-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Start Over?... Really?...
Author: BobR
Date: 12/16/2009 12:02:23
As every day passes, it becomes ever more clear that no one is happy with the health care reform bill in the Senate. Republicans are trying to gut it until it becomes a weak excuse for reform. Liberals are becoming ever more frustrated and have called for it to be scrapped. Is that really the best approach?
Back when President Obama made health care reform one of his top priorities, liberals and progressives were giddy with anticipation. Everyone began drawing lines in the sand as to what was acceptable and what wasn't (some liberals insisted anything less than single-payer was worthless). Meanwhile, Republicans were insistent that if they could "kill" health care reform, it would be Obama's "Waterloo". As the bill continues to be watered down, it is apparent that the Blue Dog Democrats and the hard-line progressives may end up granting the Republicans their wish to kill the bill.
I feel the need to continuously remind myself and my friends what health care reform was supposed to accomplish. In my mind:
1) Eliminate, or at least reduce insurance company malfeasance. This means no more pre-existing condition limitations, no more dropping clients when they get sick, making good on payments, and charging everyone the same amount for coverage.
2) Ensure that everyone is covered.
3) Reduce costs.
If all 3 of these things were accomplished in some form or fashion, I would feel like we had real health care reform. Some people (myself included from time to time), however, got hung up on the means and lost sight of the ends. The "Public Option" has become a rallying issue for the left, with everyone having a different idea about what it's for and who's going to have access to that "option". It reminds me of the whole "traditional family values" tag that Republicans used in the 80s. It meant something different to everyone, but everyone felt it was important.
The reality is that the 3 things could (and can) be achieved without the public option via tight regulations and proper funding. The big question is whether the bill will have strong enough regulations to achieve the necessary goals, since it seems the Democrats are willing to negotiate the public option away. Even President Obama seems willing to go along without it if it means getting the rest of the bill passed. If they do end up negotiating it away, they better create regulations for the insurance companies and provide funding for those that can't afford coverage.
I get distressed, though, when my fellow progressives throw their hands up in the air and say "scrap it and start over". Really?... start over?... How realistic is it that a new bill would be created if the current one were scrapped? How long has it taken just to get this bill out of all those freakin' committees? If this bill gets "scrapped", there will NOT be another bill - of this I am certain. Scrapping the bill equates to the death of health care reform. I absolutely do NOT want this bill scrapped.
Howard Dean is one of those stating that the Senate bill should be scrapped. However, he thinks they should just use the House bill, do reconciliation with it, and pass it with 50 votes. That's an interesting approach. Why would the Senate bill need to be scrapped to do this? Why not pass the Senate bill, then fix all the crap in reconciliation with the House bill, and pass it with a 50% vote?
This can get done without starting over. It just requires that we draw our lines in the sand with regard to the goals, rather than the means to achieve them.
Back when President Obama made health care reform one of his top priorities, liberals and progressives were giddy with anticipation. Everyone began drawing lines in the sand as to what was acceptable and what wasn't (some liberals insisted anything less than single-payer was worthless). Meanwhile, Republicans were insistent that if they could "kill" health care reform, it would be Obama's "Waterloo". As the bill continues to be watered down, it is apparent that the Blue Dog Democrats and the hard-line progressives may end up granting the Republicans their wish to kill the bill.
I feel the need to continuously remind myself and my friends what health care reform was supposed to accomplish. In my mind:
1) Eliminate, or at least reduce insurance company malfeasance. This means no more pre-existing condition limitations, no more dropping clients when they get sick, making good on payments, and charging everyone the same amount for coverage.
2) Ensure that everyone is covered.
3) Reduce costs.
If all 3 of these things were accomplished in some form or fashion, I would feel like we had real health care reform. Some people (myself included from time to time), however, got hung up on the means and lost sight of the ends. The "Public Option" has become a rallying issue for the left, with everyone having a different idea about what it's for and who's going to have access to that "option". It reminds me of the whole "traditional family values" tag that Republicans used in the 80s. It meant something different to everyone, but everyone felt it was important.
