PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Health Care Bill


Amnorix
01-15-2010, 12:33 PM
I guess I have a far more direct vote on legislation -- the health care bill -- than almost any US citizen gets, ever. That said, while I'm familiar with some of the general stuff, I'm not as familiar with the detaisl as I feel I should be given the closeness of the Massachusetts Senatorial election.

Can anyone point me to a relatively nonpartisan site(s) with good summaries and/or blogs with regular updates on the progress of the bill or anything like that. I'll spend a bit of time this weekend taking a look at things.

HonestChieffan
01-15-2010, 12:34 PM
I guess I have a far more direct vote on legislation -- the health care bill -- than almost any US citizen gets, ever. That said, while I'm familiar with some of the general stuff, I'm not as familiar with the detaisl as I feel I should be given the closeness of the Massachusetts Senatorial election.

Can anyone point me to a relatively nonpartisan site(s) with good summaries and/or blogs with regular updates on the progress of the bill or anything like that. I'll spend a bit of time this weekend taking a look at things.

You join many who would like to see it. Wanna bet it is never made public?

Donger
01-15-2010, 12:34 PM
I guess I have a far more direct vote on legislation -- the health care bill -- than almost any US citizen gets, ever. That said, while I'm familiar with some of the general stuff, I'm not as familiar with the detaisl as I feel I should be given the closeness of the Massachusetts Senatorial election.

Can anyone point me to a relatively nonpartisan site(s) with good summaries and/or blogs with regular updates on the progress of the bill or anything like that. I'll spend a bit of time this weekend taking a look at things.

Dude, don't you have C-SPAN?

mlyonsd
01-15-2010, 12:36 PM
You vote for the chick and we'll steal Belichick as well.

Got it?

Donger
01-15-2010, 12:37 PM
Anyway:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/show

http://news.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/show

Mr. Kotter
01-15-2010, 12:41 PM
In case the RWNJs are busy this afternoon, here you go:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

http://www.hannity.com/

http://www.glennbeck.com/

wild1
01-15-2010, 12:42 PM
In case the RWNJs are busy this afternoon, here you go:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

http://www.hannity.com/

http://www.glennbeck.com/

I see this record is still broken.

wild1
01-15-2010, 12:43 PM
Massachusetts: 'Bottom has fallen out' of Coakley's polls
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
01/15/10 7:10 AM EST

Here in Massachusetts, as well as in Washington, a growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. "I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers," says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. "If she's not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout," the Democrat says. "So right now, she is destined to lose."

Intensifying the gloom, the Democrat says, is the fact that the same polls showing Coakley falling behind also show President Obama with a healthy approval rating in the state. "With Obama at 60 percent in Massachusetts, this shouldn't be happening, but it is," the Democrat says.

Given those numbers, some Democrats, eager to distance Obama from any electoral failure, are beginning to compare Coakley to Creigh Deeds, the losing Democratic candidate in the Virginia governor's race last year. Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama's policies or those of the national Democratic party.

The same sort of thinking is emerging in Massachusetts. "This is a Creigh Deeds situation," the Democrat says. "I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose."

With the election still four days away, Democrats are still hoping that "something could happen" to change the dynamics of the race. But until that thing happens, the situation as it exists today explains Barack Obama's decision not to travel to Massachusetts to campaign for Coakley. "If the White House thinks she can win, Obama will be there," the Democrat says. "If they don't think she can win, he won't be there." For national Democrats, the task is now to insulate Obama against any suggestion that a Coakley defeat would be a judgment on the president's agenda and performance in office.

The private talk among Democrats is also reflected in some public polling on the race. Late Thursday, we learned the results of a Suffolk University poll showing Brown in the lead by four points, 50 percent to 46 percent. That poll showed Obama with a 55 percent approval rating. Also on Thursday, two of Washington's leading political analysts, Stuart Rothenberg and Charlie Cook, each changed their assessment of the Brown/Coakley race from a narrow advantage for Coakley to a toss-up.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Massachusetts-Bottom-has-fallen-out-of-Coakleys-poll-numbers-Dems-prepare-to-explain-defeat-protect-Obama-81681862.html#ixzz0ciCbP21p

BucEyedPea
01-15-2010, 12:44 PM
You vote for the chick and we'll steal Belichick as well.

