Washington — Democratic congressional leaders showed signs of progress Monday in winning anti-abortion Democrats whose votes are pivotal to President Barack Obama’s fiercely contested remake of the health care system.
Obama expressed optimism Congress would approve his call for affordable and nearly universal coverage as he pitched his plan on a trip to Ohio, while Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, among the bill’s sharpest opponents, said he was “less confident” than before that it could be stopped.
“They’d have to be remarkable people not to fall under the kind of pressure they’ll be under,” DeMint said of rank-and-file Democrats.
The pressure was turned up Monday as the House Budget Committee, on a 21-16 vote, took an essential first step toward the House vote, which could come next weekend. Obama and his supporters labored in the capital and on Air Force One.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
merrill (anonymous) says…
about medical insurance giants
Over rated and expensive medical insurance giants over charge their customers over and above their greedy size premiums THEN do not provide any medical care whatsoever : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
THEY do interfere with doctors and appropriate health care = unethical/maybe illegal
they do spend tons of potential health care dollars on politicians out of the health care dollar pie = corruption : http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blo...
THEY do spend tons on share holders out of the health care dollar pie = profits at the expense of others misfortune = unethical
they are spending tons on teabaggers to interfere with health insurance reform = profits at the expense of others misfortune = unethical
they do spend tons on CEO's = profits at the expense of others misfortune = unethical
they are spending $1.4 million per day to interfere with medical insurance reform = profits at the expense of others misfortune = unethical
they are spending $1.4 million per day to interfere with medical insurance reform while canceling long term ill patients who have reached their spending cap thinking they had insurance = unethical
they are laundering their insurance reform money through the US Chamber of Commerce = unethical
they are charging consumers MORE while providing less and less all in the name of profits : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
THEY are the source for the misinformation campaign against insurance reform = unethical
cancel your medical insurance today until substantial reform materializes!
* set up your own money making medical expense account
* consumers will be money ahead
* nothing will change dramatically until consumers take matters into their own hands!
improved Medicare Insurance for All is NOT Obamacare!
merrill (anonymous) says…
Healthcare-NOW!, along with Progressive Democrats of America, has produced a report card that compares single-payer healthcare with President Obama’s “public option” proposal currently being debated in the House and Senate.
Please feel free to download and distribute the two-page report card.
Report Card on Single-Payer and “Public Option” (.pdf)
http://www.healthcare-now.org/report-...
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
We'll see how effective bribery and arm-twisting is for Pelosi & Co.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
We desperately need some kind of health care reform in this country--but not if it has to be done like this.
If Pelosi tries to pull this crap, I hope that A) she's voted out in November; and B) someone steps up to the plate and runs this through the the courts, all the way to SCOTUS, calling into question the constitutionality of these shenanigans.
House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
Expert: Pelosi 'deem and pass' strategy for health care is not unusual
http://content.usatoday.com/communiti...
cowboy (anonymous) says…
TeaParty concedes
At a press conference on Monday, Armey acknowledged that Democrats "will most likely pass health care reform legislation that has been debated for the last year and is expected to come to a vote this week."
"They'll probably force this through," he said. "But you can't discount the number of people who can be moved by a ruthless and powerful political leader or group of political leaders."
The FreedomWorks chairman also had harsh word for the rest of Congress - the "self-serving" people he suggests are equally to blame for the passage of health care legislation.
"The average member Congress - House and Senate - is first and foremost only a self-serving inconvenience-minimizer who doesn't have a lot of principle they stand on the first place," he said. "It doesn't take much to move a jellied spine, so they'll probably get their votes."
cowboy writes
I find it hilarious or tragic , that Armey , the inventor of the tea party , now openly , is engaging in multiple freudian slips in his above comments. Heres a guy who with the money from insurance and pharma bought and paid for the tea party through the lobbying company Freedom Works. He has made a fortune off this debate , and mobilized the "jellied spine" that is the fringe republican opposition. Armey is simply self serving himself to a plethora of lobbyist dollars.
sunny (anonymous) says…
We have great 'health care'! This bill is just another hand out!
