Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The health care vote: Winners and Losers

The House health care vote is in the books and the after-action analysis has begun.

The Fix, of course, is knee-deep (heck, we might be waist-deep) in sorting through the winners and losers from the health care debate that was.

Our first cut at those who soared and those who stumbled is below. Who/what did we miss? The comments section awaits your suggestions.

WINNERS

Barack Obama: No, it wasn't the way the President and his senior staff envisioned the health care debate playing out. But, at the end of the day, a win is a win. Obama, accused by many within the party of a listless commitment to the bill, transformed himself into a strong advocate for a comprehensive bill -- in the face of opposition to such an approach even within his Administration. (The trigger for Obama appeared to be the election of Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown in mid-January.) And, Obama's decision to hold a televised health care summit turned into a master stroke, casting him as a honest broker -- an image entirely consistent with the image he wants to broadcast to voters when 2012 rolls around. He ran on doing big things and now will have health care to show for that pledge when he asks for re-election in November 2012.

Nancy Pelosi: Is there a more underrated Member of Congress than the Speaker? Say what you will about her public presence -- guarded and suspicious -- she showed (yet again) that she has an unique understanding of her caucus and an ability to deliver votes when she needs to. Pelosi, like Obama, was a behind-the-scenes advocate for a "go big or go home" approach to the bill in the wake of the Brown victory -- an approach validated by the vote last night. Pelosi's final floor speech fell somewhat flat but reinforced that she is someone who does her best work outside of the public glare. And her best work is remarkably good.

Nuns: Yes, nuns. Their strong statement in support of the health care bill -- issued in the middle of last week -- helped blunt the opposition by Catholic bishops to the legislation and gave pro-life Democrats cover to back it.

John Boehner/Mitch McConnell: The Republican leaders of the House and Senate, respectively, kept unanimity within their conferences -- although we heard that Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.), who had voted for the health care bill last November, was a possible "yes" up until the end. Preserving their unanimous opposition allows Republicans -- at a national and a race-by-race level -- to make the case that Democrats and Democrats alone pushed through a bill that, they will argue, the American people don't want. One slight detractor for Boehner: his floor speech at the close of Sunday's debate was WAY too hot. The issue clearly evokes passion but appearing angry in politics -- particularly on the House floor -- is unseemly.

Dennis Kucinich: Who would have thought that the one-time presidential candidate from Ohio would lead the charge of Democrats switching from "no" in November to "yes" on Sunday. In being the first person in the pool, Kucinich drew scads of (largely positive) press coverage and proved (yet again) the importance of going first in politics.

Bart Stupak: Stupak became the face of the principled opposition to the bill for Democrats and stuck to his guns until the very end when he could legitimately claim he extracted a promise -- in the form of an executive order -- from the Obama Administration. When he rose to speak in support of the legislation Sunday night, he received a sustained applause from his colleagues -- testament to the critical role he had played in the bill's passage. In taking the slings and arrows from the liberal left, Stupak provided significant cover for the likes of Reps. Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.) and Steve Driehaus (Ohio) to vote for the bill even though they are prime targets for Republicans in the fall.

C-SPAN: How often has the Fix's favorite television network been able to go toe to toe with March Madness among political/sports-obsessed Washington denizens? (We, for one, found ourselves flipping back and forth between the two all night.) And, what did C-SPAN deliver? The same "just the facts, ma'am" approach that has made it indispensable for political junkies since its founding in 1979.

Paul Ryan/Anthony Weiner: Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, and Weiner, a New York Democrat, both emerged as national players during the long health care fight. Ryan, long talked about as a potential Senate or even presidential candidate, claimed space as the leading policy foil to President Obama while Weiner, a once (and future?) candidate for New York City mayor, became the leading voice of the liberal left in the House.

Republican Attorneys General: With the bill now passed, watch for a number of Republican attorneys general to challenge the constitutionality of the federal government mandating participation by individuals. Such a stance is a clear political winner for these pols among Republican primary voters who despise the bill. As a result, it's no surprise that Ken Cuccinelli, the top cop in the Commonwealth of Virginia and a likely 2013 gubernatorial candidate, was one of the first AG's in the country to announce a plan to challenge the law.

LOSERS

Flip-floppers: Thirteen Democrats changed their votes from where they stood in November. Eight members went from "no to yes": Reps. Brian Baird (Wash.), John Boccieri (Ohio), Allen Boyd (Fla.), Bart Gordon (Tenn.), Suzanne Kosmas (Fla.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Betsy Markey (Colo.), and Scott Murphy (N.Y.). Five went from "yes to no": Michael Arcuri (N.Y.), Marion Berry (Ark.), Daniel Lipinski (Ill.), Stephen Lynch (Mass.) and Zack Space (Ohio). Not everyone on that list is in trouble for their switch -- Kucinich being a prime example -- but most of the above Members have ensured either a serious primary or general election challenge. Changing positions in politics is never a good thing but doing so on such a high profile issue is a huge electoral risk. Doubt us? Remember the whole "he voted for it before he voted against it" problem for Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) on the Iraq war funding resolution during the 2004 presidential campaign?

"Deem and Pass": House Democratic leaders spent the better part of a week defending this parliamentary procedure whereby no actual vote would take place on the Senate health care bill before deciding to scrap it over the weekend. We get why they did it -- they weren't sure they could find 216 votes for the Senate bill and needed to make sure they could move forward even without it -- but it amounted to another BIG process story that got them nothing but bad press.

Pro-choice groups: To get a deal done, President Obama had to issue an executive order reaffirming that no federal funds in the health care bill could be used to subsidize abortions. The National Organization for Women and NARAL Pro-Choice America issued angry statements condemning the decision but the White House clearly made a political calculation that appeasing the pro-life Democrats standing against the bill was more critical than making pro-choice groups happy.

Bart Stupak: Yes, in the Fix's world you can be both a winner and a loser. While Stupak made himself a prominent and influential player within the Congress during the health care debate, he also inflamed the liberal left nationally and drew a primary challenge in the form of former Charlevoix County Commissioner Connie Saltonstall. While Stupak eventually voted for the bill, Saltonstall insisted she would remain in the race , a decision that makes the nine-term Democratic incumbent's life significantly more complicated in an election year.

Mitt Romney: As soon as the gavel came down on the House vote last night, the former Massachusetts governor's 2012 presidential campaign got a bit more complicated. With the federal legislation already drawing comparisons to what Romney did on health care in Massachusetts as governor, he will be charged with constantly differentiating the two for conservatives who are up in arms over the Obama plan. Romney, a savvy pol, is already working to get out ahead of that storyline; he issued a strong condemnation of the bill, calling it an "unconscionable abuse of power" -- a statement that was immediately linked to on the Drudge Report, an influential news aggregator.

Civil discourse: Watching the debate on the House floor Sunday night (and the protests going on outside the Capitol) reinforced the growing sense that the idea of disagreeing without being disagreeable no longer exists within the halls of Congress.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 22, 2010; 12:04 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 vote ends, political fight begins
Next: Choose your own House race: The health care edition

Comments

I was not calling you a "lurker".

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 23, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Dear JakeD:

(I don't lurk here; I have a life.)

My first instinct was to reply, "Bill Clinton's, no. Chris Cilizza's, yes". But really, it depends on what the supporting arguments are.

I used sports, but the principle is the same: there are talking heads, and then there are people who really know. Clinton's been there, you have to respect that informed opinion (emphasis on informed). Just being a talking (or blogging) head doesn't make you an expert, doesn't even mean you're knowledgeable, just means you have the job.

That said, even informed, knowledgeable opinions are sometimes wrong. So it still comes down to, what is the point offered, what are the arguments offered in support, do those arguments lead to the point offered? Lord knows, Bill (a man for whom I have a great amount of respect, given his intellect and political acumen, even as I detest his amorality) has been given to missteps before.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 23, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Memo To: concernedqd
Subject: Computer Malfunction

Please get your computer keyboard repaired. Apparently your shift key is sticking, and all of your characters are printing in upper case in the middle of a sentence.

Posted by: makeitwright | March 23, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Lilycat1 : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 23, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

My congessman is on this list and he just lost my vote and my good will in his re-election bid.

Posted by: Lilycat1 | March 23, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

California deserves Pelosi. The rest of us deserve better.

Posted by: whisperonthewind | March 23, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Pro-choice groups are losers?
I think you mean WOMEN are the losers here. Many women undergoing an abortion didn't plan for it, may have been even against it, theoretically (which most people are, theoretically, but theory is something else than real life), are desperate. Every woman could be on the brink of such a choice (in so far there's still a choice, so to say).

Posted by: Majesty | March 23, 2010 8:04 AM | Report abuse

OK so a 21 year old can have a premium only half as much as the highest-cost age group - is that right ?


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 11:09 PM

Yep, that's the way group coverage works. Just ask me and all the other smiling folks on FEHBPs. We have just two prices on our insurance: one for married and one for single. Age and health do not figure into our payments.

I didn't mind it when I was 30 and single, and I don't mind it at 53, married with a house full of teenagers.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 23, 2010 6:56 AM | Report abuse

Chops to CC for calling out Nancy Pelosi's formidable political powers.  She really delivered on this, a latter-day Lyndon Johnson and nobody to dismiss with some sneer about botox anymore.

But really, as for Boehner and McConnell, consensus here appears unanimous, excepting the reflexive contrarians, that you're completely flippo on that call.  Those two guys are the very image of losers.  Boehner's "last minute appeal" was histrionic and infantile. he was yelling and waving about like a toddler throwing a tantrum because he doesn't get to play with the rattle.  McConnell gave the same speech of FUD about HCR six dozen times.  And yeah they held the line, not a single solitary vote, arms crossed and lower lips thrust out.

These guys are winners?  Are you serious?  You need to get a grip.  And I don't mean a suitcase.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 23, 2010 1:43 AM | Report abuse

@d: The recent tea bag meltdown/hate fest. The idiotic GOP rants about "repealing" the bill. These are aces being handed to BHO and the Dems--let's see if they play their hand correctly.

==

At the gym tonight the news was on the televisions behind the treadmills.  About 1/3 HRC .. the other 2/3 shot after shot of Congressmen walking through screaming mobs.  Barney Frank, the former Civil Rights, others.  Subtitles with lots of bleeped out words.  This is news.  This thuggery by the HRC protestors got MAJOR play.
Everywhere but here, of course.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 23, 2010 1:29 AM | Report abuse

you think boehner and mcconnel are winners ???

see ya in November to watch you eat those foolish words

Posted by: nada85484 | March 23, 2010 12:55 AM | Report abuse

DO YOU HAVE A CONSCIENCE OR FEEL GUILT FOR DIVIDING OUR COUNTRY??? DO YOU REALIZE THAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WILL NO LONGER HAVE RESPECT FOR OUR CONGRESS,SENATE AND THE PRESIDENT???? (Yes I said, "THE PRESIDENT.")
It is my opinion that... I NO LONGER RESPECT, THEREFORE CANNOT CONSIDER THE MAN IN THE OVAL OFFICE, "MY President." 2012.

==

hysteric.

You need to get on medication.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 23, 2010 12:40 AM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe


I simply do not understand how you can make so many sexist statements - yet you find other statement by other people so wrong.

It would stand to reason that if racist remarks were wrong so were sexist remarks.

You also engage in a wide range of sexual slurs - which you appear to find to be OK as well.


Well you can't have it both ways.

Same goes for your pal Obama. He can't have it both ways.

.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 12:27 AM | Report abuse

You are a complete idiot.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 12:15 AM | Report abuse

==

IRONY ALERT!! CRITICAL!!

The all cap triple space unintelligible buffoon calling someone else an idiot?!?

Posted by: Noacoler | March 23, 2010 12:24 AM | Report abuse

shrink2

I would like to know EXACTLY what the new rules are - because it seems like Obama is saying one set of things - and I would actually like to know if they are TRUE.

For instance, the pre-existing conditions are supposed to kick in immediately, meaning today - Tuesday.

So does that mean that every insurance company is obligated to cover everyone with pre-existing conditions ? I believe yes.


NOW, there has to be some cost provisions - some regulations on what those policies are going to cost.


Otherwise, the health insurance company can say, we will cover you , and the premium is a million dollars a month.

That is why, in our earlier exchange, I said that I was under the impression that there was some cost ratio or regulation which told the insurance company what an acceptable rate schedule would be -

Apparently spreading out the risk.

However, it appears to me that tomorrow EVERYONE WITH A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION is going to rush out and get a health insurance policy - and the costs to the insurance companies are going to skyrocket.

I don't know - I guess we will find out soon enought - however there have been so many versions of all this that it is difficult to find out what is what.


However, OK pre-existing conditions = what are the new rate schedules like ??/

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 12:22 AM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


You mean a married woman has to sleep with any guy she sees??


Im a little unsure of the morals you are advancing there.

You are a complete idiot.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 23, 2010 12:15 AM | Report abuse

@blert: while I find myself disagreeing with much of what you write, I nevertheless hope you stick around. It's exceedingly rare here to have a conservative poster who isn't an obnoxious moron. Welcome.

But don't bother talking to JakeD, he's a despicable troll who has wished death on about 3/4 of the human rave at one time or another, and he mostly comes here to bait people and get attention. We mostly ignore him.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 23, 2010 12:11 AM | Report abuse

"The fine is paltry in comparison to the cost of the insurance, and because insurance companies are now forced to cover pre-existing conditions, the fear of not being able to get insurance in the future is removed."

Blert you are wrong. The bill is very complicated and this is not the place to start quoting its language. The industry has this issue covered.

Sure some expert a few weeks from now will be able to define a specific corridor through which a person might get over on this bill, but what you are talking about is playing by the old rules. The new rules are amazing.

Briefly, if you have a job, you have to be in the system, you don't just get to tell your boss, I am opting out.

If you don't have a job and you still have money, no one has to sell you cheap health care.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 11:36 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe writes:

"Loser: austinr"

We'll see on November 3rd whether broadwayjoe has been proven proven correct.

Posted by: austinrl | March 22, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Maybe , but not everything comes gradually like a sickness that you can rush out and buy a health care plan before the treatment starts. There are car wrecks, house fires, natural disasters that could put a person of any age in intensive care. Unless insurance retroactive, you will be responsible for the charges that accumulate until you sign up for insurance.

Posted by: Zarina1

---------------------

True, and some people will still buy health insurance for these reasons. However, the biggest of these risks, a car accident, is already covered separately by car insurance, so health insurance isn't needed to cover these medical bills. As for the others, yes, it is a risk, but it is such a small risk that I, personally, were I unmarried, age 25, and earning a decent paycheck of $40k/year or more, would almost certainly opt not to buy health insurance. Many young people today already don't for the very reason that they don't expect to need it, and this bill actually encourages them not to buy health insurance even more.

Why, you ask, when there is a fine that is designed to encourage people to buy insurance? The fine is paltry in comparison to the cost of the insurance, and because insurance companies are now forced to cover pre-existing conditions, the fear of not being able to get insurance in the future is removed. From now on, the mentality will be that one can always pick up some insurance at the exchange if it is needed, so there is no hurry to get it now. Pay the fine, save a few thousand dollars, and worry about the insurance after getting married, or maybe just before having kids. Until then, the risk is so low and the cost is so high that insurance makes less sense than ever.

The only people in the 20-something age bracket now who will have insurance are those who a) get it through their parents, b) get it through their employers, c) are already sick, or d) are low-income enough that buying it is financially almost the same as not buying it. Granted, this accounts for most people at that age, but the healthy, wealthy, 25+ crowd will have less motivation than ever to buy insurance with the exchange.

Posted by: blert | March 22, 2010 11:16 PM | Report abuse

37:

Here's a William Bennett-style thought experiment for you...

How would history have been changed if Palin had waived her, er, "policy" when she met famed trombonist Gregory Charles Royal? How different would she be today? How different would the world be? Riddle me that, 37.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 22, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi approval at 11 percent.

Reid at 8.

That is liberal victory.

Wait until you see what our victory over Iran looks like.

Posted by: Moonbat | March 22, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

shrink2


You should check out the exact details - they have some crazy provisions in there to spread out the costs.


OK so a 21 year old can have a premium only half as much as the highest-cost age group - is that right ?


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

blert:

Do you think, in the Citizens United case, that the majority of the Supreme Court favored government over the corporation?

Posted by: JakeD2

----------------------

Jake,

Don't mince words. I said government over the individual, not corporation. Corporations tend to get a fairly decent shake from the Supreme Court, or at least they tend to win out over individuals much of the time.

Kelo v. New London is prime example of the individual losing out to both government and corporate interests.

As for Citizens United, well, it is probably not worth getting into an argument about that case, but, to be honest, why should we really care about that decision? Even before that, ever since McCain-Feingold became law, the money spent on campaigns has shot through the roof, much of it coming from corporate interests or from individuals with direct ties to big corporations. I mean, so what if Exxon can now run an advertisement for or against a candidate? They still have to put their name on the ad, and why would they be dumb enough to do this? It's already much easier just to donate a million dollars to an industry trade group like the American Petroleum Institute, which then donates a million dollars to the DNC, RNC, DSCC, RSCC, etc., which then spends the money on the advertisement. Exxon doesn't anger any consumers or shareholders this way, and they get the same net effect in the political campaign.

Seriously, the floodgates to corporate money in campaigns have always been open, and McCain-Feingold seems to have been the catalyst that set off massive campaign spending. Citizens United isn't really going to make the situation any worse than it already is.

Posted by: blert | March 22, 2010 11:04 PM | Report abuse

The bill has no such 20% corridor.

See Subtitle B starting on page 19.

There has to be a study...'nuff said.

Age related costs can not exceed a ratio of 2:1.

You have to remember who you are dealing with. This industry does not get regulated by government, this industry regulates government.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

blert wrote: “…Faced with the choice between a $700-1250 fine and an insurance policy of $2500-$8000 or more, I have a feeling that a decent number of people will begrudgingly pay the fine. In my 20s, I certainly would have, especially with the knowledge that I could get insurance at any time because insurers couldn't deny me for any reason…”
______________________________
Maybe , but not everything comes gradually like a sickness that you can rush out and buy a health care plan before the treatment starts. There are car wrecks, house fires, natural disasters that could put a person of any age in intensive care. Unless insurance retroactive, you will be responsible for the charges that accumulate until you sign up for insurance.

Posted by: Zarina1 | March 22, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Don't buy insurance, blert, and risk losing everying. Improbable, yes. Possible, yes.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 22, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Obama is imposing what his ego desires on America


It has NOTHING TO DO WITH REPRESENTING WHAT AMERICANS WANT.


58% DISAPPROVE OF OBAMA'S HANDLING OF HEALTH CARE.

How much is that going to cost YOU ???


.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade


Several times, broadwayjoe has said he is in New York - even referencing a steak house which he says is "on" Times Square.

In New York they say "in" Times Square - but who is counting, right?


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 10:44 PM | Report abuse

There are many things that happened in the first year and half of Obama's term. The Health care fiasco is only one of many.
What upsets me more than anything else, Is that at a time when our citizens are trying to figure out how to pay the heating bill or electric and at the same time feed and shelter our families.... Our supposed Leaders are now going to take more of our money out of our paychecks. I have a few questions for Washington Politicians and our President.... HOW DO YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT???
DO YOU HAVE A CONSCIENCE OR FEEL GUILT FOR DIVIDING OUR COUNTRY??? DO YOU REALIZE THAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WILL NO LONGER HAVE RESPECT FOR OUR CONGRESS,SENATE AND THE PRESIDENT???? (Yes I said, "THE PRESIDENT.")
It is my opinion that... I NO LONGER RESPECT, THEREFORE CANNOT CONSIDER THE MAN IN THE OVAL OFFICE, "MY President." 2012.

Posted by: concernedqd | March 22, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

shrink2

I believe the health care bill limits the amount the health insurance companies can charge between the low risk and high risk points - maybe 20%

This will spread the costs of the high risk people across the groups - immediately.

Im not sure of the details - because there have been so many versions of the bill.


So the person who says, take the penalty and maybe sign up later ....

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

37th - I'll explain this s l o w l y. Broadway Joe is a reference to Joe Namath. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Namath and you'll understand a little more. Just to help you in your education, for Fairlington go for http://www.fairlington.org/ and for Blade to to www.sufc.co.uk. And have a

VERY

g o o d

NIGHT.

B

B

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 22, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse

critter69


No one has misinterpreted the polls more than the White House - THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT WANT THIS MASSIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM - AND THEY DO NOT WANT OBAMA'S NEW TAXES.

What part of that do you not understand???

Poll after Poll has stated that Obama IS IMPOSING THIS BILL ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AGAINST THEIR WILL.

THIS IS AN HISTORIC ABUSE OF POWER.


Get it?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Losers: Women who want the right to govern their own bodies. Couples whose marriages are not recognized by the federal government (along with domestic partners, and civil unions). Thrown under the bus for expediency and kowtowing to the DINOs.

Posted by: mykelbarber | March 22, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

blert:

Do you think, in the Citizens United case, that the majority of the Supreme Court favored government over the corporation?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

"...especially with the knowledge that I could get insurance at any time because insurers couldn't deny me for any reason."

Blert, they can't deny you, but have you seen any words in this bill that say you get to have cheap health care whenever you decide to buy in? No? So go bare until you become high risk, see what happens.

Better for everyone to buy in at low risk/price points and stay insured from then on.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

"I'm in my twenties. What's to prevent someone like me from dropping my insurance and just paying the cheaper fine? "
*****
Starting in 2014 you will get tax credits for health insurance to make your monthly premium less than $100, and significantly less than that depending on your income and family status. So you will pay $800-1200 for coverage, or $700 and up for the fine depending on your income and family status.

Posted by: squier13

----------------------------

Be careful of blanket statements like this. Much depends on a person's income and family status. A single 20-something earning $20k per year will face a very different landscape from one earning $30k or $40k per year. At $20k per year, the $695 fine and the $800-1200 insurance come out so close to each other that paying the extra couple hundred bucks for insurance makes good sense. If earning $30k, the insurance price shoots up to $2400-2800 per year. If earning $40k, insurance will cost $3800 per year. At $50k, one gets no subsidies at all, and the fine could not exceed $1250.

Faced with the choice between a $700-1250 fine and an insurance policy of $2500-$8000 or more, I have a feeling that a decent number of people will begrudgingly pay the fine. In my 20s, I certainly would have, especially with the knowledge that I could get insurance at any time because insurers couldn't deny me for any reason.

If anything, this bill encourages healthy people at certain incomes and in certain family situations not to buy insurance. Right now, one reason that a lot of young people carry insurance, if it's not through their employers, is that they are afraid of being excluded later on the grounds of pre-existing conditions. With that threat removed, there is little reason to bother with insurance until one actually needs it, assuming that the fine plus minor incidental health expenses would be cheaper.

Posted by: blert | March 22, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I have been saying health care costs are going to be unsustainable with or without tinkering on the margins since health care reform was just a glint in the Clintons' eyes. Now we have not tinkered at the margins, we are in the tank.

Fortunately this is not a war on anything and all the money stays here, in circulation. But, oh yeah, this is a big deal.

Also rritkonlyyou is a loser.
No one is going to buy fake Chinese crap anymore; we are going to buy health care. It will be better than plastic consumer goods with shiny almost metallic and embossed leather looking tags that have names we wish we could afford to be seen wearing.


Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

MylesSchulberg wrote: “…To exempt people from helping and impose the entire burdon on one group is unfair. Why you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that is a testament to your unfairness.”
Actually I didn’t acknowledge your response because have a life and a job and was taking care of them and was no longer on-line. Now, however, I will respond:
No one is asking for the “entire burdon” (burden) to be carried by any one group. Every single American who pays taxes will help pay. Yes there will be an increase in tax to be paid by the wealthy, but most of those who will receive health care insurance will be paying premiums just as those who have health care insurance do today and only the very poor will be exempt from paying premiums.

If you feel you personally are paying too much in taxes and that the poor have it easy, then you can always give living life in their shoes a chance and see how you like the alternative. I’m sure there are many who would trade with you for a year. Or 10.

Posted by: Zarina1 | March 22, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

The biggest loser: Americans out of work and losing their homes because Pelosi, Reid and Obama selfishly consider their immortality more important.

Posted by: logicprevails | March 22, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

So Shrink


Were you saying before that you think the health care costs are going to far exceed the estimates ????

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Citi_Street:

There are plenty of arguments as to why they are "winners". First, on principle alone. Obviously, if they are Speaker of the House and Majority Leader in the Senate next year based on yesterday's vote, there's no doubt they are winners.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Brian Baird is freaking out about being on Cillizza's loser list.

Well he isn't actually running for office, he did announce his retirement well before this vote. But just being tarred with the brush of having, "ensured either a serious primary or general election challenge,"
is giving him the heebee jeebees.

Remember,

"Changing positions in politics is never a good thing but doing so on such a high profile issue is a huge electoral risk."

This huge risk, of being a loser, hurts you whether or not you are actually running. Wow, politics is even more brutal than I thought.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

It’s amazing how Chris Cillizza could conclude that Republican leaders John Boehner/Mitch McConnell are somehow winners in this contest! Must be some sort of consolation prize awarded to pathetic losers if they so happen to be Republicans.

Posted by: Citi_Street | March 22, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


You are just pretending to be in New York - like your other pals on here - they pretend to be from various parts of the country.

It's extremely easy to spot.

The thing is, once you are caught, you still lie.

Any - what are you going to say when Nancy loses her speakership over this silly bill that will only end up being REPEALED ????

What was the sense of it all ???


AND, how can health insurance be interstate commerce when it is illegal to buy health insurance across state lines???


Interesting questions emerge.

But your pal Obama went to Harvard so he knows everything is Constitutional, right ?


.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

"The beginning of the end seemed to be when she forgot straighten her wig/weave before going on the air...

Posted by: broadwayjoe "

If her hairpiece flies off during a public event, I am totally denouncing my atheism. Something that great can only be an act of god.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 22, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

@bwj: I know we haven't heard the last from that stinking witch but it really does feel like the spell is broken. She's narrowed to her own little niche and nobody else cares if she lives or dies.

....

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 9:30 PM
__

The beginning of the end seemed to be when she forgot straighten her wig/weave before going on the air...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 22, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

OK IT'S STARTING OBAMA'S LIES ARE STARTING TO CATCH UP WITH HIM.


Mohamedou Ould Slahi was ordered RELEASED BY A FEDERAL JUDGE TODAY - in part because of the evidence available did not fit the Courts' "rules of evidence."


_________________________________


Obama's entire policy of trying the Gitmo terrorists in civilian courts is coming crashing down - the NATIONAL SECURITY DEMANDS SIMPLY DO NOT MEET THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.


Obama has been RELEASING terrorists from Gitmo, instead of losing motions in Court.


Obama keeps on saying that he knows better - backing up his reasoning with a bunch of lies to justify the valid points made against his policies.


_________________________________


Why is it that terrorists get all the benefits of excluding evidence against them - and all the burden of proof is on the government??


But when I go to the Motor Vehicle Office, I have to produce 5 documents proving that I am NOT a terrorist ????


.


.
.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

"Winner: Sarah Palin. Regardless of whether she runs for president in 2012, the former Alaska governor proved a formidable and credible speaker in opposition to the Democrats' health care bill."

Haha. This sounds like something one of the correspondents on the Daily Show would say. Are you trying to become a writer for the Daily Show?

Posted by: BurtReynolds | March 22, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Loser: austinr

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 22, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

SuzyCcup,

Do you twist the truth often (a typical RepubliGOON and TEA BAGGER tactic)? Or did you just 'conveniently' forget to dig into those CNN survey numbers a bit?

The survey found that 43% call the bill too liberal.

The survey found that 39% call the bill 'just right.

The survey found that 13% call the bill 'not enough', but will support it and work for changes.

My math says that 39% and 13% constitutes a majority. And 43% is a minority.

Since 5% didn't offer an opinion, even if we add all of them to the 43% sore losers, it still is a minority of those polled who are against the bill.

Posted by: critter69 | March 22, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

@bwj: I know we haven't heard the last from that stinking witch but it really does feel like the spell is broken. She's narrowed to her own little niche and nobody else cares if she lives or dies.

Myself excepted. I hope she dies.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


Why are you obsessed with constantly being sexist on this blog ????


And then you complain that others are racist.

Which is it?


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Pop quiz: in the Citizens United case, did the majority of the Supreme Court favor government over the corporation?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

noa, what tickled me was the story that Palin routinely crossed the Canadian border to get health care from their government supported system. Total phony.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 22, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you forgot to mention the Mainstream Media. Where would HCR be today without the constant collective Obama suck up?

Posted by: logicprevails | March 22, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Losers: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison. But I was rooting for them.

Posted by: jdadson | March 22, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Winner: Sarah Palin.

==

(*guffaw*)

you should do standup.

The Tramp of the Tundra is last month's news. She's ALWAYS on the losing side

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama as usual swoops in and takes credit for this thing-only engaged as he was needed for one month. He did this all over the senate for the 2 years he was involved. Why don't we lefties hold him accountable for blowing our chance at a single payer, public option, the exemption from anti-trust laws, full coverage (18 million uncovered when this fully takes effect),this throws women's rights under the bus and it does not do the structural changes to reduce the rising costs, just shifting who is paying from the worker to the rich (this is a good idea- but when healthcare takes up 25% of our economy in 10 years because fee-for-service is out of control- it won't help- we need to change the structure of the system, not just shift who is paying)...I'm tired of this cult-of-personality. When will this guy actually do something for the left?

Posted by: NYClefty | March 22, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

"Let's see, how many speeches did obama give on health care? 200 maybe? Still, 59% of Americans hate it.

Posted by: SuzyCcup"

Um, no. 84% of Americans love it

Posted by: DDAWD | March 22, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Winner: Chicago-style machine politics and related corrupt practices. The Cornhusker Kickback and Second Louisiana Purchase, among other schemes, provided a graphic illustration of the corruption that has spread from Barack Obama's adopted hometown to the halls of Congress.

Winner: Sarah Palin. Regardless of whether she runs for president in 2012, the former Alaska governor proved a formidable and credible speaker in opposition to the Democrats' health care bill.

Loser: Barack Obama. He has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is a Saul Alinsky-style radical rather than a consensus-building centrist. Focusing on health care rather than the economy will do his party no favors come November.

Loser: Nancy Pelosi. The least popular House Speaker since Jim Wright resigned in disgrace, her determination to ram the health care bill down the throats of the American people will likely turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory. Chances of a GOP takeover of the House this November have dramatically increased as a result of her actions.

Loser: Bart Stupak. His willingness to place politics above principle in order to appease Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi cost him the respect of pro-life Americans.

Loser: Americans who voted for Democrats in 2006 and 2008 mainly to pass judgment on Republican ineptitude and corruption. Instead, the Democrats have proven far more inept and corrupt than the GOP ever was.

Loser: The rule of law and the United States Constitution. The win-at-all-costs mentality of President Obama and House Democrats demonstrated utter contempt for both.

Loser: The American taxpayer. Unless the health care bill is radically modified or repealed altogether, all taxpayers, and not just the rich, will see their tax burden soar to pay for this monstrosity of a bill as well as other national debt.

Posted by: austinrl | March 22, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

hahahahah lurkers

there are no lurkers you dumb b astard

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

hurleyvision,

First, get over the Bush v. Gore thing. Gore and Bush took the case to the courts, yanking it out of the hands of elected officials who are supposed to oversee elections and putting it into the hands of judges. What's more, had the recounts been completed as Gore wanted them to be, Bush still would have won. Multiple independent counts of the ballots have concluded that Bush won Florida. Why some liberals persist in living in this fantasy is beyond me.

As for what the courts might do with challenges to the health insurance bill, it's hard to say. What is certain, though, is that they cannot simply knock down the entire bill because they don't like it. At most, they might see fit to declare some narrow part of the bill unconstitutional, but most of the bill will remain intact. This court almost always favors government over the individual, and I suspect that on the question of health insurance, the trend will continue. In all likelihood, the Supreme Court will decline even to hear the case, letting stand a lower court ruling and emphatically stating that they don't see fit to second guess Congress.

Posted by: blert | March 22, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

"I'm in my twenties. What's to prevent someone like me from dropping my insurance and just paying the cheaper fine? "
*****
Starting in 2014 you will get tax credits for health insurance to make your monthly premium less than $100, and significantly less than that depending on your income and family status. So you will pay $800-1200 for coverage, or $700 and up for the fine depending on your income and family status.

Posted by: squier13 | March 22, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Instead of U.S. House of Representatives, perhaps it should be called the U.S. House of Democrats.
After all, it was they, and they alone, who passed this landmark legislation.
Maybe, in all fairness, it should apply only to democrats.

Posted by: mtpeaks | March 22, 2010 9:07 PM | Report abuse

So now Jake is going to talk about opinions and Bill Clinton for the next three weeks.

While 37th's postings lengthen to a dozen blank lines at the end. And endlessly repeated.

What the hell is it with the goobs and repetition?

Seems like writing a post is such hard work for their small brains that they need to get as much mileage out of it as they can, however empty it may be,

Dunno what the chicken and egg relationship is between being stupid and being conservative ....


... but I have a pretty good idea.

Noacoler
original writer, always

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

muckamuck:

Obviously, if they are Speaker of the House and Majority Leader in the Senate next year based on yesterday's vote, there's no doubt they are winners.

37th:

I read your posts. Just ignore the crude detractors and post info directly for lurkers.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

An accomplishment is something other people WANT you to do.


NOT something people don't want you to do.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

I mean, if it doesn't make sense once, it's not going to make any more with a dozen repetitions.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 8:52 PM


Noacoler, that would be good advice for obama, not 37. Let's see, how many speeches did obama give on health care? 200 maybe? Still, 59% of Americans hate it.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 22, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler


I thought we agreed you weren't going to read my postings - so how do you know they don't make sense? You must be reading them.

Please stop reading them.

I thought you had a plane to catch to Vietnam - why aren't you packing????

Please don't go on the internet once you are there either.

Thank you .

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc:

Are you still around? Are you still suggesting that your opinion on the political fallout of Obamacare is as valuable as (or more so than) Bill Clinton's?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

I don't know how you can list John Boehner and Mitch McConnell as winners. What good is it keeping your caucus in line if end up losing anyway?

Posted by: muckamuck | March 22, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


Obama is the most incompetent President in history - the democrats are going to get hurt, really bad this November - and in the STATE AND LOCAL RACES AS WELL - THAT WILL AFFECT RE-DISTRICTING.

The health care bill will be DEFUNDED- AND THEN REPEALED.

The Courts will probably delay implementation during its review.


.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Hey 37th, nobody reads your posts, because they don't make any sense and they're hysterical. So what exactly are you trying to achieve by posting the same crap over and over? I mean, if it doesn't make sense once, it's not going to make any more with a dozen repetitions.

You really need to check into detox

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

OK IT'S STARTING OBAMA'S LIES ARE STARTING TO CATCH UP WITH HIM.


Mohamedou Ould Slahi was ordered RELEASED BY A FEDERAL JUDGE TODAY - in part because of the evidence available did not fit the Courts' "rules of evidence."


_________________________________


Obama's entire policy of trying the Gitmo terrorists in civilian courts is coming crashing down - the NATIONAL SECURITY DEMANDS SIMPLY DO NOT MEET THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.


Obama has been RELEASING terrorists from Gitmo, instead of losing motions in Court.


Obama keeps on saying that he knows better - backing up his reasoning with a bunch of lies to justify the valid points made against his policies.


_________________________________


Why is it that terrorists get all the benefits of excluding evidence against them - and all the burden of proof is on the government??


But when I go to the Motor Vehicle Office, I have to produce 5 documents proving that I am NOT a terrorist ????


.


.
.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

I am thankful for the westerly winds across the U. S. They carry the stench of Congress and the U. S. Supreme Court out to the Atlantic Ocean.

Posted by: hurleyvision | March 22, 2010 8:48 PM


The earth is round. The winds will always make their way back around the circle. Get a gas mask.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 22, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

We are all winners.
Enjoy the bills benefits.
Losers shop Jareds.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 8:51 PM | Report abuse


OK IT'S STARTING OBAMA'S LIES ARE STARTING TO CATCH UP WITH HIM.


Mohamedou Ould Slahi was ordered RELEASED BY A FEDERAL JUDGE TODAY - in part because of the evidence available did not fit the Courts' "rules of evidence."


_________________________________


Obama's entire policy of trying the Gitmo terrorists in civilian courts is coming crashing down - the NATIONAL SECURITY DEMANDS SIMPLY DO NOT MEET THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.


Obama has been RELEASING terrorists from Gitmo, instead of losing motions in Court.


Obama keeps on saying that he knows better - backing up his reasoning with a bunch of lies to justify the valid points made against his policies.

_________________________________

Why is it that terrorists get all the benefits of excluding evidence against them - and all the burden of proof is on the government??

But when I go to the Motor Vehicle Office, I have to produce 5 documents proving that I am NOT a terrorist ????

.

.
.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

The first inning for the Health Bill is over. The U. S. Supreme Court members are chuckling becuse you and I both know that they, and they, alone will determine the fate of the bill.
The U. S. S. C. chose W. Bush as President in Y2K. Five Repub appointed Justices took care of business. They said, stop counting votes and then said it was too late to count votes. Bush was given the White House.
People think that our police and courts are for justice. Sorry. The U. S. Supreme Court had lots of liberals and we got the Miranda Decision. The Preamble to the Const. says . . ."establish justice." So, can a police officer approach a suspect and say: "We are to establish justice?" Of course not. The officer must say: "You have the right to remain blah, blah, blah." The stupid decision was a laughing stock the day after it was made.
Meanwhile, the U. S. Supreme Court Justices will do as they please with the Health Bill. It all depends if each was appointed by a Repub or a Demo.
I am thankful for the westerly winds across the U. S. They carry the stench of Congress and the U. S. Supreme Court out to the Atlantic Ocean.

Posted by: hurleyvision | March 22, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

How appropriate! Stupak spelled backwards is.....KAPUTS.

Either way you spell it, he's kaput this November,

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 22, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


This loss is not so bad - because of the potential for electoral victories in the fall
--------------------------------
You are the master of making lemonade out of lemons.

How about making some predictions? You know, like the probability of the Republicans gaining control of the House and Senate in midterms. Don't look at Intrade for ideas (they're manipulated, donchaknow.)

Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!! You make my day.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Can't wait until the baggers try repeal, or file lawsuits to block, the HCR. What a stupid sucker play that will be! Bush's former speechwriter was almost laughing out loud.

From David Frum's analysis:

"More relevantly: Do Republicans write a one-sentence bill declaring that the whole thing is repealed? Will they vote to reopen the “doughnut” hole for prescription drugs for seniors? To allow health insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions? To kick millions of people off Medicaid?"

LOL. To fight the bill after folks, including the tea bag bigots, start to enjoy its benefits will be a real winner--NOT.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 22, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Republicans lost.
We can not be sure who won,
sweet victory theirs.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Looks like the trolls are all trying to out-ugly each other today.

Not that anyone expected anything else.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse


12BarBlues


This loss is not so bad - because of the potential for electoral victories in the fall -

Also many Republicans were in favor of some sort of reform - since the prospects for parts of this bill to be declared unConstitutional - and other repealed - are great - the Republican version of health care is likely to stand in the end.

This is ugly. The democrats made it ugly 59% of American DOES NOT WANT THIS BILL ACCORDING TO CNN.

HOW ELSE CAN IT BE PRETTY?

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

I wasn't born yet when Jimmy Carter was president. My dad (a democrat) says he was the worst. Are you sure about that, dad?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2736/4451075132_94df14d68d_o.jpg

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 22, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

To Mack1: No, your taxes didn't got up to provide health care for people who don't work. Most of the people who will now be covered DO work---they just don't have health insurance, usually because they cannot afford it. I have worked all my life but for thirty years, I had to buy my own health insurance. Ten years ago, I could no longer manage to pay the premiums, which had jumped from $60./month to $500./month over the course of eight years. In the state that I live in, most employers other than the Federal government are small employers who have become less and less able to find affordable insurance for their workers. 21% of the people in this state do not have insurance. As of last week, only 8.3% of us were unemployed, a figure that is the highest it has been in over twenty years.

I am eternally grateful that when my retina detached this year, I had reached 65 three weeks before. Otherwise I'd be blind in one eye now.

Posted by: eskarp | March 22, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

And finally, tonight's Most Ambitious award goes to Nancy Pelosi.
If yesterday's 'steeling the White House' story wasn't enough, today's nationally televised House signing ceremony put it over the top.
Could she be considering a 2012 White House run, some are asking?
Stay tuned. Things could get interesting.

Posted by: mtpeaks | March 22, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Maddog:

Did you see Rep. Patrick Kennedy's recent rant on the floor of the House?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 6:25 PM


The ghost of Teddy possessed him. Nuns carried him out for an exorcism afterward.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 22, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Can Pelosi actually smile? Her face might crack.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 22, 2010 8:27
-------------------------
Strange comment for a sister.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

You can make all the stupid botox jokes you like, cretinous one; Pelosi achieved yesterday, achieved like gangbusters. She and her president earned their place in history yesterday, while your people just screamed and ranted and lied.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

P.S. of course, anyone like gbooksdc is entitled to his or her opinion on the political fallout of Obamacare. Assuming that you could get Bill Clinton's HONEST opinion (rather than what he would say for public consumption), there's no level of comparison. There's not a single living American political expert alive more qualified.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

You can tell the winners by their smiles.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 8:21 PM


Can Pelosi actually smile? Her face might crack.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 22, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama does not have RESPECT FOR THE CONSTITUTION -


the reasoning is that many of the country's founders were slaveholders


- the Constitution allowed the slave trade to continue for 20 years


- The Constitution had the three-fifths compromise


For these reasons, Obama has little respect for the Constitution and its freedoms and rights.


I have been saying this for YEARS - and now Obama has put forth a health care bill which is probably UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON MORE THAN ONE COUNT.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

ACtually BOEHNER reminds me of a too frequent user of the TANNING BED ...

Posted by: racerdoc | March 22, 2010 7:13 PM


Better a tanning bed than the truckloads of Botox used by Pelosi.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 22, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Dems won, Repubs lost. Ugly wins are still wins.
------------------------------------
There ain't nothing as ugly as losing. You can tell the losers by their scowls. You can tell the winners by their smiles.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

I'm in my twenties. What's to prevent someone like me from dropping my insurance and just paying the cheaper fine? If I get sick, I can always buy insurance again since pre-existing conditions don't matter anyway.

Health insurers will have to raise rates to cover for all of those taking advantage of the system.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 22, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc:

I'm not talking about silly basketball or baseball games. Are you seriously suggesting that your opinion on political fallout is as valuable as Bill Clinton's?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues is a paid troll - who was just here for the health care debate
-------------------------------
Here is item #1 for the List of 37th Predictions. But, how can I make money off this...mmmmm...probably not.

Bwahahaha!!!!!!!

Drindl, thanks for asking. I'm going to Europe. I'll be back (right after meeting with the super secret socialist society (SSSS) President. That's for 37th.)

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Boehner a WINNER?!?

Jesus God in his Merciful Heaven, watch the video linked from the home page here. WINNER?!? ARE YOU NUTS?!? THAT'S AN IDIOT!!

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Dear JakeD:

Anyone is entitled to an opinion. People assess the opinion based on the supporting argument, taking into account the person offering the argument. Ultimately, you make a decision regarding that opinion for yourself.

If "expert" opinion were that infallible, we'd never do NCAA brackets. The "experts" there showed they were pretty fallible regarding Kansas, Villanova, Georgetown, UMD and many others -- how many top 4 seeds are left?

I keep an piece that represented what "experts" thought regarding MLB at the start of 2009 on my wall as a reminder of how laughably wrong experts can be.

I've opined before that, IMO, Chris is not particularly hardworking. I have never read anything in this blog that I've regarded as particularly insightful or even useful. Nothing against Mr. Cilizza, that's just how I see it. The comments are far more interesting, because sometimes you come across a nugget that IS insightful or useful. (The poster who posted, if government can't do anything, why are we paying 40% in taxes, was rich.) Cilizza's biggest qualification seems to be, he got the job.

Commenters are kinda like ESPN talking heads (think Barry Melrose). If they were REALLY good, a team would hire them. Occasionally, a team does -- and they perform horribly (again, think Barry Melrose).

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 22, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

My vote for Most Disappointing goes to the national new media.
Whose superficial and biased reporting gave new meaning to casting a blind eye.

Posted by: mtpeaks | March 22, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama does not have RESPECT FOR THE CONSTITUTION -


the reasoning is that many of the country's founders were slaveholders


- the Constitution allowed the slave trade to continue for 20 years


- The Constitution had the three-fifths compromise

For these reasons, Obama has little respect for the Constitution and its freedoms and rights.


I have been saying this for YEARS - and now Obama has put forth a health care bill which is probably UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON MORE THAN ONE COUNT.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

In addition to the lawsuits being readied by private citizens, a federal lawsuit will be filed by Bill McCollum, the attorney general of Florida, to be joined by South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North and South Dakota and Alabama. The Commonwealth of Virginia will sue separately over the provision in Obamacare, citing the Constitutional power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, that anyone who declines to buy health insurance will be required to pay a fine. Asks Kenneth Cuccinelli, the attorney general of Virginia: "If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce. If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

I am a loser. My taxes just went up about $500 to $1000 a year to pay for 32 million who don't work. Somehow, it doesn't seem fair. But then socialism is only good for the non workers.

Posted by: sportsfan2 | March 22, 2010 7:10 PM

$1000 per year? Sportsfan, you're poor and apparently stupid. This bill will help you.

Posted by: mack1 | March 22, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Your list of losers is amusing, Mr Cillizza. You left out the most unfortunate losers of all: the American people. Seems that, just like the democrats, you forgot about them.