Got it?

Well, you've just about stolen the entire coaching crew already and part of the team! Waaaaaaa!

BucEyedPea
01-15-2010, 12:47 PM
Massachusetts: 'Bottom has fallen out' of Coakley's polls
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
01/15/10 7:10 AM EST

Here in Massachusetts, as well as in Washington, a growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. "I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers," says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. "If she's not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout," the Democrat says. "So right now, she is destined to lose."

Intensifying the gloom, the Democrat says, is the fact that the same polls showing Coakley falling behind also show President Obama with a healthy approval rating in the state. "With Obama at 60 percent in Massachusetts, this shouldn't be happening, but it is," the Democrat says.

Given those numbers, some Democrats, eager to distance Obama from any electoral failure, are beginning to compare Coakley to Creigh Deeds, the losing Democratic candidate in the Virginia governor's race last year. Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama's policies or those of the national Democratic party.

The same sort of thinking is emerging in Massachusetts. "This is a Creigh Deeds situation," the Democrat says. "I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose."

With the election still four days away, Democrats are still hoping that "something could happen" to change the dynamics of the race. But until that thing happens, the situation as it exists today explains Barack Obama's decision not to travel to Massachusetts to campaign for Coakley. "If the White House thinks she can win, Obama will be there," the Democrat says. "If they don't think she can win, he won't be there." For national Democrats, the task is now to insulate Obama against any suggestion that a Coakley defeat would be a judgment on the president's agenda and performance in office.

The private talk among Democrats is also reflected in some public polling on the race. Late Thursday, we learned the results of a Suffolk University poll showing Brown in the lead by four points, 50 percent to 46 percent. That poll showed Obama with a 55 percent approval rating. Also on Thursday, two of Washington's leading political analysts, Stuart Rothenberg and Charlie Cook, each changed their assessment of the Brown/Coakley race from a narrow advantage for Coakley to a toss-up.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Massachusetts-Bottom-has-fallen-out-of-Coakleys-poll-numbers-Dems-prepare-to-explain-defeat-protect-Obama-81681862.html#ixzz0ciCbP21p

It's no wonder. Go see a Patriots board and you'll find moderates and independents swearing to vote in Brown if they have to drive in a blizzard.
I've got lots of family in Mass who are more D than R with the Rs being moderate. They hate what's happening. They hate Romney care too.

Mr. Kotter
01-15-2010, 12:47 PM
I see this record is still broken.

I see your brain is still in a state of atrophy. :p

Donger
01-15-2010, 12:48 PM
In case the RWNJs are busy this afternoon, here you go:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

http://www.hannity.com/

http://www.glennbeck.com/

I smell fear, and it's delicious.

Mr. Kotter
01-15-2010, 12:50 PM
I smell fear, and it's delicious.

Yeah, those guys prey upon fear and ignorance every day. It's why they are so "popular."

petegz28
01-15-2010, 12:51 PM
It's no wonder. Go see a Patriots board and you'll find moderates and independents swearing to vote in Brown if they have to drive in a blizzard.
I've got lots of family in Mass who are more D than R with the Rs being moderate. They hate what's happening. They hate Romney care too.

This has been the problem of the current Democratic Party from the beginning. They are taking the "I" votes for granted.

petegz28
01-15-2010, 12:52 PM
Yeah, those guys prey upon fear and ignorance every day. It's why they are so "popular."

Yeah, cause Dems never play the fear card, heh? ROFL

HonestChieffan
01-15-2010, 12:54 PM
Yeah, cause Dems never play the fear card, heh? ROFL

Swine Flu

Unemployment

BucEyedPea
01-15-2010, 12:54 PM
This has been the problem of the current Democratic Party from the beginning. They are taking the "I" votes for granted.

Not only that but the Boston Irish are Roman Catholic Democrats and what Coakley said about the devout ones not working in Emergency Rooms is not going over big.

Mr. Kotter
01-15-2010, 12:56 PM
Yeah, cause Dems never play the fear card, heh? ROFL

Did I say that? Nope. However, those three have elevated it to an art.

