Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Health care bill passes House 219-212

Just minutes before 11 pm on the East Coast, the Democratic-controlled House passed the Senate health care bill by a 219 to 212 vote margin.

Democrats secured three more votes than the simple majority of 216 that they needed. Thirty-four Democrats voted "no"; Republicans were unanimous in their opposition to the legislation.

The vote brings the health care bill to the precipice of passage. But, the debate over what the political impact of the vote will be on the coming midterm election remains to be seen.

Have thoughts on what lies ahead? Consider this an open thread on the vote. You can also check out our thoughts on the night at "TheFix" Twitter feed.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 21, 2010; 10:58 PM ET
Categories:  Health Care  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Health care, health care and more health care
Next: Health care vote ends, political fight begins

Comments

As time goes on, the fanatical, hysterical right-wing-hyperbole will fade away.

The most the history books will talk about is that it was a very contentious issue. The nutjobs hurling racial slurs at John Lewis will be long forgotten.

This law belongs in that select group of legislation that moves us closer to social justice.

The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. The Social Security Act, The Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act, Medicaid, The Equal Housing Act and now Obama's Health Care Reform.

The losing side may lament... but this bill is HUGE. And it will soon become law.

Like it or not, history has, indeed, been made.

Posted by: SamanthaAdams | March 22, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

"the Hyde Amendment is Dead"

ok we take your bait. please post the congressional legislation repealing Hyde. oh I see it doesn't exist. the radical right got their way and they still refuse to take yes for an answer. anyone now wonder why no one takes their agenda seriously anymore?

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 22, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Somebody is totally mistaken!

The Hyde Amendment is dead. Whatever is in this 2700+ pages of mishmash is now law when President Obama signs it.

An Executive Order cannot supercede or trump statutory law. When the President signs this, it becomes statutory law.

Either the President and his people are mistaken, or they intentionally clouded the issue with smoke by offering to use an Executive Order. Should an Executive Order be allowed to trump Statutory Law, then we can know for sure that the Constitution is totally dead, and at that point, we can be sure we are living in a dictatorship.

Posted by: Tawodi | March 22, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

do we need to go back and retrieve all of 37th and jake's posts over the last 30 days here praising Stupak and telling us how he is their hero and would guarantee the end of HC reform. The reason it is so humorous is b/c they take themselves and their inane predictions seriously.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 22, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Predictable hysteria and bluster from the trolls.

Funny as hell seeing Jake calling Stupak a baby-killer after singing his praises for months.

When does the civil war start?

Going long on Redenbacher.

And the Democrats.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

No.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

was that you jake last night in the Congressional chamber calling Stupak a baby killer?

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 22, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

I don't live in Bart Stupak's district, of course, but he SHOULD be voted out. The rest of us need to vote out the following Dems:

Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luján
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

I see you listed Stupak. So my 4:55 pm post last night describing your predictable reaction to Stupak's vote was spot on. The vote incidentally did not occur until 11 pm.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 22, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

The rest of us need to vote out the following Dems:

Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luján
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

my post was actually at 4:55 pm and I nailed your predicable reaction to Stupak. I was going to ad that they would be calling Stupak but I really didn t think your crowd would be that dumb.

"for months we have been telling jake that Stupak would end up voting for HC and that Obama is serious that the Hyde Amendment would stand. What we heard from the R radicals was that if HC passes there would be blood in the streets and the world would quickly come to an end. My guess is that tomorrow we will now hear from jake and his band of radicals that Stupak sold out and their metaphoric knives will now be aimed at defeating Congressman Stupak. What these radical Rs don't understand is that the D party is truly a big tent and that is precisely why they will continue to control Congress after elections in Nov. Surely that is gnawing at them today."

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 21, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 22, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

no jake I made that post at 5 pm yesterday as soon as Stupak announced his support for HC. My exact words were that expect jake to start throwing metaphorical spears at Stupak and calling him a traitor would be happy to retriev that post I made last night, but you are so predictable, its laughable that we should expect any less from you.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 22, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

leichtman1 "predicted" something that had already happened (after the fact). That's an amazing talent.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

incidentally I predicted yesterday evening here on the blog that jake and his crowd would be screaming at Stupak today that he is a baby killer. I am just surprised that it took them so long.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 22, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

"Do you think that the federal government can force those who don't own cars to purchase automobile insurance too?"

actually jake judges and the DPS does this every day, its called non owner's liability. You are a lawyer, surprised you didn't know that.

