The no-vote vote is coming

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Why is it so quiet in here about the health care fiasco that is being rammed up the ass of the US citizens? Is it maybe because the liberal agenda recognizes the pure audacity that is the Obama administration using underhanded tactics to try to circumvent the checks and balances to get his own agenda pushed through? Has our government completely lost sight of the fact that they are representatives for the [strike]citizens[/strike] subjects of the country that are against this mess by a large majority?

Studies show that this bill is going to have our debt at 90% of our GDP by the end of the decade. It was at 53% when Bush left office. Of course, the only possible way to get that to trend down will be massive tax increases. It is good to know that this clown's administration is going to far surpass Bush's in its ineptness and only further reinforce that the checks and balances in this country need to be stronger. We can never have full control of both houses and the president under one party again.

On March 5, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gave us a preview of its take on the President’s budget proposals for Fiscal Year 2011 (starting October 1st this year) in a letter to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Inouye. CRFB blogged on key features of the preliminary analysis here and here. Buried in the letter is CBO's estimate that debt held by the public would rise to 90 percent of GDP by 2020 under the President’s budget. This is well above the administration’s own estimate (77 percent of GDP), and sets off alarm bells. Recent research by noted economists Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff (R&R) shows that countries grow more slowly when fiscal debt goes over the 90 percent debt-to-GDP threshold.

[Fairweather Pure]

Not only do I hope it goes through, I hope it is only the beginning.

[miir]

I think Fox News has hijacked Kilmoll's VV account!!

Why is it so quiet in here about the War on Terror/Patriot Act/Invasion of Iraq/etc fiascos that are being rammed up the ass of the US citizens? Is it maybe because the neo-con agenda recognizes the pure audacity that is the Bush administration using underhanded tactics to try to circumvent the checks and balances to get his own agenda pushed through? Has our government completely lost sight of the fact that they are representatives for the citizens subjects of the country that are against this mess by a large majority?

Say what!

[Zaelath]

The latest polling I heard was most people are for the initiatives in the bill, but against the "Obama Health Reform Bill".

That's quite the victory for the liberal biased media... I mean... yeah.

[Xatrei]

Hey, give the guy a break. He's not just some clod that dutifully swallows every bit of right-wing scare propaganda pushed his way by the Becks, Limbaughs, Savages and Hannitys of the world, and then blindly regurgitates it like any other Tea Party enthusiast, Ditto Head and FNC viewer. He's a thoughtful, contemplative moderate. He says so himself! He arrived at his stupid opinion honestly, by gawd.


btw - this health care bill sucks because it's been gutted by spineless democrats in a misguided effort to try to appeal to moderates (who don't want to go far enough) and conservatives (who will never agree with anything like this anyway). Even so, it's better than nothing, and opens the door to further reforms down the road. It's not what I, or many others want, but it's a start. Maybe.

[masteen]

I've been hoping the Democrats would grow some balls and do this shit for a long time. IMO, it's win-win for the American people, because if it works, we have better health care, and if it doesn't maybe shit will finally get bad enough for real change to happen.

[Sueven]

Capitol Hill is fucking nuts right now. Every major player-- the Chamber of Commerce, AHIP, the unions, OfA, the pro-life lobby, the tea party groups, and way more-- are mounting a desperate last-minute push. The switchboard is overloaded. The tea partiers have tried to organize people to flood offices in person. Not as many people have shown up as expected, but it's still significant. At times, there are dueling chants in Congressional hallways. The Nuns and the Bishops are fighting it out. It's epic.

The Congressional Budget Office is totally overloaded from having to score this thing over and over again, with all sorts of permutations and changes on each version. They're being forced to make projections over decades for things we're not even truly capable of modeling.

All of which is to say: I'm glad I don't work for Congress.

And it's a sign that the vote will be really close.

Whip counts have both "yes" and "no" with over 200 votes. If this passes, it's not going to be by much. At the moment, my intuition would give it maybe a 60-65% chance.

The Democrats got two significant votes today-- Dennis Kucinich and James Oberstar. Kucinich is the exceptionally liberal dude from Ohio who runs for President every four years, and he was threatening to hold out because the bill's not liberal enough-- he wants something like what Xatrei and Fairweather want. But he came around to the Xatrei point of view (it's this or nothing and this is better than nothing) and will vote for it, after a sales job from Obama. Now he's getting savaged by the leftier parts of the lefty political spectrum. Oberstar is a major pro-life Democrat who broke with Stupak, arguing that the Senate bill's abortion language is strong enough.

The next big thing to happen will be the release of the CBO's scoring of the bill, which is basically their analysis of how the bill will affect the federal budget. This report will almost certainly be positive. The Senate bill has a good CBO report, and all the House is doing is proposing a package of reconciliation changes to the Senate bill. Reconciliation rules basically require that the only changes you can make to a bill are changes that have a net positive effect on it's budget impact. So the score will have to be better.