New CNN poll: 59% of Americans oppose the bill.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/22/cnn-poll-americans-dont-like-health-care-bill/?fbid=qmTqMnhi5WJ

Posted by: SuzyCcup | March 22, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Jake's not a true pro-lifer, he's just a stupid troll desperate for attention.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2


Obama's power over you extends whether the Constitution says so or not.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

In addition to lawsuits being readied by private citizens, lawsuit will be filed by Bill McCollum, the attorney general of Florida, to be joined by South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North and South Dakota and Alabama. The Commonwealth of Virginia will sue separately over the provision in Obamacare, citing the Constitutional power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, that anyone who declines to buy health insurance will be required to pay a fine. Asks Kenneth Cuccinelli, the attorney general of Virginia: "If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce. If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Come on Jake, if you were really a TRUE pro-lifer, you would be celebrating the passage of this bill. No insurance policy that is part of subsidized exchange will cover abortion, meaning virtually no policy will cover a abortion, much less any government money going for abortions. This is really a huge victory for the anti-abortion movement

Posted by: bgjd1979 | March 22, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

TRUE pro-lifers?

Like Scott Roeder?

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

...and no mention of Fix coworker Dana Milbank's article today decimating the teabaggers. In the Post's print version today, Dana's piece was on the FIRST page, LEFT side, ABOVE the fold--the most prominent placement for an article.

Perhaps Fix just didn't see it?

Excerpt:

"It was one of the ugliest and strangest periods the American legislative process has ever experienced. And Sunday was no different. The day's debate on the House floor was in its early moments when two men, one smelling strongly of alcohol, stood up in the public gallery and interrupted the debate with shouts of "Kill the bill!" and "The people said no!" As the Capitol Police led the demonstrators from the chamber, Republicans cheered -- for the hecklers.
....
But rather than calm the demonstrators, Republican congressmen whipped the masses into a frenzy. There on the House balcony, the GOP lawmakers' legislative dissent and the tea-party protest merged into one. Some lawmakers waved handwritten signs and led the crowd in chants of "Kill the bill." A few waved the yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flag of the tea-party movement. Still others fired up the demonstrators with campaign-style signs mocking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Democrats, to show they wouldn't be intimidated, had staged a march to the Capitol from their office buildings, covering the ground where on Saturday African American Democrats were called racial epithets and spat on by protesters. Pelosi, carrying the speaker's gavel, linked arms with Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who was harassed Saturday but is no stranger to abuse from his years in the civil rights movement."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032103484.html

The baggers and their Congressional sponsors have finally been exposed as the unhinged bigots we knew they were all along, on HD TV no less.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 22, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Dems won, Repubs lost. Ugly wins are still wins. Repubs bitterly fought and lost -- kinda like the South in the 1860s. Their defeat is in direct proportion to the magnitude of their opposition.

Much of Obama's victory was due to indie voters and demographic shifts. The former may ebb, but the latter continues. The GOP sale date will not get pushed out if they continue to appeal only to disaffected whites. The Tea Partiers numbers are not growing.

Passions over the bill will cool by November. The economy is the only issue that really matters, and it is getting better. That we are broke is a philosophical concept that doesn't resonate with the rank and file. That taxes are going up -- again, only matters to the better off, and they're a minority. Problem is, Repubs railed against the bill like it threatened the end of days, and it doesn't. The proponents will stay proponents, some of the opponents will shift.

And as for banning posters -- if you ban them, their POV doesn't change, only your exposure to it. A good idea can withstand a challenge. As long as you're not posting the same post 70 times (hi, svreader) you should be allowed to post no matter how unpopular or even nutty your opinion.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 22, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

https://client.campaignfinancial.com/neugebauer

All TRUE pro-lifers should donate today!

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

If there's a Most Tragic award, it belongs to Congressional dems.
Senate dems earned this for turning their backs on principle, and accepting the Big Pharma deal.
And House dems should be equally awarded for first voting overwhelmingly for removing the insurers' anti-trust exemption, and then letting it stand in the final bill.
In the final analysis it's not so much a government takeover of healthcare, as much as it's a health industry takeover of government.
All of this on the taxpayer's tab.

Posted by: mtpeaks | March 22, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Listing Boehner as a "winner" after his angry orange-faced meltdown on the House floor as the HCR bill was passing is hard to fathom. Sorta like a Chip (Magic N-gro CD) Salsman shout out.
____________

As MM and others have noted, David Frum hit a home run with his spot-on assessment of the political implications of the HCR passage for the GOP. Hint: he's not calling Boehner and McConnell "winners." Everybody was quoting Frum today.

Frum:

"Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.
...
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
...
We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
...
So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours."

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7756

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 22, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

"What about the health industry? Both providers and insurers made off like bandits, as today's stock market confirmed."

Yeah...so? Did you think that wasn't already happening? This is not socialized medicine.

This is amazing, scary too. I just met with some Nurse Practitioners I supervise and we don't know what to think. It is sooooo big.

So many variables and no controls at various gates that are now pretty tight, or at least predictable.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Republicans gave huge tax cuts to some that led to high unemployment now. They gave us a financial meltdown. They gave us two free wars.

Thank God the Republicans were not involved with health care reform.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 22, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Maddogg and genefox1:

I hope you won't mind that I donated to his re-election campaign.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Jake for the list of heroes we can all send our contributions to.

Posted by: bgjd1979 | March 22, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Republican's who denounce deals behind closed doors also denounce the US Constitution at the same time. Will Republicans continue to lie to their constituents?

The US Constitution permits secret meetings for Congress.

Truly, I never meet a Republican who didn't hate America and the US Constitution.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 22, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

To the people who think you cannot live in America and pay as little as $500 per year in taxes, I can only say ... oh yes, you can. You have to be willing to leave the comforts and safety of these USofA and work in places like Saudi Arabia, UAE, or Qatar. There is something called the foreign earned income exclusion that grants you a certain amount of income to be excluded from taxable income. If you wish to live away from home and family, live with the occasional dangerous moments (our grown daughter teacher was involved in a fatal suicide bombing in Doha, Qatar, though she, thankfully, was only temporarily deafened, lost a new shoe, and shook cement bits out of her hair for a dayor so). IF YOU ARE WILLING TO MAKE some sacrifices, you can do this. But a lot of you would never do such a thing.

Just one more example of idiots spouting off without knowing a damned thing!

Posted by: littleoldlady | March 22, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Let's hope the Republicans campaign on repeal of HCR. It will turn on the left's base like wild fire.

"Don't Spit On Me Boehner"

Posted by: Maddogg | March 22, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Another big (little) loser: Michelle Bachmann. Squeaking from her 4'5" stature and 60 pound frame the mousy li'l nutjob promised "we will not allow this to stand" as Republicans gear up for a repeal effort. All the usual slogans .. behind closed doors, sweetheart deals, budget buster yadda yadda yadda.

Talk about marching into the long dead night.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

You cannot get a balanced budget by cutting taxes and spending. Bush showed that. He did nto even cut spending Dems should contiue to blame the Grand Obtuse Party because their plan is screw things up and then blames the Dems when in power. The Dems ask for it because they had no spine until last night.

Posted by: Brainny | March 22, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

DwightCollins:

Mr. Cillizza is certainly qualified to give an expert opinion on the political fallout from Obamacare. If you don't think he is, would his former boss (Charlie Cook)? If not, what about Bill Clinton himself?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Never in American History has a President and Congress attempted to govern WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED - they know perfectly well that the American People are against their policies.


This situation has been arrived at in part by the LIES of Obama in 2008 - a deception of what Obama intended his policies were going to be.


At this point, the American People do NOT have a government which AGREES WITH THEM - AND THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS ON PRESSING POLICIES ON THE PEOPLE WHICH THEY DO NOT WANT.


Think about it.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Representative Randy Neugebauer should be expelled from the House of Representatives.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 22, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

The Grand Obtuse Party have been the ones to run up the deficit since 1980. At least Reagan raised taxes. Tax cuts only work in a surplus and showed they do not work with Bush. You cannot blame teh deficit on teh Dems sicne Obama has only in office since 2009 and Clinton had budget syrpluses.

Posted by: Brainny | March 22, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

I see that the Democrats have won the battle. But, I truly hope that this kind of politics has lost the war. By the war, I do not mean Iraq or Afghanistan. Rather, I mean the tactic of political warfare so common these days -- the election in 2012.

A presidency based on inclusive government wins only by exclusion of views. Lots of us know how a less graft filled bill can make a positive difference, but party politics above sensible politics has won the day. (Note: what choice did the republicans have left once reason failed to influence Democrats?)

So, 2012 has become a toss the out election -- and no item on the horizon stands in its way. Or, do the Democrats have another Trillion of debt to spend on their next face saving item? Can they make a kinder, gentler socialism by 2012? It is the only choice they have left.

Posted by: Arctific | March 22, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

What about the health industry? Both providers and insurers made off like bandits, as today's stock market confirmed.
Oh, that's right. The unholy alliance between dems and industry didn't really occur.
Shame on both.

Posted by: mtpeaks | March 22, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

To Zarina1: I responded to ADCWonk and shut him down, but of course you refuse to acknowledge my response. As for the so called wealthy, they would and should help but as part of everyone helping. To exempt people from helping and impose the entire burdon on one group is unfair. Why you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that is a testament to your unfairness.

Posted by: MylesSchulberg | March 22, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama:

"this is what change looks like"

baDUMP

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

People need to calm down and look at the big picture. This bill is almost the same as what Mitt" flip- flop" Romney. Also many from the Grand Obtuse Party agreed with many of these ideas in 1994. People, red a book, get off Fox New, The Drudge Report or talk radio and add some pints to your IQ, leave the talking points in the trash

Posted by: Brainny | March 22, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

The Republican Party can now be dismissed as just a bunch of angry white folks who want to force me to help pay for their police and fire protection.

The Republicans have been defeated at WATERLOO.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 22, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

I see that the Democrats have won the battle. But, I truly hope that this kind of politics has lost the war. By the war, I do not mean Iraq or Afghanistan. Rather, I mean the tactic of political warfare so common these days -- the election in 2012.

A presidency based on inclusive government wins only by exclusion of views. Lots of us know how a less graft filled bill can make a positive difference, but party politics above sensible politics has won the day. (Note: what choice did the republicans have left once reason failed to influence Democrats?)

So, 2012 has become a toss the out election -- and no item on the horizon stands in its way. Or, do the Democrats have another Trillion of debt to spend on their next face saving item? Can they make a kinder, gentler socialism by 2012? It is the only choice they have left.

Posted by: Arctific | March 22, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Glad to hear I'm not the only one who clicked back and forth from CBS Sports to CSPAN.

Posted by: davidscott1 | March 22, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree that civil discourse may have been lost for good this time. If you watched the coverage on C-SPAN like I did, you most definitely noticed how often all the representatives in the House had to be told to be quiet while others were speaking. It reminded me of an elementary school classroom. Our House Representatives should be ashamed of themselves - all of them - for their rude behavior.

Posted by: damascuspride04 | March 22, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

I see that the Democrats have won the battle. But, I truly hope that this kind of politics has lost the war. By the war, I do not mean Iraq or Afghanistan. Rather, I mean the tactic of political warfare so common these days -- the election in 2012.

A presidency based on inclusive government wins only by exclusion of views. Lots of us know how a less graft filled bill can make a positive difference, but party politics above sensible politics has won the day. (Note: what choice did the republicans have left once reason failed to influence Democrats?)

So, 2012 has become a toss the out election -- and no item on the horizon stands in its way. Or, do the Democrats have another Trillion of debt to spend on their next face saving item? Can they make a kinder, gentler socialism by 2012? It is the only choice they have left.

Posted by: Arctific | March 22, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

I am a loser. My taxes just went up about $500 to $1000 a year to pay for 32 million who don't work

==

If you only pay $500 a year in taxes then must live off the grid. What do you do, sell fireworks in June and Christmas trees in December? You were a winner before? Ah, no.

I pay more than that on one paycheck, and I'm not rich.

Anyway go read a book of political nomenclature before you make a fool of yourself talking about Socialism.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Boehner reminds of an infant that won't stop crying.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 22, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

_____________________-

ACtually BOEHNER reminds me of a too frequent user of the TANNING BED SARAH PALIN SOLD ON E_BAY FOLLOWING HER RESIGNATION FROM ALASKAN BIT TIME POLITICS>

Posted by: racerdoc | March 22, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Representative Randy Neugebauer is a puke. By his own mouth.

Posted by: Genefox1 | March 22, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

The AMERICAN PEOPLE are being held against their will - by a government which LIED and CHEATED THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE SYSTEM to gain power.


Rather than governing with the consent of the governed, Obama and the democrats have DECIDED TO FORCE THEIR WILL ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.


Obama and the democrats have broken the basic premises which have governed our country for CENTURIES.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

There's no such thing as qualification to hold an opinion. That's nonsense.

Cillizza writes that Boehner and McConnell are "winners" in their defeat because Cillizza is a Republican first and as a reporter a very distant second. Those two clowns could have done a Budd Dwyer after the vote or they could have stripped off their clothes and started gibbering in tongues on national television and Cillizza would say the same thing. Total disconnect. They made fools of themselves, they lost, but at The Fix a Republican can never do wrong.

GOP retake the House and Senate? Not bloody likely. But then you're the same idiot who thinks Palin has a shot at the presidency, so prattle on.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

I am a loser. My taxes just went up about $500 to $1000 a year to pay for 32 million who don't work. Somehow, it doesn't seem fair. But then socialism is only good for the non workers.

Posted by: sportsfan2 | March 22, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Lets face the FACTS: Republicans (Reagan, Bush, Gingritch, Beck, Limbaugh, Bachman, Demint, etc. etc. ) have been and are utter complete lunatics.

To be exact what this means is that Republicans are paid agents of Rich & Big corporations (Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Military, Big Banks, etc. aka Wall Street Gang) and as such they have been part of one of the Ultimate Con Jobs in the history of man kind, perpetrated on the American people, for the last many decades. The purpose of which Con Job are the following 2 Key objectives:
1- To give American people as little as possible for the Taxes that we pay,
2- To enable the Rich & Big corporations (Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Banks, etc.) to get as rich as they can off
the back of the American middle class (people) by not having the Government (of the People by the People for the People)
regulate what they can do for the benefit of the People, such as have Universal nationalized health care, as all Europeans have, Canadians have, Israelis have, Chinese have, etc. or as we have Universal nationalized Military, Police, Fire, etc. etc.

And to get away with this Ultimate Con Job, Republicans have been saying any insane thing, any lunatic thing, no matter how senseless and illogical, such as:
1- "Government cannot do anything..."
2- "Government is the problem not the solution..."
etc. etc.
After all, if "Government cannot do anything..." then:
1- Why the HEK are we paying about 40% of our income in various form of Taxes*?
2- Are you saying that we should operate the US Military, Police, Fire, Courts of law, etc. etc. on private basis?

More here:
http://anoox.com/blog/Real_News.34034

Posted by: RealNews1 | March 22, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

chris, your opinions are just as useless as your healthcare will be in a few months...
what gives you the right to judge who wins or loses...
in my opinion the biggest losers are the American people who you should serve but you don't...

Posted by: DwightCollins | March 22, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

37 -- see a physician -- they can help you with your addiction.

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

LOSER: Sen. Scott Brown. A bad choice to begin with for Massachusetts, in waaay over his head, but a better candidate than Coakley, his election meant little.

Posted by: dudh | March 22, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

It is beyond "market forces" unless you believe market forces have god like qualities

==

seems like most believers in market forces in fact do believe exactly that; that they are omnipotent, omniscient, and infallible.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues is a paid troll - who was just here for the health care debate


I'm sure there are others here like broadwayjoe - who will stay.

They rarely admit what they are really doing - they are trying to fool you.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

B2O2:

I'm going to have to side with our gracious host's opinion that John Boehner/Mitch McConnell are winners. If you think that you are more qualified to opine that Mr. Cillizza, please state the basis for that. Especially if they are Speaker of the House/Majority Leader next year, any objective observer would have to conclude they are winners.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Loser: Max Baucus. If anyone doesn't know why, they were not paying attention during the summer of 2009.

I also wonder why the RepubliGOONs will be fighting the reconciliation bill so hard in the Senate? After all, President Obama will sign the Senate-passed Health Care bill on Tuesday morning. It is that bill that contains the 'Louisiana Purchase', the 'Cornhusker Kickback', and various other provisions that if the reconciliation bill doesn't pass, they will go into effect. It might just suit the Democratic Senators to say, 'OK, we won't pass the reconciliation bill, and let the 'Louisiana Purchase' and the 'Cornhusker Kickback' go into effect."

I guess it just goes to show that when you get into a mind-set of 'just say no' to anything and everything, you end up tossing out the baby when you toss out the bathwater.

Posted by: critter69 | March 22, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Hey, 12Bar, where you goin?

"To all my peeps, and you know who you are,

I'm gone off the blog for a couple of weeks. Keep track of 37th' predictions if you would, especially the ones that he is MOST sure of. If he writes in AllCaps, those are particularly good for the list.

He is the perfect contrary indicator--his track record is 100%. I intend to take the list and make money by taking the direct opposite of his predictions.

As a final tribute to 37th, I report that Intrade is still trading contracts on the probability of HCR passage at 99%. Isn't the one where the market was OBVIOUSLY manipulated by political operatives per 37th? Do I hear laughter and snickering? I think I do.

To the loyal opposition: you will miss me but I'll be back."

37 is off on a meth-induced rag that will probably last all night. See ya soon!

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2


They weren't against the war when they started the Iraq War -


All Bush did was try to win it - after Americans have given their lives.

Harry Reid told us the war was lost, remember that ?

Obama and the democrats ARE GOVERNING AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE.

WE HAVE A RUN-AWAY GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW -


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Also, rationing is inevitable. There have to be limits. The health care industry is a parasite at worst and out of control at best.

It is beyond "market forces" unless you believe market forces have god like qualities. The health care industry plays god in its dance with the other god wannabe, the legal industry, the other parasite, or out of control cost center.

Or we can pay for all the legal and medical services our hearts desire. Cheap stuff from China is not that valuable anyway.
If everyone has a legal and medical team, who needs material goods, or money, or your little dog too?

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


What happened? The obama people told you that they won't pay you anymore ?

So you have been a paid troll the whole time ?


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street:

To be fair, the majority were against GWB's surge in Iraq too, so I would delete that particular line of argument if I were you.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Never in the history of America has the Federal Government decided to stray so far away from the sentiment of the People.

Obama and the democrats have a RUN-AWAY GOVERNMENT - SEEKING TO IMPOSE THEIR WILL ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - AGAINST THEIR WISHES.

On top of that, the democrats are going to run the deficit way up - and things are going to be out-of-control.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Simpler list:

Winners: Ordinary American people - including Republicans. They will whine all day about the "new socialist America". And then when they lose their jobs will quietly use the reform act to keep their health insurance. Just as they use every other publicly-funded wonder that exists in our society (like our roads, our schools, this very internet we are on, etcetra).

Losers: The GOP (especially McConnell and Boehner). They established themselves as the stalwart defender of health insurance companies and American misery. Worse, they seem to enjoy being in this sick, perverse role.

And since Chris brought up the nuns, I should add that true Christians were winners in this one. You know, the ones who actually follow the teachings of that guy from Nazareth. Sadly, there are none of these in the Republican party anymore.

Posted by: B2O2 | March 22, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

To all my peeps, and you know who you are,

I'm gone off the blog for a couple of weeks. Keep track of 37th' predictions if you would, especially the ones that he is MOST sure of. If he writes in AllCaps, those are particularly good for the list.

He is the perfect contrary indicator--his track record is 100%. I intend to take the list and make money by taking the direct opposite of his predictions.

As a final tribute to 37th, I report that Intrade is still trading contracts on the probability of HCR passage at 99%. Isn't the one where the market was OBVIOUSLY manipulated by political operatives per 37th? Do I hear laughter and snickering? I think I do.

To the loyal opposition: you will miss me but I'll be back.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Never in American History has a President and Congress attempted to govern WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED - they know perfectly well that the American People are against their policies.

This situation has been arrived at in part by the LIES of Obama in 2008 - a deception of what Obama intended his policies were going to be.


At this point, the American People do NOT have a government which AGREES WITH THEM - AND THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS ON PRESSING POLICIES ON THE PEOPLE WHICH THEY DO NOT WANT.


Think about it.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

OK IT'S STARTING OBAMA'S LIES ARE STARTING TO CATCH UP WITH HIM.


Mohamedou Ould Slahi was ordered RELEASED BY A FEDERAL JUDGE TODAY - in part because of the evidence available did not fit the Courts' "rules of evidence."


_________________________________


Obama's entire policy of trying the Gitmo terrorists in civilian courts is coming crashing down - the NATIONAL SECURITY DEMANDS SIMPLY DO NOT MEET THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.


Obama has been RELEASING terrorists from Gitmo, instead of losing motions in Court.


Obama keeps on saying that he knows better - backing up his reasoning with a bunch of lies to justify the valid points made against his policies.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Give it up, 37th; you gave it your best shot, with as many as 12 blank lines and repeating your posts endlessly. Great try, but you lost. Time to move on.

Go take a bath, have a radio plugged in and perched on the edge of the tub, then knock it into your bathwater. And say hi to your celestial friend when you meet him.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

I know I have my sins to pay for, but I am so happy not to have Glen Beck's list.

If I ever get to be as good as I want to be, I will pray for him.

Now, I just pity him.

He gives up everything for fame.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | March 22, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

"The cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die..."

RIP Ted Kennedy.

At the moment the vote was made, I thought of Ted Kennedy. He would be proud.

We love you Teddy.

Posted by: JHigginss | March 22, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

OK IT'S STARTING OBAMA'S LIES ARE STARTING TO CATCH UP WITH HIM.


Mohamedou Ould Slahi was ordered RELEASED BY A FEDERAL JUDGE TODAY - in part because of the evidence available did not fit the Courts' "rules of evidence."

_________________________________

Obama's entire policy of trying the Gitmo terrorists in civilian courts is coming crashing down - the NATIONAL SECURITY DEMANDS SIMPLY DO NOT MEET THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.

Obama has been RELEASING terrorists from Gitmo, instead of losing motions in Court.

Obama keeps on saying that he knows better - backing up his reasoning with a bunch of lies to justify the valid points made against his policies.

.


Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Maddog:

Did you see Rep. Patrick Kennedy's recent rant on the floor of the House?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

shrink2


NOOOOOOOOWWWW you say that.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010
--------------------------------
Are you kidding? That's what he's been saying as long as I've been on this blog. He and I even had quite a few exchanges about it a week or two ago.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

'In the course of the health care debate, right-wing pundits and politicians regularly made use of inflammatory rhetoric to fearmonger about the consequences of passing reform legislation. Now, following the historic vote by the House of Representatives last night that will extend health insurance coverage to tens of millions of Americans, conservative talkers have exploded with rage:

– Right-wing radio host Neal Boortz tweeted that “Nancy Pelosi will be grinning and laughing” following the health care vote, which “will do more damage than 9/11.” [3/21/10]


– Fox News host Glenn Beck said on his radio show today that “Jesus Martinez” might support the health care bill, but “not the Jesus of Nazareth I know.” [3/22/10]'

yes, pelosi is powerful her grinning can bring down buidlings, and 'jesus of Nazareth' was about nothing if not helping the poor. No, I guess not the Jesus that you 'know,' Glenn... that homeless guy who calls himself Jesus you met on the street.

