Health Reform: 59 and counting… 60 Votes To Proceed To Debate

So Senator Landrieu will support the motion to proceed on debate but there is no guarantee of her support on the merits of the bill. And this after that $100 million earmark hidden in the bill. Calls to mind the old saw about the most despicable kind of politician — someone who once bribed, won’t stay bribed.

Wonder what Blanche Lincoln’s vote to proceed is going to cost? But then I accept vote buying with taxpayer money is part of a rich tradition, particularly in Cook County. Now I can hardly wait for the inevitable and value-free responses that “everyone does it.”

Cannot imagine Lincoln going “no” after Landrieu and Nelson are on board. The vote probably passes tonight, but that’s just the beginning. Like Nelson and Landrieu said, changes have to be made .

http://www.political-buzz.com/

I can hardly wait for the inevitable and value-free responses that “everyone does it.”
.
You won’t hear that from us leftists.
.
Acceptance of the corrupt status quo isn’t really a hallmark of liberalism, as I’m sure you must be aware.

KT:

This marks the beginning of what promise to be weeks of tendentious debate on the Senate floor. The real fights–over the public option, abortion, taxes, whether to require individuals to buy coverage and businesses to provide it–still lie ahead after the Thanksgiving recess.

This is insane.
.
They need to have put together a jobs bill yesterday…last month…two months ago.
.
How can centrist Democrats be this incompetent at governing? Aren’t they the ones with the least secure seats, supposedly?
.
If the Congress waits until the end of 2010 to be done debating a jobs bill, we’re looking at catastrophic losses for the Dems, I’m afraid.
.
Doesn’t anybody on the Hill have a sense of what unemployment and continued foreclosure waves mean for their futures, KT? Doesn’t the White House understand what’s going on in the country?

Has anyone mentioned that the $100 million is for low income Americans?
.
Maybe, just maybe, the definition of “bribe” needs to be looked at a little more closely, because as I remember, being bribed implies…

This is just one step in a process, but at least it will get this far.
.
I think that for the Dems to get 60 without the type of discipline that is characteristic of the GOP is a major accomplishment, but how long can we depend on the GOP to provide the impetus for what will be a string of 60-40 votes?
.
It’s never happened before. Never. The WH, Pelosi and Reid need to hew to that reality. They will have to learn how to be satisfied with 50+ votes to press the rest of their agenda. This strategy is dead despite this success.
.
The 49% approval rating Obama suffers right now isn’t just due to right wing mudslinging, it’s also due to others who are firmly in the Democratic camp feeling shortchanged by the administrations’ strategy of sacrificing principles to get the superfluous 9 votes need to prevent filibuster
.
It’s time to move back to strategies for simple majorities coupled with intensely aggressive campaigns to make sure the voices of reason are louder than those of FOXworld.
.
Let ‘em filibuster, but make sure they take the blame that goes along with it. Only by making that kind of change in their strategy will the avoid the fate that SZ envisions above…

The Dems, with Obama’s connivance, have gotten into a corner with no way out.
If they proceed to debate a half-baked bill on the floor, it will look very damaging, unless the Republicans are total idiots and rescue them. Which is not totally implausible.
If they send the mess back to committee, which is where it belongs until it is closer to a final bill, the Dems look incompetent. Hard to blame the Republicans for that.
The best way out is to debate for two weeks, and call the vote before the Christmas recess. When it is defeated, the Dems will hope they can make the case that the Republicans, the party of ‘No,’ sank it.
If this isn’t dead before the recess, voter feedback on Congressmen at home will be significantly more hostile than it was in August. We won’t need global warming for legislators to have a warm holiday season.
For Republicans with a very cynical but pragmatic view toward the 2012 races, letting this bill pass will assure huge Democratic losses. Imagine passing a bill which raises taxes and insurance premiums now with the benefits to begin in 2013.

It would be perfectly principled for Landrieu or any senator to vote to proceed, then for cloture, but vote against the final bill (which would presumably pass with fewer than 60 votes but more than 50). The Republican attempt to institutionalize the filibuster, to make all Senatorial business dependent upon a 60-vote supermajority, is utterly illegitimate.

To say that a vote to proceed, or a vote for cloture, is a vote for the bill itself is a damnable lie, and must be described as such.

53_3
.
The proposition of increasing Federal medical assistance by 50 percent for states for which the President has declared a disaster within the past seven years should be debated on its own merits.
.
I’d like to know how anybody knows with certainty that such a provision was included to buy Mary Landrieu’s vote, but if we did know that, it would be corrupt, if not bribery in the legal sense of the word.
.
Of course something doesn’t have to be illegal to be wrong, and there’s such thing as the spirit of the law.
.
It doesn’t matter if the vote-buying is for a supposedly worthy cause. Assistance procured this way is illegitimate, and textbook poor governance.
.
You know in your heart that this is wrong, 53_3. We all do.
Also, we really, really need to make sure that tax-payer help provided to “poor people” under Democratic rule is done in the most above-board way possible, or we’re in for another “welfare queen” debate –which we’ll lose again during economic hard times for everyone but the wealthiest. Middle class Americans have to be on board with Federal assistance, otherwise we will be open to charges of patronage, favoritism and all the old accusations conservatives have used to drive wedges between have-somes and have-littles at our expense.
.
Plus, the end of the road for us is that DLC centrists like Landrieu use us to defend “helping the poor”, and then betray us as soon as the dynamic I’ve described above runs its course. Remember DLC’s Bill Clinton “ending welfare as we know it”? Remember how the centrists blamed liberals for Democratic losses, 53_3?

It’s not all Dems that have done this, it’s the leadership and New Democrat wing of the party.
.
Democrats who are serious about health care reform like Ron Wyden or Bernie Sanders aren’t responsible for this mess, it’s the Senate New Democrat coalition.

So here’s my question. Why couldn’t Reid have a jobs bill ready to go, hype it in the press, and then just keep repeatedly moving for cloture. Every time the Republicans block cloture, hype it in the press as:

Democrats would love to pass a jobs bill as soon as the health care bill is done, but Republicans won’t stop fillibustering health care.

And just pound the Republicans as standing in the way of letting the Senate get through health care and get to creating jobs for the American people.

That’s what’s in my head right now. Of course I’m sure there is some reason it isn’t realistic. Just not sure why.

Gee! What a circus!
Over 35 million starving American kids and women without affordable health care:
That is a larger population than that of 188 of the world’s (nearly) 223 nations. And many of those 188 nations have universal health care for their citizens.

It is said that if California was a small country, its economy would tramp that of all except seven of the world’s nations – yet for millions of Californians, when it comes to security in availability of food, shelter and health care they are no better off than the average citizen in some of the poorest of the third world.

Do wingnuts prefer a life lived in dread, pain and easy death for some of our citizens who lack affordable health care?

