Hello:

The Democrats are soooo good, that they BEGAN the health care debate with a compromise, then they compromised the compromised, and then compromised it again. Then president Leiberman weighed in, and they compromised it some more.

Now, they've got 2,000 something pages that does nothing but award the insurance companies... Way to go, Republicans... All you had to do was sit on the sidelines, throw out a few choice words now and then, like death panel, and watch the Democrats self destruct, which they promptly did.

As I suggested earlier, the Dem's failure is a Sarah Palin victory. Even if they pass this empty bill, they will go down in flames in 2010 and flamier in 2012.

Let me also project, that since Obama has NOT ended the practice of torture, no matter WHAT he said, if you thought you saw us do bad stuff under the dufus, just wait till Sarah Baracuda takes charge.

excon

Yeah Howard Dean is pretty steamed.
Still waiting to hear that secret agreement from the gang of 10 . We know they made an agreement because they said they did... but they didn't bother to tell anyone what the deal is.

And if the Dems don't have 60 votes then Olympia Snowe has said she won't be the 60th .If they do have 60 then she will vote in favor of the bill and the Dems can claim bipartisanship.

If and when the Senate passed their version of the bill ,the bill will go to conference committee where all the precious things in the socialist wish list will be returned to the legislation. Then they will pass the bill with simple majorities .

By the way Lieberman was right to oppose the Medicare plan. Medicare can't sustain it's entitlement obligations now.

Sen.Tom Coburn is having Sen.Bernie Sander's Single Payer Amendment read on the Senate floor right now. It is only a 767 page addition to the bill. With a vigorous reading it should only take about 12 hrs.


And you say the Republicans aren't doing anything useful . Finally a section of the bill will be read to the people who are voting on the bill!

Coburn won this round, Sanders withdrew his amendment. And Howard Dean is now under attack, he's the "skunk in the room" now according to MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski and Norah O'Donnell:

BRZEZINSKI: The White House Christmas party last night and there was a skunk in the room when we thought it was Joe Lieberman, but it was Howard Dean.

O'DONNELL: They want to tie him up and let people come and beat him. They are so angry with him, that the skunk at the party and the issue is he said, "Kill the bill."

Wow, everyone hatin' on Dean now...

flamier
excon

?? :confused:??

??????????:confused:??????????Hello Cats:

When a flame grows, it gets flamier. You know. Like when you get mad, you could get maddier.

excon

Hello Cats:

When a flame grows, it gets flamier. You know. Like when you get mad, you could get maddier.

excon

I did not know that. Back to OED

Mitch McConnell's floor speech yesterday :



“Senators on both sides acknowledge that the health care bill we're considering is among the most significant pieces of legislation any of us will ever consider.
“So it stands to reason that we'd devote significant time and attention to it.
“Indeed, some would argue that we should spend more time and attention on this bill than most — if not every — previous bill we've considered.
“The Majority disagrees.
“Why? Because this bill has become a political nightmare for them.
“They know Americans overwhelmingly oppose it, so they want to get it over with.
“Americans are already outraged at the fact that Democrat leaders took their eyes off the ball. Rushing the process on a partisan line makes the situation even worse.
“Americans were told the purpose of reform was to reduce the cost of health care.
“Instead, Democrat leaders produced a $2.5 trillion, 2,074-page monstrosity that vastly expands government, raises taxes, raises premiums, and wrecks Medicare.
“And they want to rush this bill through by Christmas — one of the most significant, far-reaching pieces of legislation in U.S. history. They want to rush it.
“And here's the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader's conference room has even seen.
“That's right. The final bill we'll vote on isn't even the one we've had on the floor. It's the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private.
“That's what they intend to bring to the floor and force a vote on before Christmas.
“So this entire process is essentially a charade.
“But let's just compare the process so far with previous legislation for some perspective. Here's a snapshot of what we've done and where we stand:
• The Majority Leader intends to bring this debate to a close as early as this weekend — four days from now, on this $2.5 trillion dollar mistake
• No American who hasn't been invited into the Majority Leader's conference room knows what will be in that bill
• This bill has been the pending business of the Senate since the last week of November — less than four weeks ago.
• We started the amendment process two weeks ago.
• We've had 21 amendments and motions — less than two a day.
“Now let's look at how the Senate has dealt with previous legislation.
“No Child Left Behind (2001):
• 21 session days or 7 weeks.
• Roll Call votes: 44
• Number of Amendments offered: 157
“9/11 Commission/Homeland Security Act (2002):
• 19 session days over 7 weeks.
• Roll Call votes: 20
• Number of Amendments offered: 30
“Energy Bill (2002):
• 21 session days over 8 weeks
• Number of Roll Call votes: 36
• Number of Amendments offered: 158
“This isn't an energy bill. This is an attempt by a majority to take over one sixth of the U.S. economy — to vastly expand the reach and the role of government into the health care decisions of every single American — and they want to be done after one substantive amendment. This is absolutely inexcusable.
“I think Senator Snowe put it best on Tuesday:
'Given the enormity and complexity,' she said, 'I don't see anything magical about the Christmas deadline if this bill is going to become law in 2014.'
“And I think Senator Snowe's comments on a lack of bipartisanship at the outset of this debate are also right on point.
“Here's what she said in late November:
'I am truly disappointed we are commencing our historic debate on one of the most significant and pressing domestic issues of our time with a process that has forestalled our ability to arrive at broader agreement on some of the most crucial elements of health care reform. The bottom line is, the most consequential health care legislation in the history of our country and the reordering of $33 trillion in health care spending over the coming decade shouldn't be determined by one vote-margin strategies – surely we can and must do better.'
“The only conceivable justification for rushing this bill is the overwhelming opposition of the American people. Democrats know that the longer Americans see this bill the less they like it. Here's the latest from Pew. It came out just yesterday.
“A majority (58 percent) of those who have heard a lot about the bills oppose them while only 32 percent favor them.”
“There is no justification for this blind rush — except a political one, and that's not good enough for the American people.
“And there's no justification for forcing the Senate to vote on a bill none of us has seen.
“Americans already oppose this bill. The process is just as bad. “It's completely reckless, completely irresponsible.”