The reality is that the 3 things could (and can) be achieved without the public option via tight regulations and proper funding. The big question is whether the bill will have strong enough regulations to achieve the necessary goals, since it seems the Democrats are willing to negotiate the public option away. Even President Obama seems willing to go along without it if it means getting the rest of the bill passed. If they do end up negotiating it away, they better create regulations for the insurance companies and provide funding for those that can't afford coverage.
I get distressed, though, when my fellow progressives throw their hands up in the air and say "scrap it and start over". Really?... start over?... How realistic is it that a new bill would be created if the current one were scrapped? How long has it taken just to get this bill out of all those freakin' committees? If this bill gets "scrapped", there will NOT be another bill - of this I am certain. Scrapping the bill equates to the death of health care reform. I absolutely do NOT want this bill scrapped.
Howard Dean is one of those stating that the Senate bill should be scrapped. However, he thinks they should just use the House bill, do reconciliation with it, and pass it with 50 votes. That's an interesting approach. Why would the Senate bill need to be scrapped to do this? Why not pass the Senate bill, then fix all the crap in reconciliation with the House bill, and pass it with a 50% vote?
This can get done without starting over. It just requires that we draw our lines in the sand with regard to the goals, rather than the means to achieve them.
Comments:
Order comments Newest to Oldest Refresh Comments
Comment by 
wickedpam on 12/16/2009 13:49:46
wickedpam on 12/16/2009 13:49:46
See now when you put the HC thing like I don't feel do awful about it.
I am however, still incredibly frustrated with Dems who are letting themselves toyed with and are having no backbone esp with Traitor Joe.
Morning
I am however, still incredibly frustrated with Dems who are letting themselves toyed with and are having no backbone esp with Traitor Joe.
Morning
Comment by 
Scoopster on 12/16/2009 14:03:35
Scoopster on 12/16/2009 14:03:35
Morning all! 
Pardon me for asking, but this recent development along with this morning's bloggie has raised a question of procedure that I'm not completely familiar with. I understand cloture - 60 votes is needed to limit debate and bring a bill to a vote. But there's something that I've been hearing that is causing confusion.
Let's do a hypothetical here. Let's say this Senate atrocity gets through cloture and passes a majority vote. It goes to reconciliation, at which point the House bill wins out and becomes the final bill. It will have to go back to the Senate for final passage. At that point, would it need another cloture vote before the final passage vote? Or would the first cloture vote be all that is needed?
Pardon me for asking, but this recent development along with this morning's bloggie has raised a question of procedure that I'm not completely familiar with. I understand cloture - 60 votes is needed to limit debate and bring a bill to a vote. But there's something that I've been hearing that is causing confusion.
Let's do a hypothetical here. Let's say this Senate atrocity gets through cloture and passes a majority vote. It goes to reconciliation, at which point the House bill wins out and becomes the final bill. It will have to go back to the Senate for final passage. At that point, would it need another cloture vote before the final passage vote? Or would the first cloture vote be all that is needed?
Comment by 
Raine on 12/16/2009 14:08:05
I am going to look into that Scoop. I am really not sure.
Raine on 12/16/2009 14:08:05
Quote by Scoopster:
Morning all!
Pardon me for asking, but this recent development along with this morning's bloggie has raised a question of procedure that I'm not completely familiar with. I understand cloture - 60 votes is needed to limit debate and bring a bill to a vote. But there's something that I've been hearing that is causing confusion.
Let's do a hypothetical here. Let's say this Senate atrocity gets through cloture and passes a majority vote. It goes to reconciliation, at which point the House bill wins out and becomes the final bill. It will have to go back to the Senate for final passage. At that point, would it need another cloture vote before the final passage vote? Or would the first cloture vote be all that is needed?
I am going to look into that Scoop. I am really not sure.