SHAME on you, wingnuts!

…is Sanders actually an independent, albeit a true left one, as opposed to fake ones like Holy Joe L. who’s flirting with the R’s?

I can imagine the Republicans playing that rough if they had the simple majority in the Senate.

deconstructiva:
.
As hilarious as it is (in a dark comedic way), Independent Sanders is the only Senate member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
.
The centrists in the Democratic party have such a lock on the Senate that it’s literally forbidden for them to be a member of the liberal caucus.

.. it will look very damaging ..”

“look” is in the eyes of the beholder. Give me that bill!

” ..letting this bill pass will assure huge Democratic losses. Imagine passing a bill which raises taxes and insurance premiums ..”

Hold on: In a few weeks, the bill will not look the same in detail as it does now ..
Don’t be sure what the people will do 3 years hence: Surely in 2006 you had no idea which majority party or president the good Americans would have in 2009 ..

“The proposition of increasing Federal medical assistance by 50 percent for states for which the President has declared a disaster within the past seven years should be debated on its own merits.”
.
I think in retrospect that this sort of assistance is best handled by avenues that were already in place (the Katrina debacle excepted). Point to you.
.
“I’d like to know how anybody knows with certainty that such a provision was included to buy Mary Landrieu’s vote, but if we did know that, it would be corrupt, if not bribery in the legal sense of the word.
.
Of course something doesn’t have to be illegal to be wrong, and there’s such thing as the spirit of the law.
.
It doesn’t matter if the vote-buying is for a supposedly worthy cause. Assistance procured this way is illegitimate, and textbook poor governance.”
.
Was it there before Landrieu changed her mind? Who inserted it, and when? These questions might help with answering that question.
.
“You know in your heart that this is wrong, 53_3. We all do.”
.
A “bribe” is generally interpreted to be intended to benefit the recipient, “Vote buying” isn’t really that much better a description, because others benefit, instead of the purchase price going to her. This isn’t the same as corruption like losing $9,000,000,000 or Jefferson’s $90,000, so using those terms risks keeping false equivalency alive. Point taken, though.
.
“Also, we really, really need to make sure that tax-payer help provided to “poor people” under Democratic rule is done in the most above-board way possible…otherwise we will be open to charges of patronage, favoritism and all the old accusations conservatives have used to drive wedges between have-somes and have-littles at our expense.”
.
I think this is really the best argument against this practice of all of them. We’ve had 40 years of that, and America can certainly do without more.
.
“Plus, the end of the road for us is that DLC centrists like Landrieu use us to defend “helping the poor”, and then betray us…Remember how the centrists blamed liberals for Democratic losses, 53_3?”
.
The best prevention for “betrayal”, I think is to stop trying for 60 vote majorities, pass with less, campaign hard to keep FOXworld at bay, and let the blame pile up for those who filibuster.
.
Then, when cracks in the GOP wall appear, those particular centrists will be standing closest to the flood of complaints of obstruction.
.
Overall, though SZ, you’ve made your point.

53_3:

The 49% approval rating Obama suffers right now isn’t just due to right wing mudslinging, it’s also due to others who are firmly in the Democratic camp feeling shortchanged by the administrations’ strategy of sacrificing principles to get the superfluous 9 votes need to prevent filibuster

It really can’t be put any better than that.

KT, when the joint House / Sen. committee forms to cut / paste the final bill, are the members predetermined (by committee, seniority), do Reid and Pelosi meet over drinks to pick, or do they draw straws or rock-paper-scissors? No seriously, who’s on first there would be key as what goes in the final bill, yes?
.
As for now, why don’t the Senators just reconcile it? Or play nice to the corporate colleagues / centrists, give ‘em most of what they want for now, then rewrite it from scratch in joint com (w/ PO, ban pre-exists., etc.), then recon it? Then primary out those D’s who opposed / filibustered it? As if these will be addressed, alas. Ironically, if Frist had won his nuclear option, we and KT probably would be watching football instead of this.

This is an old topic, but I’m willing to bring it up again. Sure, both Democraps and Rethuglicans are totally incompetent, but that’s why the Founding Sperm-banks came up with our current system of checks and balances. Our system is intended not so much to assist progress as to prevent rampant thundering backasswardness. As bad as things are, believe me they could have been much, much worse.

I was impressed with Sen. Lincoln making clear that the Republicans are deceiving the public about the purpose of this vote, and making clear that the Republicans are standing in the way of what most Americans want. Now if she could just move a little further toward recognizing that she needs to vote yes on whatever is finally negotiated.

And, alas, Bernie said on either RM’s or KO’s show that he wasn’t sure he’d vote for the bill itself, either. aaaaaargh.

[...] Health Reform: 59 and counting… 60 Votes To Proceed To Debate … [...]

Reality does exist, but not in the minds of the WH, Pelosi, and Reid.
.
Not even during the Great Depression was there a string of 60 – 40 votes. There has never been a time in American history where that was accomplished (that I know of).

“it’s literally forbidden for them to be a member of the liberal caucus.”
.
SZ, do you have a link for that? I didn’t find anything with a quick Google search.
.
It is interesting to note that Senator Brown and Senator Udall were both members of the caucus when in the House but they aren’t as senators.

I hate to rain on SZ’s parade, but I remain with 53 on this one.
.
This isn’t bribery in any sense of the word. People are acting like this is going straight into Landrieu’s pocket. Bribery involves the subversion of someone’s fiduciary duty. This was the exact opposite.
.
The woman represents Louisiana. She got something for Louisiana. She served her constituents. No apology needed. End of story.
.
I agree with SZ to the limited extent that this does reveal institutional defects with our legislative process — what I previously referred to as the ugly sausage-making process. But poor governance is not corruption.
.
As for debating the provision “on its own merits”, I don’t even know what that means. It is one component of the overall bill which is about to be debated. Have at it.

Why are you blaming the right-wing popular base of the out-of-power Republican party?
.
Do you seriously believe that if the Democratic party were as accountable to its base as the Republicans are to theirs, we would still be debating any of this? Do you honestly think that the reason why we don’t have the fundamental change we voted for is the fault of movement conservatives?
.
Who cares what the popular right thinks or doesn’t think?
.
Look at the list of members of the Senate New Democrat Coalition:

Current senators
.
* Blanche Lincoln (AR, founder)
.
* Dianne Feinstein (CA, by 2001)
.
* Thomas R. Carper (DE, by 2001; co-chair from 2003)
.
* Joe Lieberman (CT, founder)
.
* Bill Nelson (FL, by 2001)
.
* Evan Bayh (IN, founder)
.
* Mary Landrieu (LA, founder, co-chair from 2003)
.
* John Kerry (MA, from 2000[7])
.
* Debbie Stabenow (MI, by 2001)
.
* Kent Conrad (ND, from 2000)
.
* Ben Nelson (NE, by 2001)
.
* Tim Johnson (SD, from 2000)
.
* Maria Cantwell (WA, by 2001)
.
* Herb Kohl (WI, from 2000)

and tell me again just how bad for America the stupid little tea-partiers are, again?