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

fcrucian

You have several really good points -


Never in American History has a President and Congress attempted to govern WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED - they know perfectly well that the American People are against their policies.


This situation has been arrived at in part by the LIES of Obama in 2008 - a deception of what Obama intended his policies were going to be.

At this point, the American People do NOT have a government which AGREES WITH THEM - AND THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS ON PRESSING POLICIES ON THE PEOPLE WHICH THEY DO NOT WANT.

Think about it.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

tH BIGGEST LOSER IN aMERICA IS THE TAX SYSTEM. hOW CAN YOU HAVE 5% PAY 90% OF THE TAX. eVERYONE NEEDS TO PAY SOME TAX ,EVEN IFIT IS JUST TO SEEM THAT EVERYONE IS HELPING.i THINK aMERICA IS THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WITH THAT TAX SYSTEM.

Posted by: captgrumpy | March 22, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse


"WINNERS: All 26-year-old students working on their graduate dissertations in the rigorous field of Gay/Lesbian studies can now remain on daddy's health insurance until age 27.

LOSERS: Above mentioned graduate students who expect Obama's health care plan to pay for their 3rd abortion, although stomach stapling will be covered."

LOL -- christ, these people. they can manage to insert their rabid hatred, homophobia, racism, misogyny and xenophobia into every issue.

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

with the passage of this bill, I believe it would be interesting for the media to show where the opposition got their financial support from the US Chamber of Commerce, the health insurance companies, the drug companies and similar keep-the status-quo corporate advocates and which in the opposition received funds from these corporate "constituents".

Posted by: cqbrodie | March 22, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Boehner reminds of an infant that won't stop crying.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 22, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

WINNERS: All 26-year-old students working on their graduate dissertations in the rigorous field of Gay/Lesbian studies can now remain on daddy's health insurance until age 27.

LOSERS: Above mentioned graduate students who expect Obama's health care plan to pay for their 3rd abortion, although stomach stapling will be covered.

Posted by: wagtdn | March 22, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Christy1947, compare Boehner's speech with Stupak's. Stupak's speech was one his group could rally too. Boehner's speech only signaled defeat to his delegation.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 22, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Proves Republicans cannot govern. They have been defeated at Waterloo. They have become a permanent minority party for many decades to come.

Who in their right mind would vote for people that spit on the others and toss out racial slurs because they cannot stand losing. Then they scream lies and interrupt people. Republicans are a bunch of losers.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 22, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Christy1947:

Did you see Rep. Patrick Kennedy's recent rant on the floor of the House?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

GOP: "We'll getcha in November!"

Pelosi: "Run home, your Mamma's calling."

They hate her because she has been so effective.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 22, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Bill64738:

You honestly think that "deem and pass" was a deliberate ruse from the beginning?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Losers: The Republican caucus in the House, who gave it their most forceful shot and lost. Even the kitchen sink didn't help. Unity is not a virtue if even perfect unity does not prevent you from losing.

Women: Although there were platform pledges of support for choice, they were thrown under the bus early and had to watch often in agony as old white men argued which one could restrict them more, with even Obama joining the disgusting process.

John Boehner: His final speech was so much over the top that his credibility and reasonableness, if any, and rationality were completely submerged in irrational partisanship, so he is now a poster boy for why the nation's voters should not trust delicate issues to his party.

Posted by: Christy1947 | March 22, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Only in politics (Chicago style) can this be a "winner". In normal environments when you make folks as angry as the democrats have done, you are typically not invited back or at least are considered "unwanted guests". But in a world (Wash. DC) where politicians are bought and sold by myriads of special interest groups and themselves are bought and sold by special "budgets", then a group can declare itslef a "winner". In normal society these "winners" would be real losers! It would certainly be nice to have a congress who is interested in solving the most important problems - the economy, the economy, the economy.

Posted by: fcrucian | March 22, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Do we have any first-hand accounts from reporters of the supposed name-calling on Capitol Hill yesterday ????

With all the media there yesterday, I didn't hear one reporter say they actually heard a name-calling.

Whenever the heat is on Obama, it appears he manufactures a racial incident.

I'm just saying...........


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

the usual thugs and the predictable violence...

"Rhetoric surrounding the health care debate has often been very violent, with Rep. Steve King (R-IA) just yesterday promising to “beat that other side to a pulp” and at least one Tea Party sign threatening gun violence if health care reform passes.

In recent days, several Democratic offices around the nation have also been vandalized. Although it’s unclear who the perpetrators are, all the incidents took place shortly before or after the House’s vote on health care yesterday:

– The glass front door of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ (D-AZ) Tuscon office was “smashed out” a “few hours after she voted in favor of health care reform.” Giffords’ spokesman C.J. Karamargin “said it was unclear if the glass had been shot out with a kind of pellet gun, if it had been kicked or smashed with an object. The door has been covered with plywood.”

– On the morning of March 19, someone threw a brick through the front window of Rep. Louise Slaughter’s (D-NY) Niagara Falls office. Monroe County Democratic Committee officials also said that a brick shattered the glass doors at their party’s headquarters in Rochester, NY on Saturday or Sunday."

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse


...whiners and losers = Republicans...

Posted by: moon-base-alpha | March 22, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

I don’t have a problem with “illegal aliens” getting healthcare.  This is a hot-button issue designed to derail debate into an emotional ditch and I ain’t buying.  They’re living in our country for work and if there weren’t employers ready to hire them at execrable wages to increase profit they wouldn’t be here.  Tax the agro-lords to cover their healthcare.
 
Let’s shift the venue a little bit.  An airline passenger is transiting the USA, has a heart attack on the plane, has to be removed to a hospital.  Do we let him die?  That would be f ucking abhorrent, and I’m not signing up to be a citizen of an abhorrent nation.  Neither do I want Latino kids dying of treatable ailments because their parents are here illegally.  Screw that.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

You're crazy about deem-and-pass. That was a brilliant move. Of course they weren't going to pass the bill that way, but while threatening to it pulled the opposition completely off message. Instead of letter-writing campaigns against the bill you had letter-writing campaigns for an up or down vote.

Posted by: Bill64738 | March 22, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse


"Man, not that I study this stuff, but zook's projection defense mechanism is one of the most pathological I've ever seen.

But now I get the sense he actually believes what he says. "

yeah, he really is totally wack, dawd. when you realize all the stuff he's saying is about himself, it makes it even ickier.

his creepy obsession with me and his stalking makes me want to wash my hands over and over.

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Will you think the same if they are Speaker / Majority Leader next year?

==

and how could that happen?

GOP retaking the House: long shot. Much less likely than last week.

GOP retaking the Senate: utter lunacy.

Or are you hoping for a congressional massacre? Figures.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Aprogressiveindependent:

I thought that Rep. Joe Wilson was wrong about illegal aliens getting Obamacare?!

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Of course Republicans will read this and scream about rationing and death panels, but they’re not arguing in good faith so who cares.
-------------------------------------------
As usual today's statist say and do "whatever it takes". What wasn't rationing and death panels a day ago, well today...maybe.


Posted by: leapin | March 22, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Man, not that I study this stuff, but zook's projection defense mechanism is one of the most pathological I've ever seen. There was a time when he could accuse people of straying off topic and bringing down discourse with repeated postings and vile language, but I always assumed there was a "wink, wink. I know I'm really the one ruining it for everyone else, but I'm just messing with you all."

But now I get the sense he actually believes what he says. Maybe he's just really good at acting the part.

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

As usual pro-Obama reporters and columnists ignore ordinary people, obsessed as they are with politicians. The biggest winners are those who will receive health care benefits, health insurance companies, illegal immigrants who will receive government paid health car benefits or subsidies when Obama, Pelosi give them amnesty, Obama and Pelosi's huge egos.

Losers are especially the tens of thousands who will continue to needlessly die and hundreds of thousands who will go bankrupt because of delayed reforms, twenty million people being left out, Republicans, many Democrats up for reelection this year,
the cause of true health care reform.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | March 22, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

donaldtucker:

Will you think the same if they are Speaker / Majority Leader next year?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

guess its true what President Abraham Lincoln said, "To find a man's true character, put him in a position of authority."

Posted by: carterm1
------------------------------------------
Hoest Abe was right. The character of today's NeoCom Statist Destructionist Party is totally transparent.

Posted by: leapin | March 22, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Of course we’re not going to get the same care that the extremely wealthy get, nor should we.
 
Someone with billions of dollars can afford to get a kidney transplant for a 99 year old relative.  His chances of surviving surgery are very low and his chances of living long enough even so to enjoy the respite from dialysis are even lower.  Such an operation would be frivolous.  To deny it may sound like “rationing” but it’s also sensible; there really isn’t a lot of sense in failing to note that some people have less time left than others.
 
Shrink2 is spot on.
 
Of course Republicans will read this and scream about rationing and death panels, but they’re not arguing in good faith so who cares.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Losers

The Truth

Pelosi's soul

Posted by: leapin | March 22, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Losers: you and the Washington Post for this sort of dumbed-down reporting. Call a spade a spade, just once. This was a great achievement and Republicans have thought, spoken and behaved like the worst of adolescents. That's why they = Tea Party, an invention of the SwiftBoat guys.

The creepy fear-mongerers just got their hinds whipped big time. Weigh that one as a "loser" on your Weekly Reader accounting. Jeez!

Posted by: walden1 | March 22, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

archaeoman


Why don't you divide that up according to which party was in control of Congress ?


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand what the uproar in the Republican Party is all about. They're no losers in this act of legislation. Someone in everybody's life will benefit from this at some point and yes, its going to cost money. I didn't see this uproar when the Banks were granted billions of dollars just to give themselves expensive junkards and golden parachutes. I didn't see this uproar when we were made to pay millions a day for a two-front war. Where was all of this "moxy" then? I've noticed that a certain percentage of people in this country are very selfish and inconsiderate. Also, it doesn't help to see Rep. John Boehner act in the manner in which he did. I thought it was embarassing and totally irresponsible on his part. He has a responsibility to carry himself on the highest professional level imaginable. His tirade on the House floor was totally embarassing. There are little kids looking up to him as a role model and he needs to be reminded of that fact.

I guess its true what President Abraham Lincoln said, "To find a man's true character, put him in a position of authority."

Posted by: carterm1 | March 22, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

shrink2


NOOOOOOOOWWWW you say that.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Between Stupak and Kucinich declared both winners and losers, the credibility of the Post's pundits reminds us of the true losers; thoughtful readers who expect, but never get, non-liberal filtered analysis from this newspaper. I wonder which winners from this FIX article will be around after November?

Posted by: ecrutle | March 22, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Just so you know...

I've spent over 20 years working with the uninsured and publicly insured, vets, street people, criminals, crazy people, brain injured and so on. The uninsured in this group have extraordinary unmet health needs. Every day we see health tragedies, from major to minor.

I am not saying lets call the whole thing off. I am saying there is a rationing system in this country that knows very well how to deny services to people who can't afford them and knows equally well how to over-serve the people who can pay.

Believe it. If that system goes away and everybody gets the same standard of health care wealthy people now get, watch out.

Sooner or later, we'll have to go to rational rationing. Sorry about that.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

"It's been nearly 50 years since Republicans did everything they could to stop civil rights legislation, and most Americans still punish them for that"

I wouldn't call the 10 percent of blacks that is the American electorate, "most." The truth is, Republicans gained as a result of civil rights legislation, not the other way around. The same thing will happen because of this bill.

Posted by: rah2 | March 22, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"If 85% of americans already had health coverage then 85% of americans will see very large premium increases this year "

that happened every year before the bill and the pace is accelerating. at least now there is some regulation to rein in the industry.
-------------------------------------------
You think covering pre-existing conditions is cheap? You're going to have sticker shock pretty soon and you are going to be required by law to pay it. Regulations? Yeah right.

Posted by: peterg73 | March 22, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

there is no way in the world that the word winner can be used with boner or mcconnell this guys are the definition of loser life long losers.and until the republicans elect another leader in the house and senate they are going to be losers too.

Posted by: donaldtucker | March 22, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Boehner, McConnell, other R's (including Paul Ryan, from my home state): I think they *will be* the losers, when the obvious falsities in their arguments become painfully clear:
- it's a government takeover (how many individuals will switch their health plans? Or, how many who currently have health care, anyway?)
- the American public doesn't want this (well, maybe the 50+ years-old white people standing outside the Capitol last night)
- we will repeal this bill
- we don't want more government spending (unless we propose it, then we don't have to even bother trying to have it paid for from the start)

The more they speak only to the angry oldish white people Tea Partiers (in contrast to the genuinely concerned ones, who I can sympathise with), the more they'll incite the wackos in that group *and in their own caucus* to say stupid things. Maybe that will continue nudging the rest of the populace back toward civility.

Posted by: Omightytimm | March 22, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Eventually, the deficit damage starts to add up. Toss out a few of the bill's more fanciful assumptions—the implementation of the tax on so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans (already successfully delayed by a full five years by benefits-rich unions), cuts to Medicare payments, and a planned slowing of the growth of insurance subsidies—and the CBO reports that, two decades out, the deficit would spike “in a broad range around one-quarter percent of GDP”—something like $600 billion. Fiscally responsible!

Why does all this matter? It's not just the cherry-picking of figures and the rhetorical deception, it's the country's overall fiscal future. Thanks to a spiraling deficit, the economy is chugging merrily towards a broken bridge over a rocky canyon—a fact that almost no one from either party is willing to do anything about. America, according to the CBO, is on an "unsustainable" path, and the nation's solid-gold credit rating may be at risk. So it doesn't matter how many times blinkered legislators repeat to themselves, "I think I can, I think I can": Nothing short of significant cutbacks to entitlement spending is going to magically transform the U.S. budget into the little engine that could.

Instead, politicians are paying for new entitlements by shifting money from unsustainable programs—money that ought to have gone toward getting America's fiscal house in order.

Democrats made history all right—but only by sacrificing the future.

Peter Suderman

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

That's peanuts in Obama land.

He spent over 800 billion on a pointless bailout.

He has already spent almost 2 trillion, now more like 4 trillion in ONE year.

that makes all those historic figures appear so quaint.

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

The biggest losers in all this are the American people, their children, and grandchildren who will be stuck with the bill.

Posted by: NormReisig | March 22, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans say we can't afford health care, but the last 40 years shows that what we really can't afford are Republican economics.

Cost of Republican policies 2001-2009:
- 750 billion (and counting) for a war in Iraq to counter non-existent WMD's.
- Tax cuts: 1.8 trillion in lost revenues
- Bank and business bailouts: 1 trillion? We've "lent" much more - who really knows what we'll get back...

Result:
- biggest economic meltdown since 1929
- 2001 projected 10-year surplus of 5.4 trillion turned into an accumulated deficit of 3.4 trillion (2009)
- debt of 2001 (3.3 trillion) balloons to 7.5 trillion (2009).

Still think the Republicans can manage finances better than democrats?

How about this:
US debt increase
1970-1977 (Nixon): 280 billion (40 billion a year)
1977-1981 (Carter): 240 billion (60 billion p. year)
1981-1993 (Reagan, Bush): 2.4 trillion (200 billion per year)
1993-2001 (Clinton): 80 billion (10 billion per year)
2001-2009 (Bush): 4.2 trillion (525 billion per year).

Total Republican: 6.68 trillion (av. 247 billion p.y.)
Total Democrat: 320 billion (av. 27 billion p.y.)

Two worst recessions since 1970? 1973-5 (Nixon) GDP -3%; 2007-2009 (Bush) GDP -4%.

per capita GDP growth in 2005 dollars
1970-1977 $3600 ($515 p.y.) Nixon/Ford
1977-1981 $1600 ($400 p.y.) Carter
1981-1993 $6700 ($560 p.y.) Reagan/Bush
1993-2001 $7000 ($875 p.y.) Clinton
2001-2009 $2500 ($312 p.y.) Bush

Republican average GDP growth: $475 p.p.p.y.
Democrat average GDP growth: $720 p.p.p.y.

Remember, all this equalized to 2005 dollars! (www.measuringworth.com)

Wake up America!
Democrats = less debt and more growth. Republicans = less growth, more debt.

We can afford this health care bill. What we can't afford is more Republican economic policies!

Posted by: archaeoman | March 22, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

The winners? "Anchor" babies and illegal immigrants, the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries, Wall Street. The losers? Taxpayers, senior citizens, small *honest* local health insurance companies. Medicare Advantage and essential services that get seniors needed medical care and, ultimately, the Democratic Party. This November, I, a Democrat, am going to vote a straight Republican ticket. The outsourcing, corporate prostitutes, crooks, con artists, and smug self serving swine that took over my party, lost my vote! I suspect that they lost the votes of a lot of Democrat's. That party needs and deserves to be driven into extinction so we can replace it with something that actually represents the people.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 22, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

"And, Obama's decision to hold a televised health care summit turned into a master stroke, casting him as a honest broker"

You and I were obviously watching different health care summits...

...in the one on earth, he cast himself as an arrogant, petulant, dishonest man angrily trying to have his way, no matter what the population wanted.

He's had his way now.

It's my sincere hope that I will get my way in November and again in 2012, when I vote against every politician in my state that supported this pork-laden monstrosity.

Posted by: deadmanwalking | March 22, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

The biggest winner was Groupthink, the nemesis of democracy and creativity.

Posted by: Spiritof761 | March 22, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

==

Groupthink? You mean the people who voted in lockstep?

They lost.

Please try to keep up.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

This legislation guarantees Obama a second term and the Democrat's continued control of Congress.

All the Republicans have given the nation is endless war, no WMD in Iraq, a financial collapse, Patriot Act removing civil liberties & overriding the constitution, indigestion, and massive deficits for the free wars.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 22, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

To MylesSchulberg who wrote: “…Who ever said the wealthy think they are the only ones who matter, or that lower income levels don't work hard. Are you making things up?”
_________________
No, I’m not making things up. It seems that many of the wealthy state that their money is theirs and that they shouldn’t have to contribute toward the support those less fortunate. If they felt that their less fortunate fellow citizens mattered, would they not want to help?

As for the tax question you raised, I didn’t address it because it had already been addressed:

>>> ADCWonk wrote:” Even your premise is wrong:
1. High income earners will *still* be taxed less that they were during the 1990's (when our economy did pretty well, thank you); and
2. High income earners generally pay *less* percentage tax than middle class, because the middle class is paying Soc Sec tax on all their income, and high income earners pay Soc Sec tax only on a part of their income.”

Posted by: Zarina1 | March 22, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

'''groupthink' is what limbaugh's dittoheads do.

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

We're definitely heading toward some kind of hard choice about the deficit. If we weren't, the Democrats wouldn't have employed all those gimmicks to claim that the bill costs less than $1 trillion. They know people are worried about this issue.

Last week, President Obama said again and again that the time for talk is over. Yet this week he's going on the road to defend his new bill. This is why. ObamaCare is politically vulnerable. It lacks the bipartisan support that created and protected new entitlements in decades past. The public does not have confidence in it. Worst of all, it creates an imbalance between winners and losers for four years, and it amounts to a staggeringly expensive new entitlement at a time when the country has to think hard about how to trim its sails.

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

A bet among gentlemen and ladies:

What will Pres. Obama's job approval be on June 22, 2010, 3 months from now.

We can use RCP average of polls, which right now is 47.4% positive/46.8% negative.


Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

The gooey glow of self-righteous that some people got from handing over the country to the unqualified black guy with a name like a terrorist is fading away. The crisis this country has gotten itself into through moonbattery remains

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse
_____________________________________________
This above comment is a an example of some of the readership of this newspaper. These people are so blatantly racist and ignorant. Just like the republicans and the teabaggers throw out words e.g socialism, death panels etc. without a clue to what they mean. I generally don't read the comment section, but when I do, I am quite sickened by some of them. It's one thing to disagree, but another to denigrate someone with a strong personal prejudices. People like these make the US of A sound like a backward, uninformed and a true third world country.

Posted by: fatguy12 | March 22, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

'This was the Republican Party's Waterloo -- and they lost the battle.

If they keep on letting Tea Baggers lead them around by the nose, they will lose the war too.'


absolutely true, paul -- they look like bigger losers every day. with the tantrums, the screaming -- impotent and infantile.

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

The biggest winner was Groupthink, the nemesis of democracy and creativity.

Posted by: Spiritof761 | March 22, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Does this new law hurt Republicans?

Yes. This loss is going to hurt Republicans next November and especially in many future elections.

It's been nearly 50 years since Republicans did everything they could to stop civil rights legislation, and most Americans still punish them for that.

Rest assured, voters in 2010, but especially 2012, 2014, 2024 and 2050 are going to punish Republicans for trying to stop universal health coverage too.

Posted by: paul65 | March 22, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

"Is there a more underrated Member of Congress than the Speaker?"

You can write that again, Chris. Only goes to show that "if you want a job done right, get an old broad to do it."

Thanks to Bette Davis for that quip.

Posted by: Kelly14 | March 22, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Hey givensllthinhd: keep your imaginary celestial playmate out if the discussion

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

People prefer the government solution to health care reform. The private enterprise solution would have ended up like the recent bank crisis. God forbid.

The Republicans though can be a strong minority party in the decades ahead while America moves into the 21st Century.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 22, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Writing in The Washington Post, Michael Gerson said that Obama’s options in the end boiled down to looking “radical in victory or weak in defeat. It is no longer possible for Obama to be a president both strong and unifying.”

Obama will now have a more difficult path to a second term, since he’ll now be branded as Pelosi’s liberal partner in crime.
President Obama finally has a clear narrative. The Democrats now clearly stand for something. It may be 10 pounds of ugly in a five-pound sack. But at least it’s a sack of something.

Republicans have been fighting a theoretical boogeyman. Now, they’ve got the real thing.

While Democrats will argue this bill is the most important health-care legislation since the enactment of Social Security and Medicare, Republicans will note that all those measures passed with significant bipartisan support. Medicare had the backing of 65 House Republicans and 13 senators, while Social Security was approved with 77 GOPers casting aye votes, joined by 14 senators.

Barack Obama floated into the Oval Office on the billowing rhetoric of bipartisan cooperation despite a voting record that pointed to the opposite extreme. A war-weary public preferred rhetoric to reality, his cool promises to his cold practice. Fourteen months post-inauguration, voters are getting exactly the reality that Mr. Obama's prior public service had foretold. And the rhetoric that so many found hopeful and uplifting has sunk to a snarkier partisanship than that of any president in history.

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I don't want to pay for my neighbor's healthcare unnecessarily -- and that's why I supported this bill.

Currently, people without coverage get into car accidents and get treated -- at a cost of over $1,000 for every American every year.

This new law changes that by requiring everyone to get coverage (unless you really can't afford it), the same way most businesses have to buy workers comp and drivers have to buy liability coverage.

Posted by: paul65 | March 22, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

So the Democrats have a health-care win in the House—a win that could prove mighty Pyrrhic. It will cost them dearly in the midterm elections; and come 2012, the remarkable man who seemed a shoo-in for a second term at the time of his first inauguration, will stand every chance of losing to any half-decent candidate the Republicans can muster. And in truth, this remarkable man, who has collapsed in stature since the day of that first, stirring inauguration, will have wrought his own eclipse.Americans have witnessed, in the last days, an ugly and extraordinary display
 
==
 
Zouk’s unacknowledged source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2010/03/22/a_victory_that_might_prove_pyrrhic_231351.html
 
Anyway, wrong again, plagiarist.  Why should the voters be enraged at this bill?  Outrage at minutiae of parliamentary procedure?  Doubt it.  Reverence for the insurance companies?  Doubt it.  Anger that they will no longer be dropped when they get sick or denied coverage for spurious reasons?
 
