Being pushed hard even without all the votes actually getting the chance to read it.

Really folks...is this the great "change" ya'll envisioned?

Fuck those that live on the sweet fruit hangling low in Washington DC.....fuck those like our former posters that wanted to live sucking on those fruits....

Fix this process....rid this bs of "it's always been this way" so shh....

Stand up dammmit.....contact your reps....tell them "ONE BILL....ONE VOTE"

For L2, is this the bill you envisioned? really....nope I had it right all along great seer....this is a pile of crap.

Not one Dem has stepped up to cap the lawsuits on our health care folks.....no instead they ignore it.

For once, make your voice heard....show me how you bitch at your reps......I know I have for years....you??

/toast L2 btw....I'd be there for him at the end but this bill really has to be shown as a cancer.

The ramblings of an old idiot :)

It has essentially become this or nothing, and nothing is not an acceptable option.

If there were an actual chance of a bipartisan bill with real reform I'd support efforts to work that out.

I should point out that the urgency of health care reform seems to depend heavily upon location. In some places there are perfectly reasonable health care plans available for most people. I understand people are getting individual health insurance for under $100/month in those places. Here, I'd have to spend at least $500/month, and that doesn't even include partial coverage of office visits--if I want that I'd have to go with a $900/month plan with a different company. And that's as a healthy individual in my 20's.

It has essentially become this or nothing, and nothing is not an acceptable option.


This!!!

The ramblings of an old idiot :)

yes, and you're still a steaming pile of ungrateful shit that would do better to keep his head under the kitchen sink fixing my damn leak.

Are you drunk?

In any event, it's not the "change" I wanted, but it's still better than what we had. It's become clear that until the ultra-reactionaries self-destruct the GOP, we're unlikely to get any real legislation done again, ever, over anything.

I have noticed there is a very large element of "Fuck you, I got mine" from the 50 and over crowd who (ironically) have Medicare to fall back on. In status quo, people my age have little rational expectation of a functioning medicare, social security, or government at all, unless massive and fundamental changes are undertaken, and we sure as hell know who ISN'T going to do them.

Are you drunk?

In any event, it's not the "change" I wanted, but it's still better than what we had. It's become clear that until the ultra-reactionaries self-destruct the GOP, we're unlikely to get any real legislation done again, ever, over anything.

I have noticed there is a very large element of "Fuck you, I got mine" from the 50 and over crowd who (ironically) have Medicare to fall back on. In status quo, people my age have little rational expectation of a functioning medicare, social security, or government at all, unless massive and fundamental changes are undertaken, and we sure as hell know who ISN'T going to do them.


You mean I could have fallen back on Medicare to help defray some of my out of pocket costs (a bit over $1000) for the surgery on my kidney in January? I am 57, and have been told I am not eligible for Medicare or Social Security until 62. Guess I need to look further into this. :confused:

This bill is a mess, so much crap thrown on top of it that passing it would be akin to bankrupting this country ( even more!).

This better than nothing is the wrong attitude. Actually address the issues seperately and maybe I can see it working. Throwing it all in one pot and calling it better than nothing isn't reality.

Malse, the GOP self destructing...lol I think the Dems are working hard to win that race.

yes, and you're still a steaming pile of ungrateful shit that would do better to keep his head under the kitchen sink fixing my damn leak.

Wow you are so funny!!!!

Hey the people in power don't have time to read the stuff they put in. They can pass it and fix the BS later my ass.

Are you guys still talking about health care? Its just idle chatter to occupy your mind anymore. Get with the real news.

www.zerohedge.com

You mean I could have fallen back on Medicare to help defray some of my out of pocket costs (a bit over $1000) for the surgery on my kidney in January? I am 57, and have been told I am not eligible for Medicare or Social Security until 62. Guess I need to look further into this. :confused:

In 5 years, you're effectively off the hook on healthcare costs. Not only a much larger part of my life in between here and there, I do not expect Medicare in its current form to exist in a recognizable form in 2055 barring a serious rethinking of how health is managed in the US, meaning I have the pleasure of paying for you with no return. I haven't met a single person under 40 who thinks we don't need serious healthcare reform.



the GOP self destructing...lol I think the Dems are working hard to win that race.


One of these parties is hemorrhaging money, candidates, and voters, demanding to implement purity tests, and has been hijacked by the religious zealots and insane. One of them has not, for its other innumerable faults. This may be workable to stir up fear in the geriatric, but the boomers are dying.

Democrats have to pass something just to prove they can, at this point. I've even seen the idiot pundits claiming that demo's control the house but republicans control the Senate...in the past 4 months...since when is 42 votes control?