That will basically be the last big thing to happen before the vote, so that score is the piece of news that will "sway" the "undecided" representatives. I think it's likely that the bill will pass, because it doesn't really make any sense to wait until a piece of good news is announced to declare that you're voting against the bill. I predict that the bill will pass on the backs of pro-life Democrats who announce that the Senate's abortion language is good enough and they can't pass up the opportunity to vote for this budget-neutral piece of legislation that will insure an additional 30 million Americans and so on, along with a few retiring Democrats who flip from "no" to "yes" for the sake of political expediency, and maybe a couple tough but legit no-to-yes flips who are actually staying in the House.

More broadly, I think the bill will pass because of the huge political stakes involved. The Democratic governing coalition has staked a ton of stature on the line for this. The Democrats will be hugely weakened if this fails. Thus, undecided voters (all Democrats) have the ability to deal a tremendous political blow to either the Republicans or the Democrats. That dynamic-- Democrats deciding whether to harm the Democratic or Republican party-- seems to favor the Democrats. Not only do they theoretically share more policy views in common with their party than the other, but they also rely on the party leadership for committee assignments, leadership roles, and, in general, power and authority. You think you're getting on the ways and means committee if you vote against this?

Also, how can Mitt Romney possibly successfully run for President after this? Obama is pushing something that's almost a mirror image of his plan, and it's apparently the first stage in an evil communist-authoritarian takeover of our country. There's no way he can permanently explain that away. Can you imagine a debate where he awkwardly tries to distinguish his healthcare plan with Obamas while Obama coolly explains why he's wrong? If this bill passes, Mitt Romney can't do it.

As far as the procedure goes:

It's not that unusual. To become law, a bill needs to be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, right? The Senate passed this bill with a full 60 votes. The House will vote on passing the bill soon. If they pass it, that's both houses of Congress and it can go to the President for signature. Sounds pretty straightforward to me. Meanwhile, the Democrats will also use reconciliation to change the bill. Reconciliation is basically equivalent to a second bill-- reconciliation amendments are made, they must be budgetary in nature, they are voted on by both houses. Assuming that the vote passes in the House, the reconciliation amendments will pass with it. The Senate will then have to vote on the reconciliation package. Because a cloture vote is not necessary on a reconciliation measure, the Senate can pass this package with 51 votes.

Now, I know that part of your argument is that the House may "deem" the Senate bill passed instead of voting to pass it. To which I say: Seriously? Who gives a fuck? They need a majority vote whether they're going to "deem" it passed or vote to pass it. Does it make any fucking difference whatsoever to say "my opponent voted for the Senate's healthcare bill" instead of "my opponent voted to deem the Senate's healthcare bill passed?" For that matter, does anyone give a shit whether or not someone voted for an earlier version of a piece of legislation that's not hugely different from the later piece that they did vote for and that did become law? I mean, this is just totally irrelevant.

Except for one thing: I'm not sure what happens if the Senate fails to pass the reconciliation amendments. I think, most likely, that the Senate bill becomes law without the changes (assuming Obama signs it). This might be a hedge by the House against that possibility. If this is the rationale (instead of bullshit semantics), I doubt it'll actually end up happening this way-- I think the House will exert enough pressure against the Senate to get a guarantee on the reconciliation package, so I can't the "deem" maneuver being necessary for this reason.

That's what's happening. It's a pretty straightforward process-- you pass two bills, voting on them in both houses, with only one of them subject to a cloture vote requirement. This requires 4 separate votes-- two House votes requiring majorities, one Senate vote requiring a majority, and one Senate vote requiring 60.

How is this in any way "underhanded" or "circumventing checks and balances"? There are roll calls. There are votes. They are majoritarian. They are taken by legitimately elected democratic officials in accordance with the Constitution. Is the process of passing this bill conventional? No, of course not. Major pieces of law often don't take conventional paths. But the fundamentals are: both houses of Congress pass a law, the President signs it. I don't see a legitimate process problem. What do you want them to do-- vote MORE times? When does it become democratic?

[Aabidano]

I've been hoping the Democrats would grow some balls and do this shit for a long time. IMO, it's win-win for the American people, because if it works, we have better health care, and if it doesn't maybe shit will finally get bad enough for real change to happen.

Absolutely.

We also need a new term for the RNC and their satellite clowns, because conservative they aren't.

[Xatrei]

Well, well, well... New preliminary CBO estimates for the health care bill, with reconciliation measures included, project a $130 billion reduction in the deficit over the next 10 years (that means it's going to get smaller, Kilmoll). Of course these are preliminary numbers, and they will be refined as the CBO works to perfect their estimate, but they shouldn't be moving too much, and certainly not enough to flip a $13 billion annual reduction into a huge (or even small) annual increase.