Obomba is encouraging irresponsibility!
hail2oldku (anonymous) says…
One would hope that the fact that Dennis Moore's webpage is so bogged down taking messages, presumably related to this bill, that you can't get through would be enough to encourage him to do the right thing and oppose this legislation as written.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
beo, nobody's ever used recon to try to take over 1/6 of the nation's economy before.
cowboy (anonymous) says…
Elsewhere, political scientist Joshua Tucker found a Congressional Research Service report (pdf) listing every time reconciliation was used between 1981 and 2005, and he built a rough model testing which party used the process more frequently. During that period, there were 19 reconciliation bills, 11 of which were signed by Republican presidents, five of which were signed by Democratic presidents, three of which were vetoed by Democratic presidents, and none of which were vetoed by Republican presidents. "By my admittedly simple classification scheme," Tucker concludes, "this would suggest that 14 of the 19 times reconciliation was used between FY1981 - FY2005, it was used to advance Republican interests."
The real story lurking in these arguments is that reconciliation has become the normal process for many of the most important bills in recent years. The Bush tax cuts went through reconciliation. Welfare reform went through reconciliation. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 went through reconciliation. We've never really discussed the fact that we have a majority-rules process tucked inside the supermajority Senate (in part because the realization that we have a supermajority Senate is relatively recent), but it's been key to getting anything done for at least 20 years now, and it will be an even more constant presence in the next 20 years.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your dogma
georgiahawk (anonymous) says…
Let's get this thing over with! I am tired of all the BS (sorry Barry)! I am tired of all of the end of the world as we know it crapola.
cowboy (anonymous) says…
Did you know there were "demons" in the congress , yes fricking demons exposed by Republican congressman from Iowa Steve King.
Are they big demons or just little furry ones Mr. King ? Perhaps some medication might be in order.
Steve King also called for a revolution today at the Tea Party soiree in Washington. Yep lets have a revolution.
One of the Tea Partiers
http://politicalhumor.about.com/libra...
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) says…
The headline is now outdated. Seems Pelosi is trying to push reform through without an up or down vote directly on the bill by using the "self-executing rule" aka the "Slaughter rule".
While I think we need some kind of reform using a slight of hand trick as this comes off as underhanded.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Excellent! If the Republicans had cared a lick about the American people they would have done something about health care when they were in charge. They didn't, and now they are out of office. The Democrats are stepping up to the plate to finally get his done! Hurray for America! Finally doing the right thing for ALL its citizens, not just the richest ones.
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
Why is it that the least enlightened speak the loudest with the most fearful tones?
they complain that there is going to be some unidentified bureaucrat working
government death panels and the like. Are they blind? this is already happening,
it's called the HMO industry. They've had cost review death panels for some time.
I love how all of the loud people support the very things that effect their daily lives
in bad ways. Free market economy,,, gee doesn't this always smash the little guy
in the name of progress? How can you be a blind republican or tea whatever
person and shop at chains that kill your small town economies? Somewhere
there is a blind angry elephant that doesn't know where or why it's going,
it's just uninformed and mad, oh well.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
“Oh my: Dems ask Obama to delay trip for O-Care again
The spin here is that he’s been so goshdarned effective in twisting arms that they simply can’t bear to be without him. Which is another way of saying (a) they don’t have the votes, (b) they’re seriously afraid they can’t get the votes, and (c) they’re so low on sticks and carrots that they need to leverage the persuasive power of a guy who’s 0 for 3 in his last three times out on the stump. Never mind this Telegraph story: At this point, if The One wants to terrify Democratic fencesitters into voting yes, the threat should be that he will campaign for them, not that he won’t….”
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/16...
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
My two favorite recent soundbites concerning this travesty:
Pelosi: "We need to pass it so we can see what's in it"
President Obama to a crowd: "How many here have insurance through their employer? Ok, raise your hands. Ok, now under our bill, your employer COULD see a reduction in premiums of up to 3000%! Then they'd be able to give you a raise!" (followed by thunderous applause)
Looks like the President has been studying at bozo's school of mathematics. Check me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a 100% reduction in premiums mean they're free? Sooooo....3000% would mean the insurance companies would actually be paying employers the equivalent of 29 times their current premium costs. Well then, sign me up.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
beobachter (anonymous) says…
"Why is it not OK for Dems to use reconciliation process when last 22 times it was used, 16 times were by Reps?"
