Procedual Vote Passes - 60 Votes!

We're going to get something good out of this, at least regulations that end the abuses of health insurance. I am hopeful that the bill will have enough substance to make a difference. We sure need it!

At this point I'd be happy with 1:) No one dies because they don't have health insurance 2:) No one needs to file bankruptcy because they're underinsured 3:) No more pre-existing conditions. When the insurance companies started to deny coverage because you used an acne cream when you were a teenager, or you have a nice healthy "chubby" baby, or you're toddler daughter is to petite at 2......

kj031056-1

And all of that could be done quite easily, without all the health care gorilla dust. Good post.

ScienceGuy-356641

The Grand Obstructionist Party will now bemoan the end of society as we know it

ok, I'll play along...

This is the end of society as we know it!

ScienceGuy and Dave, my wife and I were discussing whether any Amendments should be entertained by those who voted not to debate (and therefore amend) the Senate bill. That might be the first point regarding hypocrisy raised in response, as we might hear Dick Durbin rise in response and say, "While I cannot in good conscience support the Amendment offered by my fine colleage who voted to disallow any debate or Amendments regarding this bill, I would like for his entire caucus to consider the new designer suit pants now being created just for them with both back pockets running sidesways rather than vertically. This makes it much easier to keep their hands warm while sitting on them." (On a lighter note... :)

Finally, these democrats in the senate passed something, now we have to wait and see what happens next. Hopefully, they can rap this thing up soon, because is taken so long to get to this point.

You do realize that if it passes as currently constructed, you won't see any benefit from it for years right? But you'll start paying for it immediately.

What the heck!, that's health care on lay-away,LOL, not health care right away. So what happens to Americans that are not too poor to get medicaid, but can't afford to pay for a life saving procedure that needs to be performed immediately, or the person risks death? Do they have to wait until next election to try and get some help? There is something wrong with our political system that needs to be addressed, right away, if we want to survive as a country. We have a corrupt system that seemed to affect both parties. We need to vote against all incumbents out there, from both sides, and we also need term limits in congress. The founders made a great system of governing, but in recent time the entrench corrupt interest have set up shop in the offices of every politician in Washington, and we need to exterminate that corruption from our government. for ever. We need to stop the congress, and the senate from prostituting their votes to the highest bidder. This needs to stop NOW!

toponer

I agree. And this is right after they celebrated Byrd being in there so long that he doesn't know WTF he is doing, or where he is. How did it become cool to spend your entire life sitting on your ass in govt.? Re-electing a guy for that long goes against everything our govt. is supposed to represent.

Career politicians are the first thing we need to fix. Get rid of them. I'll take a new idiot, over an entrenched (and potentially corrupt) idiot any day.

Mike, my former Iowa US Senator Tom Harkin pointed out that several of the benefits you appreciated in the posts above would take effect immadiately -- regulations on insurance companies regarding not being able to cut people off their insurance when they get sick or turn them down for pre-existing conditions. The things that will be phased in are the more complex insurance purchasing exchanges and creation of any public plan to incentivize private industry to be more competitive. To do those things right, and at the smallest up-front cost to tax-payers like you and me, they are being phased-in over time so they can be implemented correctly. This is uncharted terrain so it's going to take a lot of work and checking on how well it works before it's rolled out.

At least that's the way Tom Harkin saw it. I now live in the land of Wellstone (Harkin's old buddy, Franken's mentor), so Tom's not my Senator any more. But I always admired his forthright commentary -- even waaay back in the 1970s as a Congressman in debates on the then MacNeil-Lehrer Report.

Yeah, I don't doubt it. I guess right now, the real question is what will this bill look like after reconciliation, and can they pass it.

Sounds beautiful. I hope I can get it in hardcover.

The Iraq/Afghanistan war is costing the U.S. more than $20 billion a month, slightly more than DOUBLE of what the health care bill will cost America.

As an added bonus, we get live people, instead of dead ones.

It's time to get the priorities straight and move on.

Is it reassuring that I work for one of the nation's largest benefits administrators and I am not concerned about losing my job?

Honestly, I don't see anything in the bill that amounts to being anything I would care much about. I think it's great that everyone will have access to healthcare.

Not to mention the fact that I haven't been able to use my chiropractic benefits for years because I was once in a car accident!

Yeah, the sick tragedy of it is that I have better benefits than anybody I know (barring you now, of course). I can't imagine what it's like for others out there who are getting completely absurd rejection reasoning.

Yeah, republicans tend to forget that we can actually change our minds down the road.