Comment by Raine on 12/16/2009 14:14:54
Raine on 12/16/2009 14:14:54
"speculatation" ? Chris? 
Comment by Raine on 12/16/2009 14:48:34
Raine on 12/16/2009 14:48:34
Did KTLK just switch over to music???
Comment by wickedpam on 12/16/2009 14:57:54
Yeah - they've been doing that for a couple of days now
wickedpam on 12/16/2009 14:57:54
Quote by Raine:
Did KTLK just switch over to music???
Yeah - they've been doing that for a couple of days now
Comment by 
BobR on 12/16/2009 14:58:27
BobR on 12/16/2009 14:58:27
okay - this woman saying the only way for progressives to win is to kill the bill? She must be a Republican, because killing the bill helps Republicans more than it helps progressives...
Comment by Raine on 12/16/2009 14:59:09
I am sorry -- we kill the bill and the Republicans get exactly what THEY want-- and the Insurance companies do too.
Does anyone think they will stop raising premiums or dropping people from coverage if we kill the bill?
Raine on 12/16/2009 14:59:09
I am sorry -- we kill the bill and the Republicans get exactly what THEY want-- and the Insurance companies do too. Does anyone think they will stop raising premiums or dropping people from coverage if we kill the bill?
Comment by BobR on 12/16/2009 15:00:29
I believe the 2/3 majority is needed for cloture (moving a bill out of committee and bringing it to a general vote) but only a simple majority is needed for it to pass. Adter reconcilliation, both houses need to vote on the modified bill again, but a simple majority will get it through.
BobR on 12/16/2009 15:00:29
Quote by Scoopster:
Morning all!
Pardon me for asking, but this recent development along with this morning's bloggie has raised a question of procedure that I'm not completely familiar with. I understand cloture - 60 votes is needed to limit debate and bring a bill to a vote. But there's something that I've been hearing that is causing confusion.
Let's do a hypothetical here. Let's say this Senate atrocity gets through cloture and passes a majority vote. It goes to reconciliation, at which point the House bill wins out and becomes the final bill. It will have to go back to the Senate for final passage. At that point, would it need another cloture vote before the final passage vote? Or would the first cloture vote be all that is needed?
I believe the 2/3 majority is needed for cloture (moving a bill out of committee and bringing it to a general vote) but only a simple majority is needed for it to pass. Adter reconcilliation, both houses need to vote on the modified bill again, but a simple majority will get it through.
Comment by wickedpam on 12/16/2009 15:06:11
wickedpam on 12/16/2009 15:06:11
ya know I don't think people realize that killing it lets the Rupubs win - I mean I didn't even think about it until Bob pointed it out, I was just so focused on things other then that
Comment by Al from WV on 12/16/2009 15:19:43
I stand by to be corrected by Raine, but here's what I understand:
Cloture is the vote (simliar to a veto override) that makes a filibuster null and void. If there is a cloture vote (same as the number needed to stop a filibuster) then the filibuster idea becomes impotent, just as a presidential veto is impotent if overridden by vote.
Ergo, the cloture vote would apply to each debate, and would "expire" so to speak, when the debate was over.
On the other hand, the practical aspect is that if the Senate got cloture on their bill, and if the House version was not all that much different, cloture might well be more easily attained than if one were starting from scratch.
Again, only my understanding off the top of my head.
Quote by Scoopster:
Morning all!
Pardon me for asking, but this recent development along with this morning's bloggie has raised a question of procedure that I'm not completely familiar with. I understand cloture - 60 votes is needed to limit debate and bring a bill to a vote. But there's something that I've been hearing that is causing confusion.
Let's do a hypothetical here. Let's say this Senate atrocity gets through cloture and passes a majority vote. It goes to reconciliation, at which point the House bill wins out and becomes the final bill. It will have to go back to the Senate for final passage. At that point, would it need another cloture vote before the final passage vote? Or would the first cloture vote be all that is needed?