Go ahead, BeO, take a whack at explaining how revising the student loan process is a 'budget reconciliation' of a health insurance reform bill.
*******************************************************
cowboy (anonymous) says…
"By my admittedly simple classification scheme," Tucker concludes, "this would suggest that 14 of the 19 times reconciliation was used between FY1981 - FY2005, it was used to advance Republican interests."
So when Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act and 'Don't Ask - Don't Tell', was he advancing Democratic Party principles?
************************************************************
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
"Why is it that the least enlightened speak the loudest with the most fearful tones?"
I don't know - why did you post?
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
I posted because I see cowboys, penders and all of the other loud people who use
this space as their only outlet to be loud. I'm on npr, kcur, and other news outlets
throughout this country. I see the land of dumb on many postings in many states.
Sometimes I feel like I'm surrounded by .............
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
npr is news to the chuckleheads who live on 980 am in the bastions of noisy radios
that reach the hinterlands of isolation where objective information isn't necessary.
You must listen to and believe hannity, ingraham, and pillboy like a religion, and go to
health care meetings and act like a raging.........
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
btw the stimulus wouldn't have been necessary if the Geriatric Opressive
Partisans knew how to avoid unnecessary wars and spending like drunk sailors
to not find weapons or osama and make this country bow to other countries
supporting the GOP's war effort. The GOP loves to get in office, do nothing,
and distract the rural masses with abortion, guns, and religion while their
stores close due to nearby wal-marts and their doctors leave town for greener pastures.
The Kansas GOP, getting rural people to vote against their own interests for over
a century. How are the tax cuts of the last decade working for Kansas schools?
I thought the GOP would be smart enough to save for a rainy day, oh well.
Liberty275 (anonymous) says…
I prefer counting down to the next two elections which will allow Americans to purge the socialists from our government now that they have outed themselves.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
... and that will only leave us the "socialists" of Wall Street.
"Yippee-ki-yay..."
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
"npr is news to the chuckleheads who live on 980 am in the bastions of noisy radios
that reach the hinterlands of isolation where objective information isn't necessary.
You must listen to and believe hannity, ingraham, and pillboy like a religion, and go to
health care meetings and act like a raging........."
Uh, yeah, 'cause Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Rachel Madkow are the objective voice of reason.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
And in other news:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/a...
Gee, how 'bout that - the poster girl for Obamacare doesn't need it after all.
Which also, incidentally, reinforces what many opposed to this so-called 'reform' have been saying for a long time - that many of the uninsured are already eligible for existing programs.
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
actually they simply point out ALL of the crazy things Michelle Bachman and the rest
of the loud fearful people repeat over and over, the gop doesn't have a bill and doesn't want anyone else to have one either. The people you referenced wouldn't have anything to talk
about if the GOP said anything intelligent. Instead they don't, and they become fodder
for the MSNBC crowd.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
"the gop doesn't have a bill and doesn't want anyone else to have one either"
And the fact that you've swallowed a big glass of that particular kool-aid illustrates just beautifully how "objective" the "news" sources you listen to are.
Just a thought, tusch - what proposals of the Republicans was Obama talking about including in his plan if there *are* no such proposals?
Go ahead, line up for another big helping of MSNBC pabulum, tusch.
mancityfooty (Corey Williams) says…
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
"Uh, yeah, 'cause Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Rachel Madkow are the objective voice of reason."
And, wow, they all happen to have their own shows on NPR. While fox might have a bunch of turkeys, NPR has the easter bunny and santa claus, too. You wouldn't know because you don't listen.
"Just a thought, tusch - what proposals of the Republicans was Obama talking about including in his plan if there *are* no such proposals?"
Wow, what a spin. I don't even see the word "proposal" in the original post. This is what tuschkahouma said: "...the gop doesn't have a bill..." And that would be right. They have a few ideas, but they don't have a bill on the table. If they had spent some time this summer coming up with their own legislation, then maybe they'd have a leg to stand on.
