill, premiums would be higher, $2,778.

The gap between the two bills involves greater out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and copayments. For the same family, the House bill would cap out-of-pocket expenses at $4,000 a year. Under the Senate bill, it could be far more, $6,150.

But sweetening the deal for low- and middle-income households could require more taxes to pay for additional subsidies. And the House and Senate are also at odds over whom to tax. The House wants to raise income taxes on individuals making over $500,000 and couples over $1 million. The Senate would slap a new tax on high-cost insurance plans. Although the Obama administration supports the Senate's insurance tax as a cost saver, labor unions that contribute heavily to Democratic candidates are dead set against it.

There could be common ground in a Senate proposal to raise Medicare payroll taxes on individuals making more than $200,000 and married couples over $250,000. "The Medicare approach taken in the Senate bill may provide the kind of path forward that gets to compromise," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., a member of the House leadership.

Democrats reacted defensively to criticism that they are taking the final, most crucial stage of the debate behind closed doors. "We will continue to keep the American people informed, as we have in the earlier stages," Van Hollen said, noting that hundreds of hearings and town hall meetings have been held.

But Obama as a candidate pledged during a presidential debate in January 2008 that he would be "bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are."

That has not occurred, and C-SPAN is taking note. The network released a letter Tuesday from chief executive Brian Lamb to congressional leaders asking for the talks to be opened to cameras.

"Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American," Lamb wrote in the Dec. 30 letter.

___

Associated Press writers Donna Cassata and Erica Werner contributed to this report.

sure, it's no big surprise that Obama turns out to be just another lying politician, but for all the talk of hope and change, it's still disheartening, it's obvious now the guy was willing to say anything to get elected, and no feels no obligation to keep his promises. He was against a mandate, promised not to raise taxes on the middle class, promised transparency and open government, all while he raises taxes, tries to enact a mandate and meets behind closed doors with Big Pharma while shaping the health care bill.

I have a feeling we the people are going to get seriously fucked by this bill

[tin00can]

Obama has raised taxes? Really? How so, other than the cigarette tax?

That said, I do agree with you on the transparency issue. And like you I was hopeful he would keep that promise, but didn't honestly expect him too. Good job, Obama.

[wylde342]

I think the point is the shills that *do* believe the candidates were massively mislead. You have to remember there's a lot of people that believe what they see on TV. They truly believe in what a candidate says. You come out and say "Healthcare for ALL" to people who have no clue how it would work/get paid for, then of course they're going to champion that person and platform. To this day, most people can't tell you the difference between "deficit" and "debt."

Not everyone out there are like us; readers and researchers. Based on the number of typical Americans I work with, I'd say I'd consider about 5% of them informed for the causes they support. The others just go with what Matt Lauer barked that am or what Oprah says in the afternoon.

[SmokeyRamone]

Obama has raised taxes? Really? How so, other than the cigarette tax?

That said, I do agree with you on the transparency issue. And like you I was hopeful he would keep that promise, but didn't honestly expect him too. Good job, Obama.

the cigarette tax is one, another one is the penalty you'll be assessed if the health care mandate is passed and you don't buy health insurance, Obama's tried to deny it's a tax, but it's collected by the IRS, and called a tax by the senate finance committee, his lying is compounded by the fact that beore he was elected he was against a mandate.

again, nothing surprising, Obama's proven himself to be just another lying politician. all his talk of hope and change was just so much bullshit to get him into office so he could start breaking his promises

[tin00can]

Obama has raised taxes? Really? How so, other than the cigarette tax?

That said, I do agree with you on the transparency issue. And like you I was hopeful he would keep that promise, but didn't honestly expect him too. Good job, Obama.

the cigarette tax is one, another one is the penalty you'll be assessed if the health care mandate is passed and you don't buy health insurance, Obama's tried to deny it's a tax, but it's collected by the IRS, and called a tax by the senate finance committee, his lying is compounded by the fact that beore he was elected he was against a mandate.

again, nothing surprising, Obama's proven himself to be just another lying politician. all his talk of hope and change was just so much bullshit to get him into office so he could start breaking his promises

So other than the cigarette tax, he's passed taxes in the future. Gotcha. Same thing. When you said "he's raised taxes" I thought a hypothetical wasn't implied, since you were quite definite.