What kills me is the total ignorance for the fact that:

A - We already pay for the uninsured, it just comes in the form of dollar-for-dollar tax breaks for hospitals when they write off a bill.
B - Healthy people means more working people, which means less dependence on social security and welfare, which means ultimately that it saves us money.

If only we had lawmakers who could see the long term benefits of higher education for all. It's not like social or economical benefits could be gleaned from a healthy and well educated workforce, right?

Joke for Par4theCourse:

What does the roofer say when he falls off the roof?

'I hate this part of the job...'

I read a comment back there about the length of time between a possible signing of the bill into law and the implementation of the exchange and the (hopefully) public option. And the responder said basically, 'Spreading out the costs...'

That person is right. If they had enacted a single-payer system like Medicare, it would have gone into effect immediately and the costs would be greater. I think some people are frightened of the health bill for nothing. There are a couple of reasons besides the obvious ones why this bill is a good thing.

The US suffers great losses to its GNP from sick workers, or workers who continue their jobs in a less effective manner due to chronic, untreated illnesses. Also, the number of people without coverage means we risk a greater chance of a pandemic spreading quickly throughout the country.

Forcing health companies to play fair is going to mean a happier, healthier America, one where the worry of non-coverage and your entire life savings, your home, etc all disappearing will no longer apply.

Oh...the fight for Medicare was TOUGH, and some Dems voted against it. But it finally passed, and they've been tweaking it up every few years, trying to improve it.

Actually, this public option/insurance exchange might be a good middle ground that fits our needs very well. We won't be just ignoring the uninsured, but neither will we be doing complete socialized medicine, as they do in Britain with the National Health Service.

When people call the US version of health reform 'socialized medicine,' remind them of this fact: Socialized medicine is when the government builds their own hospitals and clinics, staffs them, and opens up for business. This is not the US proposal.

I was actually AGAINST the single-payer for one good reason. I have no desire to put insurance companies out of business. When the Brits enacted their National Health Service in 1948, medical insurance was nothing like the multi-billion, massively employed, major expediture business it is today in America. We can't just roll these insurance companies under the bus and let them go out of business. But we CAN make them play fair, and when they are forced to do so, they will also be paying for a large portion of this new care because they will now have to cover things they used to dismiss out of hand.

They'll still make a profit. It just won't be so obscene.

Their profit margins aren't that great.

I agree with your sentiment on dumbed down America however, I would add that there are millions of high school graduates every year in America who would jump at a post-secondary education if only the opportunity would present itself.

Hell, the only reason why conservatives foam at the mouth when you talk about education is because they like stupid people, who else would vote their way?

Dustin, I think they are against others receiving post-secondary education assistance because that would create more competition for their own kids. And I think that they might wake up some day to realize that the competition is now coming from Asia and they have no control over keeping those kids from competing. They're kinda like GM. They took their powerful position for granted and now the world has changed and they are going the way of the dinosaur.

I would disagree. The RNC has and always will consider education to be a stronghold of Democratic thinking and they compel their followers to believe that higher education is just a liberal tool.

I have honestly met many conservatives who think that universities actually teach lies in order to indoctrinate liberal values.

Though, you may be onto something in that conservatives, though they think of themselves are the hardest-working people in the world, may on a deep level understand that their lack of education is a problem.

Dustin-265090

I have honestly met many conservatives who think that universities actually teach lies in order to indoctrinate liberal values.

They do just that! Do you want examples, or would you believe me if I provided such?

Right...

Mike, just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it a lie.

You just proved my point about how threatened conservatives are by pure fact and education.

That's amazing! You just put your blinders on, and you haven't even heard the statement yet. You are the definition of closed minded, but I guess you think you are smart and resolved.

You just proved my point about how liberals refuse to listen to anything that doesn't agree with what they already believe! Nice Job!

Pure fact and education? What do you know about either?

Are you really going to try and turn that one on me?

You came on here tagging educational institutions (which by the way, unlike your church, do not deal in conjecture) as liberal breeding ground and "offered" specific examples.

Closed minded is calling a school liberal because they teach something you don't like. Everyone has the opportunity to decide whether they agree with something but you don't like others having their own opinion.

Go troll somewhere else.

Dustin-265090

which by the way, unlike your church

Another assumption? I am an atheist.

You came on here tagging educational institutions

Did I?, or did I simply say...

They do just that! Do you want examples, or would you believe me if I provided such?

That sounds different from your tagging characterization.

Closed minded is calling a school liberal

Who did that? Did I call "a school" liberal, or any school for that matter, or did I simply respond to your statement of...

I have honestly met many conservatives who think that universities actually teach lies in order to indoctrinate liberal values.

Go troll somewhere else.

