Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Health care vote ends, political fight begins

With the health care debate now over, the debate over what it will mean politically in both the 2010 midterms and the 2012 presidential fight can begin in earnest. The first week (or two) of the post-passage debate will be absolutely critical in determining whether -- and how -- public opinion about the bill changes. With that in mind, we sought out top party strategists for both sides to seek their advice about what their side should be saying today, tomorrow and next month about the bill. The results are below. If you missed the final vote count, it's here.

1. First, the Democratic argument:

1) History: Several party operatives said the best thing the party can do is to focus on the historic nature of what has passed and on the prior attempts that didn't work. (Expect to hear Democrats point out that seven prior presidents tried and failed to reform the health care system before Obama.) "This is a victory for the American people and a vote people will look back upon for generations that 'yes' we can tackle the big challenges," said one operative.

2) Standing on principle: Democrats acknowledge privately that there is considerable short term risk to passing the bill. The best way to mitigate that risk, according to one senior operative, is to turn the debate into a choice not a referendum. The preferred Democratic frame? They are the "only party that stood up to the insurance companies" while Republicans have proven that they are "willing to throw the country overboard," said one source.

3) Jobs, jobs, jobs: Democrats have long argued that the health care bill amounts to a jobs bill as it will free up small business to hire without incurring crippling costs. "By reforming a health care system that was economically unsustainable, Americans will be better able to compete for and win the jobs of the 21st Century," explained one senior party strategist.

2. And now the Republican messaging:

1) Bucking public opinion: With polling suggesting a majority of Americans oppose the bill, Republicans will argue that Democrats are passing it despite their constituents making clear they don't want it. "This is an arrogant majority that dismisses public opinion as a nuisance and is clearly in need of a check and balance on their unbridled power," said one senior Republican strategist.

2) Fiscal trickery: Republicans want to puncture a hole in the Congressional Budget Office scoring of the bill that says the bill will cut the deficit. Former White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove tried out this line of attack during an appearance on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, arguing that the deficit is reduced by the Obama plan only if billions in Social Security payroll taxes and Medicare cuts are, in effect, double counted. Rove described the process as a "Bernie Madoff-style accounting in which they double-count money and ignore enormous costs."

3) Process: The key component of the Republicans' message strategy from the Senate's passage of the health care bill in late December until now is to make as much of the sausage-making in the legislation part of the public debate. You can bet that the moment the bill passed last night Republican opposition researchers began pouring over the minutiae of the legislation, looking for the next "Cornhusker Kickback" or "Louisiana Purchase." The more they find, the better chance they have of winning the public relations battle.

ALSO READ: The Post's Dan Balz on the whether this is the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end for Democrats on health care and the Fix's five biggest myths about the health care fight.

3. All six party committees have filed their fundraising reports for the month of February and there's good news for each side.

The three Republican organizations -- the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee -- outraised their Democratic counterparts by approximately $1.6 million for the month, a trend line GOP strategists have to be happy about.

Despite being outraised for the month, however, the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ended February with a combined $44.3 million in the bank as compared to $28.5 million for the Republican committees. The biggest cash-on-hand gap was between the DCCC ($19.3 million) and the NRCC ($6.1 million) while the smallest differential was between the DSCC ($14.3 million) and the NRSC ($12.9 million).

One other thing to keep an eye on is debt -- the three Democratic committees have a total of nearly $5 million in debt as compared to no debt for the trio of Republican organizations.

4. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, an all-but-certain Republican presidential candidate in 2012, called for a more aggressive approach to Iran as it pursues nuclear capability in a closed-press speech to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Sunday night in Washington, according to a source in attendance. Pawlenty called it "inexplicable and inexcusable" that the United Nations Security Council had not ramped-up sanctions despite Iran's recalcitrance: "The Security Council was created to address threats to international peace and security, but it continues to sleep while Iran continues to enrich," said Pawlenty.

Of the broader Middle East, Pawlenty said the best course of action for the U.S. government is to "further strengthen a strategy to build Palestinian institutions in the West Bank and cultivate a new, peaceful Palestinian political elite -- one that rejects terror." He added that the United States "must always stand squarely and indivisibly" with Israel.

(Pawlenty is also hosting an event for Jewish Republicans at a hotel in downtown D.C., according to a GOP source.)

Pawlenty is moving on a number of fronts as he prepares for his 2012 candidacy but none require as much care and feeding as his foreign policy profile. Pawlenty, like much of the rest of the 2012 field, has little to no foreign policy/national security experience and must bone up on the issues prior to facing off against President Obama in 2012.

5. North Dakota state Rep. Rick Berg easily defeated Public Service Commissioner Kevin Cramer at the state's Republican convention to win the right to face Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D) in November. Berg won 972 votes at the convention to 442 for Cramer.

National Republican strategists said they were thrilled at the result. Berg hails from Democratic-leaning Fargo and GOP operatives point to a February Rasmussen poll that shows Berg beating Pomeroy.)

Pomeroy has held the state's at-large district since 1992 and, during that time, has been a regular target of Republicans. In 2000 he won with 53 percent and dropped to 52 percent in 2002 but since then has rebounded to win with 66 percent in 2006 and 62 percent in 2008. The Cook Political Report rates the race as "lean Democrat" while the Rothenberg Political Report rates it "Democrat favored."

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 22, 2010; 5:55 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Health care bill passes House 219-212
Next: The health care vote: Winners and Losers

Comments

@bwj: no kidding. Major legislative victory and Obama gets listed alongside Boehner and McConnell, at the same level.

Read the previous blog post, where CC announces that the bill passed; barely a paragraph, and you can almost feel the clenched teeth.

Hardly an "objective reporter."

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 7:54 PM
__________

You'll also notice a conspicuous absence of any mention of the baggers' hate rallies, let alone criticism, even though Milbank had a great front page piece on them today in the Post. Seriously, the banner above should be changed from "news and analysis" to "personal opinion and Facebook." NO ONE is calling Boehner a "winner" for opposing HCR except this blog. NOBODY. LOL.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 22, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

@bwj: no kidding. Major legislative victory and Obama gets listed alongside Boehner and McConnell, at the same level.

Read the previous blog post, where CC announces that the bill passed; barely a paragraph, and you can almost feel the clenched teeth.

Hardly an "objective reporter."

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Sadly, Five (5) Checks:

Yet another free Charlie Cook Report ad/mention. Check.

Yet another free Tim Pawlenty ad/mention. (Reads like his press release (even folks in PostWorld are raising eyebrows...allegedly; no mention of today's Wall Street Journal story that his approval is at 42, the lowest ever for him, due to his fiscal mismanagement as Governor.) Check.

Yet another totally false anti-HCR/BHO narrative (many polls show the majority SUPPORTS HCR, some say 70 percent are supportive; the negative polls tend use comically loaded questions). Check.

Yet another citation of a Scott Rasmussen poll. (Does anyone cite him for anything after the politico.com article that exposed his "polling"?) Check.

No positive mention of the 44th President even after HCR, the biggest legislative win by a president since Lyndon Johnson's successful advocacy for the 1964 Civil Rights bill. Check.

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

"@dwight,
How high will unemployment be, say, 3 months from now?
Or, you might rather predict, how much higher will the unemployment rate be in 3 months.
Your choice.
Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 1:09 PM
-------------------------------
I guess Dwight is off calculating the unemployment rate, or is just another BS artist, making predictions of doom and gloom, but unwilling to be held to it.
Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse"

first of all, all businesses around the fifty employee mark will adjust to keep under 50 employees at any one time...
then they will fire those that are too expensive to keep...
as an indian article said...
America must keep the bottom line first and foremost...
and if that means laying off Americans, then so be it...
Lord forbid we lay off foreigners working here...

Posted by: DwightCollins | March 22, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:
"When you want the poor person who is having trouble getting healthcare to google how much money conservatives give to charity, you are talking politics.
Compassion is obvious, when it is there."

Quite true. Which is why I continue to press the point that is backed up by facts: liberals/progressives are very compassionate with other peoples money. Ask for THEIR money, and it's a different story.

I'll simply point you to the left-wing bastion New York Times, Dec-2009. Opinion piece written by an unabashed liberal, calling out his fellow liberals for their apparant hypocrisy of preaching "compassion", but failing to practice it when it counts. Google "Bleeding Heart Tightwads, NY Times".

Doesn't it suck when facts don't support the drumbeat mantra that "compassion" equals agreeing with progressive big-government ideology?

Posted by: dbw1 | March 22, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:
"A for-profit insurance company, speaking loosely, is betting that they can collect more in premiums than they have to pay out in claims. That creates a natural incentive to raise premiums as high as possible, while paying as few claims as possible."

Conversely, a non-profit government entity has no profit motive, and therefore doesn't care how much they collect or how much they pay out....they can operate indefinitely in the red, and taxpayers will soak up the losses. This mentality leads to rampant ineffiency, waste, and abuse of the system, as aptly demonstrated by Medicare.

But good news....according to the health care reform bill (and affirmed by HHS Sec Sebilius), there is so much money being wasted in the existing government health care program(s), that eliminating the waste will pay for most of the new government program!

And their followers and the mass media never stop to ask: if the current government system is so fraught with ineffiency, waste, and abuse that the fantasy of eliminating it is one of the largest sources of funding planned for the new program, how can we know that the new program won't also be fraught with waste, ineffiency, and abuse?

Logical question, no?

Posted by: dbw1 | March 22, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:
"For a nonprofit, the math changes; all else being equal, there's a percentage of premiums that doesn't get scraped off the top as profit. Arguably, there are other efficiencies as well..."

I have to hand it to you; you are willing to ignore all evidence to the contrary to promote the idea that government entities will be more efficient than private enterprise! And when I say "ignore all evidence to the contrary", I mean about 200 years worth....

Posted by: dbw1 | March 22, 2010 4:20 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 3:17 PM | Report abuse

More backward think by myopic republicans.
-------------------------------
This seems to be a perpetual problem with the tactics used by the R's.

In the real world, the economy is slowwwwwwwwwwly improving, employment is slowwwwwwwwwwly improving, and the stock market is going up and has gone up 70% since its lows.

The R's don't seem to be able to play chess, in other words, plan a few moves ahead. They keep playing the game looking in the rear view mirror, like the economy is going down, employment is going down and the stock market is tanking.

I suspect the R's are so beholden to their base now that they can only reflect what their base' paranoia. The base has been sold a bill of goods that the world is ending, and now the R's have to keep playing that tune.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

"But for all those who think making profits off health care services is evil, have you ever considered the rapid advances our for-profit health care system has made throughout history compared to the countries employing socialized medicine?"


You're conflating my preference to buy INSURANCE from a nonprofit or government entity with buying a PRODUCT. A drug or defibrilator or CAT scan machine are products that are bought (or a service, in the case of a CAT scan) for a fee. Our patent system does a pretty good job of promoting & protecting innovation in those fields. Insurance is a different beast altogether. A for-profit insurance company, speaking loosely, is betting that they can collect more in premiums than they have to pay out in claims. That creates a natural incentive to raise premiums as high as possible, while paying as few claims as possible. For a nonprofit, the math changes; all else being equal, there's a percentage of premiums that doesn't get scraped off the top as profit. Arguably, there are other efficiencies as well, depending on the corporation's mission, but those will vary by institution.

Again, as I said, if the for-profit insurance company can offer better insurance coverage at a lower cost, they'll win in the market. I'm just saying I want other options. This legislation is good because it promotes options.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 22, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"imarush: "If the have-nots vote continuously for change the haves will have to change how they look at America and give us have-nots a break." The problem with your line of thinking, and by parallel that of progressives, is that the "haves" tend to be our employers. The more you demonize and tax the crap out of them, the less incentive they have to give you and I a place to work. So if you think you are a "have-not" now, wait until you are a "have-no-job". Posted by: dbw1"

More backward think by myopic republicans.

It only works in a down economy. When the economy picks up the companies that dumped employees have to replace them. THEY, however, have a reputation for dumping employees. Now they take the dwindling remnant of the employment pool, (so God help them if they are hiring Tool Makers, or machinists, or high reliability solderers) or they try to lure back those employees they dumped. What are they going to offer them? the choices are high wages or side benefits.

Mostly they screw up their worker base and destroy their own company. In a rising economy that only hurts management.

Your theory, therefore, presupposes only bad economic times for ever more.

Wanna bet?

Posted by: ceflynline | March 22, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans, once again in defeat, have some very important choices to make about what they are and what they are not. Posted by: shrink2 "

And since, first and foremost, Republicans "are NOT wrong" they can't learn from this loss, and can't change in any meaningful way to adapt. And the gibbering idiots who are the very vocal image of the T-People will make sure that attitude doesn't get adjusted any time soon.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 22, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

"If what you're predicting comes to pass, then there'll be tremendous pressure on Congress to create a public option to compete with the private insurers. Surely you must be excited by that. Posted by: Bondosan"

The tactics on this bill on the part of the Democrats are deeper than commentators seem to realize.

Deem and pass was all smoke and mirrors from the start, but it gave the T-People,, and a large contingent of the Republicans in Congress something to waste their breath screaming about, and they wasted their breath screaming about it. They should have been paying attention.