[Ugmo]

the cigarette tax is one, another one is the penalty you'll be assessed if the health care mandate is passed and you don't buy health insurance, Obama's tried to deny it's a tax, but it's collected by the IRS, and called a tax by the senate finance committee, his lying is compounded by the fact that beore he was elected he was against a mandate.

again, nothing surprising, Obama's proven himself to be just another lying politician. all his talk of hope and change was just so much bullshit to get him into office so he could start breaking his promises

Yeah, thank the Republicans and Joe Liebermann for that. He doesn't govern in a vaccuum.

[SmokeyRamone]

Obama has raised taxes? Really? How so, other than the cigarette tax?

That said, I do agree with you on the transparency issue. And like you I was hopeful he would keep that promise, but didn't honestly expect him too. Good job, Obama.

the cigarette tax is one, another one is the penalty you'll be assessed if the health care mandate is passed and you don't buy health insurance, Obama's tried to deny it's a tax, but it's collected by the IRS, and called a tax by the senate finance committee, his lying is compounded by the fact that beore he was elected he was against a mandate.

again, nothing surprising, Obama's proven himself to be just another lying politician. all his talk of hope and change was just so much bullshit to get him into office so he could start breaking his promises

So other than the cigarette tax, he's passed taxes in the future. Gotcha. Same thing. When you said "he's raised taxes" I thought a hypothetical wasn't implied, since you were quite definite.

the cigarette tax was raised after he promised not to raise taxes on the middle class "one dime." That's no hypothetical, the man lied plain and simple, my other example is a tax that hasn't been passed yet, but by all accounts it looks like it is

[SmokeyRamone]

the cigarette tax is one, another one is the penalty you'll be assessed if the health care mandate is passed and you don't buy health insurance, Obama's tried to deny it's a tax, but it's collected by the IRS, and called a tax by the senate finance committee, his lying is compounded by the fact that beore he was elected he was against a mandate.

again, nothing surprising, Obama's proven himself to be just another lying politician. all his talk of hope and change was just so much bullshit to get him into office so he could start breaking his promises

Yeah, thank the Republicans and Joe Liebermann for that. He doesn't govern in a vaccuum.

I'm not following your logic. How is it Leiberman and the repubs' fault that he lied about not supporting a mandate when he was running, or raising taxes on the middle class after he promised not to

Sure the guy doesn't govern in a vacuum, but he does have the majority in the house and senate, and still couldn't get a health care bill passed without bribing a bunch of fellow democrats

the man has repeatedly lied, his actions are his own, not Lebierman, not the rebpublicans or anyone else. Nobody really seems to care about a lying politician these days since they all do it, but that doesn't make it right, and just like with Bush and his WMD bullshit, I wish more people were calling Obama out on his bullshit

[Ugmo]

I'm not following your logic. How is it Leiberman and the repubs' fault that he lied about not supporting a mandate when he was running, or raising taxes on the middle class after he promised not to

Sure the guy doesn't govern in a vacuum, but he does have the majority in the house and senate, and still couldn't get a health care bill passed without bribing a bunch of fellow democrats

the man has repeatedly lied, his actions are his own, not Lebierman, not the rebpublicans or anyone else. Nobody really seems to care about a lying politician these days since they all do it, but that doesn't make it right, and just like with Bush and his WMD bullshit, I wish more people were calling Obama out on his bullshit

Because the Republicans hijacked the process by threatening the fillibuster and obstructing absolutely everything proposed by the president. Everything. The country was overwhelmingly in favor of a public option, but that wasn't possible because of a united block of obstructionist Republicans trying to score political points and because of guys like Liebermann, who is in the pocket of the insurance industry. We ended up with a crappy bill thanks to the Republicans' refusal to cooperate on anything.

A majority in the Senate doesn't mean jack shit as long as the Republicans threaten a fillibuster, and as long as all 40 Republicans are willing to use that fillibuster purely for political purposes, then every single Democrat is essentially "the deciding vote." That in turn puts tremendous pressure on certain members of Congress in conservative-leaning states where Fox News incites a poorly educated public with a poor understanding of the issues to go and make buffoons of themselves in town hall meetings.