And there’s no justification for forcing the Senate to vote on a bill none of us has seen. Hello again, tom:

Sooooo, he might vote for the bill if he had time to read it?? Really?

excon

Sooooo, he might vote for the bill if he had time to read it?? Really?

Depends on the content of the bill I would guess.

What he didn't say in his address was that the reason Reid et al left the bill on the floor blank (that's right the current bill on the floor of the Senate is a shell with not a single written word on it yet) ;is so he can pick among the socialist wish list provisions that the CBO is reviewing now individually ;and piece a jumbled mishmash;a hodgepodge of the various oddments that in total barely satisfy the President's requiremment that it be "deficit-neutral".Of secondary concern is the content . They want to be able to walk away at year end and brag that they "reformed "healthcare.

I've already pointed out that according to Conyers, Rahmbo said "just give us anything and we’ll declare victory." Sounds a little like George Aiken's thoughts on declaring victory in Vietnam, "it may be a far-fetched proposal, but nothing else has worked."

Yeah, that's what we want for health care reform, and energy policy, and the deficit and just about every other Democratic 'solution,' just give us anything and we'll declare victory.

just give us anything and we'll declare victory.Hello again, Steve:

I don't doubt that the Dems are going to try. But, it ain't going to work. The people who put this congress and this president in office - the liberal base - did it for THIS bill. They don't care about cap and trade. They don't care about the stim. They don't care about TARP. They care about health care reform. If REAL reform doesn't pass, these people will abandon the Dems in droves...

That's why I think Sarah Palin has a shot.

excon

There is a timeline for this cliff hanger that could go over the cliff. The word is that Reid has to start the procedural steps necessary for a final debate this weekend to meet a deadline of a 7 p.m. Christmas eve vote (yes they would try to pass it on Christmas Eve when almost nobody in the country is paying attention).

But as of now there is still a shell bill on the floor with no text or cost analysis in it. And there are still strong objections to various proposals by both so called moderates and so called progressives in the Senate.
Nelson of Nebraska and Casey of Penn. Are trying to hash out acceptable language on the abortion funding to make it appear that the plan would not have taxpayer funded abortions covered.

Word is that Nelson was threatened by the Obots with a BRAC closing of NORAD Offutt Air Force Base if he does not become a team player soon.Imagine that ;compromising national security unless he is a good team player .
20 Republican Senators demanded a hearing into this blackmail allegation in a letter to Sen.Armed Services Committee chair Carl Levin.
http://ensign.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Files.View&FileStore_id=8cb4b2ed-7558-42a0-b42a-ae4f0f54d84b

Nelson doesn't have a chance for reelection in his state if he goes along with a plan that would allow tax payer funded abortions so his political future is at risk with this vote ;something the progressives from blue states don't seem to appreciate. He also knows his state has a majority opposed to anything that would lead to a single-payer system.