The individual mandate works ONLY when individual insureance can be made affordable to anyone, and the Insurance Industry will fail at it, probably before it ever kicks in. Once the insurance boys can't provide it, the obverse of the mandate coin comes up on the next flip and Congress HAS to fund a public option to make the mandate work. They will be able to block separate repeal of the option, because it WILL give the insurance guys lots of new policy holders, but that will force the Government to offer uninsurables insurance, and the door will be open a crack. The squawks will always be too loud, but too little and way too late.

Meanwhile, right from the start student loans and limits on payments to 10% of payees incomes build a constituency that you disturb at your own peril. A party hoping to rally young, hoped for conservative voters that tells their recruits, "We are taking away your student loans and grants, maybe eventually we will give them back" is asking a lot of people with no true loyalties to appeal to. Seniors who see the closing of the donut hole as all they can expect from Health care Reform won't be happy to see it reappear. All the potential bad news results don't occur until after two more electoral cycles, even if they should occur at all.

And the threatened rise in Insurance rates get to be compared to the giant jumps in individual plans that already happened.

While the republicans were focused just past the end of their noses, hoping for a totally improbable knockout and recapture of Congress, the Dems were rounding up strays, hogtying the R's wherever possible, and taking a very long view of the consequences of their choices.

Now the vocal volcanoes are spewing gas and ash, but it is all show and no mountain building.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 22, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

@ compassionate one,

When you want the poor person who is having trouble getting healthcare to google how much money conservatives give to charity, you are talking politics.

Compassion is obvious, when it is there. It's not about politics, it's about feeling for another person. How about the person whose post you responded to, for a start.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

The real accomplishment of the current health care legislation is that the line in the sand has been drawn. Health care will be an issue in 2010 - it will no longer be politically ignored. We are marching toward a 'more perfect union.". .....

http://thefiresidepost.com/2010/03/22/health-care-a-more-perfect-union/

Posted by: glclark4750 | March 22, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:
"If compassion is defined statistically, but doesn't extend to actual people who blog here about their own personal story, then I say you are not talking about compassion."

I understand liberals have a difficult time embracing actual facts, but if you can't prove something with facts (i.e., statistics) then how would you suggest it be proven? Just because a person pulls a lever for a Democrat? That makes them "compassionate"?

Forgive me if I define "compassion" by what people are willing to do with their own money, as opposed to what they are willing to do with other peoples money.

Feel free to tell us what you think "compassion" is if you don't believe it can be demonstrated by how much of their own time and money they are willing to give to a cause.

Posted by: dbw1 | March 22, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:
"Don't trust government? buy private insurance. Don't trust the profit motive to provide you the best care? Buy from a nonprofit or buy into Medicare."

Fair enough. Let's go one further. For all those who are bothered by private companies making evil profits off health care, if you choose "public option" non-profit insurance then you can only get care that was developed by non-profit and/or government entities. Any drugs, treatments, or medical devices invented by evil profiteering companies will only be available to those who pay for private insurance!

Of course I'm being facetious. But for all those who think making profits off health care services is evil, have you ever considered the rapid advances our for-profit health care system has made throughout history compared to the countries employing socialized medicine?

A for-profit system gives incentives to develop...RAPIDLY....ever more effective treatments, medicines, and devices. Socialized systems emphasize status-quo, treat everyone the same, don't allow anyone to get advanced care because it's not fair unless all can get the same care. The problem is, those systems don't tend to offer much motivation for the best and brightest to work tirelessly for newer and better ways to do things.

Posted by: dbw1 | March 22, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

For more on who is more "compassionate", liberals or conservatives, do some googling as to who contributes more of both time and money to charities. Tell us what you find.

Posted by: dbw1 | March 22, 2010 1:51 PM
---------------------------------
If compassion is defined statistically, but doesn't extend to actual people who blog here about their own personal story, then I say you are not talking about compassion.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Confidence is a growth engine in itself and it can't be beaten back once it gains traction. So lets watch as Republicans become ever more desperate.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 1:45 PM
-------------------------------------
There is a reason why there are very few bears (people who are pessimistic about the future of stock prices).

One is that it goes against human nature.

Another is that being pessimistic about the market, is being pessimistic about America. Few people will admit they are shorting their own country.

Another reason there are few bears is that stock price increases last for years. Declines in stock prices tend to be vicious and short. It's harder to make money as a bear.

There are other technical reasons, but the pessimists should realize they are usually wrong. Sometimes, they are right, but not often.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

JES5:
"Guess what? In Maryland, waits for social services for disabled children are 18 to 24 months long. And longer sometimes. We're still waiting.
At any rate, it's hard for me to relate to people who express little compassion for children. Don't even know what to say."

If you don't like waiting for health care services, wait until Americans get a load of the wait times that socialized medicine brings. Canada, Great Britain...and even now Massachusetts. Do some googling, and get ready for even longer wait times.

And as far as "compassion", my wife and I give annually to a clinic in the inner city that provides free health care to the poor and uninsured. In fact, we make a fraction of the income but gave more in 1 year than the Bidens and Obama's contributed to charity over a 5 year period...combined...before Obama ran for President.

That's not to brag....that's what everyone should do, because such non-profit clinics already exist in nearly every town and city. But Democrats gleefully create the impression that giving more taxes to their big-government programs equals "compassion", so folks like you are duped into believing that federal programs are the be-all-end-all solution to every problem we face, and anyone who opposes their big-government agenda is just a heartless, compassionless, hate-mongering scrooge.

For more on who is more "compassionate", liberals or conservatives, do some googling as to who contributes more of both time and money to charities. Tell us what you find.

Posted by: dbw1 | March 22, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Wildbill1 asks
"Why would they enter into general medicine when specialization is far more profitable?"

Maybe some docs actually want to help people get well, not just make money. Also, as already noted, the bill adds a financial incentive to be a GP rather than a specialist, which should answer your question.


"Also, when you need a special procedure, will you trust a generalist or a specialist?"

Here's a thought - maybe more doctors will go into general practice & fewer into plastic surgery. That alone would be an improvement; if we, societally, spent more dollars on general health and fewer on wasteful cosmetic nonsense.


The bill certainly isn't perfect, but it's far better than the status quo. I don't know what else could have passed that would be as much of an improvement.

I think though, that you'll find it's not as bad as some of the critics have made it out to be. Obviously there are a lot of people who refuse to believe that the President & the Dems could come up with something that improves all of our lives without careening down the road to socialism or totalitarianism or some other scary ism. But they are wrong about this bill in that regard.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 22, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Long bets on equities are all about confidence. Republicans have tried every imaginable means (the combined specters of hyperinflation, racism, Communism, threats of violence, real violence, Caps Lock, Fascism, Enter and Space Bar key abuse, dollar collapse, end of America, you name it) to shake America's confidence and it just is not working.

Confidence is a growth engine in itself and it can't be beaten back once it gains traction. So lets watch as Republicans become ever more desperate.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

DavidH3:

I am simply trying to keep rhetoric "reality-based".

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

“if obama had focused on jobs and people were working, this would be a non issue...”

Hey what do you know … all new jobs will come with health care … thanks for telling us now.
Gee why didn’t cheney/bush and republicans focus on jobs instead of outsourcing jobs.


AGWsceptic99 | March 22, 2010 1:10 PM
“So who can tell me when my employer's cost for health insurance will be reduced. We just got another big increase in January and the company may not be able to continue paying for my insurance if costs go up any more.”

So … why do employers offer health care to their employees? Supposedly there are six applicants for every job opening, employers who don’t need write offs for health care expenses when profits are low will continue to dump the cost on employees, get use to it agw. It’s about making a profit not providing health care.

Posted by: knjincvc | March 22, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

@dwight,

How high will unemployment be, say, 3 months from now?

Or, you might rather predict, how much higher will the unemployment rate be in 3 months.

Your choice.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 1:09 PM
-------------------------------
I guess Dwight is off calculating the unemployment rate, or is just another BS artist, making predictions of doom and gloom, but unwilling to be held to it.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

"For those doomsayers who are predicting the death of insurance companies, maybe they should wonder why the companies, their executives and their investors do not agree with that assessment. If they did, we would have seen heavy selling all year and downward prices."

Exactly and there are many more companies involved in the industry than the insurers, obviously. And most investors are predatory capitalists, the greed-is-good guys Republicans idealize. They run from socialism [Look at the $0 invested in Bolivia's lithium, why? The country's President has a picture of Che on his wall and already nationalized the country's natural gas reserves, so, of course now they are net importers of gas]. If this bill were about socialism, everyone with money would be heading for the exists, instead, they are buying in. Hmmm.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

So who can tell me when my employer's cost for health insurance will be reduced. We just got another big increase in January and the company may not be able to continue paying for my insurance if costs go up any more.

Posted by: AGWsceptic99 | March 22, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

So who can tell me when my employer's cost for health insurance will be reduced. We just got another big increase in January and the company may not be able to continue paying for my insurance if costs go up any more.

Posted by: AGWsceptic99 | March 22, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse
___________
But what's great about this law is that you can't be denied coverage!!! The rest of us will pay for you as the Collective Village!!! Your new name will be 7 of 15, Junction Six.

Posted by: WildBill1 | March 22, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

doof Posted March 22, 2010 12:35 PM
..........................
I assume that is a conservative's sense of humor, I get it.

Posted by: DavidH3 | March 22, 2010 12:31 PM

you don't get anything. connservative sense of humor will be shown in november. democrats won't be laughing.

Posted by: doof | March 22, 2010 12:35 PM

---------------------------------
Sooo ... after cheney/bush, $10+ Trillion debt, unfunded prescription drug program, $500 Billion give away to insurance companies, two wars of choice, 6000+ dead soldiers and 30,000+ maimed and wounded, surrendering to the Taliban in Afghanistan and letting OBL escape in Tora Bora ... I should vote republican because I don't agree with HCR??

This wailing is all about:
"The haves will pay and the have-nots (THOSE PEOPLE) will benefit. The people who have worked all their life and earned (and paid for) Medicare (SOCIALISM) coverage will see their benefits cut, while those (THOSE PEOPLE) who have contributed not one dime will have greater benefits under Medicaid.

RHOP ---Republicans hate ordinary people!

Posted by: knjincvc | March 22, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

So who can tell me when my employer's cost for health insurance will be reduced. We just got another big increase in January and the company may not be able to continue paying for my insurance if costs go up any more.

Posted by: AGWsceptic99 | March 22, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

@dwight,

How high will unemployment be, say, 3 months from now?

Or, you might rather predict, how much higher will the unemployment rate be in 3 months.

Your choice.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

if obama had focused on jobs and people were working, this would be a non issue...

Posted by: DwightCollins | March 22, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

the Republicans must by election day ask, how have you benefitted from the healthcare plan so far...
but first now that it passed businesses must adjust their payrolls accordingly, which means firing people...
remind the people that healthcare is only the beginning, that comprehensive immigration reform is next...
remind the people of the consecuences of the dems actions...

Posted by: DwightCollins | March 22, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

12Bar, I am saying now seems like a good time to invest in the places where this bill sends vast quantities of money.
--------------------------------------
The health insurance companies have gone up steadily for a year at least, some have doubled in stock price. They are all trading within an arrow's shot of 52 week highs. For momentum traders, a breakout above a 52 week high is a Buy signal. That's the technical take.

The fundamental take is, of course, invest in growing businesses. Insurance companies will have a lot more customers, their costs will be "rationalized" (don't you love that word?), but onward and upward.

The other bullish factor is that uncertainty always depresses stock prices. The uncertainty about HCR has been resolved, so prices will tend upward.

For those doomsayers who are predicting the death of insurance companies, maybe they should wonder why the companies, their executives and their investors do not agree with that assessment. If they did, we would have seen heavy selling all year and downward prices.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the bill does include provisions for increasing the numbers of doctors & nurses. These provisions don't kick in for a few years, which is one reason the bill is phased in over time. One part of the provision is to provide an incentive for docs to enter general practice rather than to specialize. Over on Klein's blog, he covers some of this.

As far as medical supplies go, I have no doubt the normal rules of supply & demand will stay in effect. If docs need more gloves or syringes or catheters, the manufacturers will gladly make them. That part of your argument is moot.
Posted by: bsimon1 | March 22, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse
___________
Why would they enter into general medicine when specialization is far more profitable? Also, when you need a special procedure, will you trust a generalist or a specialist? What incentives could possibly convince someone to spend 10 years of their lives going through hell (undergrad, medical school, and residency) just to become a doctor and then get taxed to death because they earn over $250k/year, and have rising malpractice insurance rates because of no tort reform? As far as medical devices go, of course companies will increase production if demand increases, but that doesn't necessarily equate to lower prices if base costs increase because of competing raw material demands...titanium is quite expensive to produce and is in high demand in other industries.

Posted by: WildBill1 | March 22, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

I feel sorry for the Republicans in November. They will pay for the obstruction at the polls.

Posted by: celestun100 | March 22, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Socialism bordering on communism!

"The bill does apply an increased Medicare payroll tax to the investment income and to the wages of individuals making more than $200,000, or married couples above $250,000.