Doubt it.
 
But the real joke in your paste-post is “any half-decelt candidate the Republicans can muster.”  Who exactly do you have in mind?  Romney?  Huckabee?  Pawlenty? 
 
Palin?!?
 
Get real.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

carterm1:

Have you seen Rep. Patrick Kennedy's rant on the House of the floor?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

The Repeal will be easy as Millions are harassed by the IRS or being threatened with Jail. Yes, the People wanted HealthCare Reform but through privatization, not a Communist revolution. The Obama powerplay is based on the Marxist belief that you can justify Big Government through convincing the people that both God, and personal rights, do not exist. The greatness of America is that we have permission to believe in ourselves and the God who made us. As the economic boot of Socialism presses in on the peoples throats they will revisit the concept of Hope and Change under a Marxist dictator.

Posted by: givenallthings
----------------------------------

Please get professional help.

Posted by: jake14 | March 22, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

CHICAGO, March 22 (Reuters) - Republican attorneys general in at least 12 U.S. states warned on Monday that lawsuits will be filed to stop the federal government's healthcare reform bill from encroaching on states' sovereignty. The lawsuits were widely expected with announcements coming from the states' top legal officials less than 24 hours after the U.S. House of Representatives gave final approval to a sweeping overhaul of healthcare. State officials are concerned the burden of providing healthcare will fall to them without enough federal support.


Chairman Zero has split us assunder with his hyper-partisan "yes we will".

Reminds me of Dr. Zhivago when he said "you're point was their village".

We are in a new politicasl era - when any means justifies the end.

I am pretty sure not many centrists who voted for Dear Comrade Reader, were expecting this.

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

This was the Republican Party's Waterloo -- and they lost the battle.

If they keep on letting Tea Baggers lead them around by the nose, they will lose the war too.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/22/frum.healthcare.gop.strategy/?iref=polticker

Posted by: paul65 | March 22, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Republicans to vote to eliminate fire and police departments as to socialistic. Why should I pay to put out a fire in my neighbors house?

Posted by: Maddogg | March 22, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

The Repeal will be easy as Millions are harassed by the IRS or being threatened with Jail. Yes, the People wanted HealthCare Reform but through privatization, not a Communist revolution. The Obama powerplay is based on the Marxist belief that you can justify Big Government through convincing the people that both God, and personal rights, do not exist. The greatness of America is that we have permission to believe in ourselves and the God who made us. As the economic boot of Socialism presses in on the peoples throats they will revisit the concept of Hope and Change under a Marxist dictator.

Posted by: givenallthings | March 22, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand what the uproar in the Republican Party is all about. They're no losers in this act of legislation. Someone in everybody's life will benefit from this at some point and yes, its going to cost money. I didn't see this uproar when the Banks were granted billions of dollars just to give themselves expensive junkards and golden parachutes. I didn't see this uproar when we were made to pay millions a day for a two-front war. Where was all of this "moxy" then? I've noticed that a certain percentage of people in this country are very selfish and inconsiderate. Also, it doesn't help to see Rep. John Boehner act in the manner in which he did. I thought it was embarassing and totally irresponsible on his part. He has a responsibility to carry himself on the highest professional level imaginable. His tirade on the House floor was totally embarassing. There are little kids looking up to him as a role model and he needs to be reminded of that fact.

I guess its true what President Abraham Lincoln said, "To find a man's true character, put him in a position of authority."

Posted by: carterm1 | March 22, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

So the Democrats have a health-care win in the House—a win that could prove mighty Pyrrhic. It will cost them dearly in the midterm elections; and come 2012, the remarkable man who seemed a shoo-in for a second term at the time of his first inauguration, will stand every chance of losing to any half-decent candidate the Republicans can muster. And in truth, this remarkable man, who has collapsed in stature since the day of that first, stirring inauguration, will have wrought his own eclipse.Americans have witnessed, in the last days, an ugly and extraordinary display

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Tell me, what could the pro-choice groups have done to be "winners" in your book? They issued a statement deploring the fact that women's established constitutional rights were being used in a sham of a moral battle that showed us men (who do their part in impregnating women, by the way) beating their chests over the sanctity of life, while fighting for people's "freedom" to be utterly without access to health care.

Yet, while seeing this circus for what it was, they also said that they supported the bill because it would mean giving millions greater access to health care. To me, it was an incredibly mature response to the sick, juvenile spectacle we all had to witness.

Why shouldn't they be outraged? But they swallowed their rage enough to realize that the issue is not simple.

When you call McConnell a winner and the pro-choice groups losers, excuse me, I find it hard to follow your reasoning.

Posted by: lxp19 | March 22, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

drivl


Read and Believe


Read and Believe

READ AND BELIEVE.

.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Boehner is a little Hitler type hot head. Who in God's name could negotiate with someone like Boehner?

Really though, with the passage of this legislation the Republican Party becomes irrelevant and most likely a permanent minority party.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 22, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse


Not only did the Tea baggers get Tea bagged last night… they got a Cleveland Steamer! Next on Immigration; we can give them a dirty Sanchez!

Posted by: veronihilverius | March 22, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Yeah the guy who calls me "ped" puts a closeup of a little boy in makeup as the centerpiece of a soft-porn web page.

You can't make this stuff up!

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

"If 85% of americans already had health coverage then 85% of americans will see very large premium increases this year "

that happened every year before the bill and the pace is accelerating. at least now there is some regulation to rein in the industry.

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

this is psychology textbook perfect -- the very definition of projectio:

"Ped, very few, if anyone here cares what a lunatic angry misogynist loser like you thinks. I have never seen such hysterical venom displayed as you regularly do to strangers over the weekend here.

any objective view of your particular brand of dementia would find grounds for professional intervention. Is it all the daddy thing still? Or maybe the overwhemling concern with looks and the baldness shortcoming, the stuttering. Maybe the obsession with everything to cover the lonliness, the personal angst over every simple aspect of your pitiful life?
your poor soul is evil.

I have no use for anyone as nasty and pervasively ugly as you and dribbl. I will no longer interact with you losers.

you two have been solely responsible for the plunge in this blog, the tasteless postings, the angry diatribe, the idiotic opinions, the off topic rants, the camping out for hours on end, challenging every poster with invented fictions of their lives.


good riddance to bad rubbish. I hope you choke on your spite, envy and anger.

Posted by: drivl"

this person consistently writes about himself, projecting his attributes onto others. Fascinating.

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

I have no use for anyone as nasty and pervasively ugly as you and dribbl. I will no longer interact with you losers.

==

a pledge with a lifetime of at most ten minutes.

Then back to your choking on spite, envy, and anger.

But hey, thanks for the friend request!!!!

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

If 85% of americans already had health coverage then 85% of americans will see very large premium increases this year due to the implementation of parts of the bill. On top of that they will be forced to pay or be treated like criminals. I can't see how that helps democrats at all.

Posted by: peterg73 | March 22, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Everyone who derives income from the health industry from savvy investors to hospital floor sweepers are happy about this. With or without the doctor fix, I imagine doctors will do just fine.

And despite all the ugly Republican behavior, with or without this bill, there was no stopping the tide of money chasing healthcare.

For those who think their premiums are supposed to drop, good luck with that.
The only question, just like last year, is whether it will be 10, 20 or 30% per year. Did I mention the massive amount of money involved, oh yeah, I did.

As for losers, all that money will come from somewhere. If I worked in an industry that depended on disposable income, like, mall junk stores in general, the leisure industries, restaurants, pro-sports, who knows what else...if you sense money flowing away from what you do, get out.


Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Zarina1: Your anomosity toward the so called wealthy is unbelievable. Who ever said the wealthy think they are the only ones who matter, or that lower income levels don't work hard. Are you making things up? If taxes are needed to fund this health care program, all income levels should pay it, not just some income levels. My calling taxing just some income levels disparit treatment is perfectly logical, whereas to dismiss that statement is to show complete unfairness...which is Obama's calling card.

Posted by: MylesSchulberg | March 22, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Ped, very few, if anyone here cares what a lunatic angry misogynist loser like you thinks. I have never seen such hysterical venom displayed as you regularly do to strangers over the weekend here.

any objective view of your particular brand of dementia would find grounds for professional intervention. Is it all the daddy thing still? Or maybe the overwhemling concern with looks and the baldness shortcoming, the stuttering. Maybe the obsession with everything to cover the lonliness, the personal angst over every simple aspect of your pitiful life?
your poor soul is evil.

I have no use for anyone as nasty and pervasively ugly as you and dribbl. I will no longer interact with you losers.

you two have been solely responsible for the plunge in this blog, the tasteless postings, the angry diatribe, the idiotic opinions, the off topic rants, the camping out for hours on end, challenging every poster with invented fictions of their lives.


good riddance to bad rubbish. I hope you choke on your spite, envy and anger.

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

No big surprise, but insurance companies and Big Pharma should be winners now that the the health bill has passed.

http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/stocks-health-care-reform-biotech-bill/3/22/2010/id/27401

Posted by: Fletch_F_Fletch | March 22, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Pip! Pip! Cheerio and all that! I beg to differ with you about civil discourse. It sounded like the House of Commons and the House of Lords! I bloody well thought I was back in the old country!!

Posted by: georges2 | March 22, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

To ADCWonk: To compare today's tax rates to those at some past point in time is ridiculous. Rates were higher in the 1990s, but lower in the 1920s. We're speaking of tax rates today. As for social security, I for one wouldn't object to no cap, provided the more social security deducted results in more social security payout at the collecting stage. For anyone to say that those below the income level that Obama is screwing should not contribute toward paying the freight for this health care program, is complete unfairness and there is absolutely no justifying it.

Posted by: MylesSchulberg | March 22, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who says this was “rammed down” anyone’s throats simply does not know what they are talking about. But hey- ride that wave of anger. It has really served the Republicans well so far."

Posted by: drindl

------------------------

I think that the "rammed down the throats" complaint comes in response to three things:

1) About 50 percent of the country opposed the Senate bill, even with amendments. Only about 30 percent wanted it. Passing legislation against public opinion often draws complaints that the bill has been rammed down the throats of the American public by politicians who are out of touch with their constituents.

2) Yes, the Senate bill has been available for months now, but the process to craft that Senate bill was a messy one, and the process to craft the Reconciliation Bill has been messy, too. Votes for the bill were bought in both the House and Senate with special deals favoring individual states. Unions received a special exemption. Drug companies were handed favors. Deals were cut behind closed doors. Democrats had to bribe a lot of people to make this legislation happen, and the substance of the legislation is worse off for it.

3) In the end, the House opted not to use the deem-and-pass maneuver, but to pass major legislation without technically voting on it just to provide political cover to a few vulnerable politicians smacks of foul play. Had the House rammed through the bill on a parliamentary loophole, as they had indicated they would for the better part of last week, then opponents would have a very legitimate gripe on this point. Fortunately for the House, Democrats backed away from the maneuver once they saw its rising unpopularity and once they realized that they could pass a bill without it.

Of course, even without the deem-and-pass, opponents may still have a complaint. The unamended Senate bill would not have passed the House, and the reconciliation process will almost certainly have to be abused in order to get everything packed into the amendments that Democrats want.

My guess is that the Reconciliation Bill that the House just passed will not be the final word on the bill. It's possible that the Senate will pass the House Reconciliation Bill as is, but I would not be surprised if it doesn't happen. Instead, the Senate will take up the bill, will make further changes, will be informed by the Parliamentarian that certain provisions as written are not eligible for reconciliation, and then will send a different version of the Reconciliation Bill back to the House.

Plus, even if the health insurance bill cannot be described as "rammed down the throats" of the public, the higher education financing bill that was tacked onto the Reconciliation Bill at the last minute certainly was. There was virtually no public debate of this bill, and the bill alone would not have passed out of Congress. The House bundled it precisely for the purpose of ramming it through.

Posted by: blert | March 22, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

And 37


the CHRONICALLY UNEMPLOYED


IDIOT


WHO POSTS

IN these RIDICULOUS


CHILDISH and

UNREADABLE

formats --

A JOKE.

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

MylesSchulberg wrote: “To Zarina 1: Who is to say that people in the higher income class haven't worked hard and long to deserve their income, without some unfair tax being imposed. How many other Obama programs will this class have to pay for? We already have a progressive income tax system where the wealthy pay far more taxes than the lower income levels. If fairness means anything, taxes if necessary, should be imposed on all income classes, not just some. But in this economy, taxes are not warranted. You cannot say that Obama is president of all, when he targets specific groups to screw. Disparit treatment without a doubt.”

No one said that folks in higher income brackets haven’t worked hard.

Teachers work hard. So do nurses and police officers and soldiers. But most nurses, teachers, police officers, and soldiers aren’t in the $200,000+ tax bracket.

What the higher tax brackets seem to believe is that because they’re well-off or wealthy, THEY are the only ones who matter. Yet how much money would the upper tax bracket folks be bringing in if it weren’t for underpaid employees with no health care benefits doing all the work?

MAYBE if those in the higher tax brackets, like those writing themselves million-dollar bonuses, were less focused on amassing personal wealth and actually paid a decent wage or provided health care then this bill wouldn’t have been necessary.

So, really, it’s the greed of the higher tax bracket folks who want it all for themselves that created the necessity for this bill to provice basic health care for their workers, so they can surely help pay for it.

Posted by: Zarina1 | March 22, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

The individual mandate will probably be struck down by the courts - the analogy with State requirements for car insurance simply does not hold to Federal requirements.


Obama should know better - he probably does.


Next, the States are going to have some wins on the UNFUNDED MANDATES.

Where does all this leave us ???

Pretty much the same place where the liberals WANT TO PUT THE COUNTRY - they want people to get used to the idea of getting benefits, but NOT paying for them - the liberals want to OPEN UP HOLES IN THE BUDGET - AND THEN FORCE THROUGH A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM.

You see, under a single payer system, no one HAS to buy insurance - EVERYONE HAS TO PAY THE TAXES - SO THE EFFECT IS THE SAME AS AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.


Ironically, the single payer may be Constitutional - because the Constitution is supposed to place limits on what the Federal government can REQUIRE others to do - however the prohibitions on what the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN DO AND PAY FOR ITSELF are much more limited.


Think of it this way - if the Federal Government wants to give you something for free, where is the harm ??


On the other hand, if the Federal Government requires you to buy something, you can claim a harm.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

zouky drivel --LOL. You are so funny when you are frothing!

Can't Daddy get you a job, any job?

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

We've seen your Model Mania page, zouk, and we laughed till our ribs ached.

You are the very embodiment of pathetic.

But willing to learn.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Here is what Congressman Mike McMahon of New York says about Healthcare on his official Website ......

Healthcare
"There is a great need for comprehensive health care reform to provide all Americans with access to high-quality, affordable health coverage. Health care reform should expand access to health coverage while promoting value and quality of care. It is imperative that reform guarantee choice of doctors and health plans and invest in prevention and wellness.

As the debate on health care continues, I want be sure that reform legislation would expand health coverage options to the 46 million Americans and 13.6% of New Yorkers who are uninsured. I will work to ensure that all stakeholders have a seat at the table during the health care reform debate. I believe this complicated process must evolve from the bottom up and from all across the spectrum. This includes doctors, nurses, patients, unions, businesses, hospitals, health care providers and businesses.

Key reforms include Medicare payment reforms to increase value by improving prevention and care coordination; improve federal funding to help states with rising Medicaid costs; increase funding for education and training to bolster the primary care and nursing workforce. We cannot delay this discussion any longer."

LAST NIGHT, THIS man VOTED "NO" ON THE BILL ...............

Congressman, you, sir, are the purveyor of LIES ! !

Posted by: loretoguy | March 22, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

lies, distortions, hatred, rage, hysteria, racism, everything -- their whole bag of dirty tricks - dribbl

Are you upset about your copyright infringement?

I thought you thrived on copying? how else will you "think" of anything?

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

But not me?

Posted by: JakeD3 | March 22, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

rich daddy does pay for his wh*res.

Posted by: dribbl

sorry moonbat. Can't help you with any work there, and I realize you are desperate to ask. did Spitzer let you go?

first of all you need to be good looking. I've seen your facebook photo and almost lost my lunch. Second you need to be able to shut your mouth. third a charming , sweet disposition is essential to success. clearly you stand no chance in any of those skills.

did the peanut sweeping fall out. Can't you find someone to buy those old Chairman Mao posters? It is practically the same as an Obama one.

I hear 'Seven in dog years' needs someone to watch the van.

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

LOSERS - REPUBLICANS.

All of them. They threw everything they could at this - lies, distortions, hatred, rage, hysteria, racism, everything -- their whole bag of dirty tricks, and they still lost.

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Boehner and McConnell are a total joke. The GOP will never regain the majority with these two clowns in charge.

Posted by: gipper01 | March 22, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

"Who is to say that people in the higher income class haven't worked hard and long to deserve their income, without some unfair tax being imposed. How many other Obama programs will this class have to pay for? We already have a progressive income tax system where the wealthy pay far more taxes than the lower income levels. If fairness means anything, taxes if necessary, should be imposed on all income classes, not just some. But in this economy, taxes are not warranted. You cannot say that Obama is president of all, when he targets specific groups to screw. Disparit treatment without a doubt."

Even your premise is wrong:

1. High income earners will *still* be taxed less that they were during the 1990's (when our economy did pretty well, thank you); and

2. High income earners generally pay *less* percentage tax than middle class, because the middle class is paying Soc Sec tax on all their income, and high income earners pay Soc Sec tax only on a part of their income.

Posted by: ADCWonk | March 22, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Stock Market Update (Yahoo)

2:30 pm : Two other major sectors have joined healthcare as today's biggest gainers. Retailers and basic materials are both putting in gains of greater than 1%.
----------------------------
To everyone who is assuming disaster:

Be smart. Question everything. Question yourself. Look at all the evidence.

You may stick with your view that the entire economy is breaking down, but you should at least acknowledge that a LOT of people with a LOT of money on Wall Street don't agree with you.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

.......

Losers:

JakeD2 & JakeD1

......

Posted by: printthis | March 22, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

What about the people beyond Capitol Hill?!?!

I have a preexisting condition (epilepsy) and it appears that this bill only helps people with a very low income and that it makes things more expensive for everyone else.

They said this will help "those with preexisting conditions", but it appears that my premiums are going to rise and that it will be just as difficult to get new insurance.

Posted by: reston75 | March 22, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990. Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early „70s and other factors, “the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.”


Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10.

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

" If I were still working at an hourly job past retirement age, I might be bitter too."

poor zouky. no job, no skill, no friends, but his rich daddy does pay for his wh*res.

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

The blog that routinely insults our intelligence with the Pawlenty puffery and the Republican Resurgence hits a new low in calling Boehner and McConnell "winners" in this. No way in hell.

Only listing President Obama as a loser would be worse.

The minority leaders behaved like fools.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Loser:

Rush Limbaugh

Bigger loser:

Costa Rica

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Your losers list is short on Republicans! You called out Boehner for his speech, which was terrible, but I thought he looked like a fool through much of this process. So he held his colation together - they still lost, completely. I think he comes out as a clear loser. Add to that the Republican Party in general, who did not do nearly enough to distance themselves from the racists and bigots involved in the Tea Party demonstrations. Some or most of these Tea Party people are clearly unhinged, and yet the Republican Party seems to want to keep them in the tent. As the country grows less old and less white, this "implicit racism" strategy where white people waving American flags are the only "real Americans" is an increasingly fatal approach everywhere in the US with the exception of the South. If Republicans think that they can ride the inarticulate rage, hatred, and bigotry of the Tea Party back to power, I say good luck.

Posted by: timothywayne | March 22, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Is there anyone out there who has read the 2700 pages that can tell me how the government will "find" those who do not have mandatory insurance?

Will US citizens have to have ID cards and be registered so they can find citizens and fine them?

How will they find migrants, homeless people to make them get insurance contracts with subsidies sent where?

I have read that several thousand (tens of thousands) new federal employees will be needed to administer this bill. Can anyone prove to me this is false?

Finally, will that 100 million hospital for Dodd's friends accept people without policies?

Posted by: sally62

-------------------------

Since the mandate will be enforced through the IRS, the government's ability to "find" people will be more or less the same as its ability to find tax cheats. Really, the government doesn't much care if they find the homeless people without insurance because fining those people would already be eligible for government assistance if they asked for it, and they cannot be fined because their income is too low.

What the government will find, however, is who among people earning taxable incomes has insurance and who does not. The ID cards necessary to administer this already exist--you have a tax ID/Social Security number, don't you? On your tax returns, you will have to provide some kind of proof of insurance, and failure to do so or lying about it could get one tied up in an uncomfortable audit, I presume.

How many new government employees will it take to administer the mandate? Hard to say. Republicans circulated the figure, if I remember correctly, of 12,000 last week, but I really do not know what they were basing that number on. At this point, I think it is speculative how many government jobs this will create, but needless to say, administering a new national bureaucracy will take thousands of people. Existing IRS staff (there are about 90,000 of them) can probably handle some of the load, especially the part that simply involves processing 1040 forms with an extra line or two added about health insurance.

However, for the actual footwork and enforcement, yes, I'd expect several thousand new employees at the IRS. I'd also expect quite a few more at HHS. If they will be setting up a program to cover millions of uninsured people who cannot afford insurance, then this will take a significant number of new workers. This bill is going to cost a trillion dollars over the next decade, so naturally the government will eat up a big chunk of that by expanding its bureaucratic footprint.

As for that $100-million hospital, it won't need to reject people without insurance because everyone will have insurance now, right? Oh...wait, universal coverage was not part of the deal. Oops.

Posted by: blert | March 22, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Why do Republicans hate American democracy?

"The bill was passed with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, as required by law and Senate rules. It was then passed in the House by majority rule and in accordance with all House Rules.

It was done so by a Democratic majority elected sixteen months ago along with a Democratic President who campaigned daily on Health Care reform, and who received the most votes in the history of American elections and won by the widest margin in decades.

The bill was crafted quite openly, after a year and a half of public debate, and the exact Senate bill that was passed in the House yesterday has been available for people to read and discuss for three entire months. This was the slowest, most open, most thoroughly discussed piece of legislation in my lifetime.

Anyone who says this was “rammed down” anyone’s throats simply does not know what they are talking about. But hey- ride that wave of anger. It has really served the Republicans well so far."

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

To richardshaker: No one is saying that there shouldn't be health reform and those who need help shouldn't get help. Fairness dictates that everyone should pitch in and help, not just some. It's a simple and fair concept, something that Obama apparently doesn't believe in.

Posted by: MylesSchulberg | March 22, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Go to Vietnam and hang yourself in a pit - please don't go on the internet once you are there - we do not want to hear from you.


Poor Ped, spent his birthday alone. no one can tolerate his angry self rightous indignation. If I were still working at an hourly job past retirement age, I might be bitter too. The dream world awaits, the foreign wealth flows in and slavery is OK, if you're giving generously to the party. And the gyms are air conditioned.

bon voyage!