"Gee, how 'bout that - the poster girl for Obamacare doesn't need it after all."
From the story you linked to:
"Obama is not wrong in saying that a patient in Canfield's situation might have to choose between her home and health care, said Eileen Sheil, a spokeswoman for Cleveland Clinic.
"But this patient is probably not the best example of someone in that situation, although we've have patients in that situation who haven't yet qualified for Medicaid, or didn't have the resources" to pay for care, Sheil said."
And what is it that will keep her from losing her home? Social security disability and medicaid. Socialism saves her day.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Pause a moment & shed a tear for the deceased and unlamented HB 676. It died for lack of support through copy/paste posts on this board. Somebody let the team down.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
mancityfooty (Corey Williams) says…
"And, wow, they all happen to have their own shows on NPR."
And, uh, wow, "hannity, ingraham, and pillboy" do? I was responding to the portion of tusch's post referring to the less-than-objectiveness of those commentators - only one of which, as far as I know, appears on 980 am radio (maybe you should try reading a post before commenting on it?).
"Wow, what a spin. I don't even see the word "proposal" in the original post. This is what tuschkahouma said: "...the gop doesn't have a bill..." And that would be right. They have a few ideas, but they don't have a bill on the table. If they had spent some time this summer coming up with their own legislation, then maybe they'd have a leg to stand on."
Hmmm. Not sure here if your post is based on poor math skills or a complete lack of comprehension of how our legislature works, but the party with 40 seats in the Senate and minority representation on the various committees doesn't get too many major pieces of legislation up for a floor vote. But then, there were these:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/52896
>>> The three Republican bills total almost 400 pages and have been on the table since May and June.
>>> In May, Republicans in the House and the Senate formed a bicameral coalition to produce the130-page “Patients Choice Act of 2009.”
>>> In June, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduced the “Health Care Freedom Plan,” a 41-page proposal.
>>> And in July, the Republican Study Committee, under the leadership of Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), unveiled the “Empowering Patients First Act,” a 130-page plan.
>>> Some of the provisions included in one or more of the bills include: investing in preventive medicine, an overhaul of Medicaid, reduction of abuse and fraud in the Medicare program, supplemental health insurance for low-income families, tax credits for health insurance, and a ban on federal funds being used for abortions.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pol...
"Price and his Republican colleagues brought with them copies of the more than 30 health care reform bills they have proposed in the House this year."
Maybe you could look at proposed Republican amendments to the current bill, too. Or you could just have another glass of kool-aid, foot.
[continued]
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
[continued]
"And what is it that will keep her from losing her home? Social security disability and medicaid."
The point, since you're not too quick at grasping them, is that there are already existing systems in place which will take care of the woman our Dear Leader has been claiming will lose her home because of her medical treatment (but it's the Republicans using 'fear tactics', right?). It also somewhat obviates the need for a 2200+ page, trillion-dollar piece of legislation, and also questions the claims of how many people in this country don't have access to healthcare. But what the heck, let's pass it anyway because the Dems say we need it, and such brilliant folks as your esteemed self swallow what they say hook, line, and sinker. Of course, how likely is it that a woman who didn't even know what Medicaid was, someone who didn't want to be part of 'the system' and wanted to try to pay her own bills, will even be capable of availing herself of any of the proposed 'reforms' in the package?
jafs (anonymous) says…
nota,
She wrote to the President that she was fearful she might lose her home. It turned out she could get some help she wasn't aware of, but other people in her situation might not be so fortunate.
Also, if the bill is passed and includes mandated insurance coverage and tax credits to help pay for it, I'm pretty sure she'll be able to afford both health insurance and her mortgage.
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
as an American Indian I'm well aware of the 60-40 or 59-41 split in the U.S. Senate.
Because of the genuine kindness of the GOP (NOT!) towards Indian Tribes, many
useful and positive bills for Indian country are tabled by these wonderful republicans.