The tax on investment income would be 3.8 percent. If the Senate follows through, it would impose a 40 percent tax on high-cost insurance plans above the threshold of $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. The tax would go into effect in 2018."

So now we know, this is how socialism turns into communism. Karl Marx would be laughing on the floor, he had a sense of humor you know.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

you don't get anything. connservative sense of humor will be shown in november. democrats won't be laughing.

==

it's OK to cry.

Go on, let the tears flow.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Gov. let infrastructure collapse Pawlenty gives a closed to the press speech to Jewish Republicans to build his foreign policy profile by advocating war with Iran? Oh good keep it a secret and what ever you don't take questions.

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

The haves will pay and the have-nots will benefit. The people who have worked all their life and earned (and paid for) Medicare coverage will see their benefits cut, while those who have contributed not one dime will have greater benefits under Medicaid.

It is akin to a system called socialism, bordering on communism.

==

pulse holding steady

sorry

Posted by: Noacoler | March 22, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

" I don't expect liberals to stop their incessant emotional claims about how this bill will "save the children", but I have yet to see any credible proof that children are dying in the streets because they don't have insurance. And even if you can find one case, it can only be due to the families involved not being well-informed of programs that already exist. Yet another federal program won't fix that."

The above author seems to know little about dealing with social services, which, for children, are state-run. And states are currently strapped for cash. Ever try getting a child into a "program" that would assist with medical expenses or living expenses? My husband and I have--our son is severely disabled. Since his disabilities developed 12 years ago, we've spent over $75,000-80,000 out of pocket on his medical care alone. In the last several years, we've been trying to get into programs that would supply a Medicaid waiver, which would supplement our private health insurance and pay for things that are medically necessary, but not covered by even the best plans.

Guess what? In Maryland, waits for social services for disabled children are 18 to 24 months long. And longer sometimes. We're still waiting.

It's not a matter of "information"--it's a matter of capacity. And, yes, a kid could die waiting for social services--one child did in Maryland waiting for dental care (abscesses).

By ensuring that children can be covered under their families' plans, even those with pre-existing conditions or disabilities, the new legislation will relieve the current strain on social services (and, yes, YOUR tax dollars). Our personal financial strain is due more to the multiple, extraordinary disabilities our son has--most children with medical conditions are as involved as he is.

At any rate, it's hard for me to relate to people who express little compassion for children. Don't even know what to say.

Posted by: JES5 | March 22, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

12Bar, I am saying now seems like a good time to invest in the places where this bill sends vast quantities of money. If you think it will cause socialism, the collapse of America yadda, yadda, better buy even more Gold and ammo. If you think it will make corporate health boom, well their stocks have been pretty low for awhile...I'm betting I know where I am going with this, to the bank! I'll let you know how it works out a few years from now.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

I assume that is a conservative's sense of humor, I get it.

Posted by: DavidH3 | March 22, 2010 12:31 PM

you don't get anything. connservative sense of humor will be shown in november. democrats won't be laughing.

Posted by: doof | March 22, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse



The haves will pay and the have-nots will benefit. The people who have worked all their life and earned (and paid for) Medicare coverage will see their benefits cut, while those who have contributed not one dime will have greater benefits under Medicaid.

It is akin to a system called socialism, bordering on communism.


Posted by: adjjones | March 22, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

This "victory" occurred because of [fill in the blank]

Obama.........NOT Obama
Pelosi........NOT Pelosi
Stupak........

Anybody else?

Bwahahaha!!!!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

To JakeD2: I did not admit there are not children dying in the streets. I said they have not been counted.

But as long as they are not visibly dying in the streets, then no biggie? As long as you don't see them, then it's okay? That's very funny. I assume that is a conservative's sense of humor, I get it.

What is true for children, I bet is true for adults, too.

Of families who do have insurance, I see some get shafted all the time, or they find they didn't buy enough. I have a 3 year old boy whose parents lovingly bought him $1 million in insurance. They are working class, not rich. Little could they know he has a terrible disease and most of that $1 million is already gone. We are "rationing" his care now to try to make it last. Talk about "pre-existing condition". He's only 3!

I am not one who blames insurance companies, though. I know it's a tough business. But my duty is to my patients and their families.

Posted by: DavidH3 | March 22, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

This "victory" occurred because of Nancy Pelosi.

Posted by: WildBill1 | March 22, 2010 12:22 PM

pelosi couldn't get one republican vote. not one. this victory occurred because of stupak. he is a man with no morals. traded in his constituents for a dirty bag of silver coins. just like judas.

Posted by: doof | March 22, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

WildBill writes
"The problem with your assumption(s) is that you're hoping supply will increase with rise in demand, i.e. more doctors and nurses will enter the work force ... unless there's incentives for people to enter into the medical profession, rates will increase because of constrained supply."


Actually, the bill does include provisions for increasing the numbers of doctors & nurses. These provisions don't kick in for a few years, which is one reason the bill is phased in over time. One part of the provision is to provide an incentive for docs to enter general practice rather than to specialize. Over on Klein's blog, he covers some of this.

As far as medical supplies go, I have no doubt the normal rules of supply & demand will stay in effect. If docs need more gloves or syringes or catheters, the manufacturers will gladly make them. That part of your argument is moot.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 22, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Lets just hope Republicans keep doing what they have been doing...

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 12:20 PM

Lets just hope democrats keep doing what they have been doing - spitting on the constituition.

Posted by: doof | March 22, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Dollar up, gold down, health stocks up,

Time to put your money where your mouth is
Republicans. It is time to place bets.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 12:14 PM
--------------------------------
I am a fairly active investor. The investing world is full of prognosticators who say "oh, watch out, the next huge drop is coming". So you say, "then, I should sell?" No, they say, "I'd wait and see". Bwahahaha.

There are only two decisions in investing: buy and sell. Hold is another way to say "I don't know".

Everyone knows the markets go up, the markets go down. The real art is matching your predictions to a time. Without that, you are just listening to BS.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

A lot of people said that Obama wasn't tough enough to pass universal health care, because nobody else had been able to do so, and not for lack of trying. Well, he did it. And you know, we're finally getting vigorous Pakistani action in Waziristan, and the economy is rebounding too.

I think people underestimated Obama, frankly.

Posted by: jeffwacker | March 22, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse
_________
Actually, Obama wasn't strong enough to get HCR passed. This "victory" occurred because of Nancy Pelosi. Although I completely detest her, she alone deserves the credit for stiffening Obama's spine, and getting this unconstitutional bill passed by the House.

Posted by: WildBill1 | March 22, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

"I think people underestimated Obama"

Jeff,
Lets just hope Republicans keep doing what they have been doing, no not spitting on black people, that the most disgusting partisan political display this country has seen in decades, the misunderestimating.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

shuppy:

Capitalism and free markets are "ideals" (last time I checked ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

DavidH3:

Thank you for admitting that children are not dying in the streets.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

And we are off!
The morning after...

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03/22/business/AP-US-Wall-Street.html?_r=1

Dollar up, gold down, health stocks up,

Time to put your money where your mouth is
Republicans. It is time to place bets.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

My motivation is thus: the way insurance works, rates go down as the coverage pool is expanded. Therefore, the lowest aggregate costs exist when the maximum number of people are covered - i.e. everyone. Hey, I'm a price-conscious shopper too - how do I get the best value for my dollar? Which can be rephrased as: how do I buy into the largest pool possible? Theoretically, the ideal pool is one which contains all Americans - spreading the risk over everybody. The problems with that solution are such a pool is either run by government or by a monopoly. Given the mistrust of such bureaucracies (either allegedly incompetent government, or price gouging by monopolies), we're left with a competitive marketplace. My beef with that is that for-profit insurers don't have a particularly strong incentive to provide me the best possible care - their incentive is to improve their bottom line, which means they're looking for ways to avoid spending money on me. So I still think, as I did long before this debate began, that we should put a public-option plan, like medicare, in the marketplace as a provider open to enrollment by anyone. If the private market can deliver better care at a lower cost, people will buy private insurance. If medicare is a better value, people will make that choice. To me, that's a way to maximize freedom and choice by letting people decide where to spend their healthcare dollars. Don't trust government? buy private insurance. Don't trust the profit motive to provide you the best care? Buy from a nonprofit or buy into Medicare.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 22, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse
___________
The problem with your assumption(s) is that you're hoping supply will increase with rise in demand, i.e. more doctors and nurses will enter the work force, more medical supplies will be produced, and infrastructure improvements will occur etc.. Otherwise, stagnant or shrinking supply with rising demand will fuel inflation, and thus increased costs....which will be passed along to the consumers. Of course, Government could step in to regulate costs, but we know full well through history how regulated services perform...quite poorly. So, unless there's incentives for people to enter into the medical profession, rates will increase because of constrained supply.

Posted by: WildBill1 | March 22, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Our forefathers would shudder at the rank divisions of our populace. Nothing ever gets done without cooperation and, frankly, as a Republican, I feel a lot could be done if my party fought for ideals rather against the other side.

It is time that conciliation should be attempted and, to Obama's credit, he seems to be trying. The leadership on either side would rather win an election than build the country.

It is time that everyone starts trying to work together and to heck with politics.

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

Ok, all you doomsayers, what's your prediction for 3 months from today.

Stock market?
Unemployment rate?
Pres. Obama's job approval rating?
Healthcare legislation approval rating?

If you are so sure the world as we know it has collapsed, you surely should be able to accurately predict the collapse.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

We should listen to Karl Rove on government accounting. Anyone ever see the Iraq war on the budget during the Bush administration?

An interesting tidbit on how the Republican govern here in Fla. The Miami-Dade hospital system needs 70 million to keep afloat. The head goes to Tallahassee to see if the state can help. Turned down flat because they have no money (just a lot of foreclosures). But today the Fl legislature is going to get a Constitutional amendment on the ballot to withdraw from the new health care system. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it. Let the largest hospital in the state go belly up but refuse to reform.

Posted by: chucko2 | March 22, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

To dbw1 who thinks that there are not children dying in the streets from lack of insurance: There is a Johns Hopkins study that shows about 1000 childhood deaths per year can be attributed to lack of insurance (see below). Of course, these kids are not dying in the streets. These are all in-hospital deaths. Numbers for deaths at home or elsewhere are harder to come by and are not included in this estimate.

Not having insurance affects health in many ways. Families will wait longer to seek treatment or skimp on treatments, or not even get treatments. Government aid doesn't cover everything, and there are gaps in coverage. Plus, many families don't like handouts or are embarrassed by it. I know because I take care of some of these kids.

Emergency Department care is no substitute for regular preventative care.

********************

Thursday, October 29, 2009
Lack of Insurance May Have Figured in Nearly 17,000 Childhood Deaths: Hopkins
Newswise — Lack of health insurance might have led or contributed to nearly 17,000 deaths among hospitalized children in the United States in the span of less than two decades, according to research led by the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center.

According to the Hopkins researchers, the study, to be published Oct. 30 in the Journal of Public Health, is one of the largest ever to look at the impact of insurance on the number of preventable deaths and the potential for saved lives among sick children in the United States.

Using more than 23 million hospital records from 37 states between 1988 and 2005, the Hopkins investigators compared the risk of death in children with insurance and in those without. Other factors being equal, researchers found that uninsured children in the study were 60 percent more likely to die in the hospital than those with insurance. When comparing death rates by underlying disease, the uninsured appeared to have increased risk of dying independent regardless of their medical condition, the study found. The findings only capture deaths during hospitalization and do not reflect deaths after discharge from the hospital, nor do they count children who died without ever being hospitalized, the researchers say, which means the real death toll of non-insurance could be even higher.

Posted by: DavidH3 | March 22, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

A lot of people said that Obama wasn't tough enough to pass universal health care, because nobody else had been able to do so, and not for lack of trying. Well, he did it. And you know, we're finally getting vigorous Pakistani action in Waziristan, and the economy is rebounding too.

I think people underestimated Obama, frankly.

Posted by: jeffwacker | March 22, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Whatever effect -- if any -- this legislation will have on the 2010 and 2012 elections largely depends on what happens between now and then. It's pretty likely that there will be more immediate issues that concern voters come November than a 6-month-old vote.

Posted by: js_edit | March 22, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

We will get them in November. I don't live in Bart Stupak's 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 12:06 PM | Report abuse

dbw1 writes
" I don't expect liberals to stop their incessant emotional claims about how this bill will "save the children", but I have yet to see any credible proof that children are dying in the streets because they don't have insurance. And even if you can find one case, it can only be due to the families involved not being well-informed of programs that already exist. Yet another federal program won't fix that."