As to mandates, precisely what would you call Medicare and Social Security. I presume that your secret society will be demanding that the mandates on SS and Medicare be held to be unconstitutional as well and that that become the official platform of the Fla and Arizona GOP.

Oh and the world and the DOW would end today according to jake and 37th, how is that working out? HC stocks are screaming up, just as predicted.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 22, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Obama and his Marxist followers may have won this vote and battle.

However, they WILL NOT win this war destroy our American way of life!

Posted by: ComradeRahcuk | March 22, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Todd's math is slightly off. The United States as we know it began in 1789, not 1776. Then again, it didn't end in 2010 either. For the sweeping nature of such a program, it would have ended in the 30s.

Posted by: JakeD3 | March 22, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Most prescient comment of the night goes to dognabbit. I'm just surprised that it took 31 minutes for 1+4+9+16+25-2*3*3 to get going.

Posted by: JakeD3 | March 22, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Um, Todd?

It's "whether" and "intervene."

Don't they teach you anything at the Tea Party School?

Posted by: Bondosan | March 22, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

I urge all TRUE pro-lifers to donate to his campaign:

https://www.completecampaigns.com/FR/contribute.asp?CampaignID=radanovich

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Needless to say, I concur with Rep. Radanovich's condemnation of Stupak.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Amen!

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 7:15 AM | Report abuse

Today was the death of the United States of America as we know it, 1776-2010. This fraudulant userper to the white house, his majestey, the African Lying Lion, the Chimp in Chief, and his evil Minions of the Democrat Party have forced the working class of America to grab there ankels and take it up the rear weather we want this or not. Everything the founders of our great nation worked for is being taken away from us and being given to the blacks, the mexicans, the illegals, the homosexuals, the lazy and shiftless, those who flaunt God's laws and think that Man has a better idea how to behave than OUR CREATOR. Instead of bowing down to JESUS CHRIST we are forced to bow to Obama, a MINION OF SATAN! These are the end of days!!! All that is left is that we can PRAY FOR GODS MERCY that he has only been testing us and will soon intervean and restore a Godly man to the white house.

Posted by: ToddPollard | March 22, 2010 4:51 AM | Report abuse

@archaeoman: I'd say that people still believe is far and away the more bizarre.
There've always been liars, always will be.  Nothing new.  What is new is people committing that act of ideological doublethink that enables them to continue to believe what they know to be false.  You can bet for example that most of the birthers are fully aware of the absurdity of their claim, requiring a conspiracy hatched when Obama was born, requiring the silent and secret complicity of thousands, the falsification of records, the foreknowledge that he would be president one day, to say nothing of a cartoonishly incompetent Department of Justice.

Just one example, one near and dear to the readers here.  Hey that rhymes, therefore it's profoundly true.  Anyway.

Fundamental to our political system is that voters are informed and have their own self-interest at heart.  When it comes to Republican allegiance, that presumption has stunningly failed.  Who but a billionaire defense contractor or corporate executive has a dog in that fight?  Why do poor people line up and carry signs and chant their demands to be fleeced and robbed?  It boggles the mind.

It's gone in my lifetime from believing discredited ideas like trickle-down economics to starkly accepting as true assertions that conflict with clear recent memories.  We even have Republicans claiming now that 9/11 happened during Bill Clinton's presidency. that the economic downturn started the day President Obama took office.  And willing believers by the millions.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 3:30 AM | Report abuse

erukkila: don't get involved. You don't know the history here

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 3:10 AM | Report abuse

naocoler, did you just tell another human being to think about dying by their own hand?

Posted by: erukkila | March 22, 2010 3:02 AM | Report abuse

Defining moments in government spending, 2000-2010:

- Bush presidency.
1. unnecessary Iraq war. Cost to the US: too many dead American soldiers and $ 800 billion (and counting) over seven years. Benefits to the US: none, really.
2. Economic meltdown of 2008. Cost to the US: about three trillion committed, anybody's guess how much will be lost for good. Benefits: we avoided a Great Depression and had to suffer only a recession.