Filibustering needs to require presence. Need a bathroom break? give up the damn floor. Right now it's like that star trek episode where the planet they came to had "modernized war" to be less violent.

The most amazing part of this is that people still use "is this the 'change' you wanted? hah hah!"

The Senate passed the Healthcare bill back in December.

They are going to add amendments through reconciliation to ensure that the bill will pass the House.

The Republicans used reconciliation quite a bit when they were in power.

The Dems definitely need to pass this to gain some political capital going into midterms. If you had a particular grievance against the bill someone might actually be able to address your concerns. Something a little more substantive than "It's crap" and "It's going to bankrupt the system."

I 100 percent agree with Malse.

We pay for what we will not EVER see already.

My parents and older relatives have that exact same attitude, don't mess with my health care. I paid in for all these years and now I get it. But when I ask...what about myself who pours TONS of $$ into won't get anything back out of it, or your grand kids. They have nothing to say.

I do not expect Medicare in its current form to exist in a recognizable form in 2055 barring a serious rethinking of how health is managed in the US, meaning I have the pleasure of paying for you with no return.



You mean you are repaying my investment in your grandparent's health-care?
Thank you.

That is, after all, how it was all designed by the shortsighted folks in office back then.

Well, what is the outcome of it not passing?

Obama gets to run down the clock as a lame duck and will go down in history as Jimmy Carter 2.0. The Republicans sweep the midterms and nothing gets passed the next 2 years. The country gets to wait a few more years for the Republicans to introduce something Health care related if they gain a majority control of government? Of course it would be fought as rigorously by the Democrats out of spite as the current bill is being fought by the Republicans....motivated by spite and partisanship rather than any desire to do anything constructive.

These kind of games typically only serve to further erode the public's faith in their elected officials. My parents have been actively commenting that our government and our nation as a whole has not actually been in agreement on anything since World War II. No common goals, morals or ethics to unite the country etc etc.

Yes the bill probably sucks, but the bill passing represents that our government is actually capable of doing something other than squabble and focus on what is in it for them to line their own pockets.

I hate to say this but I kind of agree with Fandros....to a degree. This bill, while definitely addressing the problem of the lack of coverage for many Americans, I am a bit concerned it doesn't do enough to address spiraling health care costs. However, it does do it some (whether it will do enough is questionable) simply by competing with private health care insurers. Of course many hate that because it will make it harder for the Health care CEOs to make tens of million dollars a year (or in some cases hundreds)

http://sickforprofit.com/ceos/

or for Helath Care companies in general to reap sick profits.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/health-insurers-post-record-profits/story?id=9818699

Meanwhile me Health care costs continue to rocket skyward every single year even as my income declines. If private run health care companies are allowed to stay in health care, I'd love to see there profits capped and there CEOs salaries governed. Of course, IMO, profit and health care don't mix well...and we are starting to see why. I would also like to see a lot of reform around malpractice....it's out of control as well. It needs to protect patients from gross negligence but also allow health care workers to do there jobs.

So am I for or against this bill. It doesn't do enough and I really worry about the cost, but at this point, it's about actually doing something in this country. I'm tired of nothing being done at all because the two stupid parties can't work together on anything...ever. The only thing either party cares about is the next fucking election, so they spew the rhetoric, half truths and flat out lies so they can torpedo the other party. Do this and then get started addressing more of the problems.

You mean you are repaying my investment in your grandparent's health-care?
Thank you.

That is, after all, how it was all designed by the shortsighted folks in office back then.

No, it was designed to be paid into by the people who would end up receiving it. The initial coverage debt from the 1960s is tiny and irrelevant to the current discussion and was paid off back when you were still young, which we can both thank the generation born 1930-1940. Then it got plundered and undercut by every successive administration elected by people your age, who are now the principal group opposing reform of the unsustainable mess they (as a group) made it. The only thing intrinsically wrong with Medicare is what is wrong with the US government as a whole, mainly that about 30% of our population are raging morons or raving lunatics, and they get enough ideologues in office who believe that government can never work and are willing to lie, cheat, and steal to make sure it never does.

I'm waiting for the first retirement home mass-shooting, as people under 40 are now coming into a political majority thanks to the boomer die off and they're pissed, largely at their parents. It's a sick society.



hate to say this but I kind of agree with Fandros....to a degree. This bill, while definitely addressing the problem of the lack of coverage for many Americans, I am a bit concerned it doesn't do enough to address spiraling health care costs.