Royal Fanatic
01-15-2010, 12:58 PM
Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans? (http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm)

Democrats Hammered for Back-Room Deal with Unions on Health Care (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/15/democrats-hammered-room-deal-unions-health-care/)

Is Massachusetts Getting the Short End Of The Stick? (http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/is-massachusetts-getting-the-short-end-of-the-stick/)

Economist Was Under Contract with HHS While Touting Health Reform Bill (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/08/economist-contract-health-department-touting-reform/)

petegz28
01-15-2010, 12:58 PM
Not only that but the Boston Irish are Roman Catholic Democrats and what Coakley said about the devout ones not working in Emergency Rooms is not going over big.

She's a fucking moran. She has no business int he senate. I wouldn't wish her on the people of Mass., Dem or not.

Amnorix
01-15-2010, 01:11 PM
She's a fucking moran. She has no business int he senate. I wouldn't wish her on the people of Mass., Dem or not.

Given that I can guess your opinion of Senator Kennedy, I don't think you'd have much influence on voters up here. :D

(and I bet she can spell moran correctly, so you might want to be careful who you call a moran, or you might come off as a bit moranic yourself)

petegz28
01-15-2010, 01:12 PM
Given that I can guess your opinion of Senator Kennedy, I don't think you'd have much influence on voters up here. :D

Kennedy was a drunk, murdering, Daddy's boy. And anyone with any sense of fair mindedness knows this. I wouldn't bet much if I were if she knew the difference between moron and moran.

Amnorix
01-15-2010, 01:13 PM
Kennedy was a drunk, murdering, Daddy's boy. And anyone with any sense of fair mindedness knows this.


Hey! Who you callin' a Daddy's boy?

wild1
01-15-2010, 01:16 PM
My favorite bit of comedy here will be if this numbskull scuttles socialized medicine, Ben Nelson will still have to pay the bill for his sellout. LMAO

patteeu
01-15-2010, 01:19 PM
You vote for the chick and we'll steal Belichick as well.

Got it?

LMAO

petegz28
01-15-2010, 01:20 PM
Hey! Who you callin' a Daddy's boy?

The poster child of Daddy's Boy's, Ted Kennedy. He makes G.W. Bush look like a real man.

patteeu
01-15-2010, 01:21 PM
Mr. Kotter thinks you should vote for whoever the winner ends up being.

Royal Fanatic
01-15-2010, 01:23 PM
Kennedy was a drunk, murdering, Daddy's boy. And anyone with any sense of fair mindedness knows this. I wouldn't bet much if I were if she knew the difference between moron and moran.
One of my favorite bumper stickers of the 1970s said this:

More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than in a nuclear accident.

After the Chernobyl disaster it was no longer true, but it was still funny.

Amnorix
01-15-2010, 01:28 PM
The poster child of Daddy's Boy's, Ted Kennedy. He makes G.W. Bush look like a real man.

Quick, someone toss this to Pete!


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OEoNzDCQX5s/SxxGvDlryUI/AAAAAAAABkw/dWSD4EX_dxY/s400/sense_of_humor-7627131.jpg

wild1
01-15-2010, 01:28 PM
Mr. Kotter thinks you should vote for whoever the winner ends up being.

It doesn't matter as long as everyone validates him by saying how moderate and reasonable and fair-minded he is.

Dallas Chief
01-15-2010, 01:31 PM
It's no wonder. Go see a Patriots board and you'll find moderates and independents swearing to vote in Brown if they have to drive in a blizzard.
I've got lots of family in Mass who are more D than R with the Rs being moderate. They hate what's happening. They hate Romney care too.

Are any of your kinfolk ever happy with anything???:p

petegz28
01-15-2010, 01:36 PM
It's no wonder. Go see a Patriots board and you'll find moderates and independents swearing to vote in Brown if they have to drive in a blizzard.
I've got lots of family in Mass who are more D than R with the Rs being moderate. They hate what's happening. They hate Romney care too.

I meant to ask if you have a link to any of this? I would like to read some of that stuff.

BucEyedPea
01-15-2010, 04:05 PM
Are any of your kinfolk ever happy with anything???:p

Since many are liberals. Yeah! They like living in Mass because they stayed there. Even my Mom, a liberal, liked Romney. That tells ya' something about him though doesn't it? A lot of them liked Weld too. As for the rest they moved to southern NH—the free state!