I stand by to be corrected by Raine, but here's what I understand:
Cloture is the vote (simliar to a veto override) that makes a filibuster null and void. If there is a cloture vote (same as the number needed to stop a filibuster) then the filibuster idea becomes impotent, just as a presidential veto is impotent if overridden by vote.
Ergo, the cloture vote would apply to each debate, and would "expire" so to speak, when the debate was over.
On the other hand, the practical aspect is that if the Senate got cloture on their bill, and if the House version was not all that much different, cloture might well be more easily attained than if one were starting from scratch.
Again, only my understanding off the top of my head.
Comment by wickedpam on 12/16/2009 15:35:37
wickedpam on 12/16/2009 15:35:37
I'm embarassed to say I sing along with this song in the car 
Comment by Raine on 12/16/2009 15:39:28
everybody does, it is FEDERAL LAW!!!
Raine on 12/16/2009 15:39:28
Quote by wickedpam:
I'm embarassed to say I sing along with this song in the car
everybody does, it is FEDERAL LAW!!!
Comment by 
livingonli on 12/16/2009 16:33:14
livingonli on 12/16/2009 16:33:14
Good morning everyone
I'm still pissed that we got where we are because they want to appease that weasel Lieberman. I really want him to get Berlusconi-ed by someone who's been screwed over by the healthcare system.
I'm still pissed that we got where we are because they want to appease that weasel Lieberman. I really want him to get Berlusconi-ed by someone who's been screwed over by the healthcare system.
Comment by wickedpam on 12/16/2009 17:15:27
wickedpam on 12/16/2009 17:15:27
Comment by 
TriSec on 12/16/2009 17:30:47
TriSec on 12/16/2009 17:30:47
Howdy folks. 
A disillusioned and defeatist TriSec drags himself to the blog.
This is really the best they can do for my dead senator's legacy?
A disillusioned and defeatist TriSec drags himself to the blog.
This is really the best they can do for my dead senator's legacy?
Comment by Raine on 12/16/2009 17:43:08
Sadly, and I mean that-- yes. With this current crop of elected officials, yes.
I have said this before and I will say it again, until we start elected progressives, this is the best we can get. Howard Dean's 50 State strategy may have gotten us a majority, but it did so by elected conservadems. That was a great flaw to that strategy.
That said, this is the beginning... NOT the end, and I really think even Ted Kennedy would agree with that. See the link I posted before, it really makes sense.
Raine on 12/16/2009 17:43:08
Quote by TriSec:
Howdy folks.
A disillusioned and defeatist TriSec drags himself to the blog.
This is really the best they can do for my dead senator's legacy?
I have said this before and I will say it again, until we start elected progressives, this is the best we can get. Howard Dean's 50 State strategy may have gotten us a majority, but it did so by elected conservadems. That was a great flaw to that strategy.
That said, this is the beginning... NOT the end, and I really think even Ted Kennedy would agree with that. See the link I posted before, it really makes sense.
Comment by Will in Chicago on 12/16/2009 17:44:29
Will in Chicago on 12/16/2009 17:44:29
Hello, bloggers! Excellent post, BobR, although I am not certain where we go from here.
I am disappointed in the Democrats in the House, the Senate, and in the White House. Maybe I just need to step back, but I am afraid that we will not get a bill worth the paper that it is printed on.
I am disappointed in the Democrats in the House, the Senate, and in the White House. Maybe I just need to step back, but I am afraid that we will not get a bill worth the paper that it is printed on.
Comment by Raine on 12/16/2009 17:54:21
Raine on 12/16/2009 17:54:21
oooh -- caller calling out Thom!!
Comment by Raine on 12/16/2009 17:58:58
Will,
Read this.
Things are settling down here, Will -- I am thinking (if you will have me) of returning the TPKRT after the holiday. Ready and willing to be flamed...
Raine on 12/16/2009 17:58:58
Quote by Will in Phoenix:
Hello, bloggers! Excellent post, BobR, although I am not certain where we go from here.