A lot of us aren't happy with the bill, but it's a start, and you've got to start somewhere. By putting more of the system under public accountability, we'll get more eyes on the problem and more impetus to get the costs under control. Maybe it'll take 30 years to get us on par with what the rest of the world has had for the last 30, but it's better late than never.

And on the note of "moving towards good,"

http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2010/03.15.2010_reconciliation2010.PDF

the current house reconciliation appears to include "the public option." Full bill is around 350k words, which is a bunch but still readable within a few days.

Wow, that would be amazing if they could pull that off.

So today was obviously a huge day for health care reform. The Congressional Budget Office (non-partisan) announced that despite the $940 billion price tag (over 10 years) this will actually cut our deficit by $138 billion over that same time period with additional $1 trillion in cuts expected after that. Probably too good to be true, but a pretty impressive statistic none the less and leading to some that were against the bill planning to vote for it.

I'm , kinda, impressed by some of the work to reduce that monster bill.

HOWEVER....the endless reems of earmarks attached to it are fucking stupid and point to the ever self serving politicians we still have in that cess poll we call Washington DC>

...and every other political capital in the world.

They need to ban all earmarks.

Not because it will do away with something that for some reason people view as intrinsically evil. What they need to do is SHOW people what the fuck earmarks do for them.

It's bacon as long as it's not in MY district. Then it's a nice community center for me to take my children to after school. Take it ALL away. Put up a huge sign on that new highway project that says "Sorry. Construction halted due to lack of federal funding". People are fucking stupid, and cry about this wedge issue because it's been beaten into their brains that it's an important evil that must be done away with. They need to be shown that earmarking isn't some illegitimate, covert allocation of funds, but a crucial way for lawmakers to represent their constituents' interests.

Are earmarks self-serving? Sure, in the sense that elected officials want to be re-elected, which involves taking care of their constituents. This is the entire reason that they are voted to represent in the Congress. The only elected official who represents the nation as a whole is the President of the United States.

All politics is local. Duh, Congressmen and Senators are going to take care of their people. That's their job. Remember, EVERYONE (besides DC technically hehehehe) has multiple people representing them in the Congress. It's not like only some people are getting theirs - EVERYONE is a beneficiary of the system, whether you realize it or not.

(No, making Congress vote on every bill would not work.)

All politics is local. Duh, Congressmen and Senators are going to take care of their people. That's their job.


I wish, in the case of the Representative from the 6th District of Minnesota, that this was true. Michelle (call me crazy) Bachman has done nothing for her constituents, and does not even bother doing any serious fund-raising in the district, but instead goes over to a neighboring district with more conservatives with deeper pockets. She has just now thrown her support to fighting the Sierra Club and it's legal challenges to a bridge project that we have been trying to get done for over 30 years; just now, because nothing else she has been doing since the last election has gained any traction with her constituents, and she has some strong challengers this time around.

Sorry, felt the need to rant at this dingbat. :o

Thanks for that Ain I couldnt agree with you more. We just got a hell of a shot in the arm for our local economy on the backs of our legislators. it was ugly and slimy at times but if my senators hadnt put the pressure on to re do the AF tanker deal youd be seeing a massive amount of our dollars going into the pockets of EADS.

You work for Boeing? Rarely a week goes by that I'm not doing a shoot for Boeing or Northrop Grumman about that tanker project.

Ainwein, this is why I view your college degree and pursuit of a career as a sham.

Omg we can't ban earmarks because that's HOW WASHINGTON HAS ALWAYS WORKED>

No, fuck you .....Anything that has nothing to do with the original bill shouldn't be attached. Fuck that it means I scratched your back so scrach mine later.

Make it clear, until you see that...until you understand that's what the american folks want you are part of the self serving problem.

I don't want to see a gun issue attached to anything that doesn't involved gun rights. I don't want to see health issues attached to anything that doesn't involve health issues.

It'll happen one day, as we speak more and more folks are becoming mroe and more aware of the bullshit that is "earmarks/riders". As a rule most Americans don't give a damn, but they are starting to.

If I were you I'd change my pursuit of greed, it won't be another 20 years before a major change in how bills are passed will occur.

Fucking special interest groups you are hoping to line your own pocket will be exposed....bills will be voted on their own merit not the back door bullshit you ascribe to.

I loathe this aspect of the bill making process.....you're just too damn young and greedy to understand how it's corrupting our country.

There is nothing wrong with getting Federal dollars for your state. However, that new community center shouldn't be wrapped up in the new defense budget, it should be it's own "Hickville needs a pool" bill

And this is why the forums are dying.

Rational discuss derailed by angry old men. It's funny that you still haven't figured out that you cannot claim this elderly wisdom when you throw tantrums like a 2 year old.