I have been a nervous wreck following this health bill but once they said they were going to have a vote to debate the bill I knew they had the votes and were letting Landrieu, Lincoln and Nelson put on a show to help them.

I think they are already working behind the scenes to make changes and this will not be a long debate. I think it will have sixty votes for cloture and passing with exactly what is needed.

They will have the Public Option and it will not have trigger, because they know they will lose the Democratic base and they cannot get elected with only the Independants. They might get one Republican vote with a trigger, but how many Republicans will vote Democrat in 2010.?

This is my womans intuition of course.

In 1987 there was a string of 7 cloture votes on a single bill, but the vote was 51 to 44. And they eventually gave up.

Again, not saying it’s likely, but is seems like it could theoretically be done, especially with the right marketing spin.

I don’t know about intuition, but i’m hopeful.
Also nervous.

It can be done & it should be done & it is possible. But the obstinancy and gamesplaying and lack of message control never ceases to amaze me.

Herding cats, indeed.

kathy:
.
This is a bad bill, there’s no two ways about it.
.
Whether it’s better or not than doing nothing is the debate, not whether this solves our health care problem –it doesn’t.
.
Here’s Matt Yglesias on Ron Wyden’s plan, and why it can’t be considered ( Link to Yglesias )

…the reason opening the Exchange will violate the pledge to prevent anyone from losing their current coverage is that existing employer-based pools will be destabilized if people are allowed to leave them.
.
A lot of companies that currently offer group insurance would find themselves unable to continue to do so if half their employees left the plan to join an Exchange plan. They would find themselves with no choice but to stop offering insurance coverage, start offering higher wages, and send all their employees into the Exchange.
.
This isn’t a “problem” with Wyden’s idea. It’s a good idea. Severing the link between employment and insurance would be a good idea. Giving people more choice between insurance plans would be a good idea. Giving people more control over what proportion of their total compensation comes in the form of health insurance would be a good idea. But even though it’s a good idea, it’s a good idea precisely because it would destabilize current arrangements and there’s very little political support for doing that.
.
…there’s a totally non-mysterious reason why it’s not included in any of the health reform packages approved by five different congressional committees—it’s totally at odds with Barack Obama’s repeated promise to avoid forcing anyone who currently has insurance to change their coverage. You just can’t square Wyden’s idea with Obama’s promise. And though Obama’s promise is substantively not a great concession to make, it’s absolutely central to the White House’s political strategy.

If we don’t have the dollars of huge populations of Americans behind national-scale price negotiations with health care providers, we’re going to continue to overpay for health care state-by-state, and the choices will always be between the interests of those whose coverage is adequate and the interests of those who can’t get decent health care. There will be no “American” system, there will be the jealously guarded (yet shrinking) system for those who can afford health care, and the other system, which will be parasitic in the eyes of the former’s members.
.
If we don’t open up the Exchange to everybody, and give everyone the choice of participating, we won’t have those huge blocks of dollars on a national scale.
.
The reason we don’t have a plan with an open Exchange that allows Americans to choose how to get their health care administered is because the people who would leave their employers’ insurance groups are being held hostage by those who would stay. The reason why that status quo half’s interests are deemed above the other half is because “Change We Can Believe In” was just a slogan.
.
Why should Bernie Sanders, the only Senator literally independent enough of the Democratic Leadership Council’s stranglehold on the Democratic Party to be a member of the Progressive Caucus vote for the Senate’s piss-poor version of health care “reform”?
.
Thanks for reading and considering this, kathy.

…oh wait, I forgot. There’s no “inner circle” but football analogies do apply here. For serious questions like HCR, those asked by the “first team” get answers / ideas way more often than from the “second team”. Just look at this thread. Can one of the varsity players ask KT and others here these same q’s? Thanks, I’d appreciate it.

THIS post by Digby illustrates what SZ is talking about, the failure to make straight-up liberal arguments/negate Reaganite framing of our discourse.
.
“Health care reform is extremely likely to pass in some form. But let’s not kid ourselves that it’s passing because the Democrats and the public have seen the light and understand that we need to be a more decent society. It’s passing because medical industry has been greedy to the point where it’s now unsustainable. That presented an opening for liberals to enact some policies they have believed in for a long time. But they didn’t do it by making the liberal arguments straight up and have created some kind of strange hybrid system for which the best argument is that it might lead to opportunities for more reform. It’s better than nothing. But it isn’t liberal and it wasn’t designed to be. And just in case, the powers-that-be stuck it to the pro-choicers to make sure nobody got the idea that it was.”

PNNTO:
.
That’s a good call. I’m asserting something as fact, when it’s inference.
.
Here’s a link, though, to Time.com’s “Election 2002: Why The Senate Is Now Back In G.O.P. Hands” ( link ).
.
Go to each page, and use the “find” feature to search for the word “liberal”, and you’ll have a sense of why I say “forbidden”.

Sqr1:
.
Legitimate, intelligent criticism of my arguments isn’t raining on my parade, it’s welcomed.
.
Thanks for reading and responding.

” .. A “bribe” is generally interpreted to be intended to benefit the recipient, “Vote buying” isn’t really that much better a description, because others benefit, ..”

Does the ‘bribe’ or “benefit” have to be monetary?
If not, then we may recognize a transitive nature to the ‘bribery’:
Sen Landrieu is reported to have said that she has the leverage and she will use it. And did she leverage it! Imagine a vote that costs $100M!
.

Sen Reid(A) has a need. Sen Landerieu’s (B) price is $100M in the bill. A coughs up $100M in the bill and he get a vote from B.
The $100M go to the grateful citizens(C) who know that they owe it to B. Knowing that grateful C will benefit B with their vote, B graciously gives her vote(benefit) to A.
[ Presumably B would have received the same number of grateful votes from C if she had spent her own $100M.]

–> $100M ……………………–>
A B C
<—–vote–……… <—votes—

A bought a vote(benefit) from B for $100M ('bribe' to be spent on B's C); [B phantomly passed the bribe to C and in return] B receives from C votes(benefit) worth $100M.
And all lived happily ever after.
[It is an idle Sat.]

Debate over whether throwing an extra 100 M at Louisianna constitutes bribery misses the larger point which is that ALL States participate in what amounts to a Federal lottery. Everything we refer to as ‘pork’ represents local projects which should rightfully be paid for with local funds. but since everyone seems to regard the Federal treasury as a sort of heat sink there’s an implicit agreement that States that we pool most of our tax revenues in the Federal Pot and then fight in the Seanate and House over who gets to pull out the biggest share.