I am disappointed in the Democrats in the House, the Senate, and in the White House. Maybe I just need to step back, but I am afraid that we will not get a bill worth the paper that it is printed on.
Read this.
Things are settling down here, Will -- I am thinking (if you will have me) of returning the TPKRT after the holiday. Ready and willing to be flamed...
Comment by Will in Chicago on 12/16/2009 18:02:15
Will in Chicago on 12/16/2009 18:02:15
Hi, Raine!
I am trying to be optimistic, just a little down. I know that this is, to use a phrase Ed Schultz repeats often, a marathon not a sprint.
Sadly, I think that PKRT has come to an end at UNN. Let's say that spirits are not particularly bright this season. (PM me if you want to talk about it privately.)
I am trying to be optimistic, just a little down. I know that this is, to use a phrase Ed Schultz repeats often, a marathon not a sprint.
Sadly, I think that PKRT has come to an end at UNN. Let's say that spirits are not particularly bright this season. (PM me if you want to talk about it privately.)
Comment by Will in Chicago on 12/16/2009 18:06:23
Will in Chicago on 12/16/2009 18:06:23
Raine, the article was a good read. Maybe we can get whatever can be passed modified by a new Congress after the 2010 elections.
Comment by Raine on 12/16/2009 18:18:07
Oh dear. I am sorry to hear that. Yes send me a PM either at UNN or at the other place.
I find myself breaking a lot these days with my fellow progressives on a few issues, and it is hard. Believe me, I have had many days where I feel very down, but I always try to remind myself that this is a unique point for all of us, the motives are not the same, and that means the world to me.
Raine on 12/16/2009 18:18:07
Quote by Will in Phoenix:
Hi, Raine!
I am trying to be optimistic, just a little down. I know that this is, to use a phrase Ed Schultz repeats often, a marathon not a sprint.
Sadly, I think that PKRT has come to an end at UNN. Let's say that spirits are not particularly bright this season. (PM me if you want to talk about it privately.)
Oh dear. I am sorry to hear that. Yes send me a PM either at UNN or at the other place.
I find myself breaking a lot these days with my fellow progressives on a few issues, and it is hard. Believe me, I have had many days where I feel very down, but I always try to remind myself that this is a unique point for all of us, the motives are not the same, and that means the world to me.
Comment by Raine on 12/16/2009 18:21:34
Raine on 12/16/2009 18:21:34
Thom -- The mandate is REALLY expected to be dropped from the bill.
Comment by Raine on 12/16/2009 18:34:34
Raine on 12/16/2009 18:34:34
Another important article, From Ezra Klein -- here is a big point, regarding Howard Dean calling for the bill to be killed:
Re-reading Dean's plan is useful to anyone looking for a bit of perspective on the national debate. The Vermonter was, of course, one of the more liberal candidates in the race, and the most oriented toward health care. But there was no public plan in his proposal. There wasn't even a co-op. Dean's plan would have insured millions fewer people than the bills being considered in the House or the bill that we think we'll see out of the Senate. As I read the policy -- and it's possible there's a more detailed summary than the one I've dug up -- it didn't even include insurance market reforms like banning discrimination based on preexisting conditions or outlawing rescission.
Comment by Will in Chicago on 12/16/2009 18:39:52
Will in Chicago on 12/16/2009 18:39:52
Raine, I sent you a PM on the boards here.
I guess we will see what happens.
I guess we will see what happens.
Comment by wickedpam on 12/16/2009 18:52:35
wickedpam on 12/16/2009 18:52:35
You know I wonder if we aren't doing what every person does, wanting what looks better then what we might get.
For example, while watching the Amazing Race (hold the eye rolls ) they went to Sweden. On the show there was this amazing public transit system, it was clean, modern, highly used and seemed to go everywhere they needed to be. I thought why can't we have there here. Its amazing, it would help me so much to get to and from work.