BucEyedPea
01-15-2010, 04:06 PM
I meant to ask if you have a link to any of this? I would like to read some of that stuff.

Check your rep for a link. The hard-lefty guy saying Coakley will win is a Colts fan though....just to warn ya'! One that lives in Southern California.

petegz28
01-15-2010, 04:10 PM
Check your rep for a link. The hard-lefty guy saying Coakley will win is a Colts fan though....just to warn ya'! One that lives in Southern California.

Thanks

KC Dan
01-15-2010, 04:11 PM
Quick, someone toss this to Pete!


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OEoNzDCQX5s/SxxGvDlryUI/AAAAAAAABkw/dWSD4EX_dxY/s400/sense_of_humor-7627131.jpg
Or, to Mary Jo....

BucEyedPea
01-15-2010, 04:30 PM
Are any of your kinfolk ever happy with anything???:p

Is anyone happy in this country anymore? Doesn't seem so, don't know why you pick just my family or Massholes.

RINGLEADER
01-15-2010, 07:49 PM
In answer to the question posted by this thread: you're smart and you know what it will do. All of the professed goals have been lost by politicians bribing each other and their special interest contituencies. Exclusions for this group. Payoff to that group. A promise to cover tens of millions of new people, offer better care and reduce the deficit. Read that last sentence again with a straight face after how this group, the same lot that is given the authority to administer the bill, has effectively built a mammoth new piece of legislation that no one would have supported at the start of the process.

Then factor in that this plan is, according to it's authors, only the beginning. They want more control and this bloated, over-priced gift to the special interests that offers no real improvements in reform (or at least improvements you couldn't get on a bi-partisan basis had that been the original goal) is just the beginning.

In other endeavora the participants of this farce would have already been indicted on charges of bribary. If not for a belief that this once in a lifetime opportunity shouldn't be wasted the Dems would have listened to their voters and the polls and pulled back from the brink.

But not this group.

Ask yourself what happens when there's another recession and our already stressed economy is forced to make up the revenue shortfall. What happens if the doctor fix or other cuts don't materialie again? What happens when more doctors follow the Mayo leas an opt out of Medicare because of the intrusion? Do you really believe giving control to a new layer of bureaucracy is going to make things better or worse? Do you want to even RISK our doctor offices and hospitals looking more like the DMV or Post Office?

At the core of this bill is a mandate that young purchase insurance to subsidize the elderly. We've played that game before and now the social security system is almost insolvent. Do you really want to give the government the ability to dictate what your doctor receives for the services he provides (and, by extension, what impact what services he offers)?

It's your choice to pick the candidate you think best suits your interests but on this issue there's a lot of evidence to suggest the health care reform bills being negotiated by the Dems have become purely political documents that have little chance of accomishing their originally stated goals.

mlyonsd
01-15-2010, 08:03 PM
The smart move by Obama would be if a bill F'd up as bad as this made it to his desk he'd tear it up and give a speech to congress telling them it is too important an issue to have hodge podged together in dirty back room dealings.

He'd suggest a biprtisan panel be set up to work through the issue and come up with a common congressional solution.

HC is a front burner issue that has had a ton of media coverage so the pressure would automatically switch to congress.

Then, and only then, when HC is approached from a bipartisan way with him leading it will it become a positive part of his legacy.

Today he runs the risk of signing a bill the majority of Americans disaprove of. He's heading for LBJ status if he follows through with it.

Mr. Kotter
01-15-2010, 08:15 PM
The smart move by Obama would be if a bill F'd up as bad as this made it to his desk he'd tear it up and give a speech to congress telling them it is too important an issue to have hodge podged together in dirty back room dealings.

He'd suggest a biprtisan panel be set up to work through the issue and come up with a common congressional solution.

HC is a front burner issue that has had a ton of media coverage so the pressure would automatically switch to congress.

Then, and only then, when HC is approached from a bipartisan way with him leading it will it become a positive part of his legacy.

Today he runs the risk of signing a bill the majority of Americans disaprove of. He's heading for LBJ status if he follows through with it.