Fair enough. 'saving the children' isn't my primary motivation for supporting the reform either. My motivation is thus: the way insurance works, rates go down as the coverage pool is expanded. Therefore, the lowest aggregate costs exist when the maximum number of people are covered - i.e. everyone. Hey, I'm a price-conscious shopper too - how do I get the best value for my dollar? Which can be rephrased as: how do I buy into the largest pool possible? Theoretically, the ideal pool is one which contains all Americans - spreading the risk over everybody. The problems with that solution are such a pool is either run by government or by a monopoly. Given the mistrust of such bureaucracies (either allegedly incompetent government, or price gouging by monopolies), we're left with a competitive marketplace. My beef with that is that for-profit insurers don't have a particularly strong incentive to provide me the best possible care - their incentive is to improve their bottom line, which means they're looking for ways to avoid spending money on me. So I still think, as I did long before this debate began, that we should put a public-option plan, like medicare, in the marketplace as a provider open to enrollment by anyone. If the private market can deliver better care at a lower cost, people will buy private insurance. If medicare is a better value, people will make that choice. To me, that's a way to maximize freedom and choice by letting people decide where to spend their healthcare dollars. Don't trust government? buy private insurance. Don't trust the profit motive to provide you the best care? Buy from a nonprofit or buy into Medicare.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 22, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Who looks like the winners and who looks like the losers?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 11:48 AM

in washington, socialists think they're the winners. but 99% of americans don't live in washington. socialist democrats will be crushed in november. then americans will be the winners.

Posted by: doof | March 22, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

The Bill does not say that you HAVE to buy health insurance. You can not buy it and you don't have to worry about the penalty, just don't use the healthcare system.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 22, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse
________
And another lie from the liberal dictatorship. Yes, the bill does require an individual mandate for healthcare beginning in 2013. If you don't provide proof of health insurance, then you're subject to a criminal penalty.

Posted by: WildBill1 | March 22, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

sky2fall

Thank you.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Awww, nothing like the sweet smell of health care reform and political victory in the morning. It's clear from both the comments on boards like this and from statements by Republican leaders, that they will continue to grasp at straws, throw arguments against the wall hoping that they stick and throw around the usual threats and charges (socialism, corrupt, all the Dems will be thrown out in Nov. etc).

Guys, this battle is over and you lost and if you continue to fight it, you will lose again. Do you really think American voters are going to think highly of you when GOP attorneys generals (especially in southern states where the rates of the uninsured are often at 20% or greater) sue to stop protecting Americans from insurance abuses? What happens when Americans realize that death panels don't exist and that this hasn't changed us into a Nazi-Stalinist dictatorship? What happens is that the people will see that once again, conservatives are on the wrong side of history just as they were on Civil Rights, women's suffrage, Social Security and Medicare.

The one charge that cracks me up the most (and also makes me the maddest) are all the charges about debt and deficits - where the hell were you guys when Bush was pushing through $1.6 trillion in tax cuts? That's a bigger contributor to our current deficits and debt than anything Obama's done.

Posted by: jbentley4 | March 22, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

I'll say that hateful slurs are always wrong. Jesus said that hatred is morally wrong like murder. Those offenses are wrong.

But not all laws that "come and go" are equally advantages. Do you remember what Clinton did in the nineties?

He ordered Freddie and Fanny to make sub-prime mortgages to help empower the disenfranchised. A noble idea, but the give-away eventually landed us in near financial collapse.

I'm for health care reform, but lets first count the cost, and not repeat the same folly.

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

Jake: "tsk"

doof: "tsk, tsk"

37than'doh: "tsk

tsk

.

tsk

.

.

."


I just know you'll get 'em next time.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 22, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Which position would you rather be in this morning:

The group of bitter, damning, cursing, backward looking, government-suspicious Republicans predicting stock market collapse, currency collapse, and revolution.

The group of cheering, optimistic, forward looking, problem solving Democrats predicting improved access to medical care, improvement in the economy, and resolving to march forward to banking reform.

Who looks like the winners and who looks like the losers?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | March 22, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD:
"Or we could have massive surpluses..."

Feel free to begin listing for us all of the entitlement programs that have 1) cost LESS than originally estimated, and 2) generated MORE revenue than originally estimated.

You'll forgive me of course if I don't wait around for you to post the list that doesn't exist...

Posted by: dbw1 | March 22, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

"The best answer to the question of 2010 and 2012 elections I found at
http://www.robbingamerica.com"
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I guess you were looking for right-wing Propaganda? I mean, seriously, our economy is already in the dumps due to the last 8 years of Republican rule....Obama has been in office 1 year and is fighting hard to clean up the mess that was left behind. And, please, I doubt other countries will start attacking America due to our health care reform....more truthfully, we'll definitely be attacked if another Republican gets in office with aims at starting war with Russia, China and Iran....mindless war is not the answer.

Posted by: massmedia77 | March 22, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

We need to vote out the following Dems:

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

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

After the dust settles around this law like it has around the billions of other laws that came before it. After we've all moved on to the next political controversy that "threatens America" like all the others that have come and gone. After People start talking about united states healthcare as just another thing to take for granted like taxes, welfare, medicare and social security, I hope that we all remember one thing from this experience.

That being that the Republican party was willing to defendant people who shouted Heil Hitler in townhall meetings, who spit on and screamed the N word at black congressmen and yelled the F word at gay congressmen, all for fear of losing votes. That no one in the Republican party was brave enough to stand up and say that what these people were saying was hateful, ugly and horrible. Instead the republican leaders whispered quiet admonishments and loudly cited to the second amendment. As if having the right to say whatever you want somehow purges the hate from whatever you say, which it of course does not.

Laws come and go, but cowardice lasts forever, and in their fear of losing political power, the Republican leadership convinced thousands of people that it is patriotic to say hatefule things and act in beastly ways that said leaders wouldn't allow your children or families to. Shame on you.

Posted by: sky2fall | March 22, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1:
"Doesn't the bill eliminate the lifetime cap? For most of us, that's irrelevant. But for a child born with a debilitating illness, it could have very real consequences, particularly for that child's parents. Should a parent be forced into bankruptcy to pay for their children's healthcare, after a kid hits the lifetime threshold? Keep in mind that without the bill, they'd have a preexisting condition that could potentially preclude coverage by a new carrier. So, the option left is for the family to fall into poverty, in order to qualify for Medicare coverage."

Granted, I don't claim to be an expert in this, and certainly don't know how every state operates. But if other states are like mine, a few facts:
- children get full Medicaid coverage if they are in a family that makes up to 200% of the poverty level. So by definition, families don't "have to fall into poverty" to get health care for their child if the child with a serious condition gets dropped from private insurance.
- there are also additional 'exceptions' that can be made to income/assets to qualify for Medicaid for children. In other words, the income/assets you can have and still get Medicaid for your child can be much higher than what is stipulated in the general requirements to qualify for Medicaid.

Now, I don't expect liberals to stop their incessant emotional claims about how this bill will "save the children", but I have yet to see any credible proof that children are dying in the streets because they don't have insurance. And even if you can find one case, it can only be due to the families involved not being well-informed of programs that already exist. Yet another federal program won't fix that.

Posted by: dbw1 | March 22, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Hey Chris,Where's the usual "Winners and Losers" recap? In short Obama and Pelosi and Democrats WINNERS; Boehner, McConnell and Republicans LOSERS.

Nothing succeeds like success. Look for the Ds to stick together to pass big financial markets reform over unified R objections thereby cementing the R brand as the party of rich old white guys.

Posted by: greenmountainboy | March 22, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

"...when the health insurance industry ultimately collapses..."

Ha! This bill pours money into the industry, as much as it needs.

Sure they have to insure, but they can charge whatever it takes, that is what the public option fight was about. By the way, so long as everyone else in the industry is going to be awash in money, I like the "doctor fix". :-}

No really, this is going to cost a fantastic amount of money. :-[

Eventually we will decide whether health care with no limits is really what we want, or whether a rational process of rationing (which has to mean government control over who gets what and how it gets paid for) is an acceptable form of socialism.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Look at the numbers presented. They are not hard to understand if you actually try to understand what is said!

They are planning to cut Medicare by $500 billion dollars over 10 years, and the annual budget is $420 billion. How can they cut Medicare by 20% or even 10%? They said that they will save $440 billion of the $500 b from Medicare Advantage but Medicare Advantage is less than 20% of those on Medicare. If you eliminated MA you would save $100 b a year, but all 90% of the claims will come back to Medicare Part A, that is a savings of $10 b a year and $100 b over 10 years. Isn’t $400 b savings from MA misleading, to say the least?

Taxing high bracket wage earners is the other income source designated that will need to pick up the supposed remaining $500 billion cost for the bill? If there are 100 million workers in US and 2% make > $200,000 per year then the new-tax base includes 2 million Americans. If we distributed the remaining $50 b a year among the 2 million eligible for the new tax they would have to pay on average $25,000 each annually. If the average income in this group is $300,000 that is a 12% net increase in taxes. But I’ve only heard talk of 3 and 4 %, meaning we’ll only get $120 b a year instead of CBO’s figure of $500 b, which leaves the remainder and vast majority of the bill from this income source un-funded.

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

This health care debate is just aploy to take attention away from the real issues of America's demise. Gas prices we can't afford, electric we can't afford, food is sky high an can barely buy what we need to survive. Health Ins sky high. I want our Government to be held to accountable for our Country is run amuck with greed. America can't you see that they don't care. An continue to let Americans struggle because of astronomicle high prices. They refuse to answer are plea. America stand up for your rights or you will be sorry you did'nt.

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

This health care debate is just aploy to take attention away from the real issues of America's demise. Gas prices we can't afford, electric we can't afford, food is sky high an can barely buy what we need to survive. Health Ins sky high. I want our Government to be held to accountable for our Country is run amuck with greed. America can't you see that they don't care. An continue to let Americans struggle because of astronomicle high prices. They refuse to answer are plea. America stand up for your rights or you will be sorry you did'nt.

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

"If CBO numbers are faulty we're going to having soaring deficits, which is an unacceptable outcome. Look at these numbers:"

Or we could have massive surpluses...

Posted by: DDAWD | March 22, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

The bill panders to the average voter. He is going to reward the democrats at the polls. If you closely look at the bill, it panders to fat cats also. The fat cats will be thrilled but as usual vote the Republicans. But the fat cats are fewer and getting fewer. So democrats will win. That is my forecast.

Posted by: tjohn1 | March 22, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Karl Rove trying to explain why the CBO's numbers are crooked...Isn't this the same guy who gave us "fuzzy math"?

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

The bill panders to the average voter. He is going to reward the democrats at the polls. If you closely look at the bill, it panders to fat cats also. The fat cats will be thrilled but as usual vote the Republicans. But the fat cats are fewer and getting fewer. So democrats will win. That is my forecast.

Posted by: tjohn1 | March 22, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

bsimon, I might just not be understanding what you're saying. But how can you possibly have affordable insurance if the system is backloaded with demographic who are more prone to illness? You need to insure healthy groups too.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 22, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

How can the Dem's say JOBS JOBS JOBS and then propose amnesty for 20 million Illegals?

Unless they mean JOBS for the 20 million illegals and not the American citizen.

Posted by: scon101 | March 22, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

The Bill does not say that you HAVE to buy health insurance. You can not buy it and you don't have to worry about the penalty, just don't use the healthcare system.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 22, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

MoreAndBetterPolls:

You helped expose another fallacy of this reform. If I don't have insurance, and am young and healthy, what incentive do I have to buy insurance for $8,000/year, instead of just paying the $1,000/year (give or take) fine?

The answer is: none.

So young and/or healthy individuals can choose to pay a small fine every year, instead of paying for the more expensive insurance. Then, when they actually get sick and need insurance, guess what? The new law prohibits insurers from denying coverage, and also denies them from charging more to those with pre-existing conditions. So you can just pay the annual 'fine', and then if you ever get sick go to the insurer and demand coverage for the same price as those who have been paying for insurance all along!!

Liberals/progressives screwed up the laws of risk/pricing and supply/demand that used to govern the housing industry with their meddling, and there was an inevitable collapse and implosion. Now they are going to do the same with the health care insurance industry.

And as they did with the housing industry, when the health insurance industry ultimately collapses due to years of government interference, progressives will blame private industry and the evils of capitalism.

Posted by: dbw1 | March 22, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

If CBO numbers are faulty we're going to having soaring deficits, which is an unacceptable outcome. Look at these numbers:

Taxing high bracket wage earners is the other income source designated that will need to pick up the supposed remaining $500 billion cost for the bill? If there are 100 million workers in US that make > $200,000 per year (i.e. 2%) then the new tax base includes 2 million Americans. If we distributed the remaining $50 b a year among the 2 million eligible for the new tax they would have to pay on average $25,000 each annually. If the average income in this group is $300,000 that is a 12% net increase in taxes. But I’ve only heard talk of 3 and 4 %, meaning we’ll only get $120 b a year instead of CBO’s figure of $500 b, which leaves the remainder and vast majority of the bill un-funded.

They are planning to cut Medicare by $500 billion dollars over 10 years, and the annual budget is $420 billion. How can they cut Medicare by 20% or even 10%? They said that they will save $440 billion of the $500 b from Medicare Advantage but Medicare Advantage is less than 20% of those on Medicare. If you eliminated MA you would save $100 b a year, but all 90% of the claims will come back to Medicare Part A, that is a savings of $10 b a year and $100 b over 10 years. Isn’t $400 b savings from MA misleading, to say the least?

This bill is about 1/4 funded. That amounts to huge deficits in years to come. This bill, or ill as it should be called, will be our undoing. We must wake up now, and get realistic health care changes, and we'll need new leadership to fulfill the mandate for change.