These 10 year numbers bring up a point that's been annoying me lately. Would people scream and cry more about our military spending if we referred to our military costs as a 7+ trillion dollar expansion in spending rather than the "mere" $680 billion (and rising) annual number? Would people be as freaked out about this big scary health care reform if they were constantly told the $70-90 billion a year it will cost us rather than being whipped into a lather by reform opponents touting the larger and scarier 10 year costs? Don't get me wrong, I understand the importance of projecting and the need to understand the long-term costs, but it seems to me that the tendency to focus on the bigger number is a newer tactic used by this effort's opposition.

EDIT: Corrected a serious brain fart I had while composing this.

[miir]

We also need a new term for the RNC and their satellite clowns, because conservative they aren't.

Let's call them moderates.

[Aabidano]

Someone called them bible swinging liberals, just need a short term for that

[Fairweather Pure]

Someone called them bible swinging liberals, just need a short term for that

Biblibs?

[Xatrei]

Except that there is nothing particularly liberal about them. Just call them what they are: sanctimonious, intolerant assholes. The conservatives can keep them.

[Boogahz]

sanctimonious intolerant assholes can apply to both sides though

[Sueven]

Update: The vote is thus far shaping up as I described. Some media outlets (right, left, and neutral) are starting to treat passage as an inevitability. I'm not-- the whip count still doesn't look great. It may be that Pelosi has people who are committed behind the scenes and haven't gone public yet, but it seems that there's still a long way to go before Sunday, and the margin for error is really thin.

[Sueven]

Also: I love the idea of the GOP running on repeal in the fall. Good luck overriding a Presidential veto guys. The GOP has energy and momentum-- if they blow it all futilely trying to repeal a law that's not going anywhere, I'll be thrilled. Assuming it passes.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Suev, I am appalled at the hows and whys of this massive bloated hunk of crap. To address a couple of things, the "deemed passed" vote is nothing more than a tactic to be used so there is no yes or no vote to tie these people to. They are considering that for only one reason...and that is that they KNOW they are going to get their asses handed to them in November because of this bill. A large majority of the US is against this bill. You can spout whatever bullshit you want saying different, but the people fucking spoke in Massachusets based solely on this bill and if you think that is the end you are BADLY mistaken.

Everyone in this country wants to fix health care. This bill and the liberals way of thinking is NOT going to fix it. This is not going to drive costs of health care down. It could well drive them UP. First problem is that with Medicare changes, many doctors are going to be closing up shop. It will simply not make them profitable enough to deal with the garbage. Second, it is going to raise taxes. There is simply no way that you can pound $940 billion in spending out without raising taxes.

The other serious issues with this whole thing are that reconciliation does not actually cover this. This is not a budget bill. They are railroading the process through when they could be sitting down and starting from scratch and developing a true long term plan. The other serious issue with this is that the federal government has no rights under the constitution to force people to buy health care. You either buy it or you pay a penalty.....and they have NO constitutional right to do this. Some states are already introducing legislation to protect their people from this bill.


To quote one of Bill Clinton's strategists:

“I would think that if the Democrats are unable to get a bipartisan agreement at that event, it would be a profound error to pass a healthcare bill with 51 or 52 votes in the Senate and a narrow majority in the House if they could get it, especially given the polls that show a solid majority of the American people oppose both the House and senate legislation.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

The latest count is 32 states who have had enough of this administration. Even Bush and his retarded antics did not have people riled up enough to pass state constitutional amendments against him and his policies.

According to statistics published by the National Conference of State Legislatures, legislators in at least 32 states are using their constitutionally protected power and shepherding bills through the individual assemblies that aim to block, limit, or outright declare unconstitutional any attempt by the federal government to require citizens to purchase health insurance.

• Alabama: HB 42 proposes a constitutional amendment that would prohibit anyone from being forced to purchase a health insurance policy or participate in a scheme to provide healthcare.

• Alaska: HJR35 was sponsored by Representative Kelly and if passed it would send to the people for their ratification a constitutional amendment preventing the federal government from compelling purchase of a health insurance policy or from restricting the right of contract in any such fashion.

• Arizona: HCR 2014 is a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would, among other things, forbid passage of any law compelling any person to participate in any health care system. This bill has passed both houses of the state legislature and will now go to the people for ratification on the next ballot.

• Arkansas: Representative Glidewell has sponsored a proposal that would add a state statute protecting the right of all Arkansans to exercise their own judgment in the purchase of health insurance.

• Colorado: HJR 10-1009 is a resolution specifically citing the 10th Amendment’s protection of a state’s right to govern itself.