It’s well known that traditionally red states play the game as well as anyone but the amount of dishonesty that surrounds the whole process ( I’m shocked that there’s gambling going on) makes for all kinds of misunderstanding.

During the campaign season both Jake Tapper and Michael Scherer were atrocious at pretending that there was a fundemental difference between the way the two parties deal with the Federal feed-trough.

Those who seem to be unaware – nay, not bothered much, by the lot of the 35 million starving Americans seem to be concentrated in the group often referred to as the Republicans.

Hence my peeve.
I have previously expressed my impatience at the majority Democrats who, if they had been blessed/cursed with the same level of chutzpa as Republicans in the majority, we wouldn’t be having the drawn-out circus in getting significant bills and confirmations passed.

I can hardly wait for the inevitable and value-free responses that “everyone does it.”
.
You won’t hear that from us leftists.
.
Acceptance of the corrupt status quo isn’t really a hallmark of liberalism, as I’m sure you must be aware.
stuartzechman
November 21, 2009
at 3:50 pm

Strictly speaking, acceptance of the corrupt status quo isn’t a marker of authentic conservatism either. You know, Burke’s “conserve and correct” and all that good stuff. Sadly, you just don’t find authentic conservatives in the US. Instead, you get the illiterati, the religious fantasists and the Ayn Rand jihad in unholy conjunction.

[...] Health Reform: 59 and counting… 60 Votes To Proceed To Debate … [...]

Shorter Blanche Lincoln:
The Public Option is a puny and insignificant part of this bill and I don’t understand why people are so worried about it. That said, if it was to pass it would end life on Earth as we know and therefore I vow to tank the entire bill over it.

All this just to start debate on a bill that’s so watered down that a lot of progressives don’t even support it anymore. It is going to be really hard to argue vociferously for Obama here when the bill does so little to really change the health care system and where it gives so much to private insurance companies, including a mandate that I think has to go down as one of the biggest subsidies to private industry ever included in a piece of legislation.

“Instead, you get the illiterati, the religious fantasists and the Ayn Rand jihad in unholy conjunction.”
.
That is poetry man, I’m starting to weep with feeling…
.
Fortunately, juxtaposed against that trinity of Morlocks we have our principled progressives (i.e. guffaw, the democratic party leadership) carrying the torch to a brighter tomorrow. Ah, where’s my hankie … or a pistol.

Karen Tumulty: “They’ve got 60.”

“They’ve”? Shouldn’t that be “We’ve”?

Every member of the Washington/New York press corps is now shouting, with tears pouring from his/her eyes: “WE’VE got 60! WE’VE got 60!”

juniusredivivus:
.
If we were to take Burkean conservatism at its word, and accept that his version of “reform” would be enough to satisfy popular liberal complaints –even, perhaps, the complaints of Thomas Paine, as he would have probably liked– then it might be so that correction would conserve as he envisioned.
.
It seems, though, that the law of unintended consequences would be enough to keep Burke from, say, “correcting” something like American segregation, just as he wouldn’t advocate for a reform of the privileges of nobility that might bring about equality before the law.
.
But I’m not actually speaking of conservatives when I say “acceptance of the corrupt status quo”, I’m speaking of centrists.

Thanks SZ, I wasn’t trying to “fact check” you at all, I was actually curious.
.
Frankly seeing the two who were members of the caucus in the House and the not when they joined the Senate gives you plenty of evidence.

juniusredivivus

“Instead, you get the illiterati, the religious fantasists and the Ayn Rand jihad in unholy conjunction.”

I should say that Oregon JC is correct, that’s poetry.
.
I put it this way:

The main practical characteristic that needs to be understood about Centrism and Centrists is that, if you are in any sense of the word a political activist –even to the extent that you comment on political blogs in your spare moments, or go to your bible-based church a real lot– they don’t like you. That’s it in a nutshell: they don’t like politically active people trying to control their own government. They don’t trust you to make the right decisions that they, the technocrats should be making for you. They trust institutions; they trust themselves. They don’t trust you. They don’t think that you’re up to the job that citizenship in a democracy demands. They think that you should be working and shopping instead.
.
It also happens to be that professional class Centrists are scared sh!tless by the tent-revivalists, costume survivalists, antebellum Confederacy nostalgists and latter day Know Nothings who make up the Republican base. This is because they’re threatened by people and popular movements in general. That’s why they love to equate us with the speaking-in-tongues Pentecostals in Sarah Palin’s rural Alaskan church. They think that, Left or Right, we’re all nuts, and should just be out shopping for more SUV’s, like normal, low-information, suburban Americans (whom they empower to ruin our political discourse every four years).

I think the Objectivist contingency are a molecule in a mountain, and have largely joined the Paulites or retired to study for midterms, but other than that quibble, it’s a beautiful turn of phrase.

cfukara:
.
I disagree with it. The end results are to entice her to vote that way, but first even SZ acknowledged that there is no proof that the item was inserted for her, which, I’ve mentioned, would be something to find out.
.
Once we are past that there still is no semblance of a bribe, because, as far as the word “bribe” is concerned, the implication is that the person being bribed gets the bennies. Jefferson was bribed. He got $90,000 cash for his own use. Not so with Landrieu. She (unless there is skulduggery at the trough*) won’t get any benefit herself.
.
This is false equivalence at it’s worst. How can this be on the same level as the K-street pigtrough or Haliburton, or Jefferson, for that matter.
.
*It would be sh!tty indeed if the HCIC piglets got to the trough first, leaving none of that money for those who might have really needed it. Now that would be a great example of corruption on a GOP scale.
.
SZ made several valid points, but this type of false equivalency ain’t one of ‘em…

Have you ever wondered why we are talking about 60 for us over here?
.
And, have you further considered that over in FOXworld, they are not talking about 60 for them?
.
Two plus two, textee…

I think that what they need to do is to put it up there, and let it get filibustered. To hell with them.
.
This is considerably different than 1987, 72% of Americans want HCR, and many of the 51% who are turned off by Obama aren’t right wing crackheads.
.
Most are just Americans that are fed up with inaction.
.
Now, if the Party of No were to clog Congress instead of just the airwaves and the internet, what do you think might happen then?

I can’t beat Wonkette’s comment:

“Their procedural votes for their own party’s major bill cost the nation hundreds of millions of dollars in pork handouts. That’s how Serious About The Deficits they are.”

Why is it so difficult to pass a $100 billion plan to enable Americans to see a doctor, but breathtakingly easy to pass a $650 billion plan for the Defense Dept. I guess money spent keeping 14 aircraft carrier battle groups afloat isn’t real money.

I’m also wondering why it takes $650 billion a year – every year – to protect us from a few dozen religious extremists. Even if you assume there are 1000 terrorists in the world who are actually capable of mounting an attack here, that means we are spending $650 million a year per terrorist.