And I guess for the people who are actually interested in discussing this topic:

You can't vote on every single appropriation of federal funding individually, as you suggested Elemak. Congress can barely keep up with their legislative caseload as is. The system cannot even come close to sustaining that workload.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34597.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34531.html


Critics of the plan said that DeMint’s attempt was misguided, saying that the Constitution gives Congress – not the Executive Branch – the power to direct federal spending, arguing that the money would be spent by the administration if Congress doesn’t earmark.



They also said that legislators have already made strides to make earmarking more transparent.

"It won't save a penny toward the deficit,” said Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), chairman of the Appropriations Committee. “It will allow unelected bureaucrats, who have no accountability to voters, to determine how federal tax dollars are expended, instead of the Congress.”


Just some information on the proposed earmark ban that recently failed to pass the Senate.


I think Inouye makes an extremely important argument here. Pretty much since the drafting of the Constitution we have seen a steady consolidation of power within the Executive branch. This has been accelerated under every administration since Reagan.

At least now you have some transparency and accountability. Go read about the EU policy making process. I seriously doubt our resident Conservatives would be happy with policy being generated by the US equivalent of a shadow rapporteur.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/11/news/economy/earmark_primer/index.htm

One last article everyone should read.

So earmarks aren't additional spending -- they're a portion of the total amount lawmakers have agreed to spend for a given year.

And again, remember that earmarks amount to less than 1% of the federal budget... Government allocation of resources and time is a ZERO-SUM game. CLEARLY this is what we need to be worrying about.

And I guess for the people who are actually interested in discussing this topic:

You can't vote on every single appropriation of federal funding individually, as you suggested Elemak. Congress can barely keep up with their legislative caseload as is. The system cannot even come close to sustaining that workload.
Except...how much time and energy is wasted fighting over additional items tacked onto bills? If each bill was a simple proposition/vote, maybe it would relieve that load considerably.

I'm not as angry and Fandros, but I agree with him. If a system is broken, you don't keep using it because that's the way it's always been - you fix the system and the method used to both propose and vote on bills and the way we distribute federal money.

Why is the system broken?


Except...how much time and energy is wasted fighting over additional items tacked onto bills? If each bill was a simple proposition/vote, maybe it would relieve that load considerably.Congress is a deliberative, parliamentary body. It's what they do. And no, please just believe me when I say that it is logistically, 100% impossible for Congress to vote up or down on every individual allocation of funds. There are many more important issues on their calendar that they still cannot seem to find time for.

I guess I'm just not understanding what you guys want.

1. We could ban earmarks. Okay, now you have funding being decided by a faceless bureaucrat... If you're arguing for transparency, I fail to see how advocating this can be anything but hypocritical. (Not to mention if not unconstitutional, it at least violates the spirit of the separation of powers and the power of the purse)

2. We vote up or down on each allocation of funds - Congress grinds to a halt. How'd that work for Newt Gingrich? You want to monopolize the Congress's time over < 1% of the budget?

3. We continue efforts to increase transparency. Earmarks are now publicly disclosed. If voters actually gave a shit, they can go to their Congressman's website and look at whatever earmarks they have attached to bills. If they don't like what they see, THEY CAN VOTE AGAINST THEIR REPRESENTATIVE/SENATOR. Is this not *exactly* how the system is supposed to work?

Operative phrase - "IF voters actually give a shit". They don't. This is why your claim that the legislative process is going to change in the next 20 years due to earmarking is absolutely retarded.

Except...how much time and energy is wasted fighting over additional items tacked onto bills? If each bill was a simple proposition/vote, maybe it would relieve that load considerably.

I'm not as angry and Fandros, but I agree with him. If a system is broken, you don't keep using it because that's the way it's always been - you fix the system and the method used to both propose and vote on bills and the way we distribute federal money.

Shooting over at Capitol Hill during the last week or two of a session you see its a frenzy to get stuff done. Its actually amazing how much stuff they go home with unfinished at the end of a session, though its equally important they come home and talk to their constituents so I can't expect the length of the sessions to change dramatically. Plus, there isn't a single day that I've seen on the hill when they don't have to go do 3-4 votes (totaling about an hour or two of their 9-10 hour day). IF they had to vote on every single earmark that would probably add another 2-3 hours per day, and we all know they aren't going to stay late ... so that would be 2-3 hours per day less that they couldn't sit in hearings or speak with constituents. I certainly don't see it as that big of a problem that would warrant them spending 33% less time researching and fact finding on the big issues.

It's really as simple as term limits.