(PS_ that's a foreign word that needs no accent marks)

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Washington, DC—Spokesman for Nevada Senator Harry Reid, Jim Manley, released the following statement today regarding Senator McCain’s comment pledging no cooperation from Republicans for the rest of the year:

“For someone who campaigned on ‘Country First’ and claims to take great pride in bipartisanship, it’s absolutely bizarre for Senator McCain to tell the American people he is going to take his ball and go home until the next election. He must be living in some parallel universe because the fact is, with very few exceptions, we’ve gotten very little cooperation from Senate Republicans in recent years.'

“At a time when our economy is suffering and we’re fighting two wars, the American people need Senator McCain and his fellow Republicans to start working with us to confront the challenges facing our country—not reiterating their constant opposition to helping working families when they need it most.”

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

drivel in, drivel out

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

yeah, noa, the nutters are just letting it all hang out now. they've got nothin and nothin to lose.

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Table 1: By a Country Mile: Historical Examples of Erroneous Health Care Cost

Estimates (billions of dollars*)
Benefit Estimated
cost at time of enactment**
Actual cost Diff.
Error ratio

UK National Health Service
.260 .359 -.099 1.38 to 1

Medicare hospital insurance 9 67 -58 7.44 to 1

Medicare (entire program)
12 110 -98 9.17 to 1

Medicare ESRD program .1 .229 -.129 2.29 to 1


Medicaid DSH program
1 17 -16 17.00 to 1

Medicare home care benefit
4 10 -6 2.50 to 1

Medicare catastrophic coverage***
5.7 11.8 -6.1 2.07 to 1

Massachusetts Health Reform
.725 .869 -.144 1.20 to 1

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

The Health Care Reform bill passed and the sky is not falling nor is the world coming to an end. Cries of "socialism" were heard long ago when Social Security was passed. The 21st century has emerged and there is no portal back to the past.

Posted by: Artisan1 | March 22, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

The gooey glow of self-righteous that some people got from handing over the country to the unqualified black guy with a name like a terrorist is fading away. The crisis this country has gotten itself into through moonbattery remains

==

wow the gomers are so angry in their defeat they're forgetting to mask their racism. That should really help them in November.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

I do not understand why any adult has to view enacting legislation as a game with winners and losers. But Mr. Cillizza appears to be fixated on our exercise of democracy as some form of sports competition, so, in that spirit, I will offer my estimations: The winners were those members of Congress who care about all their fellow citizens to try to find a solution to a problem that confronts all Americans. The winners were those who maintained dignity and decorum. The winners were those who spoke with intelligence and reason. The winners were those who addressed the bill and did not make stump speeches for the 2010 elections.

I don't need to say who the losers were; it was quite evident throughout the debate proceedings.

Posted by: marmac5 | March 22, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and we have the State Attorney General in Washington State challenging this - look for a recall petition to be filed on him soon.

At the very least that position will have a new face in the next election.

Posted by: WillSeattle | March 22, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday's passage of HCB is a big event. Health care is not a privilege but an individual's fundamental right and society's obligation to all its fellowmen. We the richest country in the world cannot take care of our citizens is as shameful as saying we cannot take care of our children or elderly parents. The 35+ million not having HC reflects poorl on our country. It is heartless and insensitive to deny HC. There is no problem funding Iraq and Afghan wars which were not budgeted. Why is providing HC causing so much consternation?

We demand insurance on cars to get Driver,s license why is it so bad to mandate HC?

Yes, all new programs will go through growing pains but that is not a reason for inaction.Learn from mistakes and move on.

As to republican tactics of NO to everything, it is tough and the train has left the session. They have lost their place in history.

There is no doubt this going to be as historical as civil rights, medicare and social security.

Thanks to the gutsy democrats, President, Sen Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi.

Posted by: devakig1940 | March 22, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Even at CBS, which helped install Comrade Obama by stoking the racial hype and ignoring his radical background and lack of qualifications, the Moonbat Messiah's grades are falling far short of a "solid B+". Currently the percentages who give him an F for total unmitigated failure are:

The Economy: 69.81%
Foreign Policy: 60.57%
Healthcare: 81.86%
Afghanistan: 30.36%
Iraq: 34.57%
Threat of Terrorism: 60.98%
Energy and the Environment: 58.01%
Social Issues: 58.47%
Bipartisanship: 79.33%
Obama's Overall Job as President: 63.77%
The gooey glow of self-righteous that some people got from handing over the country to the unqualified black guy with a name like a terrorist is fading away. The crisis this country has gotten itself into through moonbattery remains

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Winner's: the American people
Losers: the tea baggers. Despite their anger, hysteria, and nuttiness they were not able to intimidate the Democrats into voting no. When their predicts of doom and gloom do not come to past they will look all the more foolish to the citizenry as a whole.
Losers: the Republicans. They are both stuck to the looney tune tea baggers and will not be able to repeal the bill even if they win big in the midterm elections. The best the Republican can will be able to do is nibble around edges.How are they going repeal the pre existing illness provision against little children? How many parents want to see their college age children lose health benefits? One day this will be as popular as Social Security and Medicare and with luck this might put the stake in the heart of the cynical conservative canard that government is never the solution but always the problem.

Posted by: exbrown | March 22, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Fairly good analysis, Chris.

Except I'd say Bart Stupak is on the Losers side, because the cold harsh reality is that, before he took his "principled stand" he didn't have any primary opponents, and now he has at least one very very well financed one who will get money from the Democratic grassroots across America.

Whig Party of No for the EPIC FAIL of course.

All your Health Care is belong to America!

Posted by: WillSeattle | March 22, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse


Noacoler


Go to Vietnam and hang yourself in a pit - please don't go on the internet once you are there - we do not want to hear from you.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street
***************************
That's rich - just because your underemployed ash sits on this site all all day, it doesn't make you a spokesman for anyone. Why don't you go back to flacking your useless blog site?

Posted by: LABC | March 22, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

To Zarina 1: Who is to say that people in the higher income class haven't worked hard and long to deserve their income, without some unfair tax being imposed. How many other Obama programs will this class have to pay for? We already have a progressive income tax system where the wealthy pay far more taxes than the lower income levels. If fairness means anything, taxes if necessary, should be imposed on all income classes, not just some. But in this economy, taxes are not warranted. You cannot say that Obama is president of all, when he targets specific groups to screw. Disparit treatment without a doubt.

Posted by: MylesSchulberg | March 22, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

"Obama has saving the economy from a 2nd Great Depression, Saving the US auto industry, a Nobel Peace Prize and Healthcare reform all in his first 15 months."

... and will show us he has learned to walk on water

once the Potomac warms a little (in case he doesn't have enough deals in his tricky bag to get the votes)

Posted by: sally62 | March 22, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

MylesSchulberg thinks those making over 250K are losers. Zarina thinks they are winners. I am in that class and I agree with Zarina. I am now in a better country. I don't mind paying a little more in taxes as long as it helps people who need help and doesn't go to fight unnecessary wars and kill and maim our young people.

Posted by: richardshaker | March 22, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

MylesSchulberg thinks those making over 250K are losers. Zarina thinks they are winners. I am in that class and I agree with Zarina. I am now in a better country. I don't mind paying a little more in taxes as long as it helps people who need help and doesn't go to fight unnecessary wars and kill and maim our young people.

Posted by: richardshaker | March 22, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

2Noa; the GOP hates Pelosi so much because she is so effective.

I particularly enjoy the complaint that she "twisted arms." If she was twisting arms I don't think 10% of her delegation would have voted against the Bill.

However, you will notice that the people complaining about "arm twisting" had 100% compliance from their delegation. They are also the same folks that think winning vote after vote means the Democrats are "ramming this down our throats." That's Democracy in action: if you get a majority of votes for your policies they become law. No ramming or twisting needed.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 22, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

more republican strategist David Frum:

"Now the overheated talk is about to get worse. Over the past 48 hours, I've heard conservatives compare the House bill to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 -- a decisive step on the path to the Civil War. Conservatives have whipped themselves into spasms of outrage and despair that block all strategic thinking.

So today's defeat for Republicans is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished."

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

To the losers, add the Tea Party. Rather than bring an effective show of force to bear on the health care debate, they saw their voice of protest degenerate into an unhinged display of bigotry on national television. Their message is lost in a miasma of rage and inarticulate invective, much of which relies on nonsensically employed terminology they clearly do not understand, and with alarming frequency, cannot spell.

Posted by: 92grad | March 22, 2010 2:13 PM

_____________________

Very Well stated.

The Tea Partiers are a bunch of blithering idiots, listening to Glenn Beck's lies and railing against a bill they don't even understand. The most shocking thing about them is that Social Darwinism hasn't found a way to prevent them from breeding as of yet.

Posted by: owiz | March 22, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Ok, so I haven't been reading Cillizza for a while and decided to peek: won't make that mistake again.

Posted by: freddiano | March 22, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Captain Obama, we've hit an iceberg and are taking on water. we are sinking.


Nonsense. full speed ahead.

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Winners
"John Boehner/Mitch McConnell: The Republican leaders of the House and Senate, respectively, kept unanimity within their conferences ... Preserving their unanimous opposition allows Republicans -- at a national and a race-by-race level -- to make the case that Democrats and Democrats alone pushed through a bill that, they will argue, the American people don't want."
Chris Cillizzi on the GOP's healthcare defeat

Other winners
"It was a moving experience for me, and probably also for all of you, to be bound by radio with the last heroic fighters in Stalingrad during our powerful meeting here in the Sport Palace. They radioed to us that they had heard the Führer's proclamation, and perhaps for the last time in their lives joined us in raising their hands to sing the national anthems. What an example German soldiers have set in this great age!
The sacrifice and heroism of our soldiers in Stalingrad has had vast historical significance for the whole Eastern Front. It was not in vain. The future will make clear why."
Jozef Goebbels on the German defeat at Stalingrad


Winners all.

Posted by: Bud0 | March 22, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

chucky-el,

Nice Samaritan story. I have a Titanic story:

"This big ship was going to sail. One group of people (DEM) said 'It should have enough lifeboats for all the passengers'. But another group (GOP) countered: 'No, it just needs lifeboats for some of the passengers'.
"Well, the Titanic didn't have enough lifeboats, and we all know what happened when it hit an iceberg."

Posted by: tbesozzi | March 22, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

GOP A PARTY OF THUGS, HOOLIGANS, BIRTHERS, TEA-BAGGERS, SECESSIONISTS, PUGILISTS, RACISTS AND LIERS!
The new GOP has become a Party of pugilists and hooligans. Its members and associates threaten the use of extra-legal means to try to intimidate others into acceptance. Racists, tea-baggers and thugs find their natural home in the Party. These thugs throw bricks at offices of opposing members of Congress and use racial epithets freely. They hold rallies holding ugly, racists and threatening placards. They pack guns in the vicinity of Presidential events. They seem to believe that by constantly repeating the most outrageous lies, those lies become true over time. They attack authority figures thus teaching young people to disrespect authority. Bipartisanship for them means imposing their extreme ideas upon others while refusing to consider those of others. They say no en bloc to every legislative proposal from the ruling Party yet want to hold the ruling Party to account. They are always hungry for power even after they messed things up and behave as if power is their divine right. They want power so badly they seem prepared to kill for it. They threaten secession when they fail to get it. In power, they misuse it with impunity racking huge deficits; they only talk deficit-reduction when they are out of power. They believe the Supreme Court is their special enabler and always threaten to sue. They use angry words and seem generally unpleasant, uncooperative and unreliable. They confuse and obfuscate. They are always self-righteous, closing their eyes to their deficiencies,hypocriy, and double standard.
Dr. Sam

Posted by: drsam8 | March 22, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

BIG BIG losers, Boehner and McConnell. The Dems have miles of that unholy duo at their very worst, all ready to use against their party. Boehner stays minority leader until the R's lose seats in November. Then there is flatly NO minority leader and very likely no one who wants the job. When the R's lose seats in the Senate McConnell gets reelected Minority leader as punishment and nobody with an (R) after his name pays him the slightest attention.

WHY? they decided early that they should take a very bad bet and try to cripple Obama, and chose Health Care to do it, and that particular demonstration of an inability to read a sea change will resonate. Eventually they will be the Rump Caucus of Republicans leadership, watching the Dems and the ARPs struggle over control of congress. The WILL be welcome at afternoon tea, of course, but only in Wonderland.

Have you ever heard McConnell say "Twinkle, twinkle, twink..."

Posted by: ceflynline | March 22, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

more underhanded dealing:

All the while Mrs. Pelosi was desperately working to provide cover with a Congressional Budget Office score that would claim the bill "saved" money. To do it, Democrats threw in a further $66 billion in Medicare cuts and another $50 billion in taxes. Huzzah! In the day following the CBO score, about a half-dozen Democrats who had spent the past months complaining the bill already had too many taxes and Medicare cuts now said they were voting to reduce the deficit.

Even with all this, by Friday Mrs. Pelosi was dealing with a new problem: The rule changes and deals winning her votes were losing her votes, too. The public backlash against "deem and pass" gave several wary Democrats—such as Massachusetts's Stephen Lynch and California's Dennis Cardoza—a new excuse to vote no.

Mrs. Pelosi jettisoned deem and pass. Once-solid Democrat yes votes wanted their own concessions. Oregon's Pete DeFazio threatened to lead a revolt unless changes were made to Medicare payments to benefit his state. On Saturday Mrs. Pelosi cut a deal to give 17 states additional Medicare money.

By the weekend, all the pressure and threats and bribes had left the speaker three to five votes short. Her remaining roadblock was those pro-life members who'd boxed themselves in on abortion, saying they would vote against the Senate bill unless it barred public funding of abortion. Mrs. Pelosi's first instinct was to go around this bloc, getting the votes elsewhere. She couldn't.

Into Saturday night, Michigan's Bart Stupak and Mrs. Pelosi wrangled over options. The stalemate? Any change that gave Mr. Stupak what he wanted in law would lose votes from pro-choice members. The solution? Remove it from Congress altogether, having the president instead sign a meaningless executive order affirming that no public money should go to pay for abortions.

The order won't change the Senate legal language—as pro-choice Democrats publicly crowed within minutes of the Stupak deal. Executive orders can be changed or eliminated on a whim. Pro-life groups condemned the order as the vote-getting ruse it was. Nevertheless, Mr. Stupak and several of his colleagues voted yes, paving the way to Mrs. Pelosi's final vote tally of 219.

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Just heard the Dumbest, and MOST UN--PATRIOTIC thing ever,-- GOP members declare this Health Bill un-Constitutional!? da! - If this Bill is un-Constitutional, then why have the Criminals in CONGRESS Protected the "TOTALLY UN-CONSTITUTIONAL" FEDERAL RESERVE ACT??!! -- Since 1913 this FED Act has been on the books,- and NOTHING has been done about this absolutely CRIMINAL - Totally "UN--CONSTITUTIONAL" Federal Reserve Act!!?? -- The GOP is in Bed with the FIAT USURY DERIVATIVE $BANKERS!! We have Traitors in Congress whom should NEVER NEVER OPEN THEIR' MOUTHS! -- CONGRESS $BAILED-OUT the Criminal Globalist $BANKsters whom Caused this $Economic Terrorist CRISIS!!! -- Reds & Blues supporting the private globalist Bank called the "FED" should be IMPEACHED for TREASON.

Posted by: jward52 | March 22, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

the list of bribes is going to turn stomachs everywhere:

As for those who needed more persuasion: California Rep. Jim Costa bragged publicly that during his meeting in the Oval Office, he'd demanded the administration increase water to his Central Valley district. On Tuesday, Interior pushed up its announcement, giving the Central Valley farmers 25% of water supplies, rather than the expected 5% allocation. Mr. Costa, who denies there was a quid pro quo, on Saturday said he'd flip to a yes.

Florida Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (whose district is home to the Kennedy Space Center) admitted that in her own Thursday meeting with the president, she'd brought up the need for more NASA funding. On Friday she flipped to a yes. So watch the NASA budget.

Democrats inserted a new provision providing $100 million in extra Medicaid money for Tennessee. Retiring Tennessee Rep. Bart Gordon flipped to a yes vote on Thursday.

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Is there anyone out there who has read the 2700 pages that can tell me how the government will "find" those who do not have mandatory insurance?

Will US citizens have to have ID cards and be registered so they can find citizens and fine them?

How will they find migrants, homeless people to make them get insurance contracts with subsidies sent where?

I have read that several thousand (tens of thousands) new federal employees will be needed to administer this bill. Can anyone prove to me this is false?

Finally, will that 100 million hospital for Dodd's friends accept people without policies?

Posted by: sally62 | March 22, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

To your winners I would add David Plouffe. Since his return to the WH in January President Obama has regained his 2008 "spark" - and I think Plouffe deserves much of the credit. Obama got his mojo back bigtime - meeting with the GOP, holding the seven hour healthcare summit, and campaigning all over the country for healthcare. I think Plouffe was behind all of this. Of course he has the phenomenally gifted Barack Obama to work with - but I feel Plouffe worked some behind-the-scenes magic.

Posted by: uofmdgrad | March 22, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

In Federalist #10, Madison wrote "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." (Boy, did he ever get THAT right

It is quite likely that the "individual mandate" in ObamaCare requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance against their will is unconstitutional. But after the State of the Union dust-up, the Court has more than just technical legal motives to take up the case. Madison lamented that reliance on personal motives and ambitions "should be necessary to control the abuses of government" but understood that this was a "reflection on human nature."


I'm hoping that Madison's understanding of human nature was correct, and that Justices Alito and Roberts are chomping at the bit for the chance to get back at Obama and his Congressional goons for the humiliation they inflicted on the Court. A decision striking down ObamaCare, authored by Justice Alito, would be the ultimate smackdown.
Michael Filozof

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

The Republican leadership are clear losers here, not winners. With health care now passed, they will be expected by their base to push a narrative of repealing the bill. But a 100% repeal will be hard to run on, because there are an awful lot of popular provisions in the legislation. Constructing a coherent message on health care that keeps their base without alienating moderates is going to be a really tough task for them, and, if they can't pull it off, they're going to get pounded in November.

In short, it's easy to run against things. But now Republicans are probably going to have to run *for* something in November, which bodes poorly for their prospects.

Posted by: jeffwacker | March 22, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

To your winners I would add David Plouffe. Since his return to the WH in January President Obama has regained his 2008 "spark" - and I think Plouffe deserves much of the credit. Obama got his mojo back bigtime - meeting with the GOP, holding the seven hour healthcare summit, and campaigning all over the country for healthcare. I think Plouffe was behind all of this. Of course he has the phenomenally gifted Barack Obama to work with - but I feel Plouffe worked some behind-the-scenes magic.

Posted by: uofmdgrad | March 22, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street:
"If you are going to be COMPLETELY OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, YOU MIGHT AS WELL GO COMPLETELY OUT OF TOUCH"

Well, the GOP are *experts* in being completely out of touch with the American people.

Posted by: presto668 | March 22, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Funny how Americans will borrow trillions to fight wars but are opposed to spending billions to help their neighbors.

Posted by: fatman985 | March 22, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Another Winner:
Edward "Ted" Kennedy

Posted by: shoephone1 | March 22, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

"The Obama administration passes a health care bill that helps 32 million Americans get health insurance, prevents insurance companies from dropping coverage for pre-existing conditions, will save $1.34 trillion dollars over the next 20 years, and the right goes nuts. Doesn’t that say it all?"

SURE DOES. There used to be a few republicans with a brain, but as you can see by the wacky wingers comments on this blog, all of them have apparently died off.

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Watching Republicans debating against health-care reform was much like watching Governor George Wallace standing on the University of Alabama steps in order to prevent black people from attending. It was such sad display that will, no doubt, be played over and over for future grade school history classes.

Posted by: JimZ1 | March 22, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Winner: Joe "You Lie" Wilson

turns out berry was lying.

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

"...[Pelosi] showed (yet again) that she has an unique understanding of her caucus and an ability to deliver votes when she needs to."

notwithstanding the fact that she strongly backed the losing candidate for majority leader at the outset of her tenure as speaker...

Posted by: d1964b | March 22, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

The Bush administration invaded a foreign country that hadn’t attacked us and did not have Weapons of Mass Destructions, claimed torture and indefinite detention without trial is just fine, watched as New Orleans and the U.S. economy collapsed, and liberals went nuts. The Obama administration passes a health care bill that helps 32 million Americans get health insurance, prevents insurance companies from dropping coverage for pre-existing conditions, will save $1.34 trillion dollars over the next 20 years, and the right goes nuts. Doesn’t that say it all?

Posted by: zvelf | March 22, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Top winner? The country. Regardless of how many health care changes there are in the future under both parties these changes will be based on this bill. It is a new foundation for health care, and health care debate.

Other winners? People who cannot get insurance because of a pre-existing condition in their family. It is time this disgrace stops.

John Boehner is also a winner, based on his speech last night. He's capable of getting the crowds excited and his tanning bed complexion works well on TV. Mitch McConnel, on the other hand is too puffy. Looks like a wayward Priest.

Biggest Loser?

The Tea Party, now known for racism and abuse of the sick. Their treatment of the guy with Parkinson was disgraceful, but telling. Their racism was as dirty as we have seen in 2 generations.

Posted by: KHMJr | March 22, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

SUPER FACT: Universal Nationalized Single Payer Health Care will SAVE the American people (thus US Gov) $1+Trillion per Year!!
While giving every American health care for the Taxes that we (already) pay, plus may be $5 per doctor visit as in Canada or UK, etc..

Where does the fact come from that Universal Nationalized Single Payer Health Care will SAVE American people (thus US Gov) $1+Trillion per Year? Because in every European country, Canada, Israel, Japan, etc. whom ALL have Universal Nationalized Health Care, health care on average is taking about 9% of the GDP, while the US for profit health care is taking 18% of the GDP, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

So then we must face these FACTs:

1) Republicans are utter complete lying lunatics, that is they say they want to "reduce the Deficits", "they are worried about the debt bomb..", etc. But if you really want to really reduce the Deficits then you would be for Universal single payer health care. And that is why the Conservative party in UK, the Conservative party in France, Conservative party in Canada, the Conservative party in Germany, etc. are 100% for their Universal nationalized health care systems.

2) Democrats are not that much better than Republican lunatics since they are not proposing Universal Nationalized Single Payer Health Care, hek not even a real Public option. Instead they have proposed this so called Health Care reform that forces us to buy health care from the same for profit health care companies that have brought us the current bankrupting health care system, hek it does not even end the MURDEROUS practice of denying people health care because they need health care (aka Pre-existing conditions) until 2013 which means at least 200,000 more Americans will be KILLED by then due to the Pre-existing condition MONSTROSITY of EVIL.

Much more here:
http://anoox.com/blog/UHC.38349

Posted by: RealNews1 | March 22, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

One of the biggest winners here is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.  With the trolls screaming about botox and referring to her derisively by first name for the past year, one would think she was an unskilled idiot.
 
Anything but.
 
Pelosi masterfully pulled together the stragglers and built a coalition to bring this bill home.  You can bet that President Obama is very very pleased with his Speaker today, she brought home the bacon.  Her “deem and pass” was absolutely masterful politics, perfectly diverting the Republicans into battling a straw man, and after they’d screamed themselves dizzy and breathless she said “never mind.”
 