Bipartisanship? Yeah, I would prefer that too. However, the truth is....Reps have been slow to intransigent to embrace ANYTHING that would constitute real reform. Instead, they've preferred to be obstructionists and to demagogue the issue at every opportunity. If there were anything approaching a good faith attempt by Republicans, to TRULY reach across the aisle in a bipartisan way....the Dems might have some reason for thinking there is a chance that what you suggest would be reasonable. However, I haven't seen it....and I doubt they have, so I doubt we'll see it. Too bad too, because I do think we could get a BETTER bill.

However, an incremental attempt that may need tweaking...is preferable to nothing (which is what we'd get if it were up to the GOP.)

mlyonsd
01-15-2010, 08:27 PM
Bipartisanship? Yeah, I would prefer that too. However, the truth is....Reps have been slow to intransigent to embrace ANYTHING that would constitute real reform. Instead, they've preferred to be obstructionists and to demagogue the issue at every opportunity. If there were anything approaching a good faith attempt by Republicans, to TRULY reach across the aisle in a bipartisan way....the Dems might have some reason for thinking there is a chance that what you suggest would be reasonable. However, I haven't seen it....and I doubt they have, so I doubt we'll see it. Too bad too, because I do think we could get a BETTER bill.

However, an incremental attempt that may need tweaking...is preferable to nothing (which is what we'd get if it were up to the GOP.)

The point of my post went completely over your head.

The issue is so large right now Obama can force reps into the debate if he wants to extend an olive branch, rather than signing a bill majority of Americans don't want, which could seal his legacy in a negative way.

He still has the chance to bring real change to Washington, whether or not he realizes this is his chance to save himself is up to him.

Mr. Kotter
01-15-2010, 08:40 PM
The point of my post went completely over your head.

The issue is so large right now Obama can force reps into the debate if he wants to extend an olive branch, rather than signing a bill majority of Americans don't want, which could seal his legacy in a negative way.

He still has the chance to bring real change to Washington, whether or not he realizes this is his chance to save himself is up to him.

I understand your point, and even agree to a point. Your foregone conclusion that the result of this current attempt to cobble together a bill is destined to be "negative" though, is dubious at best. You don't know; and neither do I. The truth is....this stuff is very, very complicated, and there has been so much posturing and misinformation and hysteria from both sides, no one really predict anything with certainty. I do believe if this current proposal doesn't work, like SS and Medicare, it will be tweaked over time. And while SS and medicare are not perfect, even most Reps have had to come to grudgingly support them as preferable to the alternatives. I see this playing out over time in much the same way.

petegz28
01-15-2010, 08:41 PM
Bipartisanship? Yeah, I would prefer that too. However, the truth is....Reps have been slow to intransigent to embrace ANYTHING that would constitute real reform. Instead, they've preferred to be obstructionists and to demagogue the issue at every opportunity. If there were anything approaching a good faith attempt by Republicans, to TRULY reach across the aisle in a bipartisan way....the Dems might have some reason for thinking there is a chance that what you suggest would be reasonable. However, I haven't seen it....and I doubt they have, so I doubt we'll see it. Too bad too, because I do think we could get a BETTER bill.

However, an incremental attempt that may need tweaking...is preferable to nothing (which is what we'd get if it were up to the GOP.)

How did Reps ever get anything passed without reaching across the isle when they have never had a super majority? Maybe if the health care talks were on C-Span like Mr. 8 times said they would be there wouldn't be so much misinformation?

Mr. Kotter
01-15-2010, 08:48 PM
How did Reps ever get anything passed without reaching across the isle when they have never had a super majority? Maybe if the health care talks were on C-Span like Mr. 8 times said they would be there wouldn't be so much misinformation?

Even when Reps had control of both houses and the Presidency, there was NEVER a serious good faith attempt to address healthcare. NEVER. So the idea that they might have been sincere in any effort this time is laughable, given their efforts to stonewall and demagogue. Yeah, ideally it should have been on CSPAN....but the Reps played a big role in preventing that as well through their foot-dragging and stone-walling. In fairness, they learned well from Dems during the Bush years--too well, sadly.

petegz28
01-15-2010, 09:00 PM
Even when Reps had control of both houses and the Presidency, there was NEVER a serious good faith attempt to address healthcare. NEVER. So the idea that they might have been sincere in any effort this time is laughable, given their efforts to stonewall and demagogue. Yeah, ideally it should have been on CSPAN....but the Reps played a big role in preventing that as well through their foot-dragging and stone-walling. In fairness, they learned well from Dems during the Bush years--too well, sadly.