[Ugmo]

Also, do your realize how pointless it is to demonize politicians for "lying" while on the campaign trail? That is the reality of politics. You have to make all kinds of promises to get elected that simply aren't tenable when you actually win and then have to deal with what the system throws at you.

[lerxstcat]

the cigarette tax was raised after he promised not to raise taxes on the middle class "one dime." That's no hypothetical, the man lied plain and simple, my other example is a tax that hasn't been passed yet, but by all accounts it looks like it is

It's a tax across the board, not on the middle class per se. Unless you believe that rich and poor people don't smoke.

[bane]

Because the Republicans hijacked the process by threatening the fillibuster and obstructing absolutely everything proposed by the president. Everything. The country was overwhelmingly in favor of a public option, but that wasn't possible because of a united block of obstructionist Republicans trying to score political points and because of guys like Liebermann, who is in the pocket of the insurance industry. We ended up with a crappy bill thanks to the Republicans' refusal to cooperate on anything.

A majority in the Senate doesn't mean jack shit as long as the Republicans threaten a fillibuster, and as long as all 40 Republicans are willing to use that fillibuster purely for political purposes, then every single Democrat is essentially "the deciding vote." That in turn puts tremendous pressure on certain members of Congress in conservative-leaning states where Fox News incites a poorly educated public with a poor understanding of the issues to go and make buffoons of themselves in town hall meetings.

I find it kind of funny that you'd place blame on the republican party for pulling together unanimously while defending the dems for being unable to do the same. The republicans can filibuster till they're blue in the face. It doesn't matter provided the dems get their shit together. If Obama had any sack he'd veto that piece of shit and send it back to the floor until they get it right.

[Ugmo]

I find it kind of funny that you'd place blame on the republican party for pulling together unanimously while defending the dems for being unable to do the same. The republicans can filibuster till they're blue in the face. It doesn't matter provided the dems get their shit together. If Obama had any sack he'd veto that piece of shit and send it back to the floor until they get it right.

I place blame on the Republicans because I don't for a second believe they unanimously obstructed progress on health care reform because they thought what they were doing was good for the country. It's because they are terrified of a backlash from the base if they work with the Democrats on anything productive. There was a time when Republicans could reach across the aisle in the best interests of the country. That time is over. The GOP has been whittled down to the point where it's only the extreme right left (so to speak), and anyone who approaches the Dems to find a solution immediately gets bitchslapped by his party at home, like Lindsey Graham.

I'm seriously sick of all the political bullshit. It's one thing for conservatives and liberals at Sludge to try and one-up each other for shits and giggles, but it's another thing when serious issues are at stake! The Republicans had one mission: obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, so that they might win back some seats in 2010. And there is plenty of ill will toward the Republicans on the part of the Democratic party, but in this case at least they genuinely were trying to be the bigger man, and a few of them are going to lose their jobs because of it in November.

Obama ain't gonna send nothing back. Why would he? He's plenty happy with this tenuous solution. If he weren't he wouldn't have dropped the public option like a hot potato.

You're right though, it would have been grand to see the Republicans fillibuster this thing. It would have been great to see them explain why they're up at 3 in the morning reading through the phonebook while the country is waiting for a health care bill to get passed, and the Democrats could have thrown it right back in their face and said to the country "See, these are the assholes who are obstructing progress." But you're right, they never had the sack to call the Republicans' bluff.

[bane]

I find it kind of funny that you'd place blame on the republican party for pulling together unanimously while defending the dems for being unable to do the same. The republicans can filibuster till they're blue in the face. It doesn't matter provided the dems get their shit together. If Obama had any sack he'd veto that piece of shit and send it back to the floor until they get it right.

I place blame on the Republicans because I don't for a second believe they unanimously obstructed progress on health care reform because they thought what they were doing was good for the country. It's because they are terrified of a backlash from the base if they work with the Democrats on anything productive. There was a time when Republicans could reach across the aisle in the best interests of the country. That time is over. The GOP has been whittled down to the point where it's only the extreme right left (so to speak), and anyone who approaches the Dems to find a solution immediately gets bitchslapped by his party at home, like Lindsey Graham.