Don’t underestimate this woman, Republicans, she played you creeps like a Strad.
 
Noacoler
Pre-existing condition

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"Go hang yourself"?

A new low, 37th, even from you.

Posted by: mattintx | March 22, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Jesus is smiling today.
All of his children in America now have healthcare!
The Democrats are the good Samaritans of America.

“An American man was travelling on a trip from Pennsylvania to Texas, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road without healthcare. By chance a Republican came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Tea Bagger walked over and looked at him lying there, then yelled at him that there are no free handouts in America. Then a despised Samaritan (Democrat) came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him. Going over to him, the Democrat soothed his wounds with antiseptic cream and bandaged them. Then he put the man in his own car and took him to a hospital, where they took care of him. The next day he handed the hospital his credit card, telling them, ‘Give this man healthcare. If his bill runs higher, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’ “Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The Democrat, the one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same."

Posted by: chucky-el | March 22, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Flip-floppers: Thirteen Democrats changed their votes from where they stood in November. Eight members went from "no to yes": Reps. Brian Baird (Wash.), John Boccieri (Ohio), Allen Boyd (Fla.), Bart Gordon (Tenn.), Suzanne Kosmas (Fla.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Betsy Markey (Colo.), and Scott Murphy (N.Y.).
____________
Shouldn't Bart Stupak be listed as a Loser: Flip-Flopper in addition to drawing the ire of the liberal dictators?

Posted by: WildBill1 | March 22, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Let's see, McConnell and Boner have been fighting this for 14 months. They have lied about death squads. They have lied about how this is a government takeover. Their political base has been shown to be a group of homophobic racists. They lost this debate. And they are classified as winners? In what alternate universe do you live Chris?

Posted by: wbowers | March 22, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

37th, why do you care? Pelosi doesn't have the votes. Sheesh

Posted by: DDAWD | March 22, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

The democrats are going to need another 3 TRILLION DOLLARS to compensate for all the ACCOUNTING TRICKS.


Don't forget that.

Unbelievable - Not only does this legislation give the state UNFUNDED MANDATES - BUT IT GIVES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNFUNDED MANDATES - AND IT GIVES REGULAR PEOPLE UNFUNDED MANDATES.


.

.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler


Go to Vietnam and hang yourself in a pit - please don't go on the internet once you are there - we do not want to hear from you.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Winners:
The American People

Losers:
Fear mongers, The wealthiest 1%, The uninformed or misinformed (well, these people THINK they are losers, but they will soon find that they are winners), The Tea Party (or, the new KKK)

The winners, which basically covers all Americans who are not in the Tea Party, should give thanks to the following heroes and pledge support to their RE-election:

Obama
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: jgarrisn | March 22, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

I thought the nuns were big winners. Not only did they stand for what they believed, but when Stupak dissed them, it became even more clear how sexist the Catholic church is.

And in the long run, civil discourse might be a winner too. The racism and homophobia of a group the GOP caters to may cause greater emphasis on civil discourse. The recently formed Coffee Party has a pledge they sign--

"As a member or supporter of the Coffee Party, I pledge to conduct myself in a way that is civil, honest, and respectful toward people with whom I disagree. I value people from different cultures, I value people with different ideas, and I value and cherish the democratic process."

Posted by: tinyjab40 | March 22, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Real Losers: Boehner (that tanning tax would send him over the edge); the tea party peeps (way to show you're not a bunch of bigoted fools); the punditry (particularly CNN trying to pretend that they didn't previously crow about the demise of health care);JaketheDuh-drivl-zouk-37thandO (losers 24-7)

Posted by: LABC | March 22, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Republicans failed to stop the bill entirely, but their efforts sure did stop public option and single-payer, which would have been huge disasters.

Posted by: rah2 | March 22, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Those who "soared" will become those that "stumbled", and vice-versa.

Voters are increasingly getting their guide from honest Bloggers and not from politicians or liberal media. The prime example is, "Obama And Democrats Win, America loses. America Now Knows: Electing Obama Was The Greatest Mistake Of The Last 232 Years."

This opinion will remain in the Bloggersphere until November and it will prove right.

If you are a voter, read it at
http://www.robbingamerica.com

Posted by: JohnGalt9 | March 22, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

drindl


You may have a point - but the bulk of the bill will be DE-FUNDED AND THEN REPEALED

It is not a good idea to get so many people angry at you - if you want to win future elections.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

OK, so how many people recognize that an executive order is binding on only one group... the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. It means absolutely nothing to the rest of the country. If it did, it would be called an edict or a fiat... and laws in this country are not created that way, otherwise we'd be a dictatorship or a monarchy instead of a republic.

So Bart Stupak was either going to be a truly sneaky person or a total tool. By believing that the Executive Order would be sufficient, he's the total tool. How could he have been the truly sneaky person? Act like he was going to vote for it and then when the actual vote was taken, vote "No," thus embarrassing Speaker Pelosi.

Posted by: kiltedknight | March 22, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Have to add Tea Party to the winners. If it weren't for their efforts, we'd have ended up with some kind of single-payer disaster.

Posted by: rah2 | March 22, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

The Liberals have made an error in their methods to push this through. Similar to the Abortion debates of many years ago, and still ongoing.

the abortion debacle should have gone to each individual state, rather than having a top heavy decision that ended all discussion. the solution did not sit well.

Likewise, this top down Foie Gras is not going to sit in the American gullet. Instead of Medicare, which passed with something like 300 votes and Civil rights, which was bipartisan, this heavy handed attempt will never rest in the opponents.

It will make its way through every court, be the subject of endless protests and editorials, and most likely result in Nancy's banishment to the back bench, an anachronism of the Raw Deal program the Obama adminstration thought it could force on the country. Harry too will be forcefully retired.

I understand it is difficult to live in the DC bubble, but this is more than ignorance and misinformation. It is a clear lack of American morals.

but we should have known this when we elected a socialist to power. Many did, but the MSM let us down.

congressional Repubs who could simply not stop spending are also to blame. those days look like a vow of poverty in retrospect.

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

The plural is "attorneys general," people.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Chris, your list is a comment on just how tweaked your vision gets when you spend too much time inside the beltway. I know. I've been there. You need a break.

The biggest winner in this whole thing is the American people, but those folks are mentioned nowhere.

The biggest loosers (and have been from the start) are the Republicans in leadership roles. They behaved worse than clowns, and reminded us that any notions that we, as Americans, cleave to commonly held values, is pure folly.

Other loosers - will be the states attorney generals. If the EPA can mandate clean water standards across all borders, if the government has the right to tax all citizens across all borders, they bloody well have the muscle to enforce the provisions of the 'mandates' in this law. Oh, sure, there will be challenges, but it'll be money down a rathole and all it will do is deepen the rancor and animosity.

You have insistently and consistently refused to say what E.J. Dionne said beautifully...in so many words, this was never about health care. This was about the extreme politics of obstruction doing whatever it had to to defeat progressive ideas. And they lost this fight, and it suggests that they are now about to loose a lot more. We're emerging from a long dark night of reactionary conservatism, and the battle will get ugly.

Posted by: pablomango | March 22, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama has saving the economy from a 2nd Great Depression, Saving the US auto industry, a Nobel Peace Prize and Healthcare reform all in his first 15 months.

Way to go!


Posted by: asja

---our kids will be paying for this for decades to come. Nobel Prize ? you must be the only person who didnt realize what a joke that was.

Posted by: snapplecat07 | March 22, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Let's not get too excited about David Frum.

He's the chucklehead who coined "Axis of Evil" and who really wanted to have a role in the Bush administration in "economics," as an advocate of "free markets."

The man is an idiot, and his GOP critique us his stopped clock moment.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

MylesSchulberg wrote: “How about the income class who like so many of Obama's programs, have to pay for this health care. They've unfairly been made losers. Obama once again shows he's president of some, not all.”
________________________
That would be the income class that makes over $200,000 for a single and $250,000 for married couples who already have more than most in the country, believe they are entitled to keep it all, and get more.

The class that screams and rants about entitlement programs but who most willingly accept their Medicare & Social Security checks when they retire?

The class who proclaim that the health care bill will bring an end to the best health care in the world but refuse to see that it’s only the *best* health care for a small percentage of our citizens – just the ones who can afford it - and they want to keep it that way?

That class??

I don’t see how they’re losers - they have everything they need and a little compassion and less greed is a good thing. Sounds like they’re winners to me.

Posted by: Zarina1 | March 22, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Dear mongolovesheriff who wrote:
"We now have a health insurance system like Switzerland ..."

I live in Switzerland and was already here when insurance became mandatory. Things you need to know:

We were told that by making it mandatory, savings would be made because of the "pools" <;-)

- Insurance became much more expensive for the vast majority as soon as it became mandatory because insurance through employers was outlawed
- Basic insurance is expensive yet you are
limited to local hospitals and
treated only by residents (need extra "private class" insurance to have a head surgeon or chose the hospital - if you have a "condition" no extra insurance)
- cannot see specialist without a referal or extra private ins.
- test are limited, ins. can refuse to pay for them
- everyone has to pay the first 300$ and 10% of medicines & hospital charges (unless private ins.)
- premiums have gone up each year since, sometimes more than 10%
- 30% of the population in my Canton are at least partially subsidized now because of the high costs

Finally, from birth to death, everyone pays, no Medicare or Medicaid ....

... and if anything goes badly wrong - you could never sue the hospital or doctor...

AND you have to register where you live and carry an ID card at all times so the State can keep track of you and ensure you pay your premiums or you are taken to bankrupcy court.

So do be happy all American people will now have insurance like Switzerland's. In Europe, all governments are imploding because of their "social" systems.

These failing systems, I promise you, are not examples for the US to copy!!!

I'm sure Americans could do better than blindly follow the "social" ideals here. (find the rich and break them)

Posted by: sally62 | March 22, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Wait until the check comes due to celebrate. Stocks in the health care sector didn't go up today because costs are going down - they're going up and they're going up big time. Private premiums and public taxes.

Let's watch the upcoming vote on the "Doc Fix" to see how serious Democrats really are about the deficit. It should be a doozie.

Posted by: JoeTH | March 22, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

drivl:

There's NO chance of a veto.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

The HCB passed on Sunday. When I wke up Monday morning, the sun was rising in the East, the sky was blue and the Communist Soviets were no where to be found.

Posted by: hootie1fan | March 22, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

To the losers, add the Tea Party. Rather than bring an effective show of force to bear on the health care debate, they saw their voice of protest degenerate into an unhinged display of bigotry on national television. Their message is lost in a miasma of rage and inarticulate invective, much of which relies on nonsensically employed terminology they clearly do not understand, and with alarming frequency, cannot spell.

Posted by: 92grad | March 22, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

It's very simple really, the Republicans lost really Big last night. They may win back the majority in both houses in November, but that can never make up for the fact that Healthcare reform cannot be repealed. It's now a permanent fixture of American society and will be improved here on out. Their opposition wasn't worth the blood and tears they spilled when you look at this 5 or 10 years out.

Getting that one nail in the mast is Obama's legacy and he'll never be forgotten for doing it. Majorities and Presidencies come and go and Obama will be happy with one term with this monumental achievement under his belt. Just like George W Bush's greatest legacy will be a Supreme Court firmly leaning to the right for decades. Obama has saving the economy from a 2nd Great Depression, Saving the US auto industry, a Nobel Peace Prize and Healthcare reform all in his first 15 months.

Way to go!

Posted by: asja | March 22, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

highland2:

No law prevents (yet) my free speech, especially political donations to opponents of said Congressmen and women.

rlj1:

Rep. Boener (soon to be Speaker of the House) is definitely a winner.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Politico has a headline today - "Pelosi bets the House on health care"


That basically says it.

The majority in the House is on the line - which is a horrible thing to have to bet for a piece of legislation.


Next up - legalize all the illegal aliens.

If you are going to be COMPLETELY OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, YOU MIGHT AS WELL GO COMPLETELY OUT OF TOUCH

REP LUIS GUITIERREZ WANTS ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS TO BE LEGALIZED.

WHICH WILL GET THEM ALL ON THE HEALTH CARE ROLLS - SO YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

His royal highness chairman Zero should use the power of the veto to send this monstrosity to the dustbin where it belongs. the office of the present ident is intended as a check on the congress to avoid unconstitutional laws from entering the public domain.


If barry had any actual courage, he would say "nice try, but let's get it right".

It seems the "constitutional scholar" is going to use his powers to subvert the law, rather than follow it.

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition?

How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there - would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat."

LOSERS, LOSERS, LOSERS.

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

'Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.
It's hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster.

Conservatives may cheer themselves that they'll compensate for today's expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It's a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November - by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today's disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
.......
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none."
........

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

The last good Democrat was a guy named Jefferson Davis. Since then a democrat isn't worth a dog's a#$^.

Posted by: SSTK34 | March 22, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

more Frum:

http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

'Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.
It's hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster.

Conservatives may cheer themselves that they'll compensate for today's expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:
(1) It's a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November - by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today's disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
.......
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none."
........

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition?

How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there - would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat."

LOSERS, LOSERS, LOSERS.

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

If a win's a win for Obama, then a loss is a loss for Boehner and McConnell. They belong in the LOSER slot for setting up huge expectations among the thugeratti in the right-wing media that they could actually accomplish something with their politics of No and then failing to deliver by not derailing this law.

Posted by: greenmountainboy | March 22, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

The democrats have PROVEN THAT THEY CAN NOT BE TRUSTED TO GOVERN - THEY HAVE BEEN LYING IN ELECTION AFTER ELECTION.


No one thought the democrats would go for a far-left agenda.

The democrats can NOT be trusted.

.

.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Every single winger comment on here is laughable. These poor saps don't seem to have grip on even the simplist concept. These are VERY stupid people. As David Frum, a REPUBLICAN strategist and speechwriter said :

"I've been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters - but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination.

When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say - but what is equally true - is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed - if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office - Rush's listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds."

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Fei_Hu


I don't think so - there are elections IN NOVEMBER - WHICH YOU SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN ABOUT.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CLEARLY DO NOT WANT THIS BILL.

The American People do not want A MASSIVE NEW GOVERNMENT PROGRAM


The American People do not want Massive New Taxes

The American People do not want the individual mandates.

This is going to be a three-year battle - which will only distract the country from the economy.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

the Obimbo foreign policy:

Interesting week. A study in contrasts. The Israelis announce the construction of a bunch of houses for a few Hasidim in Jerusalem. The administration issues a condemnation and then a barrage of threats against Israel.

Same week, the secretary of state in Moscow gets slapped in the face as she is standing there, and the Russians announce that the they're going to complete a nuclear power plant in Iran contrary to American requests — Iran, a country that is the chief exporter of terror according to our own State Department — and her response is: Nothing

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Chris, wrong on one count: John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are pathetic losers. Other than that, I agree.

Posted by: johng1 | March 22, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Jake


The UNFUNDED MANDATES might be subject of lawsuits by the states. I wonder how much of this bill needs the STATES to implement - and whether there will be RESISTANCE OR OPPOSITION ON THAT LEVEL.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

If Nancy loses her Speakership, and then watches as the Republicans repeal and de-fund this bill - how can this be seen as much of a victory ???


In a sense, we have an incomplete picture here.

=========================

NO YOU DUDES LOST !

Nancy will be fine as Speaker until she decides to retire.

WHICH means you LOST AGAIN..

BTW Goerge Bushes wars are still going on.
YOU can still go fight for his wars..

Fei Hu

Posted by: Fei_Hu | March 22, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

With the speculation that this legislation going "all the way to the Supreme Court", is any one worried that this is the same Court that has for the first time in histroy recognized that a legal enitity (Corporations and Unions) have the rights of citizenship?! If so worried, how are we going to FIX-IT?

Posted by: frka100 | March 22, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Losers - The American people and the democratic process

Posted by: pkhenry | March 22, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Who would lend money to Libs?

The bond market is saying that it’s safer to lend to Warren Buffett than Barack Obama.

Two-year notes sold by the billionaire’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in February yield 3.5 basis points less than Treasuries of similar maturity, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Procter & Gamble Co., Johnson & Johnson and Lowe’s Cos. debt also traded at lower yields in recent weeks, a situation former Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. chief fixed-income strategist Jack Malvey calls an “exceedingly rare” event in the history of the bond market.

The $2.59 trillion of Treasury Department sales since the start of 2009 have created a glut as the budget deficit swelled to a post-World War II-record 10 percent of the economy and raised concerns whether the U.S. deserves its AAA credit rating. The increased borrowing may also undermine the first-quarter rally in Treasuries as the economy improves.

“It’s a slap upside the head of the government,” said Mitchell Stapley, the chief fixed-income officer in Grand Rapids, Michigan, at Fifth Third Asset Management, which oversees $22 billion. “It could be the moment where hopefully you realize that risk is beginning to creep into your credit profile and the costs associated with that can be pretty scary.”

Berry has promised more than he can deliver. as usual.

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

The republicans are big winners in the end. The democrats just passed a 2500 page bill full of backroom deals, kickbacks, and special interest giveaways that they were no part of. That's on top of the giveaways to the banks that people are already ticked about. In addition, all americans will receive massive insurance premium increases between now and november which will be squarely blamed on provisions in the bill. The republicans hardly have to campaign.

Posted by: peterg73 | March 22, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Really, let's ALL drop the Nazi drama. I doubt that anyone who uses the term actually understands what it means. It has no relevance to anything here. We run the risk of watering this term down to mean simply "those who don't agree with us". And what a shame that would be for all those who suffered and perished under that regime.

Posted by: highland2 | March 22, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Jake - I saw Kennedy's rant but apples and oranges. Kennedy was taking on the media over their lack of coverage on war vs Massa. His rant was NOT directed at his fellow legislators but the media.

Stick to the subject - winners/losers.

Posted by: rlj1 | March 22, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Iunderstand the reasoning behind Obamism and am familiar with the feel-good, this-is-our-moment rhetoric of egalitarianism. But please at least spare us the fictions and simply be honest: Obama wants a state-run America, somewhere to the left of France or Denmark, a United States unexceptional and merely one of many nations at the UN. This vision follows an existing, decades-long encroachment of government. And it requires all sorts of highly credentialed overseers monitoring and at times justifiably attacking the upper middle class for its deplorable treatment of those below it.

This new America is ultimately predicated on the notion that we were born equal and must die absolutely equal as well. And this is entirely within our grasp, if we just understand that individual responsibility, talent, natural endowment, chance, merit, luck, tragedy, and a dozen other variables far too complex for government to imagine, much less solve, in fact, are not the real obstacles to ensuring equality.

Instead, it is simpler than that: greed, selfishness, racism, sexism, classism, and not niceness on the part of a few really are the culprits. Thank God that a few rare souls like Obama fathom that. And thank God, again, that it will take a singular humanitarian and genius like Obama to make us denser folks see it and do something about it.

Posted by: leapin | March 22, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

If Nancy loses her Speakership, and then watches as the Republicans repeal and de-fund this bill - how can this be seen as much of a victory ???

In a sense, we have an incomplete picture here.

We do not know the results of the upcoming elections - and we do not know what will ultimately come of the bill -

We really don't know.

MOST IMPORTANTLY we don't know what the results of last night on REDISTRICTING. All in all, I think we have an extremely inexperienced person who has no idea what he is doing.


.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Everyone loses on this bill. The only winners are the traitors in Washington. They lied, cheated, stole & threatened to get this monstrosity passed. Some legacy for B.O.
The Constitution is meaningless to them and until the citizens of this nation realize this and demand they be ousted we will lose more freedoms and rights until we're all slaves.
Nothing will change in November. The Republicans can win the entire House & Senate and the status quo will remain just that. Payoffs, bribes and under the table deals will continue to rule the day.

Posted by: BubbaT | March 22, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

GOP A PARTY OF THUGS, HOOLIGANS, BIRTHERS, TEA-BAGGERS, SECESSIONISTS, PUGILISTS, RACISTS AND LIERS!
Republicans should listen to David Frumm. The new GOP has become a Party of pugilists and hooligans. Its members and associates threaten the use of extra-legal means to try to intimidate others into acceptance. Racists, tea-baggers and thugs find their natural home in the Party. These thugs throw bricks at offices of opposing members of Congress and use racial epithets freely. They hold rallies holding ugly, racists and threatening placards. They pack guns in the vicinity of Presidential events. They seem to believe that by constantly repeating the most outrageous lies, those lies become true over time. They attack authority figures thus teaching young people to disrespect authority. Bipartisanship for them means imposing their extreme ideas upon others while refusing to consider those of others. They say no en bloc to every legislative proposal from the ruling Party yet want to hold the ruling Party to account. They are always hungry for power even after they messed things up and behave as if power is their divine right. They want power so badly they seem prepared to kill for it. They threaten secession when they fail to get it. In power, they misuse it with impunity racking huge deficits; they only talk deficit-reduction when they are out of power. They believe the Supreme Court is their special enabler and always threaten to sue. They use angry words and seem generally unpleasant, uncooperative and unreliable. They confuse and obfuscate.
Dr. Sam

Posted by: drsam8 | March 22, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Yeah Jake, thanks for the list. Try sticking to your district - that's how the system works.

Gallenrod, I'm sure those nuns are worried sick about the backlash from the church leadership. Those nuns.. who live in poverty, have no rights or status, and do all the dirty work. Good for them for going against the grain of Catholic Royalty. Another chink in the great facade.

Posted by: highland2 | March 22, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

rlj1:

Did you see Rep. Patrick Kennedy's recent rant?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

People with health insurance gripe about their rates going up because the poor can't afford a doctor and, when they get sick, end up in the emergency room because they can't be turned away. The poor complain because they can’t afford a doctor or health insurance.

Now that most everyone will have health care coverage that will be hugely reduced, but still, now the insured people complain because they are required to have health insurance – even though they have it already, and the poor complain because they’re required to have health insurance – something that will ultimately help them.

Where’s the logic??

Posted by: Zarina1 | March 22, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse


Couldn't disagree more about Boner and McConnell. The fact that they kept everyone in line is not a plus: it's what it's like to be a proud little nazi and do what you are told. I would love to know what kind of deals/strong arm tactics were used.

Boner reminded everyone of Goebbels with his big lie speech. When it didn't go over and he got sass from the dems, the petulant little brat had a hissy fit and let that hysterical, high pitched squeal color his ranting. What a sad joke.

As for McConnell, didn't he already lose?

The same holds true for Paul Ryan, who came across as a polished sophist who slanted everything to his advantage. He was articulate, granted, but glibness in lying is only a benefit in Washington. He's been tarred with the same teabagger brush and he'll be carrying this baggabe for a long time.

Finally, Republican AGs? Are you kidding? Ken Kookinelli is a one-time AG, the poster boy for the failed teabaggers. He's already a nationally known nightmare with his cruelhomophobic ranting. A punch line to late-night talk show jokes. He'll get plenty of coverage when he attacks this bill, but as was proven last night, you can't depend on a manufactured coalition of brain dead ignoramuses to fight beyond trailer park

Posted by: joebanks | March 22, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

leapin


You are correct - this bill represents a massive transfer of wealth.