• Florida: Joint resolutions in the state assembly are being considered which would propose a constitutional amendment prohibiting the adoption of any law that would compel participation in any healthcare system.

• Georgia: Several House and Senate resolutions propose a constitutional amendment providing that no law can compel participation in a healthcare system. Noticeably, one of the bills provides that no person would be subject to penalties or fines for not having health insurance.

• Idaho: HB 391, known as the “Idaho Health Freedom Act” would prohibit the compulsion of any citizen of that state from purchasing health insurance.

• Indiana: Various measures have been offered which would protect the right of citizens in that state to enter into private contracts for health insurance coverage and from being fined for not participating in any federally mandated scheme.

• Iowa: HJR 2007 proposes a state constitutional amendment protects the freedom of contracting for one’s own healthcare concerns.

• Kentucky: HB 307 prohibits by statute any law requiring any citizen to participate in a healthcare plan or from being penalized for any refusal to participate.

• Louisiana: A measure has been drafted that would impose a criminal fine on any local or state official that “attempts to coerce any individual to purchase health insurance.”

• Maryland: SB 397 seeks to enact a state constitutional amendment proscribing any law that would compel participation in a healthcare scheme.

• Michigan: Several resolutions have been offered by state legislators affirming the right of citizens to find their own healthcare solutions and protects them from paying fines associated with lack of compliance with federal mandates.

• Minnesota: A bill establishing a constitutional amendment that would protect freedom of choice with regard to contracting for the coverage of medical care.

• Mississippi: HCR 17 was written by Representative Monsour and it would propose a constitutional amendment prohibiting the compelling of participation in a healthcare program.

• Missouri: Joint resolutions in the state assembly would propose a constitutional amendment similar to those in its sister states prohibiting compulsory purchase of health insurance.

• Nebraska: A constitutional amendment has been proposed blocking the interference of the any law with the right of purchasing private health insurance.

• New Mexico: Two resolutions are working their way through the state legislature. Both would protect the right of citizens to work out their own health care solutions.

• North Dakota: HCR 3010 offers the enactment of a constitutional amendment that would protect freedom of choice with regard to healthcare.

• Ohio: Joint resolutions would put a constitutional amendment on the next ballot prohibiting fines for not complying with federal health care mandates and protecting the right of Ohioans to enter into contracts or not as they see fit.

• Oklahoma: The Oklahoma Senate has passed two bills by Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn Coffee expressing opposition to the healthcare legislation currently before the national legislature. “Washington has turned a deaf ear to the people this monstrosity would most directly effect. Our purpose is to make our voices heard from the Heartland to the Washington Beltway,” Coffee said. “Turning our health care over to the federal government is a serious problem that deserves serious discussion, even at the state level,” Coffee continued.

• Pennsylvania: HB 2053 would enact a statute prohibiting government action in the healthcare arena.

• South Carolina: Several bills have been sponsored that would “preempt any federal law or rule that restricts a person’s choice of private health care providers or the right to pay for medical services.”

• South Dakota: HJR 1001 offers a constitutional amendment forbidding the legislature from enacting any law restricting the freedom of choice with regard to private health care coverage.

• Tennessee: The State Senate passed the Tennessee Health Freedom Act by a vote fo 26-1. The bill mandates that the state attorney general file a legal challenge if the federal government were to penalize any Tennessean resident for failing to buy health insurance. The bill’s chief sponsor, Senator Mae Beavers, told reporters that, “I think we've seen the president is determined to get something done, and we don't want the citizens of Tennessee to be penalized in case they do." The bill must be approved by the House and signed by the governor before it would become law.

• Utah: H67 is a weaker version of similar measures in other states. The resolution in the Beehive State would require any state agency affected by federal health care mandates to report any changes to state policy to the state legislature before implementation.

• Virginia: Bills have passed both the State Senate and the House of Delegates protecting the state from the imposition of federal health care dictates. Virginia legislators on both sides of the aisle joined together in the defense of their state’s right to govern itself in all but the very specific areas set out by the Constitution.

• Washington: HB 2669 forbids the state from compelling a person from participating in a health care plan.

• West Virginia: The proposed “Health Care Freedom Act” asserts the right of West Virginians to enter into contracts according to their own desire. Also, the bill prohibits the state legislature from requiring any participation in a healthcare program.

• Wyoming: SJR 3 proposes a constitutional amendment similar to that passed in Arizona.

[Spang]

In 2007 we spent $2.24 trillion on health care, and it didn't lower the deficit.

[Winnow]

Obama is destroying the United States from within. Best super sleeper agent ever.