Posted by: heleadsmeon | March 22, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I think David Frum has the best analysis of this legislation I have seen. He really puts it all into perspective and I think if the Republicans fail to heed his advice, they do so at their own peril.
http://www.truthout.org/david-frum-waterloo57875

Posted by: Prosperity2008 | March 22, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Kblit, what are you smoking? Weed cultivated on Saturn? Obama is surging in this morning's Gallup poll. Impeached? Try it and you really will see the House stormed by really angry citizens and they won't be anything like your Tea sucking bigots who spat upon congressmen entering the building.

No Kblit, you don't know your anus from a stinking hole in a Texas desert.

Posted by: jaxas70 | March 22, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

dbw1 writes
"Not one child...not one...will be any better off with this plan than they would have been without it."

I don't think that's true. Doesn't the bill eliminate the lifetime cap? For most of us, that's irrelevant. But for a child born with a debilitating illness, it could have very real consequences, particularly for that child's parents. Should a parent be forced into bankruptcy to pay for their children's healthcare, after a kid hits the lifetime threshold? Keep in mind that without the bill, they'd have a preexisting condition that could potentially preclude coverage by a new carrier. So, the option left is for the family to fall into poverty, in order to qualify for Medicare coverage. Does that really sound like the best way to provide healthcare in this country?

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 22, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

@KBlit: Irrational thinking is not a good look.

Posted by: Route1 | March 22, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

I must confess to a sort of gleeful self satisfaction that after all of the toad-like Rush Limbaugh croaking out: "I hope he fails!" and after Jim Demint's flesh crawling Napoleonesque comparison of Obama's "Waterloo", that in the end none of their croakings made all that much difference.

And now, the polls are beginning to shift with Obama's approval numbers in Gallup's daily tracing surveys surging by the minute. It now appears that Demint's Waterloo may be more appropriate to the fortunes of the GOP rather than Obama.

Posted by: jaxas70 | March 22, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who voted for this Bill is gone in November. Obama may well be impeached.

Posted by: KBlit | March 22, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

"I can't wait for the GOP to retake the Congress and the White House and force everyone to purchase a firearm and lifetime memberships in the NRA."

And this is another reason why the Republicans won't be back in charge anytime soon.

America keeps growing and changing. These crackers just don't have the votes they used to have.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

The best answer to the question of 2010 and 2012 elections I found at
http://www.robbingamerica.com

They start with the titles:
"Obama And Democrats Win, America loses."

"America Now Knows: Electing Obama Was The Greatest Mistake Of The Last 232 Years."

If you are going to Vote in 2010, this is a must read, or you should stay home.

Posted by: JohnGalt9 | March 22, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

usadblake:

No.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Look. You simply cannot place any faith in the GOP or the pundits--particularly the right wing oriented pundits. Everyone is partisan to some extent and partisans tend to engage in wishful thinking.

I am a realist. I have no illusions that this bill is going to henceforth and forever solve all of our health care cost problems. Like the Social Security and Medicare bills, it is a door opener--not to socialism or communism as the ignorant, poorly educated bumpkins and their GOP masters would have you believe. But rather, a door opener to a better managed system that incorporates ultimately every citizen into it.

Other countries long ago accepted the reality that health care is as much a right to life issue as much as the pursuit of happiness or liberty. And to that extent they have initiated health policies that cover every member of their society.

Isn't it ironic that in the land that boasts daily of the Constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that we put a price on it to be sold for a profit. One can imagine that if conservatives could find a way to market and control oxygen--the very breath of life--they would allow the market to put a price on that as well.

Posted by: jaxas70 | March 22, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

With the passage of HCR, was this the GOP's 'Waterloo'? Vote

http://www.youpolls.com/default.asp
.

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

The best answer to the question of 2010 and 2012 elections I found at
http://www.robbingamerica.com

The start ith the titles:
"Obama And Democrats Win, America loses."

"America Now Knows: Electing Obama Was The Greatest Mistake Of The Last 232 Years."

Posted by: JohnGalt9 | March 22, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

bsimon, the individual mandate is absolutely necessary. If companies are required to provide, we must be required to buy. Otherwise, all we will do is wait until we get sick, sign up with a company, and get them to pay the bills. This will either send insurance through the roof in premiums or will make the industry insolvent. The mandate is an essential pillar of this bill.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 22, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse
____________
If you truly believe that the Constitution allows Congress the ability to force individual citizens to engage in economic transactions against their will, then I can't wait for the GOP to retake the Congress and the White House and force everyone to purchase a firearm and lifetime memberships in the NRA. Otherwise, you'll face a fine of $750 or 2% of your income, whichever is more....per guidance from HCR.....

Posted by: WildBill1 | March 22, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

ddawd writes
" the individual mandate is absolutely necessary. If companies are required to provide, we must be required to buy. Otherwise, all we will do is wait until we get sick, sign up with a company, and get them to pay the bills. This will either send insurance through the roof in premiums or will make the industry insolvent. The mandate is an essential pillar of this bill."


I understand that. As I mentioned earlier, I think it is an acceptable tradeoff. But I still think that both the employer mandate (why should my employer buy me health insuance? that's not the business they're in) and the individual mandate (where's the choice?) are better off avoided. I would prefer a system that 1) makes health insurance affordable for 100% of Americans and 2) makes it plainly obvious that the risk of going without is far higher than the pain of paying premiums. I'm at the age where unanticipated healthcare expenses are becoming more likely, and have two kids to think of as well; so I know it would be stupid of me to go without. But when I was young and invincible, I didn't think about the potential consequences of not having coverage (which was true for several years). In the occasional brief search for insurance while self employed, I found it too expensive to bother with & chose to live with the risk. Under a better system, finding affordable insurance would be easier & make it obvious that choosing to go without is the stupid decsion that it is (and was, when I made it).

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 22, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

jimarush:
"If the have-nots vote continuously for change the haves will have to change how they look at America and give us have-nots a break."

The problem with your line of thinking, and by parallel that of progressives, is that the "haves" tend to be our employers. The more you demonize and tax the crap out of them, the less incentive they have to give you and I a place to work.

So if you think you are a "have-not" now, wait until you are a "have-no-job".

Posted by: dbw1 | March 22, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

"Mandates":

Individuals must purchase insurance or pay a penalty that would be the greater of $695 or 2.5 percent of income.

The measure as reconciled requires companies with 50 or more employees to help defray the cost if taxpayers are footing the bill for their workers. but helps mid-size businesses by exempting the first 30 workers when calculating the tax ($2,000 annually per non-exempted employee). For example, a firm with 51 workers would pay 51 minus 30 times $2,000, or $42,000.

The penalties are cheaper than the cost of compliance.

The penalties are taxes charged to defray the cost of public health care. Thus the "mandates" will be viewed as merely a private option to avoid the tax by reason of "I already gave at the office."

Think of the "mandates" as exceptions to a universal tax scheme - as mere tax credits - and you will get the notion of why this is not unconstitutional.

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | March 22, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

karenfink:
"American children are the first beneficiaries of health care reform. Who will not vote for the Democrats when they have saved the life of their seriously ill, uninsurable child?"

I'll tread carefully, because I'm not sure if you are one of the dupers or one of the dupee's.

Not one child...not one...will be any better off with this plan than they would have been without it. Laws and programs already exist that guarantee health care for the poor and uninsured. This bill had nothing to do with providing health CARE. It only had to do with health insurance COVERAGE. Insurance does not equal care, progressive propaganda to the contrary.

On a recent visit to one of the country's top-rate hospitals in my state, I discovered a plaque on the wall by the entrance that informed incoming patients that anyone below the poverty line would get free health care in that hospital. Anyone up to 200% of the poverty level would have their care subsidized.

Programs and care are already available for those currently uninsured individuals Democrats are touting as beneficiaries of their 'reform'. This bill had one purpose: to central the power to those in Washington, where the power currently resides at the state/local level to run these programs.

Posted by: dbw1 | March 22, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

"Is the Tea Party dead?"

I sure hope not. It has an important role to play, it keeps Republican Party ideology exposed and in play.

Republicans, once again in defeat, have some very important choices to make about what they are and what they are not.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Every voting period pits the haves against the have-nots. If the have-nots want to continue president Obama's quest to equalize things in America, Democrats have nothing to worry about this or any election. If the haves win they will have their way as usual and the have-nots will be left out in the cold as usual.

The haves have annual incomes above $150,000.00. If you are have-not ask yourself what the haves have to offer you and then vote your conscience.

If the have-nots vote continuously for change the haves will have to change how they look at America and give us have-nots a break.

Posted by: jimarush | March 22, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Hisroc, you typically missed my point. Whether the scene from TOMBSTONE is a fictional account or not, my point was to demonstrate this sick, vile attitude on the right that leads to to behave in such despicable ways. Apparently you support the vile racism and homophobia demonstrated by some of those crackpots in front of the Capitol building.

Besides, fictional or not, the scene from TOMBSTONE is likely an example of art imitating life and is amply evidenced by the squalid behavior of the Tea Party belchers and their GOP enablers.

Posted by: jaxas70 | March 22, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Its tricky trying to get a word in edgewise when 37th is attempting a thread bombing, but I'll give it a go.

There was a perceptive comment on today's Dianne Rehm show. I think it was made by Ron Elving. Had the bill failed, all the arguments against the bill would have been deemed true. One cannot argue about what wouldn't have happened. Democrats would have to deal with motivated TPers and demotivated netroots.

Now, the worst of the predictions won't come true. There won't be a surge in abortions and there won't be abortions paid for with government funds up to the moment of birth (a particularly ugly claim made by a Republican at the presser yesterday). With the public split on this bill (48 against, 45 for), the state of the economy will be the driver in this election. I suspect 1982 rather than 1994 or 2006 as the model for this election.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 22, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

bsimon, the individual mandate is absolutely necessary. If companies are required to provide, we must be required to buy. Otherwise, all we will do is wait until we get sick, sign up with a company, and get them to pay the bills. This will either send insurance through the roof in premiums or will make the industry insolvent. The mandate is an essential pillar of this bill.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 22, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Those clips of a bunch of old white republican representatives cheering on another all white group of spitters, swearers and fanatics .. should be priceless in November. Shades of Berlin in the 30s.

Enjoy your kick in the nuts GOP.

Posted by: tslats | March 22, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

WildBill1 writes
"Except I have no choice not to choose to buy a health plan, and that is no choice at all."

Agreed. Write your congresspeople & ask for an opt-out provision, as I described earlier. i.e. you should be allowed to choose not to buy health insurance, but if you incur emergency room or other healthcare expenses, every asset you have, including future earnings & a primary residence (normally excluded from bankruptcy forfeiture), should be available to those who provide you healthcare if you're uninsured.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 22, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Bad news. The new democrat bill has a provision that states that any working american who does not have health care will need to pay 2.5% tax on their annual income. LOL

Democrats are stupid.

Paul65, get out your calculater now and figure how much tax you and your family is going to pay for people people to have health insurance. LOL

Posted by: Italiaxxx | March 22, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

"How about Obama as Superman and Boehner as Lex Luther?"

Because Lex Luther has more class and integrity than Boehner.

Posted by: Bondosan | March 22, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

If you think Madoff ran a huge scam, Amway has ripped off millions of people for several decades, to the tune of 10s of billions of dollars.

Amway is a scam, and here's why: Amway pays out as little money as they can get away with, so they support the higher level IBOs ripping off their downline via the tool scam.

As a result, about 99% of IBOs operate at a net loss, while the top 1% make several TIMES more from their Amway tool scam than from the Amway products. This was made illegal in the UK in 2008, but our FTC is unable to pull their heads out of their butts to stop it here.

Read about it on my blog, I suggest you start here: http://thenetprofitgroup.yolasite.com and forward the information to everyone you know, so they don't get scammed.

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

"Texas AG Abbott send out a press release this morning that his office intends to file suit to stop enforcment of the law. Is he going to stop extending health insurance care to students until age 26?"


Someone should ask him if he's read the bill yet & what legal grounds he expects to use in his argument.

For those playing along at home, please recall the reconciliation bill still has to go to the Senate, and the Senate's bill hasn't yet made its way to the White House for signature. In other words, there isn't yet a law to challenge, or even final wording of the law.

See bradcpa's post, below, for further explanation of the Texas AG's likely presumptions.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 22, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I would not count the passage of this bill as saying Health Care Reform is a done deal! No way, with the outrage from the majority of the electorate that will be aimed at Congress!
Adding more jobs? Ha! They are going to add about 16,000 more jobs to the IRS...more government jobs...who does this Congress think its deceiving?
The drug companies are the big winners here. (See the Howard Fineman report)... Keep writing your legislator/senator and let him/her know what you think of this fiasco! I just did!

Posted by: SeniorVet | March 22, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

American children are the first beneficiaries of health care reform. Who will not vote for the Democrats when they have saved the life of their seriously ill, uninsurable child?

Posted by: karenfink | March 22, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

"So, where's the "choice" with the individual mandate?"

You still choose which health plan to buy.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 22, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse
__________________
Except I have no choice not to choose to buy a health plan, and that is no choice at all.

Posted by: WildBill1 | March 22, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Delaney issues forth: "You're all ugly. He was beautiful. He tried to bring some of that beauty into your ugly, miserable lives and for that you shot him dead."