Something is rotten in Washington DC, and it isn’t the paltry sums we spend on health, education, and welfare.

Well, it seems to me that Burke would have had no problem with civil rights and certainly none with ending slavery. He campaigned for a number of what one could call progressive causes: the emancipation of Catholics, the removal of trade barriers with Ireland, the abolition of the slave trade and slavery and against the privileges and excesses of the rule of the East India Company in India. He also defended the American Revolution. So I would submit that he wasn’t so much of a tepid reformer. He lost his seat in parliament over Catholic emancipation after all.
.
As for the Objectivists – yes, they are a minority, but they’ve managed to take quite a few positions of influence in government and the media (Greenspan, for example) and their impact is out of proportion to their actual numbers. You underestimate them at your peril. Moreover, the economic understanding that they preach, although badly flawed, is becoming something like GOP orthodoxy. Don’t judge how dangerous they are by the spotty teenagers who think quoting Atlas Shrugged is a logical argument.

I don’t think textee does liberal subjects like mathematics, economics, or logic. Her curriculum includes: emotive rhetoric, Sarah Palin The Redeeming Victim, and Ronaldus Magnus The God who became President, and Why God Hates Everyone Else.

U r a commernist fer sayin’ such noncents!

So Obama and the Dems are assured of a big victory tonight. And it is big…

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Don’t you know that those 14 carrier groups are defending the right of Americans to be denied healthcare by the corporations who employ them for minimal wages? Don’t you feel a tear in your eye and a lump in your throat at the sublime beauty of late period capitalism? Have you at last no decency?

Ah, Choska, that’s the trillion $ question for American society to consider bar none. Naturally, it’s the one wholly ignored in Versailles on the Potomac. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich had the temerity to do so and were treated as loons by the serious men in the room.
.
The retiring Bill Moyers had much to say last night about our current war w/out end, illustrating painful connections between LBJ’s decision to escalate and Obama’s impending move.
.
Transcript:
.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11202009/transcript1.html

PNNTO:
.
No, no! Fact-check away!
.
We should be fact-checking each other as much as the journos (alright, we have better track records than the journos, so maybe we can take it a little easier on each other).

Despite Burke’s strange support of the Americans, didn’t Paine write “The Rights of Man” against him?
.
As far as the Randians go, their atheism, elitism and individualism won’t ever find a real home in the Republican party, especially as it becomes more and more representative of and accountable to its popular base, instead of intellectual elites.

As a corollary to the 60th vote allowing the senate begin amending the bill, im writing to be the 60th comment on this blog.
.
*im pretty jazzed up !!! *

Stuart, you surely know that Paine was defending the French Revolution from Burke, who had sharply criticized it. That doesn’t make Burke any less willing to consider genuine reform, as the partial list of causes he supported, which I have already given, should establish clearly. We can go a few rounds on this one, but I don’t see you establishing that a principled Burkean conservatism would be incompatible with genuine reform.
.
As for the Randians and the GOP – it’s abundantly clear that the Randians will never make common cause with the Democrats, and that a Randian third party is not a realistic prospect at this time. This pushes them into the arms of the GOP – and that’s where you find Ron (and Rand) Paul. I would also point out that the majority of Randian commentators seem to gravitate to the GOP perfectly happily.

One other point on Burke – his support of the Americans was not strange. He saw them as Englishmen, seeking to regain their rights, which a misguided King and Parliament had attempted to take away from them. His position was not strange at all, but perfectly consistent with his philosophy.

It’ll make a change to have someone yelling “60th!” rather than “1st!”.

Thank Goodness the Democrats were able to get their fractured camp together to limp past this first post.
I hope Landrieu does not get re-elected. Her holding out on this first step to me, is absurd. So the 72 hour ultimatum reaalllly changed her mind?? She reviewed the entire bill thoroughly. Yay???

I think this was all vain posturing.

This was just a vote to get the bill into consideration. Her outrageous hold out was unwarranted.

Is her point and that of other last minute mind changers on account of the fact they do not think Healthcare should be reformed?
Even if they have valid concerns, surely they know the bill is still going to be debated to death so they have ample time and opportunity to work in their concerns!

This bit of posturing was uncalled for, in my humble opinion.

What a yawn.

LM
http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/criminals-use-technology-to-trackrape-and-kill-innocent-people/

” .. there is no proof that the item was inserted for (Landrieu), which, I’ve mentioned, would be something to find out. ..”
True. A smoking gun may not exists – but our suspicions are strong.
Would “pork barrel” projects be considered “bribes” to win votes for the incumbent lawmaker in coming elections? Many of us would suggest as much – even if the lawmakers deny it.

You may recognize the Limbaugh approach to issues that are not settled in fact: Although we find now that BHO did not write ** * in his thesis still we can condemn him becasue we swear that he thinksalong those lines we alleged ..

My position is that IF at all the $100M was inserted in there to win Lindrieu’s vote, then it may be considered a ‘bribe’ even if she will not physically take possession of the “bennies” – but received a benefit/something of value or firm assurance of a benefit to come.

—
” .. as the word “bribe” is concerned, the implication is that the person being bribed gets the bennies. ..”

A more critical aspect may be that of “legality” or social acceptability – since we generally attach an anti-social connotation to the word.
[Case in point: Terror wreaked on Iraq villagers by our NATO allies is NOT termed an act of 'terrorism'.]

I would like to replace “bennies” with “something of value” or “consideration”.The person being ‘bribed’ may not get the ‘bennies’ directly but may indirectly get a benefit/value that (s)he wouldn’t get otherwise.
A vote is something of value to a candidate.

Another example:
In most cases, the highest spenders generally win elections in USA.
Suppose that I know that you want that ambassadorship real bad and it shall be my reward to the high spenders after my successful presidential campaign. It is illegal for me to directly receive and spend $10M from you on the campaign – yet it is legal for me to know that you directly and/or indirectly spent $10M on promoting my candidacy using various legal avenues.

She had some reasons – about 100 million of them, to be precise. Not that it will save her, and it’s hard to argue that she deserves re-election.

textee:

Here is some relief that the doctor ordered: Close your eyse and repeat the following slowly: “WE’VE got 60! WE’VE got 60!”

Feels good, eh?

Well, it seems to me that Burke would have had no problem with civil rights and certainly none with ending slavery. He campaigned for a number of what one could call progressive causes: the emancipation of Catholics, the removal of trade barriers with Ireland, the abolition of the slave trade and slavery and against the privileges and excesses of the rule of the East India Company in India.
.
Agreed. Burke understood there was in fact no tradition of certain races being oppressed. (Obviously racialization is old, but no single group has consistently been racialized as inferior. Burke had some awareness of the rich heritages of Asian societies in particular.) In addition, Jim Crow, and even slavery, were actually “revolutionary” departures for America; Slavery marked a sharp decline in the status of people of African descent in America, as did segregation in the wake of Reconstruction.
.
However, he would have condemned the emancipation of groups that actually were traditionally oppressed: Women and the poor.