Grats to the "Yes we Canners" that voted this guy into office.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Health care spending is going to keep rising no matter what happens. It will rise because this country is filled with unhealthy eating habits and inactive people. Maybe they should scrap this bill and charge you lazy fat fucks for every pound you are overweight. They can tack on a penalty for not getting enough exercise and maybe add in some fast food taxes they can use to fund some of the actual needed health care mandates.

As far as I am concerned, they can bump up the taxes on tobacco, alchohol, snacks, fast food, etc and stop taking away money straight from my pocket for fucking working so I can help pay for lazy fuckstains that don't want to get their ass up at 6:30 and deal with assholes all day.

[Xatrei]

Obama is destroying the United States from within. Best super sleeper agent ever.

Grats to the "Yes we Canners" that voted this guy into office.

Nah, this country was destroyed by corporatist free marketeers long ago. It's just taking a while for the beast to die.

[Sueven]

To address a couple of things, the "deemed passed" vote is nothing more than a tactic to be used so there is no yes or no vote to tie these people to. They are considering that for only one reason...and that is that they KNOW they are going to get their asses handed to them in November because of this bill.

Yep, that's the political reason. Who gives a fuck? Does a majority voting that they "deem" the Senate bill passed instead of voting for the bill itself prevent you from knowing who voted which way? Does it stop it from being a majority vote? No? Then what the fuck does it matter?

A large majority of the US is against this bill. You can spout whatever bullshit you want saying different, but the people fucking spoke in Massachusets based solely on this bill and if you think that is the end you are BADLY mistaken.

Bold words for being wrong. 46% support - 42% oppose - 12% don't know. http://kff.org/kaiserpolls/8058.cfm.

More broadly: Will this vote hurt the Democrats in November? No. No, it will not. Think about this. Let's assume your (incorrect) point that a "large majority" of the United States is against this bill. If Democrats pass the bill, they can argue that they recognize it's controversial nature, they fought as hard to improve it as possible, and in the end they passed a bill that's better than the status quo. If they fail to pass it, what are they supposed to argue? I tried my damnedest to pass a bill that everyone hates, but I was too incompetent to succeed, so please re-elect me so I can try again? You seriously think that's a better message?

My guess: If this bill fails, Democrats lose the House. They probably don't lose the Senate, but might very well drop down to even. If this bill passes, Democrats retain the House, suffering significant losses, maybe 30+. They also retain the Senate with a minimum of 52 votes, more likely 54 or 55.

Everyone in this country wants to fix health care.

Really? Care to show me a legitimate proposal to the right of this one? And no, "malpractice reform" doesn't count.

The other serious issues with this whole thing are that reconciliation does not actually cover this. This is not a budget bill. They are railroading the process through when they could be sitting down and starting from scratch and developing a true long term plan.

The basic bill is not a budget bill and therefore doesn't fit under reconciliation. Fortunately for me, that one's already passed the Senate. The reconciliation sidecar is a budget bill and therefore fits under reconciliation. Fortunately for both of us, there's a process via which Republicans can raise objections to the sidecar, and a Senate parliamentarian who can rule on them, so our disagreement can be firmly resolved.

The other serious issue with this is that the federal government has no rights under the constitution to force people to buy health care. You either buy it or you pay a penalty.....and they have NO constitutional right to do this. Some states are already introducing legislation to protect their people from this bill.

Yes, they do. Fortunately, we have a process of judicial review and a Supreme Court-- a Supreme Court, I should note, that features 6 republican-appointed Justices. They will have the opportunity to evaluate your argument and resolve the matter.

I do dearly hope that if the processes set up to evaluate the procedural and constitutional merits of this legislation uphold it's legitimacy that you will shut up and stop whining.

The latest count is 32 states who have had enough of this administration. Even Bush and his retarded antics did not have people riled up enough to pass state constitutional amendments against him and his policies.

Did you seriously just post a list of PROPOSED legislative actions-- many of which are non-binding resolutions-- to demonstrate that these states have "had enough of this administration?" I think what you actually mean is that "at least one legislator in 32 states has had enough of this administration."

[Sueven]

To be fair, the Kaiser poll is more favorable than most. But even Rasmussen doesn't go higher than 50% opposed.

[Kaldaur]

The latest count is 32 states who have had enough of this administration. Even Bush and his retarded antics did not have people riled up enough to pass state constitutional amendments against him and his policies.

Did you seriously just post a list of PROPOSED legislative actions-- many of which are non-binding resolutions-- to demonstrate that these states have "had enough of this administration?" I think what you actually mean is that "at least one legislator in 32 states has had enough of this administration."

Lol.

[Aabidano]

My whole problem with this is retaining the concept of insurance in the scenario. We don't need more profits for the insurance companies, we need a public health care system. Nothing else will care for as many people economically.

[Forthe]

If I didn't know some of you through EQ (and other Usadians through work) I might think your whole country is batshit crazy.