Then I realized well, I live around DC, we have Metro, VRE, MARC and that's just the train systems - they go most places people want to be -yeah I would like them to stretch out to where I live and go closer to work - but they are working on things like that. And really VRE runs right through my town it just doesn't end at a useable spot for me.
But I'm off my point - anyway what I saying is maybe we keep seeing Europe and Canada and these places that have over the years created these systems that work for their people. They look amazing - now, I don't recall what they looked like at the start. We all want what they've taken time to build. I think we forget that we're still at the start.
did that make sense?
For example, while watching the Amazing Race (hold the eye rolls
) they went to Sweden. On the show there was this amazing public transit system, it was clean, modern, highly used and seemed to go everywhere they needed to be. I thought why can't we have there here. Its amazing, it would help me so much to get to and from work.Then I realized well, I live around DC, we have Metro, VRE, MARC and that's just the train systems - they go most places people want to be -yeah I would like them to stretch out to where I live and go closer to work - but they are working on things like that. And really VRE runs right through my town it just doesn't end at a useable spot for me.
But I'm off my point - anyway what I saying is maybe we keep seeing Europe and Canada and these places that have over the years created these systems that work for their people. They look amazing - now, I don't recall what they looked like at the start. We all want what they've taken time to build. I think we forget that we're still at the start.
did that make sense?
Comment by Raine on 12/16/2009 19:14:27
Perfect Sense, Mala.
I think you made a most cohesive point. Especially the part where it should be questioned, did Canada, England Sweden and France (and many others) all start out from perfect?
it is a great question.
Raine on 12/16/2009 19:14:27
Quote by wickedpam:
did that make sense?
I think you made a most cohesive point. Especially the part where it should be questioned, did Canada, England Sweden and France (and many others) all start out from perfect?
it is a great question.
Comment by wickedpam on 12/16/2009 19:19:21
Occasionally I have a salient thought 
wickedpam on 12/16/2009 19:19:21
Occasionally I have a salient thought
Comment by Raine on 12/16/2009 19:22:29
More than you give yourself credit.
I had not thought of that, and I can't tell you how much I appreciate that thought.
Raine on 12/16/2009 19:22:29
Quote by wickedpam:
More than you give yourself credit.
I had not thought of that, and I can't tell you how much I appreciate that thought.
Comment by 
Mondobubba on 12/16/2009 19:23:24
Here's a KOS diary in the same vein
Hello all. :grump:
Mondobubba on 12/16/2009 19:23:24
Quote by Raine:
This is a MUST read about #hcr.
So pragmatic.
Here's a KOS diary in the same vein
Hello all. :grump:
Comment by wickedpam on 12/16/2009 19:25:23
aaww shucks
wickedpam on 12/16/2009 19:25:23
Quote by Raine:Quote by wickedpam:
More than you give yourself credit.
I had not thought of that, and I can't tell you how much I appreciate that thought.
aaww shucks
Comment by Mondobubba on 12/16/2009 19:27:22
Mondobubba on 12/16/2009 19:27:22
Hey in other news, the FTC is suing Intel for antitrust violations.
Comment by Raine on 12/16/2009 20:05:27
Raine on 12/16/2009 20:05:27
BTW, I got a confirm regarding Scoop's question:
After we get thru cloture, we only need a simple majority for the Bill.
After we get thru cloture, we only need a simple majority for the Bill.
Comment by Raine on 12/16/2009 20:07:34
Raine on 12/16/2009 20:07:34
Oh NO!!! Howard had a heart attack!
Randi -- that must have been horrible.
Randi -- that must have been horrible.
Comment by wickedpam on 12/16/2009 20:19:56
not listening - what happened?
wickedpam on 12/16/2009 20:19:56
Quote by Raine:
Oh NO!!! Howard had a heart attack!
Randi -- that must have been horrible.
not listening - what happened?