Interesting. So, you make a comment, I respond and ask you if you want examples, you become enraged and irrational, and follow it up by mis-characterizing the entire exchange, but then you call me a troll.

You exemplify the liberal left.

I'll let you go back to your close-minded cheer-leading of the leftist ideology unfettered. You obviously don't want any counter-opinions, and refuse to examine, or even hear any opposing facts or viewpoints.

Where are your examples? What method did you use to prove the schools wrong?

Isn't it even slightly funny to you that you believe editing my statements is going to validate your point? Examples below.

What I said:

You came on here tagging educational institutions (which by the way, unlike your church, do not deal in conjecture) as liberal breeding ground and "offered" specific examples

How you presented it:

You came on here tagging educational institutions

I still want to see some proof.

By the way, you still can't tell me that students have the right to believe what they want. In conservatism, you have to be a hardliner...or they'll cannibalize you.

Dustin-265090

I still want to see some proof.

really, what about when I said...

Do you want examples

and your reply...

Right...

Mike, just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it a lie.

You just proved my point about how threatened conservatives are by pure fact and education.

but now you want to discuss it? After calling me a troll?

Yeah, I called you a troll. Because you are one.

Alas...still no proof. Just trolling.

If it's worth my two cents worth, students can go to schools to be indoctrinated as they wish. In my own home-town of Des Moines, Iowa, I took a course on Socrates from a well-written political science professor at Drake University only to be blown away by his making the entire course a comparison of Socrates and Jesus and always "proving" that Jesus was inferior in that comparison. (Apples and oranges to me). Well, I don't know if he did that through the entire course. After several weeks of that garbage and him getting upset when I dared to ask a polite question, I dropped the class and told the administration, "hey, i want my money back." Alas, I still had to pay the $500.

But if one wants to be more conservatively indoctrinated, they can go to Pepperdine. I believe the fellow who prosecuted Bill Clinton is the dean there these days.

Or if you want a slice of liberal pie, there's Harvard, or many state universities. I don't think a lot of professors are as pushy with their beliefs, or intentional, especially when the classes are non-political, like Organizational Communications, or Business Communications, or Weight Lifting. Though I knew that each of the professors/coaches had a particular political view outside the classroom, I saw no influence on what or how they taught (they were, respectively, very liberal, moderate and conservative).

I've read that with increasing educational levels people generaly tend to be more liberal -- generally being as a norm not every individual. So it makes sense that the professors have more PhD's than the rest of us, tend to be more liberal and therefore see everything through a more liberal lense.

What was fascinating to me was my older sister getting in trouble in Junior High School for challenging a history teacher who said that FDR did not end the Great Depression and that the New Deal programs did nothing to eliminate the high unemployment, etc. My father had lived through that era and had told us often how everyone, everywhere, had a picture of Roosevelt in their living rooms, usually above the hearth, etc., and that he saved this country by giving us hope and dignity.

Well, from a purely economic perspective, that history teacher may have had a point, but from a psychological perspective so did our Dad. One doesn't have to wait for post-secondary education to find teachers with radical or anti-radical biases. I had a high school history teacher give me full credit for a research paper on Henry A. Wallace, FDR's 2-term VP, only to hand it back to and say, "it's a shame he was such a crack-pot, though."

I wonder how detrimental the lack of education, specifically yours, is for our nation.

I'd rather pay for a surgery that returns someone to work than a lifetime of welfare benefits.

That put anything into perpective?

I wonder if any of us will have any idea what is in it before they try to finish this process. It has to be reconciled, which is where the real bill is going to be created from the two that have passed. But will we have any idea what they are voting for, when they vote on this?

That's part of what bothers me about this entire affair, we are passing bills just to create something that we don't even know about. This isn't representative democracy, it's something else altogether.

Belinda, I think the Republican caucus is shooting themselves in both feet with the way they are simply being "Dr. No" on this. I noted their first defection. One Republican Senator did not vote. Their caucus may already be starting to fall apart.

We need their insight, not their roadblocks. I think their own constituents are getting through to them, one at a time...

Not one Democrat or Independent was willing to join that mad ostrich approach.

(Thanking the Lord for small favors :)

Mike Lonkouski says in part: (regarding working of the health care bill)

'This isn't representative democracy, it's something else altogether.'

Democrats have been fighting about the exact nature and funding of this bill since the start, and support is by no means in lock-step with the President. No, that concept is left to Republicans alone. In Congress, and to a smaller extent in the U.S. Senate, this is how G.O.P. leadership convinces Congressmen and Senators to stand universally against the President's proposals:

They deny chairmanships on committees and withhold support in the next election. In other words, if you voted for a Republican Congressman in the last election, your vote was wasted, because they do not vote their conscience. They vote what GOP leadership TELLS them to vote.