- Obama presidency (so far)
1. healthcare reform. Cost to the US: 900 billion over 10 years. Benefits: deficit reduction of 1.3 trillion over 20 years, healthcare security for almost all Americans.

And Republicans are now trying to convince me that Obama is wasting my tax dollars, and that they will be better stewards of federal finances? I'm not sure what is more bizar: that claim, or the fact that there are still people that fall for it.

Posted by: archaeoman | March 22, 2010 2:44 AM | Report abuse

This is for you too Ted Kennedy ... You didn't think we would forget you did you?

Health Care Reform Passes!

Democrats, Independents and Obamacans in action
The World's most amazing Basketball Shot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMV_gvBwL1g

Look for follow up stories as this bill helps Americans in need.

For International readers who think we are all crazy when it comes politics and Democracy "I say this is one of our finest hours! Democracy in action USA style!"

Posted by: cooday | March 22, 2010 2:16 AM | Report abuse

The Bush tax cuts ultimately hurt the economy.
The economy went through 2 Bush tax cuts which primarily stimulated a real estate bubble that burst during the election of 2008.
The tax cuts were tailored for the wealthy who received most of the benefit.
They then largely invested in real estate and derivative products which produced rapidly increasing prices. When the end came, many banks and investors were bailed out by Bush. This negated the effect of increased tax revenue from the stimulated economy. So the benefits of the cuts were lost in the bailouts. This increased the deficit by at least one trillion dollars over what would be expected to occur without the bailout.

Posted by: seemstome | March 22, 2010 2:07 AM | Report abuse

Federal law supersedes state law under the constitution and this is federal law. It will replace state regulations.

Posted by: seemstome | March 22, 2010 1:43 AM | Report abuse

I'm not exactly sure if Mississippi is affected by the fix. They would if they met the requirements. Mississippi got hit, but in terms of infrastructure, the damage wasn't as great, so the outside money might not have affected their calculations in a way that affects medicaid.

No idea if the CBO scored this. I assume they did. The fix nets Louisiana about $300 million. So if you want to assume the CBO didn't score this, then subtract $300 million from their calculated savings. It's a rounding error. I doubt it, though. The CBO is very thorough and it's hard to imagine they missed such a well publicized element.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 22, 2010 1:38 AM | Report abuse

37th, That is true.
States regulate auto insurance, but it is an example of government imposed insurance albeit at the state level.
There is no constitutionality problem.
The federal government has much broader powers under the commerce clause using it for civil rights and even sex offenders.
Insurance regulation clearly would fall underneath it and the supreme court would be unlikely to challenge requirements of the law concerning insurance coverage.

Posted by: seemstome | March 22, 2010 1:35 AM | Report abuse

37th, exactly. It doesn't make sense. But that's how the federal government calculates it. They look at the outside money that comes in via insurance, FEMA, etc and conclude that income went up 40%

It doesn't make sense. Hence the fix.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 22, 2010 1:27 AM | Report abuse

The taxes in this health care bill place a MASSIVE DRAG ON THE ECONOMY - IT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ECONOMY DOES NOT NEED.

This is Obama's Smoot-Hawley - exactly the wrong bill at the wrong time.


Anyway - Obama is already a complete disaster, it might as well be really really horrible.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 1:18 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD


That makes no sense - you don't have to pay income tax on an insurance pay-out for damages - it is compensation, not income.

Mississippi got hit with Katrina too, do they qualify???

And there have been some other natural disasters too.

AND did the CBO score all this in the bill?

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 1:16 AM | Report abuse

37th & Doh! provides an excellent summary of the republican reaction:

"OUCH.


OUCH.

OUCH."

Too much fun. Please, Gentlemen, continue.

Posted by: nodebris | March 22, 2010 1:15 AM | Report abuse

Jake, what is the health insurance equivalent if nit owning a car?

Not having flesh?

Are you reallly this stupid?