Just remembered that we don’t have to solely rely on predictions of what Burke would have done, we can also look at what he wrote and said.
.
From a scholarly introduction to some of his works: Finally, while Burke did not take much part in the movement to abolish the slavery of African blacks in the British colonies, he did write a document, Sketch of the Negro Code, that outlined a typically Burkean plan for the gradual amelioration and eventual abolition first of the slave trade and then of slavery itself. Once again, it shows Burke’s genuine concern for politically oppressed peoples. He admired and defended aristocracy, but he did so as a man who truly believed that noblesse oblige.
…
But we must notice that Burke never proposed that government should support the poor in any of those instances. Even in regard to Negro slavery, his aim was gradually to abolish the slave trade and slavery while training the slaves to learn the social and economic skills necessary for freedom, to acquire property, and thus to be able to support themselves.
.
http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Burke/brkSWv4c0.html

Pfff, if the uninsured wanted healthcare, they’d join the military, duh.

Reports like these from the media do not help us get an angle on that “bribe” idea:
AP, Nov 22, 2009“It is clear to me that doing nothing is not an option,” said Landrieu, who won $100 million in the legislation to help her state pay the costs of health care for the poor.

These comments from Sen Landrieu do not help either:
“I have leverage now, I’m using it to the best of my ability, “
What was she ‘leveraging’? What was her strategy? What was being exchanged? What are the other 58 Dem senators who were not “leveraging” – doormats?

But this seems to absolve her: The $100M was not awarded solely to her voters – to re-elect her …
“Reid included an extra $100 million in Medicaid funding for states hit by Hurricane Katrina, which includes Louisiana.”

rose83 – I am not sure what you mean by the emancipation of the poor. If you mean their enfranchisement, I suspect Burke would have argued that those who worked hard enough could earn the franchise. He certainly recognized the misery of the poor, and presumably the imperfection of the society in which they lived. l could see him as a social reformer, legislating for better treatment of workers. He gave qualified support to parliamentary reform, but was more interested in limiting royal power.
.
As for emancipating women – the idea was not put forward until Bentham in 1817, so we don’t have direct evidence for Burke’s view, but I would guess that, ultimately, Burke would have supported it, once he had been convinced of female equality. Obviously, we shouldn’t make Burke out to be a modern liberal, but we should recognize that his conservatism is humane, balanced, pragmatic – and open to adjustment.

Joe Isuzu voted to allow debate I take it? After he said he would vote no? (Reason #115 why he’s a self-righteous liar.)

…right now with a real economic recovery and private sector new jobs still far away, it’s hard to imagine anyone in Congress turning down money / projects for their own states.

*sigh* …I’ll try again. Short versions of q’s I asked at #8 (no answers, just crickets):
1. Who’s on joint committee for final bill / how are they chosen?
2. Why don’t Senators use reconciliation – now or at final bill?

[...] Health Reform: 59 and counting… 60 Votes To Proceed To Debate … Share and Enjoy: [...]

Stuart – yes, this is not a good bill, but as far as I can tell it’s still better than no bill, and can be built on as the years progress. Actually, I’ve heard Snowe’s trigger is apparently better, but I haven’t followed the argument about why.

I’m pretty sure Bernie’s constituents (of which I am one) want this bill, and what’s good for Joe Lie. is good for Bernie. Most everybody’s constituents want this bill. But I’m not ill disposed to Bernie acting as a counterweight to Blanche Lincoln to get more for the poor.

Do I remember correctly that the reason the Dems are doing this on 60 vote margins is that if they proceed with reconciliation it’s too easy to overturn? As it is, I’m discouraged that there’s such a lag time before it goes into effect.

Stuart – the other question is whether there’s enough to salvage in conference to get to the point where it’s worth voting on a final bill.
.
also, sorry for forgetting that the paragraphs don’t format in replies.

1. Reid, Pelosi, Boehner and McConnell appoint conferees, though the real negotations will be done in leaders’ offices with heavy White House input.
.
2. Reconciliiation was always a lousy way to try to do this. Subject to many points of order that could have turned the bill into swiss cheese, and also would have required it to balance in a five-year budget window, not 10. Also, would have upped the partisan temperature even more.

60 votes secured to just debate one of the poorest written bills to have ever been brought before the Senate. And, they celebrate?
.
Please inform the jury that overwhelmingly, the American voters are not in favor of this bill as written.
.
Seniors are against this bill due to the vast reductions in services which will be given to them in order to pay for this bill. Over 500 BILLION in Medicare Cuts
.
Progressives are disappointed because their premiere cornerstone of progressivism, the “Public Option” or Government Run Health Care Insurance will be gutted before the bill even gets to a vote for passage.
.
Conservatives and most Independents see this as further evidence that the current Democrat Leadership, Obama, Pelosi and Reid, want more big Government programs wasting TRILLIONS of tax payer dollars, and the very real prospect that they will loose their own insurance they currently enjoy as an end result. Over 85% of Americans now have health care insurance that they are satisfied with, and for over 860 BILLION dollars our Democrat controlled Congress want to provide the other 9% with insurance. Does that make any sense what-so-ever?
.
Americans also know that the important parts of this legislation is being held hostage by the Democrats in order for them to push their progressvie agenda. Risking the entire country’s future in the process.
.
While there are parts of the bill that are warranted, and American’s support; such as pre-existing condition reform, recission reform, portability reform, and health and wellness reforms. But, there also remains many other reforms that have not been addressed such as tort reform and State to State competition as well.
.
One massive 2074 page bill that only fixes parts of the real problem, but risks major destructive change. Americans are not stupid. We know that this is not the legislation that will bring about profound reforms to the health care system. We also know that the COST of Health Care, is not all in health insurance. We know that the cost of medicine for example is way out of control, and unafforadble. Do the Democrats address this major cost of health care? NO. Democrats and in particular Obama have made sweetheart deals with the mega Drug Companies, and the people will continue to suffer under the high cost of medicines they cannot afford.
.
This bill must be voted down, and then and only then will the people see health care reform, not simply health insurance reform take place. Leaders from both sides of the aisles should be held accountable, and special interest groups locked out of the process. Lobbyists banned from having an influence over how our health care should be delivered and paid for.
.
No more “business as usual” with bribes for votes. No more special interest group influence in the bill costing the tax payer and consumer trillions of dollars.
.
I can only hope and pray people finally wake up. Wake up to the fact that their Government has finally begun to work against them, instead of in their best interests. We need a complete overhaul of those in power in Washington. 2010 will be the start of this new “Amerian Revolution”. Health Care Reform, will be the cause that lights the flame of revolution.