I could not help but remember those lines last evening as I watched the ugliness of the GOP and their own band of ugly, hateful, vicious Tea Party marauders. For that motley band on the steps of the capitol, ugliness is worn as a badge of honor.

Posted by: jaxas70 | March 22, 2010 10:28 AM

************************************

Is your entire political philosophy based on dramatic fiction? If so, I can see why you're a liberal Democrat.

Next, why don't you compare Obama, Reid, and Pelosi with the Magnificent Seven and the Republicans as the evil Mexican bandits? How about Obama as Superman and Boehner as Lex Luther?

Posted by: hisroc | March 22, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

dbw1:

If what you're predicting comes to pass, then there'll be tremendous pressure on Congress to create a public option to compete with the private insurers.

Surely you must be excited by that.

Posted by: Bondosan | March 22, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

On what ground could they sue on? As far as SCOTUS is concerned, it is constitutional under the U.S. v. Southeastern Underwriters Assoc. case.

Incidently under the current legislation the states are free to set up their own plan.

Posted by: beeker25 | March 22, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse
_________
And exactly where in US v. Southeastern Underwriters Assoc. did the Supreme Court rule that the "Commerce Clause" allows Congress to force individual citizens to engage in economic transactions that they didn't want to participate in?

Posted by: WildBill1 | March 22, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

"So, where's the "choice" with the individual mandate?"

You still choose which health plan to buy.

Personally, I'm least comfortable with the mandate. However, I've come to the conclusion that its a fair tradeoff - insurance rates go down as the size of the pool grows. By mandating coverage, you're forcing an expanded pool, which is to everyone's benefit. I would still like an opt-out clause; but would want that to include a provision that individuals are then on the hook for any healthcare expenses incurred, and that their homes were eligible for forfeiture should they incur a debilitating disease and go into bankruptcy.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 22, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Texas AG Abbott send out a press release this morning that his office intends to file suit to stop enforcment of the law. Is he going to stop extending health insurance care to students until age 26?

I do not like this bill, but as a member of the extreme left I find the Republicans to be approaching the point of staging a constructive coup de tat. They lost - in a Democracy that means they wait for new elections which puts them in charge- They cannot accept they lost and lost big time.

They know they have limited power under our form of government so instead of accepting the voice of the people they play games and obstruct government.

As people realize humanity is not coming to an end as they know it and the economy continues to improve the Republicans will face their reality - a minority party in permanent political exile.

Posted by: bobbywc | March 22, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

bradcpa asks
"How stupid do the Republicans think the American people are?"


Republicans have been very successful at not misunderestimating Americans.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 22, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

The best way to mitigate that risk, according to one senior operative, is to turn the debate into a choice not a referendum.
____________
So, where's the "choice" with the individual mandate? This is nothing more than a liberal dictatorship.....

Posted by: WildBill1 | March 22, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Are Republicans really planning on blocking the reconciliation bill with it's fixes? If they are doing this they are voting for the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase. I think we need to let them explain why they voted for these political payoffs after they voted against them. Do they really think that is a vote for America or a vote for politics? How stupid do the Republicans think the American people are?

Posted by: bradcpa | March 22, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

In the motion picture TOMBSTONE, actress Dana Delaney cradles the head of mortally wounded Billy Zane having been shot down by a gang of angry, hateful, red sash wearing marauders know as the Cowboys, many of whom ended up in the gunfight at the OK corral with Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday. The character played by Zane was a homosexual actor who beautifully played Shakespearian drama. In her moral outrage and righteous anger, Delaney issues forth: "You're all ugly. He was beautiful. He tried to bring some of that beauty into your ugly, miserable lives and for that you shot him dead."

I could not help but remember those lines last evening as I watched the ugliness of the GOP and their own band of ugly, hateful, vicious Tea Party marauders. For that motley band on the steps of the capitol, ugliness is worn as a badge of honor.

Posted by: jaxas70 | March 22, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Prediction: health care premiums will skyrocket in the next few years.

Here's why: the mandate that all individuals will be required to buy health insurance will be struck down by the courts. It's not within the powers of Congress or the President to REQUIRE citizens to buy something...or anything.

The rest of the bill is probably ok (constitutionally speaking, I mean). It's within the powers of Congress to 'regulate commerce', so the new rules that require insurance companies to offer coverage to everyone, deny coverage to none, are within the powers of Congress (the debate on whether those rules are good or not is a separate discussion).

So c'mon, liberals, do the math. What that means is that insurance companies will be required to pick up the tab, by law, for the more expensive/risky individuals (those with pre-existing conditions), but they will not garner the benefit of having the lower risk individuals paying into the system to offset the costs.

Guess what happens to the premiums for the rest of us?

Sometimes asking liberals to do math and employ deductive reasoning is a futile exercise, but I try...

Posted by: dbw1 | March 22, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse


bourassa1


Write that list in November - this health care fight goes to the Courts first


The States will fight implementation.


Next year, implementation on the federal law will be fought in the budget battle.


Eventually, this bill will be REPEALED.


Posted by: 37thand0street |
----------
On what ground could they sue on? As far as SCOTUS is concerned, it is constitutional under the U.S. v. Southeastern Underwriters Assoc. case.

Incidently under the current legislation the states are free to set up their own plan.

Posted by: beeker25 | March 22, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

The bill will get REPEALED.


See, that is the rub on this whole thing - the Republicans are going to fight this bill in Court, in DE-FUNDING, IN REPEAL - so what really was the point ???


Obama is the Hoover of this recession.


Posted by: 37thand0street
--------
The problem with your argument is that many of the provisions will take effect with the main ones later on. Who wants to have the insurance companies sending letters to people telling that the whole thing is now repealed and we are going to drop you off the roll.

Incidently the Republicans passed the Part D prescription cost in 2003, do you see the Democrats working on its repeal throughout the elections cycles. They never did but they decided to fix the donut hole coverage with this legislation.

Posted by: beeker25 | March 22, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

There is a message in all of this that most in the mainstream media are either ignoring or too dumb to pick up on: That notwithstanding all of that media hype, all of that negative narrative on Obama and the democrats, all of the confidant, GOP, self assurances that health care was dead, all of the out sized media attention given to the noisy, dumbo, rural Tea Party types who proved beyond doubt this weekend that it really was racism motivating them, in the end amidst all of the drummed up, choreographed noise and overconfident chatter of the pundits, when it came to a real vote, the bill passed.

And just look at Gallup's tracking poll this morning--which MORNING JOE completely ignored--Obama is surging. His postives went up 4 points to 53% overnight. His negatives dropped 3% to 43%. Which demonstrates in stark terms just what a load of crap the Tea Party has been selling us all of these months.

Posted by: jaxas70 | March 22, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

bourassa1


Write that list in November - this health care fight goes to the Courts first


The States will fight implementation.

Next year, implementation on the federal law will be fought in the budget battle.

Eventually, this bill will be REPEALED.

.

.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

bourassa1


Write that list in November - this health care fight goes to the Courts first


The States will fight implementation.

Next year, implementation on the federal law will be fought in the budget battle.

Eventually, this bill will be REPEALED.

.

.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Jake:

I wouldn't put all your hopes and dreams in the ROBERTS court. Scalia or Thomas (or both) will probably keel over from a massive coronary one day soon (all that suppressed rage does take a toll).

Wouldn't surprise me if Obama has five Supreme Court appointments before the end of his second term.

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

rockbroker


The answer to your question is that the pharmaceutical companies have very little in terms of cost containment - they can now bill sky-high prices.

The same goes for other medical companies - sky-high prices are coming.

It is the Federal government and the States - and ultimately the taxpayers who are going to get the BILL.

Everything in this bill is a giant give-away - the costs are going to go through the roof.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Ezra Klein is devoting the day to explaining the bill. I suggest we all read it. His coverage has been invaluable in explaining the bill and the process.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/how_big_is_the_bill_really.html

This is the first one.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 22, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

While Republicans plot repeal, David Frum asks a few questions germane to these GOP hopes: "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."

Posted by: FirstMouse1 | March 22, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Normally, I don't pay too much attention to the Rev. Al Sharpton, but I think, after hearing him last night on Fox, that he may just be the only person in this country who is telling the truth. He said that this healthcare bill passed because when people voted for Obama they voted for change and that meant they wanted SOCIALISM. Well, welcome to the new world, Americans!!!

Posted by: georges2 | March 22, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Normally, I don't pay too much attention to the Rev. Al Sharpton, but I think, after hearing him last night on Fox, that he may just be the only person in this country who is telling the truth. He said that this healthcare bill passed because when people voted for Obama they voted for change and that meant they wanted SOCIALISM. Well, welcome to the new world, Americans!!!

Posted by: georges2 | March 22, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

What, no "Winners and Losers" on this? I was really looking forward to that.

Here's a clue:

LOSERS
Republicans
Teabaggers

WINNERS
Obama
Democrats
American people

Posted by: bourassa1 | March 22, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Jake wrote:

mark_in_austin:

The Dems weren't trying to hide? Why were they going to use "deem and pass"? Why did a REPUBLICAN have to call for a recorded vote?

Three questions, two answers.

"Deem and pass" was not going to cover a D from a conservative district - his only vote would have been "aye". It was going to give a D in a lib district cover - a D like Kucinich and a dozen others who were dead set against the SB but who could say that with the "fixes" in reconciliation they could back it. Same for the pro-life Ds. So D&P WAS an attempted "cover"

In parliamentary procedure, a voice vote is the standard. When the vote is called, any member of the presumed losing group has the right to call for "division of the house". In a PTA meeting, this calls for hands to be raised and counted. In Congress, this calls for an electronic roll call vote as the normal procedure. It is a function of accurately counting the division of the house. The call for the division is not made until after the voice vote. It is made by the presumed losers. The answer to your third question is thus, "no".

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 22, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

I urge all TRUE pro-lifers to donate to Radanovich's campaign:

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

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Obama has caused this health care fight to drag on for three more years - exactly when the nation has to focus in on the economy and jobs.

This is really Obama's disaster.


Obama has destroyed his Presidency on this fight - and in the end, he will have little to show for it. The democrats, by the 2012 elections, will lose their majorities in both Houses and the Presidency.


Obama really has gained little. AND there is little in cost containment.

For this EGO-TRIP, Obama has given up every chance to right his agenda - NO ONE WANTS TO LISTEN TO OBAMA NOW - HE HAS LITTLE CHANCE TO RECOVER IN THE POLLS AND WITH INDEPENDENTS - and the polls really don't show how bad a shape Obama is in.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

37thandO,

Shouldn't you be in class instead of posting you crazy-@ss bullsh-t?

Posted by: njacobs | March 22, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse


Is the Tea Party dead? Vote

http://www.youpolls.com/default.asp

.

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

People are extremely angry with Obama right now - they don't even want to listen to anything he has to say at all.


Obama really hurt himself.

This is the big difference: if Obama let health care die last January, people would have been willing to listen to Obama and give him a second chance. Now Obama has betrayed that trust, people just want Obama and the democrats out.

This health care bill represents a fundamental departure from what was generally understood Obama was going to do - Obama betrayed people's trust.

Even if Obama believes that this far-left wing health care plan was in his platform, he should have been much more attentive to the mood of the country, especially in this recession. Obama did this at his own political peril - and they all knew it.

The bill will get REPEALED.

See, that is the rub on this whole thing - the Republicans are going to fight this bill in Court, in DE-FUNDING, IN REPEAL - so what really was the point ???


The point was this really was at its center, AN EGO TRIP ON THE PART OF OBAMA -


Do you see how Dingell and Kennedy didn't have the bill named after them ??? This was an Obama ego-trip, with costs throughout the democratic party.

Obama is the Hoover of this recession.

.


.


,

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

Full disclosure I'm supporting the independents in the Novemeber elections.

If this bill will bankrupt the country then how come the stock market which is forward looking hasn't crashed?

Posted by: rockbroker | March 22, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Stupak = baby killer

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Always felt that a prolife democrat was a walking lie. stupak proved it.

Posted by: doof | March 22, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

You were just fine with Rep. Patrick Kennedy's rant though.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1238863

mark_in_austin:

The Dems weren't trying to hide? Why were they going to use "deem and pass"? Why did a REPUBLICAN have to call for a recorded vote?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

no, Boehner sounds like Tommy Lee Jones!

That was bothering me last night. "who the hell is Boehner reminding me of??"

Posted by: DDAWD | March 22, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

POTUS, Congress: Now do the REAL Health Care Reform:

Stop Bush-Era Homeland-Led Atrocities that Destroy American Lives, Livelihoods...

HOMELAND-RUN 'FUSION CENTERS' SILENTLY ASSAULT, TORTURE, IMPAIR, SUBJUGATE U.S. CITIZENS WITH CELL TOWER MICROWAVE WEAPON SYSTEM, FINANCIAL SABOTAGE, 'COMMUNITY WATCH' VIGILANTE DOMESTIC TERRORISM: VETERAN JOURNALIST

* Thousands of Americans slandered as "dissidents" or undesirables, targeted by Bush legacy program for debilitating, cell tower- based precision-targeted microwave//laser assault, held hostage in their homes to fed-supported vigilante "community policing" stalking units equipped with warrantless GPS devices, who vandalize and terrorize as local police look the other way.