All the crazy shit about marxist fascists destroying your country doesn't even make sense. People are throwing around labels not even caring what the definition of the words they are using even mean.

This health care proposal isn't even center left, it is a center right health care bill. In fact it is a Republican health care plan. Google 'Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993'.

A moderate republican bill of the 90s is now called socialism (ignoring the actual definition of socialism), the republicans has drifted so far right they view both fascism and marxism as the same thing and to the left of them.

However, as an agnostic that was raised Catholic the Nuns vs the Bishops is hilarious.

[Zaelath]

The contention that doctors would close up shop because they couldn't make money is laughable. If there was any issue there it would be that you need tort reform for medical malpractice, overwatch of malpractice insurance, and/or more competent doctors.

zomg, I can't make money in the most expensive health care system in the world, it's all your fault!

lololololol

[Sueven]

Funny:

Rove: "This thing is paid for with Bernie-Madoff-style accounting. ... It's a gigantic disaster."

Plouffe: "Karl and the Republicans would be familiar with that."

Rove: "You will bankrupt the country if this bill passes. ... For God's sake, will you stop throwing around epitaphs [sic] and deal with the facts for once, David? ... We will fight the election on this,. and the Democrats will have significant losses in the House and Senate as a result of this bill."

Plouffe: "If Karl and a lot of Republicans want to call the election already, they ought to break out that 'Mission Accomplished' banner."

Rove: "That's cheesy, David. ... You should not denigrate the mission of the USS Abraham Lincoln."

Via TPM.

[Xatrei]

Looks like the Stupak block of mentally challenged representatives are (probably) going to be coming around courtesy of concessions made by Obama and house Democrats. No official announcement has been made by Stupak himself, pending finalization of the language contained in a forthcoming executive order from Obama. At least two of the Stupak block have already announced their intention to vote for the bill, however. Also, the latest CBO estimates have increased the 10 year deficit reduction to 143 billion (from 138), and the 20 year reduction to 1.2 Trillion.

[Sueven]

Looks like a Stupak deal has been reached. The bill will pass.

The protesters in DC are loud and pretty volatile. I'm a little concerned about how they'll react to the roll call vote. Very likely that there will be no problems, but I'm keeping my eyes open.

[Xatrei]

Looks like a Stupak deal has been reached. The bill will pass.

The protesters in DC are loud and pretty volatile. I'm a little concerned about how they'll react to the roll call vote. Very likely that there will be no problems, but I'm keeping my eyes open.

Hopefully the security people will have a close watch on the "if Brown won't, a Browning will" idiots.

[Fairweather Pure]

Round 1 of healthcare reform.

Dems 1
Reps 0

Well, it's a start. There's still a long way to go.

[Winnow]

Round 1 of healthcare reform.

Dems 1
Reps 0

Well, it's a start. There's still a long way to go.

The counter punch will be devastating to the democrats.

Nice to see Obama cave, bringing women in the United States one step closer to losing all rights to their bodies.

If you're a women and American citizen, I'd fix yourself up in a setup like this and see how hot you look because it's not far off when you'll be forced to wear it.



Well, if you've got really hot eyes and the rest of your face is hideous, you're probably in favor of this bill. Better find a nice sterilized close hanger if you want an abortion.

[Spang]

Lol, conservatives suddenly give a shit about women's reproductive rights.

[Forthe]

The counter punch will be devastating to the democrats.

You better hope Dems remain incompetent at messaging because this is a losing fight for Repubs if they don't.

One thing Dems have going for them is Repubs have been so over the top with the rhetoric they are going to look like the boy that cried wolf when people wake up tomorrow morning and the world hasn't ended.

[Xatrei]

Round 1 of healthcare reform.

Dems 1
Reps 0

Well, it's a start. There's still a long way to go.

The counter punch will be devastating to the democrats.

Nice to see Obama cave, bringing women in the United States one step closer to losing all rights to their bodies.

If you're a women and American citizen, I'd fix yourself up in a setup like this and see how hot you look because it's not far off when you'll be forced to wear it.



Well, if you've got really hot eyes and the rest of your face is hideous, you're probably in favor of this bill. Better find a nice sterilized close hanger if you want an abortion.

Jesus Christ, you're a daft reactionary cunt sometimes. Do you even bother to read anything about what's actually going on before you vomit all over the boards with your tardery? The Hyde amendment, for better or worse, has been the law of the land for nearly 34 years. The insurance reform bill as it exists does not violate the Hyde Amendment in any way. Stupak & his stooges wanted to go beyond the limits imposed by Hyde with their own proposed amendment, which fortunately for all isn't going to happen. All that Obama's executive order does is reaffirms that the abortion funding provisions of Hyde will be respected by this bill, which was the case in any event. He may as well have issued an executive order reaffirming that stealing cars is bad. I'm not really sure how you see this as being the first slip down the slope towards anything akin to the taliban.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

The counter punch will be devastating to the democrats.