But it is not just in Nebraska.The truth is that America just does not want the kind of health care plan the progressives envision. As Peter Brown at Quinnipiac University Polling Institute said “It's a good thing for those pushing the health care overhaul in Congress that the American people don't get a vote."
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2009/12/obama-hits-new-lows-best-of-ro.html

As for Reid;he doesn't stand a chance at reelection anyway .He sees this vote as his swan song legacy . That is why he has gone rhetorically over the top with comparing opponents to his version of health care reform to slavery supporters .
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=813216

don't doubt that the Dems are going to try. But, it ain't going to work. The people who put this congress and this president in office - the liberal base - did it for THIS bill. They don't care about cap and trade. They don't care about the stim. They don't care about TARP. They care about health care reform. If REAL reform doesn't pass, these people will abandon the Dems in droves...

That's why I think Sarah Palin has a shot.



Don't think so.Next election will be about jobs,jobs ,jobs.

Health care reform is a luxury. The last time any meaningful "reform " was done was in the early days of the Johnson term when the economy was rocking due to the JFK tax cuts.

I predict Sarah Barracuda will tour the rust belt states with the jobs theme and a promise to never agree to economy killing carbon deals that will impact the domestic industry .Linking energy to jobs is a winning formula ;but we are talking jobs now and not jobs in the unforseen future. A whole bunch of people who the current President disparaged as bitter-clingers in the last election will rally around her message and the Reagan coalition will be reborn.

Not sure she will be the standard bearer in 2012 ;but if not ,she will be a king maker.

The Dem are already planning on running against Bush again next year (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/2010-campaign-preview-democrats-to-say-gop-still-party-of-bush.php) and the GOP being "the party of no."

Funny though how more and more of what the Dems believed was a virtue is now the evil. From 2006 (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1376213,00.html):


Pelosi has embraced hard-knuckle partisanship, even if it means standing still. When Bush announced his Social Security plan last year, Pelosi told House Democrats they could never beat him in a straight-ahead, policy-against-policy debate because he had the megaphone of the presidency and was just coming off re-election. So the Democrats would thunderously attack Bush and argue there was no Social Security crisis and therefore no need for them to put out their own proposal. Some members were leery, concerned that Pelosi would make the Democrats look like the Party of No. As the spring of 2005 wore on, some pestered her every week, asking when they were going to release a rival plan. "Never. Is never good enough for you?" Pelosi defiantly said to one member. When Florida Democrat Robert Wexler publicly suggested raising Social Security taxes as the solution, Pelosi immediately chewed him out over the phone. Only one other Democrat signed on to his plan...

The Democrats won the Social Security battle Pelosi's way. That earned her credit with her colleagues, who have embraced her overall strategy. Throughout the past year, Pelosi has demanded that Democrats unanimously oppose G.O.P. bills. By denying the G.O.P votes from across the aisle, Democrats have forced moderate Republicans to back bills like those cutting Medicaid and other social programs that fiscally conservative Republicans have insisted on, votes for which Democrats have then attacked moderate Republicans in television ads. Pelosi has also ordered Democrats not to work on bills or even hold press conferences with Republicans whom the party is trying to defeat in November.

And by the way, the Nebraska governor urged Nelson to block the vote on Obamacare which gives him some cover for standing his ground. Come on Ben, follow Pelosi's example and be "the Senator of no."

This failure at reform (and I think it is a failure now regardless of the final outcome of the vote ) will be a monument to Obama not living up to his campaign promises to forge bipartisan consensus .

During the campaign there were very few fundamental differences between candidates McCain and Obama.
They both agreed on issues dealing with reimportation of drugs from Canada and approval of generic drugs to control costs and add competition to the pharmacuetical companies. They both wanted to do more for people with chronic conditions .They both wanted tort and doctor liability reforms regarding malpractice. They both wanted portable health insurance .They both wanted to use information technology to reduce costs.

Of course there were differences also .Obama wanted a public option and McCain argued for health vouchers. But there were a lot of common ground to build consensus if the President decided to go that route.

Instead he handed what is generally considered the signature policy of his administration off to Congress with nothing more than general guidelines and marching orders to get something passed. He could've easily called his chief political rival into the White House and together they could've forged a bipartisan bill... simular to what President Bush did in his 1st years on issues like NCLB and Medicare Part D.


He has shown a remarkable disinterest in the work needed to achieve as the Chief Executive of the country . It is perhaps good politics to claim the Republicans are the party of no .But that doesn't tell the whole tale of mismanagement .