* Electromagnetic radio frequency microwave/laser weapon system -- a nationwide installation employing cell towers and satellites -- silently, invisibly induce weakness, exhaustion, mood changes, pain, head and body aches, physical and neurological impairment, strokes, aneurysms, sickness, cancer -- and many victims do not realize what is making them sick.

===== POLITICAL LEADERS MAY BE AMONG TARGETS =====

* Regional Homeland Security- administered "fusion centers" reportedly serve as command centers for covert electromagnetic radiation attacks, pervasive surveillance, financial sabotage of those identified as "dissidents," "trouble-makers" or slandered as threats to society.

* Use of microwave weaponry to torture and impair political opponents recently confirmed by deposed Honduras President Manuel Zelaya.

* Pleas for justice, to local police and FBI, go unanswered -- as do demands for a Department of Justice Civil Rights Division investigation and congressional hearings.

"These are crimes against humanity and the Constitution, being perpetrated under the cover of national security and 'safe streets' by multiple federal and local agencies and commands -- an American genocide hiding in plain sight, enabled by the naivete of those who think 'it can't happen here.'" -- Victor Livingston, former reporter for WTXF-TV Philadelphia, Phila. Bulletin, N.Y. Daily News, St. Petersburg Times; producer/host, MSG Network Sports Business Report; columnist, NowPublic.com/scrivener.

www.poynter.org/subject.asp?id=2 (click, "More Reporting and Writing") OR

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves

BUCKS COUNTY, PA- BASED MAGLOCLEN FUSION CENTER -- "Centom of a Mid-Atlantic States Fed- and Police-Protected American Gestapo."

Why won't FBI Open a D.O.J. / Civil Rights Division investigation? Why is the Obama administration so naive? Or misinformed and "entrained?"

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR NowPublic.com/scrivener (see "stories" list).

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 22, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Politics should favor Rs on this in the short term before the mid-terms, although not as much as if the bill had failed.

1] The insurance reforms will not be retroactively applied to policies in force the contract terms of which are for a term certain. They will apply to new policies.

2] The exchanges creating large groups for individuals and small businesses to join will not be running before November. Thus new individual policies will be unavailable at reasonable cost until after the elections.
======================
There were, of course, recorded votes - no one was trying to hide.

HCR roll (HR 3590): http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml
Reconciliation (HR 4872): http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll167.xml
======================
While I believe that the universal health care will eventually prove cheaper than the current state of affairs, both for the economy and for government budgets, for many reasons that I [and many others] have suggested over the months, it is clear that CBO is painting a "net" picture that includes expected tax increases that are in the package, while discounting inevitable increases in Medicare. There is no doubt that Shrink is right when he says it will move the needle of public financing of medical costs upward in a way that will be visible. That needle was moving upward, anyway, as more folks became reliant on Medicaid and the ERs. That was less visible, in a simplistic way.

The cost increase from a presumed static base will be the false comparison that Rs will ride, of course. If, in 2015, total health care expenditures as a % of the GDP have dropped, the Ds will have a talking point for the 2016 election. If the annual increase in premiums drops to the level of inflation that will be another talking point for Ds. If universal health care saves millions of folks from bankruptcy or heartbreak, that will write the ads for the Ds, perhaps as early as the 2012 elections.

Although I think this was a fiscally responsible step in the medium run, that measurement will be ever so difficult to prove in the short run. So for the midterms, the Rs should have the edge on this issue.

But jobs are THE voting issue for 2010, absent a cataclysmic event.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 22, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

I guess you missed Nancy Pelosi's "one minute" speech where she DID guarantee everybody's happiness, along with life and liberty (unless you are an unborn child, of course). I can't wait for the ROBERTS Court to get a hold of this one.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

"And all those Republicans requesting consent to "revise and extend their remarks" were getting permission to put their Nos into writing as if they had been spoken on the floor of the House.

We have their tantrums in writing, too!

Posted by: ceflynline"

Yup, yup. But that clip of Boehner going "hell no" will be great.

The guy sounds like Dan Aykroyd, doesn't he?

http://www.thedailytube.com/video/16083/snl-hammers-congressional-republicans

Posted by: DDAWD | March 22, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

The hidden secret of Obama is this bill offers little in terms of cost containment - health care costs are going to go up - starting with the pharmaceutical companies who Obama made a deal with.

Obama is going to start setting up medical boards - which will be lobbied by a multitude of interest groups -

If anyone thinks that system will yield lower costs, you are going to have a sad realization one day.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

I see little has changed while I was away.

Except that health care reform has passed. On balance, I think the health reform we're about to get is a good thing.

And to those who think the parties in Congress can't agree on anything, please allow me to refer you to a related vote where the House voted 403-0 to declare that health care benefits provided to retired military members and their families meets the minimum standard of care of the health care reform so those families are not requred to purchase additional insurance.

The current highly-charged partisanship in Congress is largely political theater, though too many on each side seem to have made it their reality. Hopefully after the 2010 mid-terms things will settle down and Congress will do more legislating than posturing.

Posted by: Gallenod | March 22, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Jake


One part of HillaryCare which people have not talked about is that HillaryCare relied on an ENTIRE SECOND ROUND OF IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION ON THE STATE LEVEL.


Yes, Hillary's plan involved the States passing a round of health care legislation putting the federal bill into effect.

The reason for that was that Hillary and crew, her task force, was not entirely convinced that health care insurance fell under interstate commerce - and also they did not believe the Federal government had the power to unilaterally move into this area of the economy.

This issue may be wide open - not for the least reason that the States are so financially strapped right now they simply can not AFFORD the additional UNFUNDED MANDATES.

The Republicans might also find it useful to DELAY IMPLEMENTATION until after the next Presidential election, when hopefully Obama will be out, and the whole issue can be dealt with in a more reasonable way.

Let's face it : one party imposing their version of health care was never going to work.

NOW IN THE MIDDLE OF A RECESSION, this nation has to pick this health care bill apart piece-by-piece.


Obama has really hurt this country badly - he is the HOOVER YOUR LIFETIME.


.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

"From the "baby killer" outburst to Boehner's "hell no" speech. Democrats have the perfect video and sound clip to go with any "party of no" themed messaging. Posted by: DDAWD"

And all those Republicans requesting consent to "revise and extend their remarks" were getting permission to put their Nos into writing as if they had been spoken on the floor of the House.

We have their tantrums in writing, too!

Posted by: ceflynline | March 22, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Jake, there will always be parts of bills that are deeply unpopular with someone. Democracy doesn't guarantee everybody's happiness. I thought a man-of-the-world like you knew that.

Only the Fix could take the Democrat's $16,000,000 advantage and make it look like "more bad news for Democrats." yeesh.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 22, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse


Tom Degan


You should read more about your history before you start giving others history lessons.


You are a victim of liberals lying to you about history - you are completely convinced that the Republicans are evil - and the democrats never had the KKK at their national conventions, controlling delegates.

Grant passed the first Civil Rights Act in 1875 - and it was democrats who did everything they could to stop that Act.


You have been fed a line that is simply not true.


The truth is most of the actions against civil rights were taken by democrats - AND to hide that they have demonized the Republicans.

You have been fooled - read your history.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Tom Degan


You should read more about your history before you start giving others history lessons.


You are a victim of liberals lying to you about history.


Grant passed the first Civil Rights Act in 1875 - and it was democrats who did everything they could to stop that Act.

You have been fed a line that is simply not true.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

The Court challenges may yield unexpected results - perhaps the question of UNFUNDED MANDATES TO THE STATES will ultimately be addressed.


Up to this point, the Federal government has always held out a carrot-and-stick on the unfunded mandates - offering to fund part of the mandates - in exchange for the States picking up the rest of the tabs. Up to now, this deal has proven too irresistable for the States - they take the money and swallow the tax increase they have to impose.


However, Obama's health care bill could FINALLY BRING THIS ISSUE TO THE FRONT LINES - because this health care bill has few of the federal money incentives which other mandates have.

In addition, with the recession causing so many financial problems in the States, the unfunded mandates in this bill could finally be the one to have the States dig their heals in and take the issue to the Supreme Court.

The issue is how much can the Federal Government tread on the traditional powers of the States - and then force the UNFUNDED MANDATES ON THE STATES - AND CAN A STATE REFUSE TO FUND A FEDERAL MANDATE ???

This is far different from States' Rights.

If the Federal Government wants to provide a service, fine, set up the agencies and provide the service.

However, the question is how much can the Federal Government REQUIRE THE STATES TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE - AND THEN FORCE THE STATES TO FUND THOSE SERVICES ???

In the strict Constitutional structure, the Federal Government really has no power to require the States to do anything - the States are free from Federal control.

However, in practice, a system of Federal mandates has evolved which has been questioned.


.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

I can't wait for the next big partisan fight. Obama will nominate someone to replace justice Stevens, will it be soon? That whole bipartisanship thing, what was that about? It was just a scab on a bleeder anyway. Roger Ailes gets that.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

37th and O Street,
You should really learn more about politics--the Republican Party of 1875 is not the same party in 2010. In fact, I bet if you took the time to read V.O. Key's Southern Politics, you would understand that the Democrats of 1875 and the Republicans of 2010 have a lot in common.

Your original post:

Tom Degan


You really should read about the Civil Rights Act of 1875 - how the Republicans fought to get it passed.


And then the democrats had it repealed - and practiced state-sponsored terrorism for 90 years to stop any sort of civil rights from being enforced.


Seriously man - To call the democrats heros in that story really misses the point: the democrats were the problem for 90 years.

Posted by: Prosperity2008 | March 22, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

I doubt that the Health Care bill will reduce the deficit as the Democrats claim.

I do believe that it is the biggest tax increase in the history of the United States.

It will be interesting to see how the Democrats will pay for the "Doctor's fix", which will cost 200 billion dollars and because of this amount was not included in the Health Care bill.

Then they have to explain how they ae going to address fix Social Security and Medicare as the day of reckoning is fast coming.

Plus the new mandates on the States for Medicaid will require massive State and local tax increases.

This all adds up to a disaster for the party of "tax and spend"!

Posted by: mwhoke | March 22, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"Pawlenty called it "inexplicable and inexcusable" that the United Nations Security Council had not ramped-up sanctions despite Iran's recalcitrance: "The Security Council was created to address threats to international peace and security, but it continues to sleep while Iran continues to enrich," said Pawlenty."


Of course the nuance of getting something done in the UN security council is inexplicable to Pawlenty. He can't even get a balanced budget passed in Minnesota. Given that he can't get a simple state budget passed, how can we possibly expect him to negotiate agreement between us, Russia, China, Germany, the UK and France on sanctioning Iran?


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 22, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

These are what are now in effect, with the health care bill that passed last night. A plain and simple list. Is this really what the Republicans want to campaign to repeal?
1. Adult children may remain as dependents on their parents’ policy until age 26
2. Children under age 19 may not be excluded for pre-existing conditions
3. No more lifetime or annual caps on coverage
4. Free preventative care for all
5. Adults with pre-existing conditions may buy into a national high-risk pool until the exchanges come online.
6. Small businesses will be entitled to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be as much as 50% of what they pay for employees’ health insurance.
7. The “donut hole” closes for Medicare patients, making prescription medications more affordable for seniors.
8. Requirement that all insurers must post their balance sheets on the Internet and fully disclose administrative costs, executive compensation packages, and benefit payments.
9. Early funding of community health centers in all 50 states
These are the provisions of the law that in effect now. Eventually there will be a bar against all pre-existing coverage denials and a regulation on health insurance premium increases.
If the Republicans want to repeal their fanasy scare tactic idea of what the legislation is, then they will have a difficult time because it is not what was passed into law, "death panels" and a "government takeover" of health care were never in any version of the bill and because of that, they were not passed into law. The provisions above were passed into law so, if the Republicans really want to deny sick babies and adult children without jobs health insurance, then they should be upfront about it.

Posted by: Prosperity2008 | March 22, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

I doubt you will see overwhelming support for this bill. Initially, some things go into effect that may be popular (although I have no idea why 26 year olds need to stay on their parents' health insurance), but then the bad stuff will start kicking in, including the unconstitutional forcing people to buy health insurance. If they can force you to buy health insurance, then why can't they force you to buy other things like cars? Plus, the bill has now clearly demonstrated what the Democratic party is about--reckless spending, pro-abortion and pro-massive tax increases. This should rid the nation of the notion that there is a such thing as a conservative Democrat.

Posted by: columbiaheights | March 22, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Democrats do NOT value the sanctity of life far more than Republicans. Stupak got NOTHING and compromised his values.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

Last night was the BIGGEST TAX INCREASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY - THAT IS OBAMA'S LEGACY.


However, the untold story is the UNFUNDED MANDATES BEING PUSHED ONTO THE STATES.

The STATE TAXES which are going to have to be passed in order to cover OBAMA'S BILLS -

ALL THIS IN THE MIDDLE OF A BIG RECESSION.