You better hope Dems remain incompetent at messaging because this is a losing fight for Repubs if they don't.

One thing Dems have going for them is Repubs have been so over the top with the rhetoric they are going to look like the boy that cried wolf when people wake up tomorrow morning and the world hasn't ended.

Only because this is going to end up in the courts for a loooong time. The economic ramifications of this bill are way past "we gave health care to everyone". Their stated plan that was live on CSPAN is that immigration reform is next up on the agenda. They also failed to state that they pulled some trickery to put some of their items into another bill to keep the CBP report showing that it would "reduce the deficit". I can't wait to see this one end up in the Supreme Court.

"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Khrushchev (1894-1971) Premier of the Soviet Union.

[Fairweather Pure]

Jesus Christ, do you ever get sick of being wrong?

[Spang]

Congratulations, comrades! Say goodbye to grandma!

[Tyek]

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson

I am scared. Frankly, I don't know exactly what all this means. Most of you don't either. Unless you were in the committees, you do not know exactly how this will work.

I am concerned that I am already losing 48% of my bonuses and it is not enough. I am concerned that the wife and I have to file as 0 dependents just to owe a couple grand. I am concerned that Congress is focusing on the big picture at our expense. If they truly looked into their programs and dropped the "consultants" from the books, audited their departments, ect we could find huge cost savings. This program scares me because it grows these bloated entities even more. If they promise to reassess the costs and programs in Medicare and the Student loan programs I would feel more comfortable with this.

I just feel like I have worked hard to get to this point. Do we make a lot of money? Yeah, but when did this become a bad thing? I am not opposed to the concepts of covering everyone, I just want to know that the money they are stealing from me is being well spent.

For the record, both parties are guilty of these excesses and bloating of these programs. I am truly tired of the "All Republican/All Democrat all of the time" rhetoric. We are being fucked continually by both parties and instead of true discourse we get idiots yelling "Baby Killer" in Session. We have people on this board who think all Republicans are gun toting bible thumpers, when in truth I bet both parties have some idealogy you would follow.

[Spang]

America, here's what you've won (and all of this stuff kicks in this year):

1. Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime coverage limits on your insurance. Never again will you face the risk of getting really sick and then, a few months in, having your insurer tell you "sorry, you've 'run out' of coverage." Almost everyone I've met knows someone who had insurance but got really, really sick (or had a kid get really sick) and ran into a lifetime cap.

2. If you don't know someone who has run into a lifetime cap, you probably know someone who has run into an annual cap. The use of these will be sharply limited. (They'll be eliminated entirely in 2014.)

3. Insurers can no longer tell kids with pre-existing conditions that they'll insure them "except for" the pre-existing condition. That's called pre-existing condition exclusion, and it's out the window.

4. A special, temporary program will help adults with pre-existing conditions get coverage. It expires in 2014, when the health insurance exchanges—basically big "pools" of businesses and individuals—come on-line. That's when all insurers will have to cover everyone, pre-existing condition or not.

5. Insurance companies can't drop you when you get sick, either—this plan means the end of "rescissions."

6. You can stay on your parents' insurance until you're 26.

7. Seniors get $250 towards closing the "donut hole" in their prescription drug coverage. Currently, prescription drug coverage ends once you've spent $2,700 on drugs and it doesn't kick in again until you've spent nearly $6,200. James Ridgeway wrote about the problems with the donut hole for Mother Jones in the September/October 2008 issue. Eventually, the health care reform bill will close the donut hole entirely. The AARP has more on immediate health care benefits for seniors. Next year (i.e. in nine months), 50 percent of the donut hole will be covered.

8. Medicare's preventive benefits now come with a free visit with your primary care doctor every year to plan out your prevention services. And there are no more co-pays for preventative services in Medicare.

9. This is a big one: small businesses get big tax credits—up to 50 percent of premium costs—for offering health insurance to their workers.

10. Insurers with unusually high administrative costs have to offer rebates to their customers, and every insurance company has to reveal how much it spends on overhead.

There's a lot more that happens down the road. But this is most of what you get now. No death panels included.

The Source

[Tyek]

America, here's what you've won (and all of this stuff kicks in this year):

1. Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime coverage limits on your insurance. Never again will you face the risk of getting really sick and then, a few months in, having your insurer tell you "sorry, you've 'run out' of coverage." Almost everyone I've met knows someone who had insurance but got really, really sick (or had a kid get really sick) and ran into a lifetime cap.