On top of that, you have their genius of a chairman Michael Steele using a racial
slur towards native Americans and getting away with it. I study my adversaries
well. All of the garbage about ignored by the Dems is nothing more than having their
stall tactics thwarted. They're no different than Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms
talking all night to stop civil rights legislation in the 1960's. Nice try. This bill
will make the insurance criminals behave in time.
gl0ck0wn3r (anonymous) says…
Prepare to be raped... economically.
sunny (anonymous) says…
My taxes paying for your abortions. I am more than appauled!
Obomba is a fraud and a liar. My paycheck has more federal taxes taken out already. Your liar stated taxes would not increase.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
merrill, your laddie, Dennis Kookoo, is jumping on board the Obamatanic. Would you care to comment on that?
georgiahawk (anonymous) says…
Barry, where is your religion on this? What exactly are you worshiping? From what I can pick up from your ramblings, you worship yourself. Is that alright with your God?
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) says…
sunny (anonymous) says…
My taxes paying for your abortions. I am more than appauled!
--------------------------------------------
Just out of curiosity. Would you rather the child was aborted with your tax dollars or would you rather pay for welfare, food stamps, and other social programs for the rest of their life (assuming the child was born to a low income family) with your tax dollars?
Don't misconstrue the above question as me saying I'm in favor of federal dollars paying for abortion. I just want to hear what others think when given the above scenerio.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
jafs (anonymous) says…
"She wrote to the President that she was fearful she might lose her home. It turned out she could get some help she wasn't aware of, but other people in her situation might not be so fortunate."
Or they just might be. Maybe there are a lot of people who don't know what Medicaid is. None of which matters - if the press could figure out this woman was not going to lose her home and that she qualified for Medicaid, don't you think our illustrious Harvard-educated Nobel-Prize-winning president, with all the resources at his command, should have been able to figure it out too, before trying to make this woman a martyr? Especially when he's the one accusing the other side of fear tactics?
"Also, if the bill is passed and includes mandated insurance coverage and tax credits to help pay for it, I'm pretty sure she'll be able to afford both health insurance and her mortgage."
I'm not sure she can afford her mortgage by itself on $600/month, not if she likes luxuries such as food. And if she's going to afford health insurance (from a private provider) on top of that, we'll be paying the whole bill - on *TOP* of what we're paying for Medicaid, which she already qualifies for.
****************************************************************
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
"This bill will make the insurance criminals behave in time."
Thanks for proving, yet again, that you have no idea what's in the bill, as the true beneficiaries of its provisions are those same 'insurance criminals' you allude to. But then, it was already pretty evident that your 'objective' news sources were leaving you pretty uninformed.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) says…
"Just out of curiosity. Would you rather the child was aborted with your tax dollars or would you rather pay for welfare, food stamps, and other social programs for the rest of their life (assuming the child was born to a low income family) with your tax dollars?"
Option B please. That is not because of some philosophical opposition to abortion, but because you never know what that person will turn out to be - what the heck, giving them the benefit of the doubt it might just turn out they make something of themselves and aren't on welfare the rest of their life.
It doesn't always come down to the cheapest short term solution, sometimes you have to take the risk, hoping for much larger future benefits based on nothing more than potential. Would you rather spend the money to tear down the Lawrence train depot, or keep spending money on subsidizing trains on the hope that someday more people will ride them?
Come to think of it, analogous to your question, euthanasia is much cheaper than cancer treatment. Which do you favor spending money on?
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
What does the darling of the Left, Michael Moore think about Ocare?
“…Within days, the House of Representatives will vote to pass the Senate health-care "reform" bill. This bill is a joke. It has nothing to do with "health-care reform." It has everything to do with lining the pockets of the health insurance industry. It forces, by law, every American who isn't old or destitute to buy health insurance if their boss doesn't provide it. What company wouldn't love the government forcing the public to buy that company's product?! Imagine a bill that ordered every citizen to buy the extended warranty on all their appliances? Imagine a law that made it illegal not to own an iPhone? Or how 'bout I get a law passed that makes it compulsory for every American to go see my next movie? Woo-hoo! Who wouldn't love a sweet set-up like this windfall?...”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-an...