THIS IS THE DUMBEST ECONOMIC POLICY - IT IS OBAMA'S SMOOT-HAWLEY TARIFF -


.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

http://www.slate.com/id/2248490?nav=wp

On the Stupak deal. This person thinks what I think. That it was basically a meaningless gesture to help Stupak save face.

But he's right. Democrats value the sanctity of life far more than Republicans. I doubted the motion to recommit goes through, but Stupak put it all out there. And he can sleep easy knowing that fetuses, children, and adults will enjoy healthier lives because of the bill.

Chris doesn't mention this, but I wonder how the petulance of the Republicans will look down the line. From the "baby killer" outburst to Boehner's "hell no" speech. Democrats have the perfect video and sound clip to go with any "party of no" themed messaging. And the obstructionism and petulance is part of a growing narrative. Republicans were engaged in a high profile game of obstructionism for an entire year now. From what I've read, Obama plans to go on a PR blitz to sell this bill. If people start falling in love with the bill, they could easily hate the people who tried to kill it. And as we know, Obama is a great salesman. The press will forever refer to the Republicans as the principled opposition, but the public won't believe that forever.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 22, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Tom Degan


You really should read about the Civil Rights Act of 1875 - how the Republicans fought to get it passed.


And then the democrats had it repealed - and practiced state-sponsored terrorism for 90 years to stop any sort of civil rights from being enforced.

Seriously man - To call the democrats heros in that story really misses the point: the democrats were the problem for 90 years.

.

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


Obama has now SENTENCED THE COUNTRY TO THREE MORE YEARS OF HEALTH CARE DEBATE - AND THREE MORE YEARS OF DISTRACTION AWAY FROM THE ECONOMY AND JOBS.


This is certainly Obama'a SMOOT-HAWLEY TARIFF - the wrong economic policy at the wrong time.


This health care bill WILL PROLONG THE RECESSION AND BE A MAJOR DRAG ON THE ECONOMY.


Worse, there will be political fighting about this health care bill for the next three years - instead of the political process concentrating on the economy and jobs.


There will be Court fights - major parts of this health care bill will be struck down - there will certainly be legislative fights next year in the budget whether to DE-FUND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BILL - and then there will be a fight over REPEALING THIS BILL.

No major piece of social legislation has ever stood without bipartisan support.


IN THE END, THAT IS ALL YOU WILL GET, AFTER ALL THE FIGHTING, ALL THAT WILL STAND IS THE PARTS OF THIS BILL THAT BOTH PARTIES AGREE ON - WHICH IS THE SAME EXACT RESULT THAT OBAMA COULD HAVE HAD LAST SUMMER.


FOR THAT REASON, I DISAGREE WITH CHRIS'S FIRST MYTH - THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE WILL NOT BE OVER FOR YEARS - AND THE END RESULT WILL BE ONLY WHAT BOTH PARTIES CAN AGREE ON.

.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 8:33 AM | Report abuse

It was so much fun watching these pathetic GOP lawmakers "warning" the Democrats how badly the passage of health care reform would hurt them at the polls in November. What can I tell you? They're beneath contempt.

Is this the perfect bill? Far from it. I am reminded of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. You've never heard of it either, huh? Don't be embarrassed if you haven't. It wasn't much of a law - a mere pittance, really. Nothing more that a dew scraps tossed out in order to appease the "American Negro" (in the parlance of that day and age). But its passage made the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the one we remember) a little easier to get though seven years later.

We'll live to fight another day.

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan

Posted by: tomdeganfrontiernetnet | March 22, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Tim Pawlenty courts Jewish Republicans by bashing Iran. Like Curly said in falsetto, "Oh, a tough guy?" Republicans. What will he do next to show how tough he is, spit on some black people? Bash the windows out of an IRS office with a nine iron? I guess you just have to laugh.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 22, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse


The bill is a mixed bag and, ideology aside, the insurers and drug companies should, on-balance, be pleased with this new boost to their bottom lines. It makes some necessary changes to our system, but falls far short of the kind of deep reform we need. It also makes several leaps-of-faith in the ability of future Congresses and administrations to raise taxes. We'll see just how strong those spines are . . . .

My guess is the Dems get a net gain from this, assuming they go home over break and message the hell out of it. They allowed the Rs to seize the language of the debate a year ago, putting them at a decided disadvantage. They did a poor job of telling the 270-odd-million Americans who have coverage why this bill is good for them. And millions of us in the liberal/progressive universe now have a fresh set of reasons to be wary of what we hear from the White House.

Frankly, it would have been better to expand Medicare.

Posted by: scaypgrayce | March 22, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Obama just JAMMED THROUGH THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY.


No one wants that -


Just wait for everyone to realize that OBAMA JUST RAISED TAXES IN THE MIDDLE OF A RECESSION - WHICH IS JUST ABOUT THE WORST POSSIBLE ECONOMIC POLICY.

What do you expect from someone whose only economic or business experience was BUYING COCAINE ????

This health care bill is the WORST POSSIBLE ECONOMIC PROGRAM IN THE MIDDLE OF A RECESSION.

.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 22, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

POTUS, Congress Pass Health Care Reform. Now, Stop Bush-Era Homeland-Led Atrocities that Destroy American Lives and Livelihoods...

HOMELAND-RUN 'FUSION CENTERS' SILENTLY ASSAULT, TORTURE, IMPAIR, SUBJUGATE U.S. CITIZENS WITH CELL TOWER MICROWAVE WEAPON SYSTEM, FINANCIAL SABOTAGE, 'COMMUNITY WATCH' VIGILANTE DOMESTIC TERRORISM: VETERAN JOURNALIST

* Thousands of Americans slandered as "dissidents" or undesirables, targeted by Bush legacy program for debilitating, cell tower- based precision-targeted microwave//laser assault, held hostage in their homes to fed-supported vigilante "community policing" stalking units equipped with warrantless GPS devices, who vandalize and terrorize as local police look the other way.

* Electromagnetic radio frequency microwave/laser weapon sytem -- a nationwide installation employing cell towers and satellites -- silently, invisibly induce weakness, exhaustion, mood changes, pain, head and body aches, physical and neurological impairment, strokes, aneurysms, sickness, cancer -- and many victims do not realize what is making them sick.

===== POLITICAL LEADERS MAY BE AMONG TARGETS =====

* Regional Homeland Security- administered "fusion centers" reportedly serve as command centers for covert electromagnetic radiation attacks, pervasive surveillance, financial sabotage of those identified as "dissidents," "trouble-makers" or slandered as threats to society.

* Use of microwave weaponry to torture and impair political opponents recently confirmed by deposed Honduras President Manuel Zelaya.

* Pleas for justice, to local police and FBI, go unanswered -- as do demands for a Department of Justice Civil Rights Division investigation and congressional hearings.

"These are crimes against humanity and the Constitution, being perpetrated under the cover of national security and 'safe streets' by multiple federal and local agencies and commands -- an American genocide hiding in plain sight, enabled by the naivete of those who think 'it can't happen here.'" -- Victor Livingston, former reporter for WTXF-TV Philadelphia, Phila. Bulletin, N.Y. Daily News, St. Petersburg Times; producer/host, MSG Network Sports Business Report; columnist, NowPublic.com/scrivener.

www.poynter.org/subject.asp?id=2 (click, "More Reporting and Writing") OR

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves

BUCKS COUNTY, PA- BASED MAGLOCLEN FUSION CENTER -- "Mid-Atlantic States Ground Zero of a Mid-Atlantic States Fed- and Police-Protected American Gestapo."

Why won't FBI Open a D.O.J. / Civil Rights Division Investigation? Why is the Obama administration so naive? Or misinformed and "entrained?"

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR NowPublic.com/scrivener (see "stories" list).

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 22, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

ceflynline:

Just to be clear, you are predicting that the Dems will net "several" (meaning more than 1) seats in the Senate, and double digits (at least 10) seats in the House THIS NOVEMBER?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

The People of this country do NOT want this bill - people can NOT WAIT TO VOTE AGAINST OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS.


Obama's tax increases are yet to sink in.

AND people are going to be astonished that the BRACKET CREEP on the taxes is going to bring more and more of the middle class into the taxes every year.

So, as soon as Obama's Inflation kicks in, the taxes will kick in.

Chris - we all know what that means - STAGFLATION.


.


.

.

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

RE Fiscal trickery: Who would you believe between the turd(blossom)head and the non partisan CBO? It's the GOP's MO to attack any and all things that disagree with their view and invoke the name of 'the People' when they are so far detached from reality that they live in a different world.

Posted by: Bangkokian | March 22, 2010 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Obama has now SENTENCED THE COUNTRY TO THREE MORE YEARS OF HEALTH CARE DEBATE - AND THREE MORE YEARS OF DISTRACTION AWAY FROM THE ECONOMY AND JOBS.

This is certainly Obama'a SMOOT-HAWLEY TARIFF - the wrong economic policy at the wrong time.

This health care bill WILL PROLONG THE RECESSION AND BE A MAJOR DRAG ON THE ECONOMY.

Worse, there will be political fighting about this health care bill for the next three years - instead of the political process concentrating on the economy and jobs.

There will be Court fights - major parts of this health care bill will be struck down - there will certainly be legislative fights next year in the budget whether to DE-FUND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BILL - and then there will be a fight over REPEALING THIS BILL.


No major piece of social legislation has ever stood without bipartisan support.

IN THE END, THAT IS ALL YOU WILL GET, AFTER ALL THE FIGHTING, ALL THAT WILL STAND IS THE PARTS OF THIS BILL THAT BOTH PARTIES AGREE ON - WHICH IS THE SAME EXACT RESULT THAT OBAMA COULD HAVE HAD LAST SUMMER.

FOR THAT REASON, I DISAGREE WITH CHRIS'S FIRST MYTH - THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE WILL NOT BE OVER FOR YEARS - AND THE END RESULT WILL BE ONLY WHAT BOTH PARTIES CAN AGREE ON.


.


.


.

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

"The first week (or two) of the post-passage debate will be absolutely critical in determining whether -- and how -- public opinion about the bill changes"

Probably not. This next week or two will see the blog cloggers crank out column miles of bile, while reasonable posters will decide it isn't worth it and go do other useful things like enjoy spring. As the Republicans continue their nonstop tantrum that they are throwing because they lost elections in 2006 and 2008, and they keep throwing themselves on the ground, kicking and screaming No Mommy! No Mommy No NO NO! most of America will tune them out. Then they will look at the facts and vote accordingly. With just a bit more help from McConnell and Boehner the Dems will gain several seats in the Senate, and double digits seats in the House.

The Republicans will decide they weren't pure enough and move even farther out into0 lala land.

Meanwhile the Fix will load up on deniers and decriers predicting the second coming of Quin the Eskimo, and the rest of us will go get some rest.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 22, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

The fact that the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC, have about 20 million more cash on hand than the GOP means that they can put their message out there faster and with more coverage than the GOP. Plus if the GOP focuses on process they will lose votes. They made their point and now they need to drop it. Americans just don't care about the process.
The GOP needs to start talking about what they will do, period. Now that the Democrats have passed HCR without them, they need to present an alternative plan for the future of America or they will end up looking completely impotent. This bill will embolden the Democrats to start passing other legislation that has been stalling in congress but which have much higher public approval (climate change, bank reform etc). If they do that without significant GOP support, the economy continues to grow, and unemployment contiunes to go down than the Democrats will climb out of the hole they are in right now and survive November in much better shape than they are in today.

Seriosly, CC please please please stop writing about Pawlenty. He is not ever going to go anywhere. Just take two weeks off from writing about him. Your readers won't miss him, I promise.

Pomeroy basically knows everyone in ND by first name. I think he is pretty safe.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 22, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 8:00 AM | Report abuse

Needless to say, I concur with Rep. Radanovich's condemnation of Stupak as a "baby killer" and have donated to his re-election campaign. I urge all TRUE pro-lifers to do the same online (above) or via the U.S. mail directly to his office. If you cannot afford to donate during these hard economic times, at least e-mail him a few words of support.

P.S. to paul65:

The Senate bill, especially the "Cornhusker Kickback" or "Louisiana Purchase, polls extremely low and you know it. That's the only "bill" that is ready for the President's signature today. Why else were the House Dems actually AFRAID to have a recorded vote for it? You are aware that the "reconciliation" fixes have to still be passed by the Senate, right?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Not only will the GOP run on repealing the worst parts of Obamacare, but the ROBERTS Supreme Court (with an opinion hopefully written by Alito himself) will be asked to rule on the Constitutionality. Just wait until all the employers start dropping health insurance because it's "cheaper" to simply pay the penalty. I hope that 37thandOStreet is correct about Obama getting impeached for this.

As for T-Paw, how does Mr. Cillizza get this info if it was "closed" to the press?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 22, 2010 7:24 AM | Report abuse

Chris, why do you repeat the Republican lie that "an overwhelming number" of Americans oppose(d?) the healthcare bill. That's not true.

Polling going back nearly a year consistently showed that support for the bill was split, almost evenly.

Moreover, recent polling has shown an uptick in support for the legislation.

And after lastnight, I would bet money that you will see even more support -- yes, even, "overwhelming support" -- developing in the coming days and months.

Posted by: paul65 | March 22, 2010 7:16 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company