(I think it is a failure now regardless of the final outcome of the vote )... He has shown a remarkable disinterest in the work needed to achieveHello tom:

I agree. Or, he got the bill he wanted in the first place. In either case, it's a failure. The Dems, with their majorities in BOTH houses AND the presidency, have proven they are unable to govern.

But, don't start crowing. The Republicans aren't any better. Looks like a Sarah Palin TEA party is going to emerge. Or, maybe Glenn Beck will take them over.

excon

Given the choice of being blackmailed or taking a bribe Sen.Nelson opted for taking a bribe. Link below describes the 30 pieces of silver necessary for him to sell his soul.
Big Government Blog Archive SOLD: Sen. Nelson's Bribe (http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/19/sen-nelsons-bribe/)



In its quixotic attempt to ensure everyone has health insurance, the Reid legislation greatly expands Medicaid eligibility. Because Medicaid is a program whose costs are split between the federal and state governments, this expansion in eligibility raise costs dramatically for states. States will be forced to either raise taxes or cut other services to accommodate the forced increase in Medicaid spending.
Unless that state is Nebraska.

.....the federal government will forever cover the costs of Medicaid expansion in Nebraska. Taxpayers in every other state will forever be responsible for the expanded Medicaid program in Nebraska.


Still included in the 383-page Reid 'manager's amendment '
( in federally subsidized plans participating in a Office of Personnel Management run Exchange),is an abortion premium and government funds being used to subsidize elective abortions.Abortion funding was allegidly the line Nelson would not cross.

Historic reform:
30 million additional clients for the private insurance companies . One would think that was a Republican provision if you believe the false stereotype about the party. But in fact that is a key provion in the Reid amendment .

This new "reform" will force these new clients to either sign on to private ,or the "exchange " (also a privately run enterprise with nominal gvt management by the OPM),or face penalty and perhaps jail time.

Democrats may think that this is an interem step to a public option but the insurance lobby will become even more powerful with this massive givaway.

The Pharmaceutical industry managed to block reimportation of drugs;something that both candidates for President last year supported .

A mysterious provision in the Reid amendment ;designed to buy off or reward an undisclosed Senator who faces a tough reelection next year (Chris Dodd ) , would give $100 million Federal tax dollars to an undisclosed university (University of Connecticut) for the construction of a hospital. Also it is strongly rumored that Sen.Evan Bayh agreed to support the bill in exchange for a $100 million give away for the new Wishard Hospital in Indianapolis.

Louisiana(Mary Landrieu negotiated $100 million for 2011 before she would support the bill), Vermont and Massachusetts join Nebraska in having their share of the expanded Medicaid paid fully by the American taxpayers.

The Longshoremen union/ lobby was able to get their workers exempt from the new tax on high-value insurance plans.

more info as it becomes available. What this shows more than anything else is that moderates are people who will sell out to the highest bidder. At least the so called ideologues of both parties have a line they will not cross.


The Republicans tried to delay the scheduled 1AM vote this morning until 9 AM today to make it easier for Sen Byrd ;who is wheelchair bound to make it to the vote. Sen Harkin told them that it would be OK so long as the period between 1AM and 9AM were allocated to Republican time for the 30 hr debate scheduled for the next round. When the Republicans objected Harkin went into a 1/2 hr diatribe against the Republicans. Evidently Byrd made it to the 1AM vote because the cloture vote was 60-40 .

Hello again:

So, they're going to get a bill. It's got enough in there for EVERYBODY to hate. I hated it too...

Notice, I used the word "hated" in the past tense... I don't know if I hate it now... Oh, I HATE it, but is it better than nothing? Will it make us better off, even marginally? Is passing SOMETHING, in order to be able to FIX it in the future, better than throwing it away and trying again?

The answer to the last is obvious... IF it fails this time, it won't be brought up again for another 30 or 40 years.

So, what about this half a loaf?

excon

What kind of reform is it ? They answer the issue of uninsured by forcing people to buy it ? They force States to expand their Medicaid regardless of the financial situation in the States ;regardless of what other services needs to be cut to achieve this expansion ?

This so called reform does nothing to reduce costs and the biggest beneficiaries are the industries you claim are the biggest problems. They will fleece the American taxpayer for 5 years before any of these alleged benefits kick in .

But you are right about one thing. Finance Chairman Max Baucus admitted in a floor speech that the goal is to ram it into law while the political window is still open, and clean up the mess later.

Is that constitutional for the feds to cover the cost of Medicaid expansion forever in only one state? These guys have no shame.