You'll never convince a majority of career politicians to legislate themselves into handcuffs that don't have significant loopholes. Be it reforming earmarks, campaign finance, or whatever else, we've consistently seen that those championing the reform are often the biggest hypocrites.

It's really as simple as term limits.



This.

For some reason the bill isn't popular, though I fail to see why. Ultimately I'm proud of our president and in many ways our representatives for pushing forward the way they did ... potentially at the cost of their jobs. If you think about how much money the health care industry sank into this debate its amazing it passed. Clinton wasn't ever able to pull something this big off, and Bush could only do it while lying about it or in the face of a huge catastrophy. People nay bitch and moan, but no one can say President Obama isn't going to live up to his campaign promises.

And, for some counter-point, a great article from the Republican perspective of how things could get better, at least for them:
http://m.cnn.com/primary/_HGZFkw-ikliJO998a

It's amazing, Aingreed claims I'm angry old man and in the same breath proceeds to tell us how great a job the Hill does.

Lackwit, that collection of red tape loving monsters keep things in a quagmire on purpose so things are funneled through their hands.

I guarandamntee you within 20 years someone will have actully placed a president in place that will force real change. Clean up the red tape, make things cleaner and clearer......Ainwein will lose his job after being caught with his hands in the hip pockets of the special interest groups he's already salivating over.....

We can only hope, the way things are done now in Washington is a colossal joke that no private company would get away with and still remain in business.

Wake up....this bill does nothing but make my grandkids that much closer to a poverty line that will still have folks lacking in health care.

1) does nothing for malpractice suits that drive up costs
2) does nothing to look into forcing change how prices are decided by insurance companies
3) WTH is abortion doing in this mess? It's a major issue that needs it's own time in the sun.
4) This is a "legacy lump" meant only to make Pelosi/reid/Obama look like they got tons done.....when they merely fucked the system and put it all in one bill. A bill that will come to bring about the end of the Dem rule once folks actually read this fucking mess.

Fandros you're on a roll, don't let silly things like the facts get in the way of a good rant!

Yes Kelraz because you've spoken to the facts so well....I'm on point and you're still a fucking tool.

Yes Kelraz because you've spoken to the facts so well....I'm on point and you're still a fucking tool.

No, you're a child in an adults body, apparently. There's plenty wrong with the bill, a lot of stuff I'd like to see different - but to say its going to bankrupt us when it cuts our budget surplus is a great window to your lacking of independent thought outside of whats said on Fox, or understanding of the bill in any form for that matter.

Expanding government while cutting costs eh? First time for everything I supposed but I doubt it.

When it passed, medical and pharma stocks went up. That says a lot.

For the first time ever, a market rally has been blamed on Obama! Not discounting the interests of the heath insurance cartels, small market movement has never, ever, meant anything, and anyone who tells you it does is lying.

Expanding government while cutting costs eh? First time for everything I supposed but I doubt it.

Well for one, it adds about 32 million users to the insurance pool - roughly 10% of our population. These 32 million people go to the same hospitals everyone else use, but when they don't/can't pay they are covered already. And generally the costs are pretty high because the problems aren't taken care of early. Cancer and numerous diseases kill very slowly, painfully, and expensively and yet are easily curable if detected early.

And there is the income tax increase, which theoretically is smaller (for 95% of the population) than the cost it would be to provide health care for yourself now OR smaller than the burden placed on your employer (which is passed on to you, the employee, in the form of lower pay).

And there are penalties for employers who have a pretty large payroll (I think its $500k a year+) who don't provide insurance for their employees, penalties for those who are uninsured who don't go to get insurance (since we taxpayers and health care consumers already pay for them when they're in the hospital anyway).

And there are a lot of fraud, abuse, and waste cleaning measures to clean up Medicare - which we already pay for.

Etc, etc, etc.

For the first time ever, a market rally has been blamed on Obama! Not discounting the interests of the heath insurance cartels, small market movement has never, ever, meant anything, and anyone who tells you it does is lying.

Seriously though, hand waving aside, Tenet was up 9+%. That's not small movement.

Well for one, it adds about 32 million users to the insurance pool - roughly 10% of our population. These 32 million people go to the same hospitals everyone else use, but when they don't/can't pay they are covered already. And generally the costs are pretty high because the problems aren't taken care of early.

That's been the conventional wisdom; that people left with hospitals as primary care cost us a massive amount. These guys say it's only 3% of total health care expenditures (http://www3.acep.org/patients.aspx?id=25902) though. They also claim that the CDC found only 12.5% of emergency room visits were "non urgent" (though they didn't cite that).