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 1:15 AM | Report abuse

seemstome


It is obvious that one does not have to own a car - and if you don't own a car, you don't need car insurance.


However, car insurance is under STATE law, under STATES powers.

The FEDERAL government powers are different.

Also, health insurance is NOT allowed to be sold across state lines - SO HOW IN THE WORLD COULD IT BE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ???

You really don't know what you are talking about, do you ????


.


.
.
.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Force private citizens to buy insurance?
Why, the federal government can force you to join the military, to protect the country.
Why couldn't they force you to buy insurance to protect yourself? They force you to buy liability insurance for your car to protect others. Why not health insurance? They force you to buy social security and medicare insurance for your old age too. Why not health insurance. The interstate commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate and control trade and commerce between states, it has been broadly interpreted to include other things as well. It is very unlikely that it will denied by the Supreme Court.

Posted by: seemstome | March 22, 2010 1:05 AM | Report abuse

seemstome:

Do you think that the federal government can force those who don't own cars to purchase automobile insurance too?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 12:59 AM | Report abuse

37th, I think the Louisiana Purchase is still in too. I was being tongue in cheek about it, but the amendment is definitely important. It adjusts the formula for medicaid reimbursement to disaster stricken areas.

What happened is that after Katrina hit, people started collecting insurance for damages from Katrina. As a result, the federal government determined that the income of Louisiana went up 40%. Yeah. Katrina raised the income of Louisianans by 40%. So when state income goes up, then the federal government's share of medicaid goes down (and a hurricane ravaged state foots the bill)

The Louisiana Purchase was basically saying that the Federal Government wouldn't reduce its medicaid share for disaster stricken states that have artificially raised incomes. Louisiana was paying 70% of state medicaid and the fed paid 30%. The fix would return it to that level. It's common sense. It is a real fix to a real problem.

This is quite different from the Cornhusker Kickback in which the Fed would pay 100% of Nebraska's medicaid expansion mandated by the bill. From my understanding, all states would get this 100% for three years. Nebraska gets the 100% forever. This is obviously different from the Louisiana deal. That's why the Louisiana deal is going to all states and Nebraska is getting the axe.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 22, 2010 12:56 AM | Report abuse

Yes, it's called the commerce clause. The federal government regulates everything using it. It's a slam dunk to quote George Tenet. The supreme court won't be able to touch it.

Posted by: seemstome | March 22, 2010 12:51 AM | Report abuse

37th:

At least promise me that you won't spend your birthday posting here ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 12:41 AM | Report abuse

37th:

I don't think that Obama is legally "President" let alone a Constitutional scholar.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

When the American People see their taxes go up, and premiums will go up too - there is little in terms of cost containment here - the American People are not going to be happy.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 12:36 AM | Report abuse

JakeD2


Do you mean that the Constitution does not have a provision which allows the Federal Government to force private citizens to buy health insurance ???

It must be in the Constitution somewhere.


How can they pass a bill like this if it isn't in the Constitution ????

Obama went to Harvard Law - and he is a Constitutional law expert.


So Obama MUST be doing it right, right ?

.

.
.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 12:32 AM | Report abuse

JakeD2


Do you mean that the Constitution does not have a provision which allows the Federal Government to force private citizens to buy health insurance ???

It must be in the Constitution somewhere.


How can they pass a bill like this if it isn't in the Constitution ????

Obama went to Harvard Law - and he is a Constitutional law expert.


So Obama MUST be doing it right, right ?

.

.
.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Jake your irrelevance is already firmly established, you don't need to provide further evidence.

You cretins just lost BIG, and the american people won. Thirty million will now have healthcare. The diseased will be cured, lives will be saved, and you ca go lick your wounds somewhere else, you loathsome pervert.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 12:29 AM | Report abuse

37thand0street:

I am saying that the FEDERAL government cannot force private citizens to purchase private insurance.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 12:27 AM | Report abuse

JakeD2


This health care bill will start to take hits with the Senate Parliamentarian.

Then the Courts will take a few chucks out of it.

Then the Republicans will be able to DE-FUND the legislation next year - basically halting its IMPLEMENTATION.

Then the bill will eventually be REPEALED.


What will happen then ???