What kind of reform is it ?Hello again, tom:

From MY perspective?? None. Oh, there's some insurance regulation that's good, but we're paying for it, and NOT the insurance companies... That's NOT reform.

The ONLY reason I MIGHT support it, is because of the PROMISE that it'll be changed more to my liking sometime in the future...

That is absolutely the WRONG reason to support legislation. But, if it's defeated, it won't be addressed again for a generation.

excon

NK's favorite Michelle Malkin has a list of some of the payoffs, "cash for cloture (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/21/cash-for-cloture-demcare-bribe-list-pt-ii/)."

Not sure about the Constitutionality of that. The ever broadening interpretation of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses as interpreted by SCOTUS appears to give Congress almost carte blanche to do whatever they like .Since it in not unpecedented for Congress to pass mandates that the States have to foot the bill for (including Medicaid mandates already in effect) I have no doubt this move will pass SCOTUS challenges.

NK's favorite Michelle Malkin has a list of some of the payoffs, "cash for cloture (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/21/cash-for-cloture-demcare-bribe-list-pt-ii/)."Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, passing legislation is a messy business... But, you're not saying, are you, that when Republicans were in charge, they DIDN'T do the same thing?? Nahh, you're not saying that - cause you're an honest fellow.

excon

Not sure about the Constitutionality of that. The ever broadening interpretation of the Commerce Clause..... Hello again, tom:

For MY $.02 cents, it's UN-Constitutional.. In fact, it's the Commerce Clause that the government cites as the basis for telling you what you CAN'T buy, like marijuana. You support THAT interpretation, don't you? If that's Constitutional, and I'll bet you think it is, it's only a small step from them telling you what you HAVE to buy.

I don't think how we spend our money is their business AT ALL.

excon

PS> I keep telling you Righty's that you better support ALL of our Constitutional rights, because if you don't, the ONE you DO support is going to be next.

THIS is a perfect example of that phenomenon.

Actually there are plenty of laws prohibiting what you can buy. Fewer are laws that compel you to buy something .That's a completely different can of worms. I can think of State mandates to buy auto insurance to protect the other person from you. But even there the self insurance is voluntary.

actually there are plenty of laws prohibiting what you can buy. Hello again, tom:

Like I said, you're cool with the laws that tell you what you CAN'T buy. You just don't like the ones telling you what you MUST buy.

I don't see a tinkers damn bit of Constitutional difference.

excon

You don't think there should be any controls of what can be purchased ?

you don't think there should be any controls of what can be purchased ?Hello again, tom:

Uhhhh, no... Ok, I'll draw the line at nukes and F'16's.

excon

PS> I don't know, tom. You believe in a free market, or not. You're sounding positively LIBERAL here. Of course, I've been saying that about the DEA, which is a nothing more than LIBERAL social program disguised as law enforcement...

Conservatives believe the market should be free of EXCESS regulation . We don't believe in a free for all. Businesses and the marketplace should be subject to reasonable regulations.
Now you could argue that my view of the drug market is unreasonable and that is a legitimate debate . I think that if a product is marketted and it is going to harm the consumer it should be controlled or prohibited .

There is of course an easy way to get your way. Vote people in that agree with you .

I am just waiting to manufacture belladona capsules and to market them as a weight loss product. Are you sure I should have the right to do that ?

I am just waiting to manufacture belladona capsules and to market them as a weight loss product. Are you sure I should have the right to do that ?Hello again, tom:

You can't lie. That's already against the law. But if you label it for what it is, and people want to buy it, why not?

What? You think that prohibiting people from buying stuff they WANT, is going to keep it out of their hands?? As a drug warrior, I suppose you WOULD think that.

excon

As I said on another op ;Roosevelt did a clever tap dance to make SS constitutional. He sold it as an insurance policy ;but argued at SCOTUS that the payroll deduction was not a premium but a tax.

Now the President has been saying that the individual mandate is not a tax . But as far as I can tell there is no interpretation of the commerce clause so broad that includes the mandatory purchase of a product.

If I had the means I would self insure and make a court case of this . But I have no doubt ,in court, the administration would do the same thing as Roosevelt .

Hello again, tom:

You can't lie. That's already against the law. But if you label it for what it is, and people want to buy it, why not?

What? You think that prohibiting people from buying stuff they WANT, is going to keep it out of their hands?? As a drug warrior, I suppose you WOULD think that.


OK then I guess you think that all those pharmaceutical products that were approved and then proven to be harmful should remain on the market ? Is that what you are saying ?