Hard to know what's true, with people so polarized on "sides" at this point.

I view this bill as the starting point in a Sisyphean push against the juggernaut of the American greed engine, and like Sisyphus, we may be doomed never to get that boulder to the top of that hill (and one might argue that in this bill we threw ourselves under the wheels of our own idol ;) ). I'm cautiously optimistic that we got it, however. There's no question that 1) it was a huge giveaway to the insurance industries it was supposed to regulate, 2) that the 'good' (non looter-friendly) options were taken off the table before the debate even started, and 3) that it won't control cost increases nearly enough, even as it does a great many good things with regard to expanding coverage to the poor (especially the 'working poor') and previously uninsurable.

What the bill does do, despite and *because* of its flaws, is set a precedent - that managing health care costs and outcomes for ALL Americans is important for the health of the country (and thus properly within the purview of government, even if one doesn't buy the 'health care is a right, not a privelege' ideology), not only in a strictly fiscal sense but in terms of America's ability to compete and the proper functioning of society (not to mention quality of life itself). It is my hope that once we have something in place (well, we will in 2014 ;) ) that the squeeze will be on the insurance companies as they find it more and more difficult to raise costs indiscriminately (there are caps on how much of one's income people can be forced to pay for insurance, and minimum standards for said insurance, even as companies will try to strip more and more out of the policies to maintain profit margins). I predict that we'll get a trend towards more and more 'junk' insurance (because 'cadillac' plans are taxed, and because of the % of income cap), which will eventually precipitate a cry for further reform when people realize they're now being forced to pay for essentially nothing - and that that reform won't be a return to the previous system because it will have become completely untenable (being in a death spiral of rising costs and smaller pools already) but will have to more directly confront reality.

That's the hopeful hypothesis, anyway. In any case, I was glad to see Speaker Pelosi bring her herd of cats in, even as she had to accept more of the Senate provisions than the House would have liked - there's been a lot of hating on her thrown around here, but she has demonstrated true grit on this fight and is shaping up to be one of the most effective Speakers of the past 40 years. And I have to admit I got a bit of a tingle seeing her march arm in arm with her coalition, carrying the Medicare gavel in her hand, on Sunday to pass the bill...

Regards,
Nydia

P.S. You've got to love Joe Biden - he was caught on mic this morning whispering into Obama's ear "This is a big...fucking... deal." - It's already being spun on Fox as the coming of the Apocalypse... ;)

Clip of Biden here :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQeNikp1Rj8&feature=player_embedded

There are many things wrong with this bill, but the only thing more wrong is continuing the system as is. For instance, compulsory car insurance argument doesn't really hold up since no one forces you to buy a car, while you didn't really choose to have health. That was really there to make the insurance companies happy with the threat of fines if you don't have health insurance, and will most likely be overturned. But the greater danger is not doing anything about the health care system at all.

The bill is not perfect, but we could spend weeks and weeks and not get anything done at all. At least we have something to work with. It was never the intention for the first bill to be perfect, but really a good starting point.

I agree Rybit, something had to be done. My premiums have been going up 10% every year to almost $1200 a month for my family. Meanwhile the prick CEOs bring home tens of millions (in some cases over 100 mil) and the industry records record profits (up 56% last year). They're like the banks only they are literally bleeding us dry.

The bill passing is considered a step in the right direction. A step. Which implies there is quite a bit more climbing to do.

"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

So says the man who has had his health care provided by Uncle Sam for how many decades?

Its kind of funny that the GOP now has officially gone on record as being complete oppositionists on all current and future legislation. Isn't that how its been from the start?

It also means they've painted themselves into a corner. It'll be like that Monty Python sketch...

"Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position."
"Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'"
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't!"
"Yes it is!"
"Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes."
"No it isn't."

Its certainly a first step, but still has a ways to go. Hopefully, eventually we will move towards a modified single payer system.

This issue, with all the nut-job rhetoric by the talking heads on all sides, has done a wonderful job of further dividing the nation. Now, when the first shooting takes place, and the inevitable snowball effect has us rolling into the next civil war, which side will get to be blue and which gray?

And, if we do end up with violence erupting (meaning more hard core than what has already begun), will Palin's upcoming reality show on the TLC network be put on the shelf while she grabs her rifle and marshals the troops?

This country and it's political silliness is becoming little more than a joke to the rest of the world, and it matters little whether we have a Dem or Rep in the White House, we are still going to see increasing disrespect shown by other nations' leaders until we get our act together and remember why we called ourselves the 'United' States. Fighting over whether to ensure that all our citizens receive proper medical care makes us look like prize jerks to most of our allies. And I have no doubt it is providing fodder for those recruiters in the mid-east who wish to rant about the greedy, evil westerners who think only of themselves.