(yes, I'm having a difficult time believeing that I am quoting Michael Moore in public)
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Relax and have a popsicle, paulette. It's a cool and fruity treat on a winter day.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) says…
Nota says...
Come to think of it, analogous to your question, euthanasia is much cheaper than cancer treatment. Which do you favor spending money on?
-----------------------------------------------------
You forgot option 3: Letting the cancer do its thing and dying from it. Cheapest option yet (but probably a bit painful).
To honestly answwer your question would depend on a number of things. 1- Is it me that has the cancer or someone else? If it's me then euthanasia would be on the table detrminate on other factors (chance of survival with treatment, etc).
I just find it ironic that some of the type of people who rail against abortions are also the ones who rail against those on welfare/social programs. The child didn't choose to be born to poor parents or parents who make lousy decisions. But some still want to punish those kids by taking away the programs that help keep them alive. In their line of thinking the child shouldn't be aborted but instead they should starve to death slowly because they don't want their tax dollars used to help put food on the kids table.
I know not all conservatives follow this philosophy... but some do, they just don't realize that's what they are saying.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
barrypenders (anonymous) says…
Hi georgiahawk! Are you getting ready for the return of the 'Womanizer' Eldrick Woods at the Masters?
It will be fun to watch how the guys treat him.
___________________________________________________________________________
At the very least, I have to give props to Tiger Woods for maintaining a healthy interest in adult females. What really *did* happen on El Rushbo's Dominican Stag Party? A bottle of Viagra, in someone else's name, all the way to the Dominican Republic...
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/...
http://www.childtrafficking.com/Docs/...
Could this be why Rush has three failed marriages in his wake?
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Most of the usual suspects that are Dear Leader's cheerleaders on LJW seem to be missing today.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) says…
"To honestly answwer your question would depend on a number of things. 1- Is it me that has the cancer or someone else? If it's me then euthanasia would be on the table detrminate on other factors (chance of survival with treatment, etc)."
Unfortunately for the fetus, he/she doesn't get to choose that option for her/himself.
"I just find it ironic that some of the type of people who rail against abortions are also the ones who rail against those on welfare/social programs."
I have never "railed" against either. I have some concerns about abortion and some philosophical questions - the bottom line being that I don't know when life begins beyond a reasonable doubt and I don't think anyone else knows either. But as I said, that's a phiosophical more than medical question, and while I might personally object to it, I don't believe I have enough evidence to impose my beliefs on others.
As to welfare, I have absolutely no objection to using tax dollars to help those who truly need the help, the operative word being "need". As a matter of fact I would prefer to see an expansion of Medicare/Medicaid to those with no other viable option rather than have the government get more involved in the non-public sector, even if it meant higher taxes for yours truly. I do believe that it is the duty of a society to help those who need the help. Then again, this is primarily a moral imperative, and just as I believe I don't have the right to impose my philosophical beliefs on anyone else, I don't think moral values should be legislated either.
"I know not all conservatives follow this philosophy"
Thanks for recognizing that. I have a tendency to forget sometimes that not all liberals are that bad, and that 1) in general we have more in common than in difference, and 2) while we don't agree on what it is, we both want what we believe is best for the country.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
nota, that's probably the most respectful, level-headed post I've seen you make yet.
I'll have to remember to try that sometime...
--Ag
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
"nota, that's probably the most respectful, level-headed post I've seen you make yet."
Even I have my off days. ;)
HomeSlice (anonymous) says…
"Why is it not OK for Dems to use reconciliation process when last 22 times it was used, 16 times were by Reps?"
Now Deem-and-Pass may be invoked.....
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a gathering of political bloggers that although the deem-and-pass gambit is “more inside and process-oriented than people want to know … I like it, because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill." (Wow!!)
"In one sense, the deem-and-pass maneuver is nothing exotic on Capitol Hill. It has been used to move other controversial measures through Congress, such as a ban on using statistical sampling in the 2000 census and the employment verification system to weed out illegal immigrants. And as with reconciliation, it is not the monopoly of either party. Brookings congressional scholar Thomas Mann told USA Today that the deem-and-pass maneuver was employed 36 times in 2005 and 2006, when the GOP had majorities in Congress, and 49 times in the Democratic-controlled sessions of 2007 and 2008.