By the way I am writing letters to Senators Shumer and Gillibrand asking them why NY is not included in the deal to have the Federal Government foot the bill for the Medicaid expansion liabilities . Everyone with a Democrat Senator from a state besides the few exempted should demand that they get the same deal.

Not so quick on the Dems going down in flames and/or getting flamier, they're pinning their election hopes next year on Obamacare (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126135972428799563.html?mod=article-outset-box) - and blaming Bush (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/2010-campaign-preview-democrats-to-say-gop-still-party-of-bush.php). Axelrod seems to think that once the public gets wind of all the magnificent things the Dems have done for all those Americans who don't know any better against their wishes, that they'll jump on board. Should get interesting, both sides running on Obamacare.

ok then I guess you think that all those pharmaceutical products that were approved and then proven to be harmful should remain on the market ? Is that what you are saying ?Hello again, tom:

Yup, that's what I'm saying... Of course, as long as the press does its job of reporting the danger.

There are LOTS of dangers out there. I don't want the state to be my nanny... You? Looks like.

excon

As long as the press does its job


Bwaaaaahaaaahaaaaa!! And they were elected to do that ? If a pharmaceutical company is selling an unsafe product they have no right to be in the business of selling that product.

A total absence of regulation is effectively the same as a total absence of government. As a conservative I look for as small a government as is possible .But I thought you agreed as a libertarian that anarchy is a bad thing. If your product is going to do harm to a person it is the gvt's duty to restrict ,ban ,or regulate it.

Do you think building codes are a good thing; or should a anyone who can splice two pieces of wire together be the electrician for your home ? I know that with the gvt inspection requirements there is more of the chance that my home was built to a certain standard of safety . Without the codes I wouldn't know which home I purchased was safe ;and which was a hazard .
When the government restricts me from doing legitimate business it is overreaching .When the government prevents me from doing business that can harm they are doing their job.

Hello again, tom:

Imagine that. You arguing for regulation, and me not. Go figure.

excon

It is completely consistent with conservative principles.

Adam Smith wrote extensively on that in 'The Wealth of Nations'.Smith never suggested that government should not intervene to set and enforce minimum social, health, safety, and environmental standards in the common interest . That is why as a conservative I can consistently argue for what I call "a safety net" . The very concept of a safety net assumes a degree of government control.

it is completely consistent with conservative principles. The very concept of a safety net assumes a degree of government control.Hello again, tom:

I agree again with you, although I'd insert the word Republican for conservative. Because it's a Republican viewpoint that government power SHOULD be used when it meets the Republican social agenda. Democrats think the same thing, only their social agenda is different than yours.

Indeed, your safety net is a police force, as you've amply described above, and the Democrats safety net is a bureaucrat. BOTH call for government to intervene. Therefore, BOTH are liberal positions.

The CONSERVATIVE viewpoint is closer to my own, and Ron Paul.

excon

The CONSERVATIVE viewpoint is closer to my own, and Ron Paul.

Your view of health care sounds nothing like Ron Paul's (http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-07-22/ron-paul-on-healthcare-reform-cnn-american-morning/) to me.


Well, one think you have to do is say why do people come up short and why is the cost so high and it’s inflation and it’s the government management of the healthcare system that is at fault. But even though I have my ideal system, I would like to see the government out completely because that would be a much better system.

Your view of health care sounds nothing like Ron Paul's (http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-07-22/ron-paul-on-healthcare-reform-cnn-american-morning/) to me.Hello again, Steve:

No, it doesn't. But, I didn't say it did. I was talking about the stuff above where MY view IS more CONSERVATIVE than yours or toms. If you want to argue that, instead of deflecting, like you're won't to do, I'll be happy to take your liberal a$$ on.

excon

I guess then you are calling Adam Smith a liberal. Your position is that government should control any business that is big and any business you don't like . But it should be hands off the free trade of marijuana.

I would call your's an economic libertarian position if it wasn't so inconsistent.

If trying to reconcile your contradictory views is deflecting then I'm guilty.

I guess then you are calling Adam Smith a liberal. Your position is that government should control any business that is big Hello again, tom:

Maybe I can tie up my views about this for you, and even for myself, perhaps.

I'm a believer in free markets as long as those markets work for the people. I'm a believer in regulation that guarantees markets stay that way. When the players in the market get "too big to fail", it indicates to me that whatever market regulation we had in place is either NOT working, or isn't being enforced.

That is today's reality.

My posts take on two different tenors, as do yours. I, like the Wolverine, sometimes post based upon my THEORY of what should be, and what should have been. Like I say, so do you...