I'm seriously sick of all the political bullshit. It's one thing for conservatives and liberals at Sludge to try and one-up each other for shits and giggles, but it's another thing when serious issues are at stake! The Republicans had one mission: obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, so that they might win back some seats in 2010. And there is plenty of ill will toward the Republicans on the part of the Democratic party, but in this case at least they genuinely were trying to be the bigger man, and a few of them are going to lose their jobs because of it in November.

Obama ain't gonna send nothing back. Why would he? He's plenty happy with this tenuous solution. If he weren't he wouldn't have dropped the public option like a hot potato.

You're right though, it would have been grand to see the Republicans fillibuster this thing. It would have been great to see them explain why they're up at 3 in the morning reading through the phonebook while the country is waiting for a health care bill to get passed, and the Democrats could have thrown it right back in their face and said to the country "See, these are the assholes who are obstructing progress." But you're right, they never had the sack to call the Republicans' bluff.

I'm sick of the partisan BS myself, but I see it for what it is. The dems are equally as guilty of it. Seriously, do you really think they pushed through this bill because they thought it was good for our country? They did it for the same reasons the republicans opposed it. It's so they can say "Hey, look what we did! Vote for me!" It's a fucking legacy thing. If they were truly concerned about our well being, they wouldn't have dropped the public option. They wouldn't have caved to the insurance lobby either. Have you seen United Health Care stock lately? They're really fucking scared huh? Lets not fix the insurance industry, lets give them 150 million new customers instead and throw in a federal mandate that insures that people have to comply! Brilliant! This bill is nothing more than grandstanding with a gigantic price tag. It's a piece of shit bill that isn't worth the paper it's written on, but you can be sure the dems will use it as ammo in the next elections. Frankly, I'm surprised that the left isn't as disgusted as the right is about this thing. It's useless and it's expensive. Essentially, they expanded medicare and mandated that every person in the country buy insurance. That's all they did. Oh, they also passed along a 5% medicare increase bill to the states (except Nebraska, slick move that one was). I wonder how Pelosi's constituents are going to feel when their property taxes have to go up again to pay the 3 billion a year that already bankrupt California will have to kick in? There's no public option. There's nothing in that bill that helps anybody. It will help a few poor people I guess, but it penalizes the fuck out of everybody else. It forces college age kids to buy health coverage and it forces businesses to provide health coverage, other than that, it just costs everybody else a bunch of new taxes. I'm not down on healthcare reform in principle, but this bill fucking sucks. You can't blame that on the republicans. That falls squarely on the dems shoulders. They wrote the fucking thing, and they sold their fucking souls to pass it. Nice job dems. Roosevelt you ain't.

[Ugmo]

I'm sick of the partisan BS myself, but I see it for what it is. The dems are equally as guilty of it. Seriously, do you really think they pushed through this bill because they thought it was good for our country? They did it for the same reasons the republicans opposed it. It's so they can say "Hey, look what we did! Vote for me!" It's a fucking legacy thing.

Why yes. Yes I do. Otherwise various Democrats wouldn't have fallen on their swords and voted for such an unpopular bill (liberals hate it because they think it doesn't go far enough, conservatives hate it because they think it goes too far). People are going to lose elections over this bill, so yes indeed, I think overall the Democrats in this case had the country's best interests at heart while the Republicans had their own interests at heart. This time at least. I'm not one of these "All politicians are crooks" guys, because I think it's absurd to paint 538 members of Congress (not to mention the executive branch) with the same broad brush. But yes, I think the Democrats believed that even an imperfect bill is better than no bill at all.