BFD. I believe the Dems wouldn't ever budge on TORT reform so it isn't like there was any will to compromise on their part. Yes, now it is the Repubs fault the Dem super majority didn't have the talks on C-Span. As we have seen there is not 1 Repub vote required. So to say they stonewalled and etc is just pure bullshit and you know it.

JFC!

patteeu
01-16-2010, 05:46 AM
Since many are liberals. Yeah! They like living in Mass because they stayed there. Even my Mom, a liberal, liked Romney. That tells ya' something about him though doesn't it? A lot of them liked Weld too. As for the rest they moved to southern NH—the free state!

Yeah, it tells you that he's the kind of conservative that could have won a nationwide election as opposed to Ron Paul who couldn't even win a statewide primary.

patteeu
01-16-2010, 05:56 AM
Mr. Kotter is one of the few who can be happy with the current healthcare bill since he's more interested in getting something done than in what it actually is that's getting done. No ideology for Kotter, no sir.

As an aside, can someone tell me whether Kotter is considered a conservative or a liberal for purposes of NewPhin's "Intelligence of DC (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=221808)" poll?

mlyonsd
01-16-2010, 06:28 AM
I understand your point, and even agree to a point. Your foregone conclusion that the result of this current attempt to cobble together a bill is destined to be "negative" though, is dubious at best. You don't know; and neither do I. The truth is....this stuff is very, very complicated, and there has been so much posturing and misinformation and hysteria from both sides, no one really predict anything with certainty. I do believe if this current proposal doesn't work, like SS and Medicare, it will be tweaked over time. And while SS and medicare are not perfect, even most Reps have had to come to grudgingly support them as preferable to the alternatives. I see this playing out over time in much the same way.

I really don't think you understand what I'm saying but that's ok.

RINGLEADER
01-16-2010, 09:12 AM
Bipartisanship? Yeah, I would prefer that too. However, the truth is....Reps have been slow to intransigent to embrace ANYTHING that would constitute real reform. Instead, they've preferred to be obstructionists and to demagogue the issue at every opportunity. If there were anything approaching a good faith attempt by Republicans, to TRULY reach across the aisle in a bipartisan way....the Dems might have some reason for thinking there is a chance that what you suggest would be reasonable. However, I haven't seen it....and I doubt they have, so I doubt we'll see it. Too bad too, because I do think we could get a BETTER bill.

However, an incremental attempt that may need tweaking...is preferable to nothing (which is what we'd get if it were up to the GOP.)

They proposed plenty of things that could have had great bi-partisan support. Unfortunately, because of their goals and the process by which they went about it, you're now looking at a bill that wastes more, does less, and ultimately is unsustainable. They haven't fixed the problems with Medicare -- they avoided them. They haven't taken steps to improve health care -- they insured (in fact promised) that future changes will have to be made. It's a mess and it didn't need to be. You could have accomplished more with a ten page document but they just couldn't help themselves. They're interest isn't in fixing the problem -- it's in controlling it. And they needed 2000 pages to get that point across.

But the myth that there weren't alternatives proposed is just that -- a myth. Of course it's hard to hear the ideas of others when you're locked in a room and shielded from those alternatives but that's another story...

HonestChieffan
01-16-2010, 12:56 PM
Its good for Unions. Thats all they need to know.

Taco John
01-16-2010, 02:34 PM
Mr. Kotter is one of the few who can be happy with the current healthcare bill since he's more interested in getting something done than in what it actually is that's getting done. No ideology for Kotter, no sir.

As an aside, can someone tell me whether Kotter is considered a conservative or a liberal for purposes of NewPhin's "Intelligence of DC (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=221808)" poll?


He's considered a weathervane. Check who is in power now, and Kotter is on all fours offering horsey rides to any cool kids who'd like to take a spin.

The Mad Crapper
01-16-2010, 07:43 PM
President Umar Barack Farouk Hussein Abdulmutallab Obama is a turd.