AT that point, the Republicans and democrats will come together, come up with BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT ON PARTS OF THE HEALTH CARE REFORM - and those agreements will settle the issue.


THE ISSUE WILL ONLY BE SETTLED BY BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT.


Meanwhile, Obama insists on HURTING THE ECONOMY WITH ALL THESE NEW TAXES.


Caterpillar says this bill will COST THEM $100 MILLION - WAIT UNTIL THE REAL COSTS OF OBAMA'S BILL START TO BE REALIZED AROUND THE COUNTRY.


OUCH.


OUCH.

OUCH.


.

.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 12:26 AM | Report abuse

If anyone else wants to discuss whether Obama is the legal "President" who can sign this into law, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 12:23 AM | Report abuse

JakeD2


I will discuss it with you only if you can point to the provision in the Constitution that says the federal government can do that.

AND, would you please point to the provision in the Constitution which places health insurance under interstate commerce, when there is NO HEALTH INSURANCE SOLD ACCROSS STATE LINES.

Joe Biden had tears in his eyes tonight, that wasn't for the Constitution, was it ?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 12:19 AM | Report abuse

@PissJug: I'll post from the broadband connection in MY HOUSE when I'm there next month.

@JakeD: mandatory auto and homeowner insurance aren't "unconstitutional," neither is this.

Yeah Stanford Law

(*chortle*)

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 12:19 AM | Report abuse

If anyone else wants to discuss whether the reconciliation process will be followed, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 12:19 AM | Report abuse

LEMMINGS IN A TOYOTA


This health care bill will be Obama's SMOOT-HAWLEY bill - exactly WHAT THE ECONOMY DOES NOT NEED.


THIS BILL MAKES THE RECESSION WORSE.

This bill will be DE-FUNDED next year.

And this bill will eventually be REPEALED.

Never forget the DEMOCRATS REPEALED THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1875 - AND THEN WORKED FOR 90 YEARS TO STOP CIVIL RIGHTS.

And then, when the democrats changed their minds, all the democrats do is claim credit for civil rights - when it was the REPUBLICANS WHO PASSED THE CIVIL RIGHTS IN 1875.


So, know your history.


Medicare and Mediaid are dragging this country down financially - how can anyone in their right mind add ANOTHER PROGRAM WHICH IS UNDER-FUNDED ????

Go ahead, have your fun LEMMINGS IN A TOYOTA.

.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 12:16 AM | Report abuse

If anyone else wants to discuss whether the mandate to purchase private insurance is Constitutional, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 12:13 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler - everyone agrees, you belong in Vietname, hanging in a pit with no internet connnection.

Make that happen, will ya?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 12:12 AM | Report abuse

Clyburn and Pelosi say they have enjoyed every minute of it - threatening every democrat along the way.

.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 12:11 AM | Report abuse

Obviously, the ROBERTS Supreme Court can stop Obamacare.

==

on what basis, cretin?

It's over. You lost. Consider suicide.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 12:09 AM | Report abuse

LEMMINGS IN A TOYOTA


This health care bill will be Obama's SMOOT-HAWLEY bill - exactly WHAT THE ECONOMY DOES NOT NEED.

THIS BILL MAKES THE RECESSION WORSE.


This bill will be DE-FUNDED next year.


And this bill will eventually be REPEALED.


Never forget the DEMOCRATS REPEALED THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1875 - AND THEN WORKED FOR 90 YEARS TO STOP CIVIL RIGHTS.


And then, when the democrats changed their minds, all the democrats do is claim credit for civil rights - when it was the REPUBLICANS WHO PASSED THE CIVIL RIGHTS IN 1875.

So, know your history.

Medicare and Mediaid are dragging this country down financially - how can anyone in their right mind add ANOTHER PROGRAM WHICH IS UNDER-FUNDED ????

Go ahead, have your fun LEMMINGS IN A TOYOTA.


.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 12:09 AM | Report abuse

Pelosi needs to get her props. Once again she managed to get her votes and get the job done. I like Pelosi's politics and I like her effectiveness.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 22, 2010 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Obviously, the ROBERTS Supreme Court can stop Obamacare.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 12:03 AM | Report abuse

Just popping in to watch the trolls' heads exploding. Very satisfactory.