2. If you don't know someone who has run into a lifetime cap, you probably know someone who has run into an annual cap. The use of these will be sharply limited. (They'll be eliminated entirely in 2014.)

3. Insurers can no longer tell kids with pre-existing conditions that they'll insure them "except for" the pre-existing condition. That's called pre-existing condition exclusion, and it's out the window.

4. A special, temporary program will help adults with pre-existing conditions get coverage. It expires in 2014, when the health insurance exchanges—basically big "pools" of businesses and individuals—come on-line. That's when all insurers will have to cover everyone, pre-existing condition or not.

5. Insurance companies can't drop you when you get sick, either—this plan means the end of "rescissions."

6. You can stay on your parents' insurance until you're 26.

7. Seniors get $250 towards closing the "donut hole" in their prescription drug coverage. Currently, prescription drug coverage ends once you've spent $2,700 on drugs and it doesn't kick in again until you've spent nearly $6,200. James Ridgeway wrote about the problems with the donut hole for Mother Jones in the September/October 2008 issue. Eventually, the health care reform bill will close the donut hole entirely. The AARP has more on immediate health care benefits for seniors. Next year (i.e. in nine months), 50 percent of the donut hole will be covered.

8. Medicare's preventive benefits now come with a free visit with your primary care doctor every year to plan out your prevention services. And there are no more co-pays for preventative services in Medicare.

9. This is a big one: small businesses get big tax credits—up to 50 percent of premium costs—for offering health insurance to their workers.

10. Insurers with unusually high administrative costs have to offer rebates to their customers, and every insurance company has to reveal how much it spends on overhead.

There's a lot more that happens down the road. But this is most of what you get now. No death panels included.

The Source

10. Insurers with unusually high administrative costs have to offer rebates to their customers, and every insurance company has to reveal how much it spends on overhead.

DOES THIS INCLUDE GOVERNMENTAL INSURANCE????? I would guess not.

And who the fuck needs to be on mom and dad's insurance until they are 26?

[Winnow]

This is pretty fucked up. Even you liberal types should be ashamed. This is a great day if you're a lazy poor slob.

[Spang]

Shit, I forgot to get a loaf of bread yesterday. I'm probably gonna have to wait in line for a few hours for a loaf today, while dodging a falling sky.

[Zaelath]

This is pretty fucked up. Even you liberal types should be ashamed. This is a great day if you're a lazy poor slob.

You realise you're the *last* advanced economy in the world to go down this path, right?

[Sueven]

This is pretty fucked up. Even you liberal types should be ashamed. This is a great day if you're a lazy poor slob.

Ah yes, I never realized this before: My friends with cancer, cystic fibrosis and other diseases are just suffering from a failure of personal responsibility. If only I had realized this before the bill passed.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Are you going stupid? You damn well know that a large majority of the health care spending in this country is a direct result of people's own unhealthy eating habits and lifestyle. With that being undisputable, you still have the audacity to say that the system itself was more broken and back plans that do NOTHING tofix the underlying issue.

I am sure this is all just us bible thumpers bitching about our racial hatred of the negroes...and we can ignore the fact that the bipartisan efforts came about in Congress weer bipartisan efforts AGAINST this bill. Lets also compeltely ignore the fact that their plans for changing this hunk of crap are geared to a government run option along with making all of the illegal immigrants legal. Oh yea....that is going to be a HUGE help. Even CNN shows that the CBO's take on this was completely offbase and was using some serious stretch of imagination to make it fly. One of the CBO's theories on how this will save money is that by taxing the better health care plans higher, that employers will eliminate those health care plans (great reform there...taking a good plan and wrecking it) to use cheaper ones and then theorizes the companies will take the savings from that and pass it on to their employees....which will then pay for this bill with the taxes on those higher wages.

Are you fucking serious? Does anyone outside of the imbeciles in Congress actually believe that is going to happen? Is anyone in this country grounded in reality?

[miir]

Jeez man, you're all over the place... It's like you're just flailing wildly.



This healthcare reform is far from perfect but it's a step in the right direction... anything is better than the status quo.

[Fairweather Pure]

You damn well know that a large majority of the health care spending in this country is a direct result of people's own unhealthy eating habits and lifestyle. With that being undisputable, you still have the audacity to say that the system itself was more broken and back plans that do NOTHING tofix the underlying issue.

Do you honestly believe the largest strain on our health care system are fat and lazy people? How can you say that's "undisputable" when you're not even close to being correct? The vast majority of health care spending is on the elderly, traumatic injuries and thier after effects, and genetic conditions that require a lifetime of various levels of care (pre-exisiting conditions).

The 98 yr old Grandma Moses, who has been to the ICU 5 times this year with pneumonia, renal failure, senile dementia, and complications from CVA will rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills. Unlike your claim, that is actually undisputable.