Hoover and his G-men used to have shootouts with these criminals, and chase them all over the country. Now, we bail out their failed banks and loan schemes, prop up their auto companies, and pass laws forcing people to buy insurance from them. Who would have thought we would come to this back in those days.

One last question in this obviously half-drunk rant: if they have no proof of citizenship, will they still be required to buy health insurance?

Yeah, the mandate and penalizing folks for not having it, is the one thing i really dont like. Pretty much forcing you onto the the private insurance companies. If they would have added in a public option it would be alot easier to cope with, since it would be alot cheaper and force the big insurance companies to compete with lowering there prices.
But of course they didnt add that in, i dont trust the insurance companies to play fair. Im hoping the supreme court strikes that part of the bill down as unconstitutional, Which would hopefully push towards getting a public option added in.

This issue, with all the nut-job rhetoric by the talking heads on all sides, has done a wonderful job of further dividing the nation. Now, when the first shooting takes place, and the inevitable snowball effect has us rolling into the next civil war, which side will get to be blue and which gray?

And, if we do end up with violence erupting (meaning more hard core than what has already begun), will Palin's upcoming reality show on the TLC network be put on the shelf while she grabs her rifle and marshals the troops?

This country and it's political silliness is becoming little more than a joke to the rest of the world, and it matters little whether we have a Dem or Rep in the White House, we are still going to see increasing disrespect shown by other nations' leaders until we get our act together and remember why we called ourselves the 'United' States. Fighting over whether to ensure that all our citizens receive proper medical care makes us look like prize jerks to most of our allies. And I have no doubt it is providing fodder for those recruiters in the mid-east who wish to rant about the greedy, evil westerners who think only of themselves.

Hoover and his G-men used to have shootouts with these criminals, and chase them all over the country. Now, we bail out their failed banks and loan schemes, prop up their auto companies, and pass laws forcing people to buy insurance from them. Who would have thought we would come to this back in those days.

I'm gonna be honest with you - I think you're blowing things dramatically out of proportion. For one, the very vocal Pro or Con are a tiny majority ... most of the country has a lot more important things in their lives than shooting up their neighbors over a bill which won't really impact their lives for a few years yet. As for our perception in the rest of the world, I'd think they could even less. You won't see any US health care discussion on the front page of a paper in Japan or China. When we're not invading countries with flimsy excuses and no evidence most probably couldn't give two shits about how our congress votes on domestic issues - much like how you and I have very little knowledge of who's ahead in the upcoming British elections (and watch a few minutes of Parliament and you'll see our floor speeches and the way Congress does business is actually quite civilized compared to the rest of the world). After all, when Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act there was far more heated discussion, debate, and outrage ... yet no real violent repercussions. Clinton's crime bill was also extremely polarized, and while it certainly sparked a fringe minority to take to arms many today probably wouldn't remember that Timmothy McVey and the events in Waco were inspired from the bills passage - now they're looked back at as just some lunatics (and rightfully so).

In fact, the polling is showing that the public's opinion of the bill and the way it all was handled is generally improving at a fairly significant pace (some polls are showing as much as 12-15% increase in the past 2 weeks, others showing around 4% increase per week, none are showing a decline).

And on that note, Congress probably has at least 30 votes a week. Most of these are passed with a sweeping majority of Republican and Democrat votes. Most of the outcomes can directly affect our lives, but we don't care enough to learn about them. I was over on the Hill today with the dude from Heroes and there were Republican and Democrat Congressmen chatting and laughing with each other exactly like you would with your colleagues at work on a Friday afternoon. They certainly aren't really as against each other as they'd like you to believe.

I'm gonna be honest with you - I think you're blowing things dramatically out of proportion.


Of course I am. That is the whole point; the nut-jobs on both sides have been doing exactly that and having the focus being on the ridiculous rather than the reality. And it is making all of us look pretty bad.

Here's the funny thing, the item that is creating the most furor and prompting the Republican law suits, the requirement for all citizens to have health insurance, was the Republicans idea. Mitt Romney enacted the provisions in his state:

"The Massachusetts health care reform law was enacted in 2006. It requires nearly every resident of Massachusetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts) to obtain health insurance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States) coverage."

This was after they maintained that it killed babies and old people of course. Found a quote by Bob Dole that summed it up:

"Sometimes people fight you just to fight you,"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/bob-dole-health-care-will_n_312837.html

The problem is, the GOP is ONLY worried about the next election. They couldn't care less what is good for the country, they just don't want the Democrats to have a victory by reforming health care. So they whip up the extreme (stupid) right by spewing lies and further split the country.