Or haven't you wondered why they vote universally? You would normally figure in a few renegades, or some who represent districts where the majority of their constituents support health care reform. There were exactly zero Republicans who voted YES for reform, with the exception of Representative Joseph Cao (R-Louisiana).

He won't be getting any new chairmanships anytime soon. Personally, I hope the people of New Orleans vote him in for another term, and I'm a Democrat. At least he represents his district.

Robert Blevins - AB of Seattle

They vote what GOP leadership TELLS them to vote.

Are you going to tell me that when we have a straight party line vote like this, that the Dem's are any different?

Look at the numbers, this entire affair has been a party line fight.

Mike L quotes my comment and follows it with his own

My comment: 'They vote what GOP leadership TELLS them to vote.'

Mike responds, in part:

Are you going to tell me that when we have a straight party line vote like this, that the Dem's are any different?

Look at the numbers, this entire affair has been a party line fight.

Numbers? Sure.

39 Democrats in Congress voted against the health care bill. The majority of them come from districts who voted for McCain in the last election. One-third of them were freshmen. One Republican voted FOR health reform, Joesph Cao of New Orleans.

It was a different story back in 1965 when they passed Medicare. There was no stonewalling, only differences of opinion that were eventually figured out in a democratic manner. This is how the voting went:

SENATE

YEA

NAY

NOT VOTING

Democrats

57

7

4

Republicans

13

17

2

HOUSE

YEA

NAY

NOT VOTING

Democrats

237

48

8

Republicans

70

68

2

Hmm...well that paste about the 1965 Medicare vote didn't show up as it did in the preview. Sorry about that. (Delete it if you wish...I would)

Let me simplify:

House/Democrats: Yes - 237 No - 48 Not Voting - 8

House/Republicans: Yes - 70 No - 68 Not Voting - 2

Senate/Democrats: Yes - 57 No - 7 Not Voting - 4

Senate/Republicans: Yes - 13 No - 17 Not Voting - 2

That, my friends, was a good example of democracy at work. There is no stonewalling there, or any straight party line vote. It shows some debate and legitimate differences of opinion, rather than heavy-handed bludgeoning by party leadership in Washington. The one thing that helped it over the top was LBJ's strong support for the bill.

Well, I took for granted that we were discussing the more recent Senate vote, but despite your efforts to marginalize my comments, I am sure that you recognize the purely partisan nature of the debate.

You acknowledge the purely political nature of those Democrat defections and we both know that.

Now, if you would like to propagate the false assertion that these defections somehow make the passage more bi-partisan, I'd say that you are being intellectually dishonest.

Mike,

I totally agree with you about senator Bird. Can you imagine any other person continuing to keep their job in the condition that senator is in, he can't even complete a whole sentence without drooling, LOL. okay,That was over the top, but you get my point. We need term limits on both houses of congress. why do senators get six year terms, what's so special about them? They are the worst of the lot.

toponer, I respectfully disagree with terms limits for anyone but executives (governors, presidents) because otherwise we are putting Democracy on auto-pilot. Teddy Kennedy is an excellent example of someone that the people of his state continued to send back to be the "Lion of the Senate," and many of his successes were in the latter years, not the early ones.

As voters, we should pay more attention to what our representatives do. If we kept changing horses, nobody would be able to remember who did what, everybody in Congress would be on a learning curve and the lobbyists would be far more successful in manipulating them. It would be like the British commedy, "Yes, Minister," in which the newly-elected Minister's top aide constantly manipulates him while always saying, "yes, Minister."

Senators and Representatives do eventually fall out of favor with their electorate, as we saw with Mitch McConnell having a hard time getting re-elected and Arlen Specter having to change parties to stay alive, ditto with Lieberman who did change parties. Even when the voters don't initially succeed in throwing the bum out, it is their awesome responsibility just as serious as their right to own a gun under the 2nd Amendment. It is their citizen-duty and we should keep that duty intact. If there are things we can do to make challenging incumbents easier or keep incumbents from using lobbyist money to become virtually unbeatable, then there may be things we can legislate in campaign finance.

Quick fixes always bother me, though.

Excellent joke! I will have to remember that. I am an Independent but always thought of myself as being more Republican. Not any more. Since the election I've gotten a good hard look at the Republican party and I don't like what I see. Stupid parlor tricks like taping the health care reform bill end to end has revolted me. They need to step up to the table and do some work and stop playing games and pissing around and maybe actually think about the American people for once.