Then there's my posts about how we should deal with the economic reality of the day... Here's where my WISHLIST meets reality, because if my WISHLIST would have been followed, we wouldn't have the problems we do. But, it wasn't, and we DO.

So, even though I don't believe an entity should ever have been permitted to get "too big to fail", it does NOT mean that I think it should just fail. It's my belief that the problem got sooo out of wack, that only government can put it back.

Will government take its hands off when it gets put back? Probably not. But, I'm willing to deal with that question down the road.

excon

PS> I wonder where the wolverine is, anyway.

I'm a believer in free markets as long as those markets work for the people. I'm a believer in regulation that guarantees markets stay that way. When the players in the market get "too big to fail", it indicates to me that whatever market regulation we had in place is either NOT working, or isn't being enforced.

That is today's reality.



Healthcare is not a free market. There is too much government regulation and even more so in this bill. Why no interstate national health insurance competition? Why different state mandates? Why no tort reform? Why no expansion of HSAs - true free market reform?
Is this truly "working for the people," or just a means to stay in office?
Instead this bill is about pay offs, about MORE government regulation, of backroom deals in which taxpayor dollars are used to buy votes at the expense of those taxpayors.

Speaking of free market, why is the POTUS telling the bankers to loan more now, when it was exactly risky loan practices encouraged by the likes of CRA and acorn that are at the root of the current economic crisis.

G&P

While we're waiting to see who's more conservative, me, tom or ex, the chief wascal has inserted language into the bill that hamstrings future Congresses and makes Senator Reid a little dictator (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/reid_bill_declares_future_cong_1.asp). On page 1020 is a clause that states "the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses."


There’s one provision that I found particularly troubling and it’s under section C, titled “Limitations on changes to this subsection.”

And I quote — “It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”

This is not legislation. It’s not law. This is a rule change. It’s a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a Senate rule. I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future Senates.

I mean, we want to bind future Congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of Senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future Congresses.

This is beyond outrageous, beyond shameless and entirely unacceptable.

Unconstitutional

G&P

When the players in the market get "too big to fail", it indicates to me that whatever market regulation we had in place is either NOT working, or isn't being enforced


This I mostly agree with although it was sheer panic that caused anyone to think any of the zombies were too big to fail. I still don't see where it would've been greater damage if they were just cut loose. I really don't believe in too big to fail. They get big often because govt. interference prevents a competitive environment .

Lehman Brothers went down . Does anyone miss them today ?

Citi should've been allowed to fail . They are now a zombie that is holding our money and are still an anchor around our necks. In a year has that changed ? They tried to give back their TARP money by floating stocks and there are no takers. $17 billion shares at $3.15 apiece, below the $3.25 price at which the government bought its Citi stake.We hold 7.7 billion Citi shares... about a quarter of the company.
Lehman's gone and forgotten RIP .Citi is still an albatross an "undead" .

GM is now government motors . Any improvement ? They can't decide if they want to keep or sell Saab and Opal. They are still a mess. We left Ford alone. Now their shares are the highest they have been in 4 years.
We will never see the TARP money that went into GM again.

Back to the constitutionality issue. I believe the insurance mandate is unconstitutional and that the Dems know it. I believe they view it as the camel's nose under the tent to get the public option.

As the bill now stands ; it will be the first time in history a federal law will mandate that you buy a product from a private business(even if you have no income) .

You have to be part of SS ,Medicare etc even if you never receive any benefit because they are gvt run plans.

I think the Dems know this will not survive a court challenge . Then they will be able to make the case that the only way to guarantee insurance for everyone would be with a mandate to purchase a gvt run plan.

Back to the constitutionality issue. I believe the insurance mandate is unconstitutional and that the Dems know it. I believe they view it as the camel's nose under the tent to get the public option.

As the bill now stands ; it will be the first time in history a federal law will mandate that you buy a product from a private business(even if you have no income) .

You have to be part of SS ,Medicare etc even if you never receive any benefit because they are gvt run plans.

I think the Dems know this will not survive a court challenge . Then they will be able to make the case that the only way to guarantee insurance for everyone would be with a mandate to purchase a gvt run plan.

Tom - that cute little phrase

“It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”

That the law can't be changed is worse than chilling - it's unconscionable and unconstitutional. I hope someone in Congress has half a brain and deletes this phrase.

Reid is a slick operator. He tried to sneak that little provision in it.