That, understandably, is not how conservative opponents of the health care package see things. As a Wall Street Journal editorial argues, the tactic has mainly come into play in resolving fairly technical disputes over a legislation’s wording – “but never before to elide a vote on the entire fundamental legislation.” And indeed, legal scholars tend to agree that if the House presses forward with the method, it could expose the final health care law to serious constitutional challenges."
Guess the Dems win 49-36 on this one. Loser Reps! Losers I say!!!!
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
cowboy (anonymous) says…
you tell em Beatrice !
For some of us it was a religious holiday today , Holy Church of Green and Jamisons
HomeSlice (anonymous) says…
Not sure what the circle ***** reference means two posts above. Kids doing homework at the kitchen computer can't figure it out. Mom is not quite sure about this either- will do a search on the term when the kids are headed to bed - just in case..
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) says…
Nota says...
I have some concerns about abortion and some philosophical questions - the bottom line being that I don't know when life begins beyond a reasonable doubt and I don't think anyone else knows either. But as I said, that's a phiosophical more than medical question, and while I might personally object to it, I don't believe I have enough evidence to impose my beliefs on others.
>> Couldn't have said it better myself. While my wife and I most likely would never consider it doesn't mean I don't think it shouldn't be a choice for someone else.
As to welfare, I have absolutely no objection to using tax dollars to help those who truly need the help, the operative word being "need". As a matter of fact I would prefer to see an expansion of Medicare/Medicaid to those with no other viable option rather than have the government get more involved in the non-public sector, even if it meant higher taxes for yours truly. I do believe that it is the duty of a society to help those who need the help. Then again, this is primarily a moral imperative, and just as I believe I don't have the right to impose my philosophical beliefs on anyone else, I don't think moral values should be legislated either.
>> Agreed - "need" as you say being the operative word. Do I like supporting those who would rather smoke meth all day then make something better with their lives? No. Unfortunately this is an imperfect world and there will always be those that abuse the system. But what's the alternative?
I have a tendency to forget sometimes that not all liberals are that bad...
>>> Funny thing. On here I may come off as liberal. But I have a fair few conservative values as well. I tend to consider myself more moderate slightly left leaning with a dash or two conservatism. I'm a supporter of 2nd amendment, death penalty (I just want more use of DNA testing before putting ppl down- to many false confessions out there), I don't care if the Ten Commandments are displayed in courthouses or if the Pledge of Allegiance is said in schools.
I think maybe I come off as a lib on here is because I hate people who spew outright lies (especially when directed at the President- if I had been active during Bush's year I would of done the same thing for him which would of tagged me as a right-winger lol).
Leedavid is one who does this. He'll throw something out as fact and I'll call him out on it. People need to do some research instead of believing the crap they get in chain emails from their tea party buddy, who only joined the tea party because of a similar chain email he received.
FYI- I've never labeled you as a bad guy. As a matter of fact the only times I've seen you get heated or nasty is on the topic of healthcare reform, which you're obviously passionate about. I can't say I ever recall you pounding conservative points on any other topic. Really the only person you've been overly nasty to is Porch_Person... and honestly he probably deserved it.
gl0ck0wn3r (anonymous) says…
"sunny (anonymous) says…My taxes paying for your abortions. I am more than appauled!"
Is more than "appauled" "apppppauled" or "appauuuuuled" or is it simply appalled?
RawkStar (anonymous) says…
barry - ok so you have posted an article that shows that in the state of Washington the medicaid system is not reimbursing the pharmacies enough for them to make a profit. Maybe you should have posted the rest of the article that explained why exactly that happened, "Then in September came another blow. The average wholesale price is calculated by a private company, which was accused in a Massachusetts lawsuit of fraudulently inflating its figures." Thanks for proving to everyone that you are just a typical right wing nut that likes to take bits of a story and twist them to fit their backwards agenda. If you guys didn't come off so crazy you might actually get people to take you seriously.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Why support high dollar insurance? All it does is finance corruption everyday!
There is no reason to give up the fight!
Break the insurance industry!