Comment by Raine on 12/16/2009 20:24:24
They were biblical and he had a heart attack.
the rest is too funny, evidently after he was ok, he pulled out a WSJ -- because as she said 'that is what does it for him' to make sure things were still working..
he's going to be ok, but she went on to talk about life insurance and health insurance and asked a critical and scary question, knowing that howard has HEalth insurance, she didn't have to worry, but what about people who have no Health insurance? This cost about 100k, what do poor women (or men) do when they have life insurance? YEs it is morbid, yes it's uncomfortable, but really, don't poor people face that issue alot more than we want to think about?
Raine on 12/16/2009 20:24:24
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
Oh NO!!! Howard had a heart attack!
Randi -- that must have been horrible.
not listening - what happened?
They were biblical and he had a heart attack.
the rest is too funny, evidently after he was ok, he pulled out a WSJ -- because as she said 'that is what does it for him' to make sure things were still working..
he's going to be ok, but she went on to talk about life insurance and health insurance and asked a critical and scary question, knowing that howard has HEalth insurance, she didn't have to worry, but what about people who have no Health insurance? This cost about 100k, what do poor women (or men) do when they have life insurance? YEs it is morbid, yes it's uncomfortable, but really, don't poor people face that issue alot more than we want to think about?
Comment by wickedpam on 12/16/2009 20:34:06
wickedpam on 12/16/2009 20:34:06
oh no! Think that might be a little to much TMI about Randi 
That is a good question about ins. though
That is a good question about ins. though
Comment by Raine on 12/16/2009 20:36:03
If you heard it, she pulled it off perfectly.
anf the other question was really a great ponderance.
Raine on 12/16/2009 20:36:03
Quote by wickedpam:
oh no! Think that might be a little to much TMI about Randi
That is a good question about ins. though
If you heard it, she pulled it off perfectly.
anf the other question was really a great ponderance.
Comment by Scoopster on 12/16/2009 21:11:29
Actually my question is whether a second cloture vote is necessary when the bill comes back from a reconciliation with the House, but that's ok.
BTW, I have to say it after hearing this shit about the White House choosing Benedict Lieberman over Howard Dean - If that's the case, then I'm done supporting & defending this administration's efforts. I won't get duped again.
Scoopster on 12/16/2009 21:11:29
Quote by Raine:
BTW, I got a confirm regarding Scoop's question:
After we get thru cloture, we only need a simple majority for the Bill.
Actually my question is whether a second cloture vote is necessary when the bill comes back from a reconciliation with the House, but that's ok.
BTW, I have to say it after hearing this shit about the White House choosing Benedict Lieberman over Howard Dean - If that's the case, then I'm done supporting & defending this administration's efforts. I won't get duped again.
Comment by Raine on 12/16/2009 22:12:39
We never had the votes for Cloture. Lieberman is scum -- but we NEVER had the votes. He took advantage of that to get what he wanted. That is why is he is a scumbag.
We didn't have the votes for Cloture. And Scoop, we may disagree, but I refuse to believe that scrapping the bill as dean has said is the way to go. I will go on the record here, with my friends here, I disagree with Howard Dean.
I don't know for sure about the WH choosing Lieberman over Dean, I know that the WH is not pleased with Dean for asking to have the bill scrapped. We are talking politics here. Serious politics.
What do we Gain by having the bill killed?
Raine on 12/16/2009 22:12:39
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Raine:
BTW, I got a confirm regarding Scoop's question:
After we get thru cloture, we only need a simple majority for the Bill.
Actually my question is whether a second cloture vote is necessary when the bill comes back from a reconciliation with the House, but that's ok.
BTW, I have to say it after hearing this shit about the White House choosing Benedict Lieberman over Howard Dean - If that's the case, then I'm done supporting & defending this administration's efforts. I won't get duped again.
We didn't have the votes for Cloture. And Scoop, we may disagree, but I refuse to believe that scrapping the bill as dean has said is the way to go. I will go on the record here, with my friends here, I disagree with Howard Dean.