Health Care reform has been a hot issue with every administration for decades; the problem has been the complete inability to get both parties working on the same issue without partisan bickering, pointed fingers, distortions of fact, and of course, ego. 'Dubya' was advised, and wanted, to reform Health Care, but was told to put it in a drawer because that was the Clinton's baby and it would get no traction with the GOP. Nixon had a reform package all set to go forward, but nobody would touch anything attached to him once he was disgraced.

Guarantee every child in this country access to full medical care, and access to a good education, and we can once again be at the top of the heap. The problem is the pricetags on both of these items have excluded WAY TOO MANY from having any access at all.

Guarantee every child in this country access to full medical care, and access to a good education, and we can once again be at the top of the heap. The problem is the pricetags on both of these items have excluded WAY TOO MANY from having any access at all.

You also have to remember the whole underlying principle that much of what has gone on in our history as a country is a society based on individual freedom, pursuit and the underlying principles of laissez-faire economics. Those principles die hard as there is still some merit to having the right to pursue your own livelihood unhindered by as much government meddling as possible. See any history book or read Ayn Rand. Thus it has been that if you want the better seat or the better education or the best health care, you have to be in an economic position to afford it. It not too far removed from Darwinism. That's what the big deal is about.

So being able to offer health care to everyone that is affordable as well as being of a decent quality runs counter to many of the underlying principles of the country. Granted with health care there really is no plausible excuse to deny it other than the above mentioned philosophies and principles. In practice, everyone has some degree of emergency medical care. If you are uninsured and get into a car wreck, the hospital is still going to admit you and treat your wounds so that you survive. The bill for service may never get paid by the person receiving the treatment but there is a balance due and the tax payers usually end up footing the bill in the end. This is also the departure from the "I don't have to drive a car" argument in that if you don't have car insurance when you get into a wreck, the person you hit is arsed out as well as yourself and you are criminally liable. No so with health care. We are not at the point where hospitals decide if you live or die based on how the hospital will get paid.

You also have to remember the whole underlying principle that much of what has gone on in our history as a country is a society based on individual freedom, pursuit and the underlying principles of laissez-faire economics.

Agreed. And that history of our country was mostly written about a population roughly equal to California's; it can be argued those folks were not even capable of imagining the size of the U.S. population in the late 20th and early 21st century. There has been tremendous growth in science and medicine and technology along with the population; everyone wants access to that growth for their own benefit, so they can have their cell phones and laptops and get the best tests for cancer, etc. But too many are willing to deny those same benefits to others if it means altering that "underlying principle" that might have made sense 100 years ago, but is little more than selfish justification in this modern day.

We no longer have the option of working harder than the next guy to get ahead, as a society, when we have countless stories of folks who have done just that but who are still losing their homes and jobs when hit with catastrophic illness/accident and the accompanying medical bills. Add in the double digit unemployment, and it looks even bleaker.

There will never be complete agreement on this issue, and we will continue to look at it from our own perspectives, but we do not have to behave like idiots in the debate of the issue.

I am not going to argue that, Bylimet. I am merely pointing out what was the underlying principle to all this teaparty bullshit (other than an excuse to skip work and act the fool).

I am not going to argue that, Bylimet. I am merely pointing out what was the underlying principle to all this teaparty bullshit (other than an excuse to skip work and act the fool).

At the same time, the current tea party nonsense has little to do with underlying principles. It's almost entirely Astroturf at this point.

Skip work? Those people are all unemployed or retired :)

Here is my semi drunken rant. I hear all these "successful" business people talking about capitalism vs socialism and hard work, blah blah blah. Suppose Jamie Dimon had a kid with down syndrome. Is that kid going to fail and be on the street? Hell no, that kid will be a vp at jp morgan some day. People are ok with socialism when it is their family members, but fuck em all to hell if they are someone elses family member. We all help our parents when they get older, but why? If they cant sustain themselves because they didnt save and have horrible finances, why should we bother? How many of you have worked at a company where some douchbag has a senior position based one something definately not his qualifications and experience?

I agree with being rewarded for your performance / contributions, but it seems at the higher end protecting your personal assets at all costs transcends the true morality of capitalism and socialism.

People are all for free markets and competition when they are the little guy trying to gain market share. Once you are the big incumbent, whos time has passed and new little guys are nipping at your heels, you are all about protecting market share in infinate anti competitive ways, using political connections and whatever else your money can buy.