Boycott the medical insurance Industry!
Cancel your policies today as most are under insured policies!
Godot (anonymous) says…
At least Merrill makes it obvioius that this is not about affordability and quality of health care, this is about destroying the insurance industry.
Merrill is so intent on bringing down the insurance industry that he joyfully condemns working families to losing their current health insurance and forcing them to choose between a bronze, silver or gold plan designed by people who he deems to be smart.
For a family with an income of $100,000, the silver plan would cost them over $14,000 per year, and because a family making $100,000 per year is considered wealthy by the parasitical Obama followers, that famly wouild receive no government assistance or tax break. In fact, they wouild pay more for their health care, and pay more in taxes.
But it is all worth it so people like Merrill can afford to spend their time blogging for Obama, and receive free health care paid by others.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Full text of the bill in question now available on the U.S. House Rules Committee website:
http://www.rules.house.gov/bills_deta...
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
March 18, 2010
H.R. 4872, Reconciliation Act of 2010
Estimate of direct spending and revenue effects for the amendment in the nature of a substitute released on March 18, 2010
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11355
Above link leads to selection of either full PDF of report, or link to CBO blog entry.
From the blog:
"Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.
"The reconciliation proposal includes provisions related to health care and revenues, many of which would amend H.R. 3590; those provisions account for most of the budgetary impact of the proposal. It also includes amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965, which authorizes most federal programs involving postsecondary education; the education provisions account for net outlay savings of about $19 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
"Although CBO does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget projection period, certain Congressional rules require some information about the budgetary impact of legislation in subsequent decades, and many Members have requested CBO’s analyses of the long-term budgetary impact of broad changes in the nation’s health care and health insurance systems. Therefore, CBO has developed a rough outlook for the decade following the 2010-2019 period. We estimate that the combined effect of enacting H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal would be to reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP)."
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=508
HomeSlice (anonymous) says…
One question on the CBO numbers - IF I understand it correctly, they are only reporting on the net of the healthcare bill costs - cost of the bill itself, coupled with an increase in taxes and reduced Medicare. So the 'savings' are not what the man on the street would assume them to be. The 'savings' come after costs elsewhere rise (taxes) and benefits are reduced (Medicare) and therefore there is no real savings, just a shifting of the cost burden. Net effect is ultimately an increase to the taxpayer.
It would be nice to see a full-blown effort to reduce the cost healthcare first, and then an expansion plan with those efficiencies in place to build upon.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
HomeSlice (anonymous) says…
"One question on the CBO numbers - IF I understand it correctly, they are only reporting on the net of the healthcare bill costs - cost of the bill itself, coupled with an increase in taxes and reduced Medicare. So the 'savings' are not what the man on the street would assume them to be. The 'savings' come after costs elsewhere rise (taxes) and benefits are reduced (Medicare) and therefore there is no real savings, just a shifting of the cost burden. Net effect is ultimately an increase to the taxpayer."
Ding ding ding - winner!
And it's not only taxes that would rise - the cost of healthcare delivery, and insurance premiums, will rise. In other words, our total healthcare costs will continue to rise - as I have been saying all along, the Democrats' plan will do nothing at all about that, it just shifts the costs to someone else.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/a...
According to the CBO, most people who buy their own insurance would actually see their premiums *increase*; the out of pocket expenses would be lower because of the subsidies, but approximately 40% of those people would not be eligible for subsidies.
Costs to businesses would not go down - they are projected to be minimally lower than they would have been without the legislation, but still higher than now.
The president, and the Congress, care absolutely nothing about reducing costs or about how mush it costs *US* - they only want to stand in front of the camera and pat each other on the back claiming they accomplished something "historic" with these "reforms", and reduced the deficit while doing so.
gl0ck0wn3r (anonymous) says…
" merrill (anonymous) says…Cancel your policies today as most are under insured policies!"
Richard, your posts are typically ludicrous but not dangerous. This post, however, bounds on dangerous. Before you encourage other people to cancel their health insurance, put your cards on the table: do you have health insurance? If so, is your immediate family covered on your plan? If they aren't, are they covered on any plan?