“Also, would have upped the partisan temperature even more.”
.
It’s true, had they gone that route I bet the Democrats wouldn’t have been able to get a single Republican vote to even proceed with debate.
.
Thanks for the part one response KT. While you say the real negotiations will be done in the leaders’ offices will there be anything to glean from which conferees are appointed?
.
Or is that just reading tea leaves?

I like “leveraging”, cfukara, that is much closer to the idea of what went on.
.
I’m not interested in just totally whitewashing this, but this is clearly not GOP-level K-street pigtrough stuff – and I want to avoid false equivalence here.

KT,
…uppped the partisan temperature still more…
.
Would it do much good to point out that there is not much difference between 211F and 212F?

Shhhh!
.
Rusty!
.
You’ll wake up that Sleeping White Giant!

I think yogi is onto something here, but let me say this as a dyed-in-the-wool blue-eyed American*:
.
We love to blow things up! Or blast ‘em.

*If I was stupider, and believed that was the only kind of American there was, I’d fit in with the GOP like a slug in a snake…

For Dr Roger Forsyth’s take on Health Care Reform in a series of 5 articles go to:

http://www.medpie.com/politics/featured-articles/111609-a-rational-bipartisan-approach.html

Rusty likes to cite big numbers in big letters but he’s absolutely comfortable with 37 MIILION Americans (real Americans I might add…) being complete shut out of the sytem with no recourse but to wait until their life is threatened before they can seek care.

Given that in the end it will be the “unyielding liberals” called upon to compromise with the “moderates,” the public option will have to be either dropped, or triggered. The “moderates,” of course, will refuse to bend on that issue.

Maybe one possible path forward on the “public-option free” path, that only the “extremist Left” will be called upon to make, is to expand the idea of the exchanges. How about recasting them as a sort of privately held, single-payer system?

It seems to me that single-payer is essentially an insurance concept. One that is based on the idea of cost amortization. The greater the number a cost is amortized over, the lower the cost is for each unit. Single-payer systems are a pooling of resources, that could just as easily be in private or public hands, or both. In countries where they have been operating succesfuly for hundreds of years, cost savings are also achieved by pooling the buying power of organization into a giant pool of cash, that gets giant discounts.

Maybe the exchanges are the place where a new compromise can be forged, a place where the private sector takes on some of the qualities of a public health system, in order to reduce the cost of an essential service. An exchange, where private interests gain advantage by pooling resources with their competitors.

…KT, thanks for answering. I appreciate it. Well, if recon won’t work hopefully there are other ways to secure centrist votes. Reid kissing Landrieu for her vote is one thing and fine with me, but if he has to kiss Lieberman for the final vote, I’ll move to Las Vegas and try to primary him myself. (I’m trying to find a pic of The Kiss; KT, hopefully you or your teammates caught the moment.)

WIth or without health care insurance, the 37 million you quote, which I believe is a big inflated number by the Democrats to begin with, will still end up on the short end of the stick.
.
Jobs will be further cut because small businesses like my own will no longer be able to afford the Government requirements, taxes an penalities this bill imposes.
.
So yes, if the bill passes 37 million will have a government backed insurance, but they will forfeit their job in order to get it. So I am sure the 37 or so million you cite will be happy on welfare and food stamps, right Dirks?
.
Is that too much to ask Americans to give up? Give up their job in order to get health care?
.
Or do we do more sane and rational reforms. Reforms that will cost little to no money to enact. Keep your job, and support your family. Then tackle the problem of medical treatment costs. Driving down the cost of medical care WILL give people a chance to afford health care insurance to pay for it, IF they need it to begin with.
.
Health Insurance companies make less than 2% profit in the whole scheme of things. Health care costs for treatment makes up at least 90% of the cost of health care.
.
Those lucky enough to have insurance will see their co-pays and premiums sky rocket under the Democrat proposed bill.
.
Obama Care will cost you more. This is a fact. Obama Care will cost you more, and you will end up with a far more inferior coverage plan.
.
Seniors will lose a benefit that they have worked their entire life for. Younger people will be paying for something that they most likely will not use in the next 20 or so years, or they will be penalized and threatened with jail time if they do not pay the penalty.
.
Yes indeed, Democrats have put us all into a potential new Government entitlement program that has great benefits for all people. The benefit to loose your job, potentially destroy your family or business, and go to jail.
.
Great news! Fantastic!

FWIW 37 Mil = 250 Mil * .15.

Dear Rusty, take two tylenol and drink fluids. Your brain is clearly over-excited and producing hallucinogenic images. You need a long period of rest and a high school education.

…rusty, it’s hard to imagine the private sector firing more workers than they already have (screw calling it “layoffs” or “staff reductions”, it’s firing people). Still, if you’re concerned about jobs and economic recoveries, why don’t YOU start hiring people again, boss? And please don’t bother whining about “I’d love to but cant; I don’t have a choice.” (if you really can’t then prove it – hey, YOU brought it up, not me) You always have a choice so start hiring already. Or are you just using HCR as an excuse to fire more people? Ever hear of that phrase about being part of the solution instead of the problem, hmm?

Poor deconstructiva, you apparently do not have any knowledge of how a business is run, do you?
.
Have you ever heard of a business plan? A budget plan? Expense calculations into the future?
.
Let me make this REALLY SIMPLE for my really simple-minded liberals.
.
Democrat Health Care Reform Bill = Higher taxes and insurance premiums for small and large businesses.
.
Higher taxes and insurance premiums = cuts in the most expensive part of any business bottom-line, wages.
.
Higher costs (taxes and insurance) = cuts. JOB CUTS to maintain current profit margins of the business.
.
Just because you live in the delusional liberal la-la land and hope one day that your government will “spread the wealth” so you no longer have to work anymore. I have dire news for you. OBAMA LIED. The Democrats in control of Washington are only USING YOU and your little pea-brain. They are bilking MILLIONS of tax payer dollars and lobbyist kick-backs. They do not care one iota about you or your la-la land dreams.
.
It’s not Oz, Dorothy. Soon you will be eating Toto in order to survive.
.

HC costs have been rising for years. Are you admitting you didn’t budget this into your own biz plans? Are you needing to fire people because you didn’t plan for higher costs or hedge the possibility of higher costs?

The “moderates,” of course, will refuse to bend on that issue.
.
Centrists can be counted upon not to compromise their core principle: compromising with anyone to the right of themselves in order to foil the left.
.
They will refuse to bend to the left on compromising with the right.