Here is the way I see it: every politician affiliated with a party has to reconcile the best interests of their constituents and the country as a whole on the one hand and the pressure they are put under by their party on the other hand. There are good people in the Republican Party, but like I said before, the Republican base right now is so homogenously far-right that they really don't have the freedom to defy the party and do what they think is right for the country. An Olympia Snowe for example probably would have supported health care reform - but when she saw that the Democrats would be able to scrape together enough votes to pass a weakened bill she said "Fuck it, I'm not risking my career for this." Independent politicians don't have to worry at all about placating the party or its base. Bernie Sanders for example is free to do what's in the best interests of Vermont and the country at large, and Joe Liebermann is free to do what's in his own best interests (because he sure doesn't care about anyone else). That's the problem with party politics right now: nobody wants to risk drawing the ire of their party, so if that clashes with what they'd rather do for the benefit of the country, they back down and do the party's bidding. I believe things have always been that way to a certain extent, but it's never been this bad.

If they were truly concerned about our well being, they wouldn't have dropped the public option. They wouldn't have caved to the insurance lobby either. Have you seen United Health Care stock lately? They're really fucking scared huh? Lets not fix the insurance industry, lets give them 150 million new customers instead and throw in a federal mandate that insures that people have to comply! Brilliant! This bill is nothing more than grandstanding with a gigantic price tag. It's a piece of shit bill that isn't worth the paper it's written on, but you can be sure the dems will use it as ammo in the next elections. Frankly, I'm surprised that the left isn't as disgusted as the right is about this thing. It's useless and it's expensive. Essentially, they expanded medicare and mandated that every person in the country buy insurance. That's all they did. Oh, they also passed along a 5% medicare increase bill to the states (except Nebraska, slick move that one was). I wonder how Pelosi's constituents are going to feel when their property taxes have to go up again to pay the 3 billion a year that already bankrupt California will have to kick in? There's no public option. There's nothing in that bill that helps anybody. It will help a few poor people I guess, but it penalizes the fuck out of everybody else. It forces college age kids to buy health coverage and it forces businesses to provide health coverage, other than that, it just costs everybody else a bunch of new taxes. I'm not down on healthcare reform in principle, but this bill fucking sucks. You can't blame that on the republicans. That falls squarely on the dems shoulders. They wrote the fucking thing, and they sold their fucking souls to pass it. Nice job dems. Roosevelt you ain't.

The left IS as disgusted with this bill as the right is. Why did they drop the public option? We've been over this several times: they dropped it because they didn't have the votes. Fox News did such a hatchet job on it that every single Republican opposed it and most Democrats from conservative-leaning districts were terrified of voting for it, even though the public was overwhelmingly in favor of it. Although I disagree that it's a "piece of shit bill." It's a big improvement over what's in place right now, but unfortunately it's also a missed opportunity to do what's REALLY needed. And I blame the right-wing for that, no question at all. I blame the Republican Party and its mouthpiece Fox News. They could have contributed to the process, but they didn't. They blocked every constructive proposal to the point where all the Democrats could get through was a weak-sauce bill. Probably the Republicans will win a few seats out of this deal in November, which was their goal all along, but long-term they will suffer for it, mark my words. Because this bill will be successful to a certain extent.

[Ugmo]

the cigarette tax was raised after he promised not to raise taxes on the middle class "one dime." That's no hypothetical, the man lied plain and simple, my other example is a tax that hasn't been passed yet, but by all accounts it looks like it is

It's a tax across the board, not on the middle class per se. Unless you believe that rich and poor people don't smoke.

Man, I really have a hard time getting worked up about a cigarette tax! Don't want to pay that tax? I can think of a really simple solution!

[bane]

I really couldn't disagree with you more on this one Ugmo. I think they were willing to pass something, anything just to say that they did. They had the opportunity to do something really good here, and they dropped the ball big time. It will be very intersting to see how the SCOTUS rules on this thing.

[Ugmo]

I really couldn't disagree with you more on this one Ugmo. I think they were willing to pass something, anything just to say that they did. They had the opportunity to do something really good here, and they dropped the ball big time. It will be very intersting to see how the SCOTUS rules on this thing.

Well the first thing we shouldn't forget is the reconciliation still has to happen. The House bill wasn't bad at all. There's a public option in there, it's financed by soaking the rich (I'm always in favor of soaking the rich), and no one can be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. They're not just going to take over the Senate bill wholesale. There are a lot of progressive Democrats in the House who will not stand for that I don't think.