See you again after the Climate Change bill passes. Ciao.

Posted by: nodebris | March 22, 2010 12:01 AM | Report abuse

set it on Dark

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 12:00 AM | Report abuse

Law Of The Land now, PissJug

and no number of repeat posts or blank lines can change that.

So go take a bath with your toaster

Posted by: Noacoler | March 21, 2010 11:55 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD


I think the Louisiana Purchase is still in, I have to check to be sure, but I think it's in.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 21, 2010 11:53 PM | Report abuse

219 to vote out of office!! The American Way!!

Posted by: msreichert | March 21, 2010 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama says they didn't give into the special interests


... except the pharmaceutical companies


... except the tort lawyers


.... except the unions


... except the deals with the doctors under the "doctor's fix"


OBAMA IS A LIAR.

.


Posted by: 37thand0street | March 21, 2010 11:50 PM | Report abuse

The American People do NOT want these MASSIVE NEW GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND MASSIVE NEW TAXES WITH THIS HEALTH CARE PLAN.

Obama will be impeached over this.


This health care bill AMOUNTS TO A MASSIVE DRAG ON THE ECONOMY -


THIS BILL IS OBAMA'S SMOOT-HAWLEY - AN ECONOMIC PROGRAM WHICH HURTS THE ECONOMY.

OBAMA WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS WORSE THAN HOOVER. Let me make that clear.

.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 21, 2010 11:44 PM | Report abuse

LEMMINGS IN A TOYOTA


I guess it feels good until you hit the ground.

.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 21, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Obamacare passes in the dead of the night on Sunday. Shame on Dems.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 21, 2010 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Damn, the reconciliation passed. No Louisiana Purchase for us. :-P

I wonder how pissed guys like Ben Nelson will be. Does this mean he's going to make a lot of trouble in the future?

Posted by: DDAWD | March 21, 2010 11:38 PM | Report abuse

LEMMINGS IN A TOYOTA

I guess it feels good until you hit the ground.


.

.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 21, 2010 11:36 PM | Report abuse

The people who say lawyers
are the problem

[Tort reform! echo echo echo]

never did believe that.

They can't wait to use them.

Chief Justice Roberts, now maybe we'll see whether he is a jurist or a politician.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 21, 2010 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Stupak = baby killer

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 21, 2010 11:30 PM | Report abuse

I believe this changes the game.

Americans love a winner, and they love it when their usually-dysfunctional Congress actually gets something done.

The commercials begin to write themselves. The Democrats offer solutions, the Republicans offer nothing.

I predict the Democrats lose about 12 seats in the House and about 2 in the Senate. Not bad for a midterm.

Posted by: Bondosan | March 21, 2010 11:30 PM | Report abuse

Time to file lawsuits (two States have already voted to file). I've always said that mandates would be legally challenged if this bill passed.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 21, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

I hate the you'llbuyouroilforever.orgy smirk advert

Posted by: shrink2 | March 21, 2010 11:23 PM | Report abuse

"remains to be seen" my butt zits.

This is a resounding defeat for your party, Cillizza, and you know it. Now quit clenching your teeth and do your f ucking job.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 21, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

As for the midterms, I'm not sure how today's angry people can get any angrier by the time the voting begins. Their biggest continuing effect on the elections might be if they are unable to vote because they had heart attacks or their heads exploded.

I have this feeling that daily life will feel the same later this year as it does now. In other words, most of us will have moved on to whatever will be on our minds at that time. Jobs, jobs, jobs, perhaps?

Posted by: dognabbit | March 21, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

"But, the debate over what the political impact of the vote will be on the coming midterm election remains to be seen."

The political impact will hit Republicans in the teeth. They don't know who they are, they only know who they hate.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 21, 2010 11:15 PM | Report abuse

We pretty much have open line Friday on the chat thread.

I'll let the honorable (and in some cases dishonorable) ladies and gentlemen speak for themselves. www.cspan.org.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 21, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

And so will begin another non-stop tirade from 37th & 0 St...

Posted by: dognabbit | March 21, 2010 11:05 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company