No I did not plan on the higher taxes and an abrupt health insurance spike in coverage costs in order for the Government to fund a “Public Option”.
.
There are two funding sources that the Democrats have proposed to fund this bill.
.
1. Major cuts in Medicare.
.
2. Increasing taxes on businesses who make up the majority of those making over $250,000 / year, (gross revenue I might remind you). Taxing my employees current health care benefits which they do not pay any tax on at this time. Thus reducing their overall compensation package. Reducing their income I am confident they will want an increase in their wage. Wages that are already putting a higher cost to do business.
.
In order to increase the wages of those key essential employees, I will have to cut non-essential jobs.
.
Are you considered an essential employee, deconstructiva in your current job? I would look at that right now if I were you, and plan for the future if you are not.

Health Care Reform fallout for Democrat Senators is already taking a toll:
.

North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan Trails in Potential 2010 Senate Match-up

.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1772

Rusty: ” .. Major cuts in Medicare. .. “

You like that, don’t you, Rusty?
You are not going soft on us, are you?

[You remember the wingnut spiel - no big government, no welfare, no entitlements, no government/Medicare death panels, down with lazy people, ... up with free enterprise, "business must make a buck" (from Medicare payments?), ... our founding fathers... The Palinesque Works.]

My! You are feverish.
Sit back.
Take a deep breathe.
Go for a walk. [Or go shoot a moose ..]

The American people are tired of the people in
Washington not listening to them expecically on this crazy spending and health care. The democrats are desperate to get this health care overhaul thru, now, because they know that the 2010 elections will put a lot of them out of office, especially, I hope, socialist-communist Harry Reid.
If the public option passes, and I think it will, you can look for everyone to be on it in 5-7 years.The best health care system will slowly become a third-rate system like Canada and England. But, everyone will have “Health Insurance” .

Rusty: ” .. Seniors are against this bill due to the vast reductions in services which will be given to them in order to pay for this bill. Over 500 BILLION in Medicare Cuts ..”

Cuts!
Down with free care!
Down with big government!
Down with Medicare “death panels”!

Wow! $500B recovered for private defence contractors!

Rusty loves this bill!

…mjg, could you link to polls showing a majority of Canadians wishing to drop their HC system for one like ours? Thanks!

meanjoegreen, I don’t suppose you consider the fact that both the UK and Canada have better coverage of their populations, and are more cost-efficient, to be relevant. Why should facts ever trouble your neanderthal world-view? I am sure you have some flints to knapp in South Carolina.

I have been watching this dance with the devil go round after round with interest, but it has occurred to me that what we are doing is not reforming healthcare, but “fixing” a system that won’t stay fixed.

Actually, I would think that the Chinese have the best model for affordable healthcare. Theirs is the opposite of everyone else. You pay the Doctor a subscription for his keeping you healthy, and the subscription stops when you get sick. This gives the Doctor an incentive to not only keep you healthy, but also to return you to full health as soon as possible. If the Doctor has to pay out of his pocket to return you to full health, he has an incentive to only do what is absolutely necessary. Further, he has an incentive to not screw up in the first place. Overall, he and his patients have an understanding that your health is in his hands, and it is his total responsibility to keep you healthy.

Nothing they are doing constitutes REFORM of the health care system.Reform would be if they stopped the GREED, and corruption in the system.Until those factors are addressed, Reform is not being done.ALL they are doing is to make sure ALL citizens will pick up the tab for the GREED of the entire system.Most of the bill has been written by lobbyists anyway, and backed by billions of lobby dollar payments to BOTH parties to make sure the “Health care System” gets ALL the perks they have paid for. Either party “Representing the people”, is a joke.

“No I did not plan on the higher taxes and an abrupt health insurance spike in coverage costs in order for the Government to fund a “Public Option”.”
——————————————-
We already had the spike, bozo. My HC premiums just went up 15%. And I might point out that your claim is only a claim – with no supporting facts.
——————————————-
.
“There are two funding sources that the Democrats have proposed to fund this bill.”
.
“1. Major cuts in Medicare.”
——————————————-
Nope. There are some cuts, but the improvements in HC in other areas will offset this. I will become a Medicare user in a few years, AND, my wife already uses it. No fear here, rustybigot. None at all.
——————————————-
.
“2. Increasing taxes on businesses who make up the majority of those making over $250,000 / year, (gross revenue I might remind you). Taxing my employees current health care benefits which they do not pay any tax on at this time. Thus reducing their overall compensation package. Reducing their income I am confident they will want an increase in their wage. Wages that are already putting a higher cost to do business.”
.
They all have Cadillac plans, right? Ok. Fair enough. On taxing those making above 250k, do you see any of my sympathy glands working after eight years of total fockups?
.
And of course, don’t hand me any trickle-down sh!t, either rusty, because it led to the economic collapse.
.
“In order to increase the wages of those key essential employees, I will have to cut non-essential jobs.
.
Are you considered an essential employee, deconstructiva in your current job? I would look at that right now if I were you, and plan for the future if you are not.”
.
I think the only individuals that would have to worry about losing their job at your business are those who aren’t white.
.
Not that you have anyone there who’s not white there now…

meanjoegreen:
.
I’m hoping against hope that this is a namesake, otherwise, you have the unenviable and most uncomfortable task of trying to explain your willingness to rub elbows with the likes of Rusty and others who simply hate you, your relatives, and mine as well.
.
As for your brainpower, I think I would stick to the simple stuff. FOXworld is spoonfed feelgood for dittoheads, as far as I’m concerned.
.
BTW, fock “socialism” or “communism” or whatever other idiotic tag you want to apply.
.
I want something that works, not some FOXworld crap that doesn’t even pass the threshhold of sanity!

The only source you provide IQ53 is a window into your stupidity.
.
Racial accusations are ALL that you can provide to any discussion.
.
You are indeed a very sad sad individual. I won’t waste any further time on your type. You are simply a waste of human flesh and my time, period.

Amen, tincup

I see, Rusty.
.
Nevermind the fact that you are a bigot and have clearly stated so in the past? Eh?
.
And, btw, you skipped everything in between, so it’s a nice dodge, but doesn’t address any of my other comments.
.
Just like you failed to rebut the two you focused on. Perhaps because you know you would be arguing against your own words?

Did anyone notice that Joe Klein’s blog is not there anymore, or is this a Firefox thing?

Rusty claims to own a small business.
Rusty worries a lot about employee costs.
Small business owners put in long, busy hours.

Rusty spends many hours everyday typing and posting stuff into the SWAMP ….

In order to get a lively debate the senators need to go to the open market to realize the cost and the restrictions that come with medical insurance. With unemployment so high I am sure that everyone will have the opportunity to insure themselves without the fear of being rejected.

[...] I agree with SZ to the limited extent that this does reveal institutional defects with our legislative process — what I previously referred to as the ugly sausage-making process. ….. If we don’t have the dollars of huge populations of Americans behind national-scale price negotiations with health care providers, we’re going to continue to overpay for health care state-by-state, and the choices will always be between the interests of those whose coverage is adequate and …More Here [...]

[...] (1)  59 and counting… 60 Votes To Proceed To Debate [...]