I don't know for sure about the WH choosing Lieberman over Dean, I know that the WH is not pleased with Dean for asking to have the bill scrapped. We are talking politics here. Serious politics.
What do we Gain by having the bill killed?
Comment by Scoopster on 12/17/2009 00:20:58
Scoopster on 12/17/2009 00:20:58
Raine, I'm not arguing that killing the bill is the path. I'm saying that in its current form, the minor changes this bill would make will not make a long-term difference in the quality or cost of health care in this country. And this is why.
I understand that Lieberman was never there as a reliable vote. That's not my problem here. My problem is that rather than choosing to side with the best option and saying that we gave it our best shot, the Obama Administration instead took the side of the corporate lobby by supporting a weak, do-next-to-nothing bill. That's not admitting defeat - it's finally fessing up that he was never on the same side as the people who supported him.
I voted for a man I expected to be like Ted Kennedy, not Joe Lieberman. I was duped, and so was Ted's legacy.
I understand that Lieberman was never there as a reliable vote. That's not my problem here. My problem is that rather than choosing to side with the best option and saying that we gave it our best shot, the Obama Administration instead took the side of the corporate lobby by supporting a weak, do-next-to-nothing bill. That's not admitting defeat - it's finally fessing up that he was never on the same side as the people who supported him.
I voted for a man I expected to be like Ted Kennedy, not Joe Lieberman. I was duped, and so was Ted's legacy.
Comment by 
velveeta jones on 12/17/2009 00:23:37
velveeta jones on 12/17/2009 00:23:37
Passing through!
Hey all.
Work and busy tweens (with sleepovers) have kept us SUPER busy. And with Christmas thrown in..... wow!
So.... are we having the blogger Joe? Did I miss it?
Hey all.
Work and busy tweens (with sleepovers) have kept us SUPER busy. And with Christmas thrown in..... wow!
So.... are we having the blogger Joe? Did I miss it?
Comment by Scoopster on 12/17/2009 00:29:27
I'd ask her one question - how are the 30 million Americans who would be mandated to get coverage going to afford it when the two things that MUST be done to lower those costs - having a public-run insurance agency and ending the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies - will NOT be done?
Scoopster on 12/17/2009 00:29:27
Quote by Mondobubba:
Scoop, take a deep breath and read this, okay?
I'd ask her one question - how are the 30 million Americans who would be mandated to get coverage going to afford it when the two things that MUST be done to lower those costs - having a public-run insurance agency and ending the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies - will NOT be done?
Comment by Mondobubba on 12/17/2009 00:53:32
Scoop, you actually thought Obama was a progressive/liberal hope? Really? The last real liberal that ran for President as a Democrat was George McGovern, He managed to win two states and Washington, DC. I don't think we will ever elect a real liberal in my lifetime. Hell even FDR, the great liberal icon wasn't all that liberal. Pragmatic as hell, but not a real liberal.
Mondobubba on 12/17/2009 00:53:32
Quote by Scoopster:
Raine, I'm not arguing that killing the bill is the path. I'm saying that in its current form, the minor changes this bill would make will not make a long-term difference in the quality or cost of health care in this country. And this is why.
I understand that Lieberman was never there as a reliable vote. That's not my problem here. My problem is that rather than choosing to side with the best option and saying that we gave it our best shot, the Obama Administration instead took the side of the corporate lobby by supporting a weak, do-next-to-nothing bill. That's not admitting defeat - it's finally fessing up that he was never on the same side as the people who supported him.
I voted for a man I expected to be like Ted Kennedy, not Joe Lieberman. I was duped, and so was Ted's legacy.
Scoop, you actually thought Obama was a progressive/liberal hope? Really? The last real liberal that ran for President as a Democrat was George McGovern, He managed to win two states and Washington, DC. I don't think we will ever elect a real liberal in my lifetime. Hell even FDR, the great liberal icon wasn't all that liberal. Pragmatic as hell, but not a real liberal.