The Senate bill is pretty lame, sure. But remember when you say that "they" dropped the ball that you had a united block of Republicans who didn't contribute to the process in the slightest. I don't really get why you wouldn't direct some of your ire at them. There'd probably be a public option in the Senate bill if not for the Republican fillibuster threat.

EDIT: Speaking of a pretty-kick ass House bill, are you aware that only one single Republican voted for it? How can anyone claim the Republicans were intersted in anything other than obstruction? They voted against a good House bill, they acted so obstinate in the Senate that only a weak-sauce bill could be brought up for a vote, and then voted against it.

The Party of No. A left-wing talking point, and it's right on the money.

[bane]

I really couldn't disagree with you more on this one Ugmo. I think they were willing to pass something, anything just to say that they did. They had the opportunity to do something really good here, and they dropped the ball big time. It will be very intersting to see how the SCOTUS rules on this thing.

Well the first thing we shouldn't forget is the reconciliation still has to happen. The House bill wasn't bad at all. There's a public option in there, it's financed by soaking the rich (I'm always in favor of soaking the rich). They're not just going to take over the Senate bill wholesale. There are a lot of progressive Democrats in the House who will not stand for that I don't think.

The Senate bill is pretty lame, sure. But remember when you say that "they" dropped the ball that you had a united block of Republicans who didn't contribute to the process in the slightest. I don't really get why you wouldn't direct some of your ire at them. There'd probably be a public option in the Senate bill if not for the Republican fillibuster threat.

I see the republicans as being pretty much irrelevent on this. They were going to oppose ANY bill, so they just didn't matter. I think they're a handy excuse for the dems passing such a bad bill maybe, but they didn't contribute to it, weren't consulted on it, didn't vote for it, nothing, so how could they be blamed for how lame it is? I think that's a cop out. They'll win a few seats because of it I'm sure, but I couldn't care less about the partisan bit of it. I'd gladly see the dems retain control for another decade if they could start doing things right. I'm spectacularly unimpressed with their ability to do so thus far.

[Ugmo]

I see the republicans as being pretty much irrelevent on this. They were going to oppose ANY bill, so they just didn't matter. I think they're a handy excuse for the dems passing such a bad bill maybe, but they didn't contribute to it, weren't consulted on it, didn't vote for it, nothing, so how could they be blamed for how lame it is? I think that's a cop out. They'll win a few seats because of it I'm sure, but I couldn't care less about the partisan bit of it. I'd gladly see the dems retain control for another decade if they could start doing things right. I'm spectacularly unimpressed with their ability to do so thus far.

Because that viewpoint is not taking into account the reality of the Senate. It takes a simple majority to pass a bill - UNLESS the minority party threatens a fillibuster, in which case the leeway for passing a strong bill is considerably restricted. Are you telling me that every single Republican in the House and Senate except for one is opposed to a public option? No way. Impossible. But the party leadership shoehorned them into attempting to obstruct it (House) and actually obstructing it (Senate). Look at this way. Joe Liebermann is in the pocket of the insurance industry. You weren't going to get his support for the public option. But if a couple of Republicans had crossed the aisle you wouldn't have needed it. When you need every single Republican on board to force the Dems to make concessions to assholes like Joe Liebermann, and you GET every single Republican on board, then the Reeps are equally to blame.

And they sure were consulted. The Democrats reached out to them the whole time, but they made no serious effort to contribute to the process.

[bane]

I heard McCain say repeatedly that he wanted to sit down with the dems and come up with a bill that made sense. I really don't think that filibuster would have happened if Reid hadn't insisted on throwing his weight around.

[Ugmo]

I heard McCain say repeatedly that he wanted to sit down with the dems and come up with a bill that made sense. I really don't think that filibuster would have happened if Reid hadn't insisted on throwing his weight around.

Oh yeah, I heard the Republicans do a lot of grandstanding too, but when it came down to it they just blocked everything constructive.

Again, the Republicans had the last eight years to do something about health care. We know they sabotaged Clinton's efforts, and they had 12 years of Reagan/Bush I to come up with some kind of health care plan, but they did nothing. Let's call it like it is: the Republican Party has no interest in health care reform!