In addition, the taxes on health plans - those are NOT indexed for inflation - so slowly the middle class will experience BRACKET CREEP -

The economy is bad enough NO ONE NEEDS THE NEW TAXES

THIS IS WHAT OBAMA SIMPLY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND - HIS EGO STANDS IN THE WAY - HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT.

.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I see the process of the last 12 months as being similar to the Democratic party being held between an anvil (Obama) and a hammer (the Republican party). The result was either going to break the party or make it stronger. It turns out, it made it stronger. The Democratic party is in a much better position to claim that it can get things done than it has been for decades. You remember how on the Simpsons the sign at the Democratic convention said "We just can't govern"? Doesn't apply anymore. (BTW the sign at the Simpsons's Republic convention said "We want what's worst for everyone". Still works.)

Posted by: jonawebb | March 22, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

How about the income class who like so many of Obama's programs, have to pay for this health care. They've unfairly been made losers. Obama once again shows he's president of some, not all.

Posted by: MylesSchulberg | March 22, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Losers: The citizens of the United States of America, which used to be the land of the free. Now its the land of mandatory health care, devious politicians, and liberal idiots. God help us...

Posted by: Anti-SocialistAmerican | March 22, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Boehner and McConnell winners, really? They have allowed their party to invest itself entirely into a fringe constituency. Their pary will be pushed further to the margins when the dust settles. Now they are going to campaign and identify themselves as overturning the legislation: giving insureers back the right to DENY people care with pre-existing conditoins, tell those 21-26 to get off your parents' insurance, open up the donut hole in Medicare pt D so seniors can pay more. Yeah, good luck. You'll need 67 Senate votes to override the inevitable veto.

Winners (barely):
Sensible moderate legislation (that gave the GOP about a hundred pices of their own ideas that they ended up voted against. Brilliant)
Obams's campaign team.
Limbaugh (needs anger to exploit)
Beck (needs anger to exploit)
Hannity (needs anger to exploit)

Losers:
Angry White Men
Boehner
McConnell
GOP

Posted by: gvbajb | March 22, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

14 months of fighting this bill and appearing as very bad losers in the process.
This will be a Waterloo for the GOP- they are the biggest losers on this list by far. As the population realizes what's in this bill and the sky didn't fall(GOP predictions) AND as the economy turns to the better the GOP better have a better pitch than "We're Angry" come November.

Posted by: dcperspective | March 22, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"Obama's legislation comes from an alternative idea, begun under the Eisenhower administration and developed under Nixon, of a market for health care based on private insurers and employers. Eisenhower locked in the tax break for employee health benefits; Nixon pushed prepaid, competing health plans, and urged a requirement that employers cover their employees. Obama applies Nixon's idea and takes it a step further by requiring all Americans to carry health insurance, and giving subsidies to those who need it.

So don't believe anyone who says Obama's health care legislation marks a swing of the pendulum back toward the Great Society and the New Deal. Obama's health bill is a very conservative piece of legislation, building on a Republican rather than a New Deal foundation."

which is why all the fuss about it is just stupidity.

Posted by: drindl
-------------------------------------------
The only problem is that the bill is designed to eventually eliminate private insurers, therfore, it is not a Nixon or conservative plan.

Posted by: leapin | March 22, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Winners.
Americans without health care; Americans with pre-existing conditions; American students; democratic process; small business; Delegates who voted yes.

Losers.
Boehner - it's okay to disagree but did he have to be so disagreeable. He ranted and raved and it was very unbecoming. Tea Party people (racist - if the show fits) - who acted so ugly but for them pretty normal and Republicans who encouraged them; Republicans who don't care about their fellow Americans - they had 8 years to come up with a health care plan. Republicans - just because.

Posted by: rlj1 | March 22, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Scott Brown fits in anywhere here. His election changed things, but he was a non-entity in this debate once he actually took office. Since the Senate bill had already passed, the House could simply pass that bill plus the sidecar. Brown might have actually expedited the process rather than stopping it. Remember how fragile the Senate coalition was to even get the 60. Then throw in a bunch of Congressmen who want a public option? The whole thing might have fallen apart. But since Republicans were going to filibuster everything, there's no conference committee and just two months after Brown's election, the House passes the bill. I doubt it happens this fast if Coakley won.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 22, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Stop covering the winners and the losers.

Start reporting the facts of the damn legislation.

Or, Cillizza, do I really need to walk into Milbank's office, pull you up from your knees behind his desk, close your mouth, and drag you to your computer to research and write the full, accurate story?

Posted by: MarkinJC | March 22, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Talnaes cartoon on Obama in the stretch. He successfully runs the gauntlet, with a ciggie hanging from his lip.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/anntelnaes/?hpid=opinionsbox1

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 22, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

The very people going against this legislation are those who need its benefits most. Yet these fanactics represent a level of ignorance, and self flagelation represented by the character of "Lemmings." In this case they are followers of right wing radio and television blindly following without knowing what is in their interest.

Posted by: october30 | March 22, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

"a win is a win"

Guess Washington and WaPo journalist have not changed. May I remind you that for some the "how" is also as important as the full "what" (which has not been made public yet...)

This nation and its people are not a rigged baskeball game.

We will see how it all plays out.

Posted by: sally62 | March 22, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

We now have a health insurance system like Switzerland has, or Taiwan, or Holland. Everyone is covered. Of course, with Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and other government plans, we have the public component that the above countries lack, because theirs is basically private though required.

The Republic Party skeptics, especially those of you who lack the financial wherewithal to buy insurance on your own, have to remember: Even Republic Party voters get sick sometimes. Insurance protects you from getting wiped out.

None of us gets sick on purpose. It's just nice to have the security of health insurance behind you should something happen.

Posted by: mongolovesheriff | March 22, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Beware cranial fragments.

Troll heads exploding

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Stop covering the winners and the losers.

Start reporting the facts of the damn legislation.

Or, Cillizza, do I really need to walk into Milbank's office, pull you up from your knees behind his desk, close your mouth, and drag your ass to your computer to research and write the full, accurate story?

Posted by: MarkinJC | March 22, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Losers: zouk/doof/moonbat/drivl/Ace McNumbnuts, joke, armpit.

Not for anything specific to HC, just because they are, in fact, losers.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | March 22, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Losers:

GOP
Tea Baggers
Bush Limbaugh
Glenn Bleck
Slime Hanity
Michelle Blockhead
Sarah Plain
John McLame
Chuck Boner
Mitch McVomit

Posted by: abigsam | March 22, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

.


yes, i do feel so sorry for the people who've lost their freedom to die prematurely from lack of access to health care..

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"Winners: Insurance companies and phramaceuticals. They are going to make a fortune."

WRONG. They already make a fortune. They wouldn't have spent hundreds of millions to fight reform if it wasn't going to cut into their profits. I feel sorry for people this disinformed. Must be a fox watcher -- the real losers.
-----------------------------------------
What part of the reform were they fighting? The part where the gov't forces you to buy insurance. I'm sure the drug companies were all upset about increasing their monopoly on the american citizen. I have to assume you work for one of them and are trying to cover for them or something.

Posted by: peterg73 | March 22, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Losers-Michelle Bachmann, John Kline and the other republicans who stood on the capitol balcony and encouraged the spitters and haters to riot

Posted by: babloom | March 22, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

On one hand, I agree with Chris that Boehner and McConnell "won" for keeping their caucuses unanimous in opposition. On the other hand, they should probably be dual-listed (like Stupak) for doing everything they could to kill health care reform and still failing to stop it.

And while it's a win for the nuns who spoke out in favor of the bill in the short term, it may lead to reprecussions from the all-male Catholic hierarchy over the long term, as the Vatican is already concerned about and trying to rein in American nuns as it is.

And it should be a win for the Democratic Congressional caucuses as a whole, as they finally found the spine to actually legislate something significant and risky in spite of themselves. Yes, the President, Reid, and Pelosi deserve some credit for herding enough cats into the corral, but Congressional Democrats haven't done anything this significant on their own for over 70 years.

That said, all this could be for naught depending on the composition of the Supreme Court when one or more of the ineluctable legal challeges get there. Look for Republicans to try and fast-track this to the Supremes while the court is still leaning Conservative.

Posted by: Gallenod | March 22, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

It's no wonder nuns are in favor of spreading health insurance--they're virtually all over 80 and none of them are wealthy.

The timing on this is optimal for the Dems. It's too late for a lot of primary challenges but early enough for lots of things to change before the election in November.

Posted by: Budikavlan | March 22, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Finally we can say, God Bless America!!

Posted by: fudador | March 22, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

RobT1 wrote: “… What you leave out is that sure one group of nuns came out in support of Obamcare but other groups of Nuns, like the Catholic Bishops, came out opposed to Obamacare. Nuns in favor of Obamcare met the media interests in pushing Obmacare forward while Nuns opposed did not so they were ignored….”
_________________
A little fact check might be in order. Bishops are NOT Nuns. Nuns are female. Bishops are male. They're in totally different places in the church hierarchy.

Posted by: Zarina1 | March 22, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Reverend Wright got his wish - his disciple has accomplished what he wanted- "God Damn America"...

I applaud the first part of the health care bill of regulating the actions of discrimination of the insurance companies because it is a fair thing to do. However, when Obama promised change and hope, I did not think it was possible that he would accomplish changing the fundamental basis of our democratic system by mandating health care for ALL AMERICANS and to have the most powerful agency, the IRS, to accoomplish and enforce that directive. The one thing that truly belonged to me - the rights and ownership of my body and its welfare - is no longer mine but it is now enslaved to the government. I now have NOTHING that I can claim is mine - it is quite a daunting and hopeless realization...The one important thing that so many people have fought for from freeing the tyranny of the British, to the war that could have divided this nation, to the vote for civil rights for ALL - the nearly over 200 hundred years to achieve that goal and the lure that called for so many of us immigrants to give up our heritage and leave our relatives behind in our birth countries to immigrate here. For that one thing that eludes so many other countries - FREEDOM of an individual and the rights that our government guarantees for each one of us. That freedom is now being tested by this mandate and dictate with penalties as enforcement for ALL and EACH one of us to get health insurance or ELSE...
That is quite a solemn thing to realize and I can't quite explain the loss that I feel right now but a saddness...

Posted by: american17 | March 22, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"Obama's legislation comes from an alternative idea, begun under the Eisenhower administration and developed under Nixon, of a market for health care based on private insurers and employers. Eisenhower locked in the tax break for employee health benefits; Nixon pushed prepaid, competing health plans, and urged a requirement that employers cover their employees. Obama applies Nixon's idea and takes it a step further by requiring all Americans to carry health insurance, and giving subsidies to those who need it.

So don't believe anyone who says Obama's health care legislation marks a swing of the pendulum back toward the Great Society and the New Deal. Obama's health bill is a very conservative piece of legislation, building on a Republican rather than a New Deal foundation."

which is why all the fuss about it is just stupidity.

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Republican Attorney Generals winners?? I don't think even you believe that one. Ken Cuccinelli can rant all he wants about what Virginia will do in hopes of getting elected Virginia's governor. But he better hurry. After the bill is enacted and all those people with college age kids will be able to keep these kids on their health insurance. These people and all those college age kids who vote, will definitely make their voices heard.

Posted by: wmwilliams14 | March 22, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

so berry and nancy and harry start with a huge majority, take over a year, change the message every two weeks, flounder with their own constituency, manage to piss off most of the voters, use very dirty deed in the book, exclude every Repub across the board, have 37 states prepared to file suit, demean the rules and elected office holders, break every promise ever made - transpraency, bipartisanship, end of corruption, etc., hand the repubs an overwhelming victory in the fall, spend 2 trillion, expand the power of the IRS, offer bribes to every corrupt Lib in sight and still only manage to squeek out a victory.

Yeah, that sounds like a resounding Liberal WIN all right.

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

How about Harry Reid, who sheperded through a health care reform bill, and unlike Speaker Pelosi, had no margin for error and a bunch of egotistical Senators who know so little about the policy? Harry Reid succeeded where LBJ, Mike Mansfield, and George Mitchell all failed. And Reid did this all while facing a difficult reelection.

Posted by: moronjim | March 22, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

"FIRST, DO NO HARM."

Congress, Team Obama: Now do the REAL health care reform -- end Bush-era "program" atrocities.

JOURNO EXPOSING U.S. GOV'T CELL TOWER MICROWAVE SILENT ATTACK SYSTEM CALLS FOR DISMANTLING OF HOMELAND 'FUSION CENTERS'

• Rips Mid-Atlantic States MAGLOCLEN fusion center as regional "Centcom for an American Gestapo."

• Report: Gov't cell tower microwave/laser radio frequency weapon system keeps 'targets' asleep, immobilized, debilitated, as community "watch" stalkers invade, vandalize their homes.\

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-govt-uses-cbs-news-cover-microwave-cell-tower-torture


NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 22, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

BIGGEST LOSE3RS:

Knuckle draggers like armpit.

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Two points:
1. How times have changed. This bill is to the right of Nixon.
2. Stupak et.al. caused the Democratic Party to acknowledge pro-life as an acceptable attribute among its members. For the party, this may turn out to be the most significant long-term consequence of the House vote. PA Gov Bob Casey, rest his soul, is most pleased, I'm sure.

Posted by: emoran1 | March 22, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

All Republicans on Chris' winners' list are losers. No winners can be such poor sports as they are and have been. The Republicans lost, pure and simple. Granted there will be another game another day. They lost this one!

Posted by: EarlC | March 22, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

loser Artur Davis, in a district where 71% voted Obama, he votes against because "too much money and too much change." This may be good in race for Governor but still, does he want to win based on what he doesn't stand for? Better to be on the side of history than the right wing. I'd like to have the first black governor but why if he votes like rest of delegation?

Posted by: rufkd | March 22, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

hey drivel/zouk/wanker -- don't you have soemthing else to do?

aren't there some wh*res waiting for you to take pictures of them?

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"Nuns: Yes, nuns. Their strong statement in support of the health care bill -- issued in the middle of last week -- helped blunt the opposition by Catholic bishops"

God bless the penguins.

Posted by: PeterPrinciple | March 22, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Losers:
Capitalism
Constitution
Transparancy
bi partisanship


winners:
socialism
graft
bribes
cynicism
corruption

Posted by: drivl | March 22, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

New winners/losers category:

Average 2009 U.S. Tax Refunds Rise

"WASHINGTON—Average U.S. tax refunds are up almost 10%, or about $260, this year, a White House official said Monday, an increase the administration attributes to tax credits included in the economic stimulus package."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704117304575137610728587560.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5


winners: the President, Dems, those who voted for the stimulus

losers: Boehner, McConnell, those who voted against the stimulus


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 22, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

The results of this health care decision will be horrible.

http://www.communislam.com/health-care-266

Posted by: servant119b | March 22, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

The winners are:
1.-Comrade Barack Obama. He got his Socialist Health Care Bill through, and--since he isn't up for re-election in the midterms (so he can't be run out of town on a rail by the overwhelming number of American voters who hate this government takeover of private industries)- is temporarilyy safe until 2012.
2.-The Republican Party. They may have lost a battle, but because of this Comrade Obama and Democrap Socialist Health Care bill government takeover, will win the war come the midterms in November. They got themselves a campaign issue handed them that's a killer for every Democrap Socialist running for re-election, because every poll that's been taken shows that the American people hate this bill by big numbers ("he who laughs last laugh's loudest").
3.- Conservatives and the Republican Party.
a.-They've exposed Comrade Obama for the Communist and Saul Alinski-follower that he is, and always was.
b.-Exposed the Democrap Socialist Party as America's neo--Communist Party, and the political party who could care less what their constituants think because they believe themselves the elite ruling class, and not the peoples representatives.
c.-Exposed the Democrap Socialist Party as the most corrupt ever, who had to use every sleazy, dishonest, and anti-Constitutional means to get this HC bill through.
d.-Exposed the American Main Stream Media as nothing more than just another arm of the Democrap Socialist Party, and Comrade Obama's propaganda arm and cheerleading section.

The losers are:
The Democrap Socialist Party. They've exposed themselves as the USA's neo--Communist Party, and while they'll still call themselves 'Democrats', it's just a phoney mantel they've put on to con the American people (exept for the useful idiots here).
The Democrap Socialist Party Senators and Representatives running in the midterms in November, who'll be thrown out, and under the bus en masse, but like the Lemmings they are, went over the cliff for Comrade Obama anyway.

Posted by: armpeg | March 22, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

"Winners: Insurance companies and phramaceuticals. They are going to make a fortune."


WRONG. They already make a fortune. They wouldn't have spent hundreds of millions to fight reform if it wasn't going to cut into their profits. I feel sorry for people this disinformed. Must be a fox watcher -- the real losers.

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza, you're demented. Boehner and McConnell winners? Unanimity in defeat is winning? Holding together a coalition in the wrong side of history is winning?

And do you REALLY think that procedural minutiae are going to matter eight months from now?

Grip <--- get one

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I think you may be underestimating Speaker Pelosi's political savvy. I'm not sure that she ever intended to actually try to use Deem & Pass, but by throwing it out there, she gave the GOP raw meat to chew on for a week. The Drama! They Hysteria! The threats of lawsuits and Supreme Court intervention! They spent a week losing their minds over this, and in the end she said, "Never mind..." and there they stood, ammo spent, successfully misdirected from what could have been more successful challenges. This also signaled to the other Dems in the House precisely how serious she was and how much of her own personal political capital she was willing to spend to make this happen.

Posted by: inkydog | March 22, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: DDAWD | March 22, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

The Republican party has simply gone insane... now they are actually trying to incite violence. When some Toilet Paper 'patriot' blows up a capitol building with some of them in it, they will only have themselves to blame.

'Yesterday as the House passed historic health care reform legislation, groups of Tea Party activists were still amassed on Capitol Hill protesting the bill. When word reached them that they had lost their battle, they began singing the national anthem and reciting the pledge of allegiance. “The most important thing to remember,” said Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots, “is that the fight for freedom, it never ends!” Reps. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) and Steve King (R-IA) then went out and spoke to the protesters, with King floating the possibility of secession (even though he said they should “hope” it doesn’t come to that):

KING: I just came down here so I could say to you, God bless you. … You are the awesome American people. [...]

If I could start a country with a bunch of people, they’d be the folks who were standing with us the last few days. Let’s hope we don’t have to do that! Let’s beat that other side to a pulp! Let’s take them out. Let’s chase them down. There’s going to be a reckoning!"

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

"One other winner. Ezra Klein whose columns have been most reads for the past 9 months. I hope he is taking a well-deserved vacation after today.

Posted by: AndyR3"

Nope, he is devoting the day to explain what all is in the bill.

But agreed on the importance of his column. If people like Klein can popularize policy the way that people like Chris C has popularized politics, that would be extremely invaluable.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 22, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Winners: Insurance companies and phramaceuticals. They are going to make a fortune.

Losers: Every american citizen. Instead of using medicare cuts and tax increases to pay down the debt we are just piling on.

Posted by: peterg73 | March 22, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

LOSERS? How about the Republican party?

Posted by: jbentley4 | March 22, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

"winners: John Boehner/Mitch McConnell"

WHAT?

I mean, on what planet are these two whiny intemperate losers considered 'winners'?

For trying to whip up a mob of rabid ToiletPapers into a lynching frenzy?

And can you finally get rid of Jake for chrissakes, so the rest of us can have a conversation?

Talk about LOSERS.

Posted by: drindl | March 22, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Bsimon, talk about an effort in futility. The last thing that speaker Pelosi wants to talk about after friday is healthcare. There proposal wont' get within 100 feet of the floor of the house.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 22, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Interesting that you put the Nuns in your winners column. What you leave out is that sure one group of nuns came out in support of Obamcare but other groups of Nuns, like the Catholic Bishops, came out opposed to Obamacare. Nuns in favor of Obamcare met the media interests in pushing Obmacare forward while Nuns opposed did not so they were ignored. Also, Stupak as a winner? By what stretch of the imagination is Stupak a winner? The guy held out on "principal" all this time and then caved because of executive order fig leaf? All the whining a crying about how he had to pull the cords out of his phones because of the hate calls and death threats and he caves for an executive order that can be recinded at the drop of a hat. I'm sure the Obamacare supporters think they are the winners but I don't see how Stupak is.

Posted by: RobT1 | March 22, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

One other winner. Ezra Klein whose columns have been most reads for the past 9 months. I hope he is taking a well-deserved vacation after today.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 22, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Losers: the Washington Post comments section.

Jake in 3D signing off.

Posted by: JakeD3 | March 22, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

AndyR3 writes
"I would expect some pretty strong support for other liberal agenda pieces to come out in the next few months."


There are still Reps trying to find a way to get a public option passed. I think they're peeing in the wind at this point & need to wait until the next Congress. FYI, I saw the coverage at minnpost (.com), which says Ellison (my rep) and McCollum are among a group working on this.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 22, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Chris, can you do something about this person? He's not unaware of the rules. He is clearly trying to disrupt.

I agree that Stupak is a huge loser in this. The deal was a meaningless face saver. If people realize this, it's not good news for him.

I don't see how McConnell and Boehner are winners in this. The only thing they got out of it is that they got to keep their talking point that this isn't bipartisan legislation. But given that the public doesn't care about bipartisan if there are results, it's a pretty weak talking point.

I think the two are losers in that the passage of the bill is a blow to their agenda of blocking Democratic legislation. Furthermore, it was political capital spent in a losing effort. You have to wonder how many Republicans will continue to go all out in blocking everything. You think Snowe and Collins and Brown will want to do this every single time for every significant piece of legislature? I doubt it.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 22, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

One more winner, Pharmacuetical companies. They will end up paying later but they got a lot of what hey wanted and didn't give up much in return.

Loser, I would say that the public-option people (and liberals in general) lost yesterday since the President sided with the pro-lifers to pass the bill. I would expect some pretty strong support for other liberal agenda pieces to come out in the next few months.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 22, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

One unlisted loser: the Republican Party, which brought out all it had, a solid year of lies and hysteria and bluster, Palin on death panel, McConnell giving six dozen speeches, disrupting the State of the Union, hundreds of millions in ads, bad faith negotiations, unanimous opposition...

.. AND STILL THE BILL PASSED.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

"winners: John Boehner/Mitch McConnell"

Hard to agree with this one, particularly given the Boehner rant on the floor. At least add him to the loser bracket for that one.

More to the point, Boehner/McConnell are going to have to face the voters soon. While they still possibly think their cries for repeal will propel their caucus to victory, the jury is still out on that one. As bad as approval ratings for Congress are, Repubs are worse. Is losing the healthcare battle with your reputation in tatters really a sign of 'winning'?

Most relevant is that the media are now improving their coverage of just how irresponsible Repub leadership has been with their language in opposition to this bill. Seriously; socialism? totalitarianism? baby-killers?

And they think taking these arguments to the swing voters in November is a winning strategy? Really?

They're taking on the Nuns, for chrissake!

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 22, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

You can clog the blog with your 225 line post all day Jake and I'm sure you will but all it does is show what an immature loser you are. These Democrats' seats are safer than they were yesterday.

Go lick your wounds somewhere else.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Stupak is a LOSER (I don't live in his district, 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
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 12:09 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company