You are right ;that is ripe for a Constitutional challenge if it remains in the final law.
Many States are looking to challenge the favoritism of the Medicaid exemption going to Nebraska (including Excon's Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna ).
It is being called the Nebraska Compromise but I prefer to call it Cash for Corn Huskers.

Sen.Kay Bailey Hutchison on the floor yesterday brought up a potential 10th amendment challenge saying the bill improperly usurps the authority of states to regulate insurance.

Another important case related to this bill is the unanimous 1989 Duquesne Light vs. Barasch decision . In that case it was ruled that it is not constitutional to legislate investors out of a return on the basis of stealth price controls and conflicting, destructive mandates. This is explained better than I can by Richard Epstein; professor of law at the University of Chicago and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704304504574610040924143158.html

But basically he argues that the Reid bill would unconstitutionally drive private insurance companies out of business;and that this bill becomes a defacto government take over of the insurance industry

.
Heard this on the radio this morning

twas the night before Christmas and all through the House

it's a showdown on health care as the taxpayers grouse.

they dropped public option
they nixed single payer

they created more bureaucracy ..layer upon layer

they feuded on abortion they paid off Nebraska

this could mean clear sailing for that ex-governor of Alaska

as our lawmakers made off with our money in flight

they yelled MERRY CHRISTMAS SUCKERS !! to all a good night.

Hello Righty's:

Now, I'm testing my old brain, here, but I seem to remember something in the dufus years about bills that you wanted "rammed" through, where provisions were written in that they couldn't be challenged by the Supreme Court... Probably had something to do with security...

If you folks of the right wing persuasion want me go find it, I will. But, I'll assume your silence on the subject will be recognition of the rightness of my post.

You should pay better attention, because I do.

excon

I don't recall that at all . So my silence does not presume my acquiesce.It is possible that a super majority provision was added to a bill .But I don't recall the instant.

Anyway it is a practice known as adding an "entrenchment provision" . Are entrenchment provisions binding legally ? No. A Congress can pass all the entrenchment provisions it wants, but the next Congress can repeal them by majority rule.

But Reid takes this to new hights. Not only does his language make it harder to change the law... but completely prohibits it.

I don't recall that at all . So my silence does not presume my acquiesce.Hello again, tom:

Frankly, due to the inadequate search engine on this site, I was unable to find the stuff I wanted... Nonetheless, I do not prevaricate, as you know. So, you'll just have to take my word for it, that your politicians ain't no better than the other guys.

Of course, you won't, because you're full of yourselves...

excon

Anyway it is a practice known as adding an "entrenchment provision" . Are entrenchment provisions binding legally ? No. A Congress can pass all the entrenchment provisions it wants, but the next Congress can repeal them by majority rule.

But Reid takes this to new hights. Not only does his language make it harder to change the law...but completely prohibits it.

Maybe the future generations can pull the ''Thats not what it means'' like they are doing now with the constitution.
Reid put that in there because they KNOW that even their faithful Dems are going to realize what a mess within a matter of time.

Hello again:

I'm sure I said it when we had this discussion before, but it's absolutely true that congress can't pass a law that says what they just did can't be reviewed. Besides, the writers of a provision like that KNOW it's un-Constitutional, or they wouldn't have written it in the first place.

The whole IDEA of our three branch system is accountability. You can't change that by writing a law.

Now, the idea that the next congress can just repeal what the last congress did isn't a good idea, either... We, as citizens need some consistency in our laws.. After all, we WANT people to obey our laws, no? But, who's going to obey them if we know they're going to be changed back??

Nahhh... Bad idea.

excon

I agree 100% but they are up to something bigger and this is only a single piece of that puzzle.

Now, the idea that the next congress can just repeal what the last congress did isn't a good idea, either... We, as citizens need some consistency in our laws.. After all, we WANT people to obey our laws, no? But, who's going to obey them if we know they're going to be changed back??

Nahhh... Bad idea.

If Congress can entrench legislation, then it will resolve all questions today that might come up in the future, depriving future generations of their right to self-government.

But we already know that in a way Congressional action today bind the hands of future generations anyway. They spend the money of future generations all the time .
Legislation like the bill they passed yesterday will tie the hands of future generations for 100 years if it becomes law.

What Reid fears is that Congress has no self control and will never have the fortitude to restrain growth in Medicare spending without the death panels . So that is why he added that super-majority language . He wants the death panel... now called an 'Independent Payment Advisory Board' entrenched .
It also shows that this provision in particular is very important to Dems. They chose this section out of all others to give the highest possible protection against change or repeal showing how insatiable their desire is to allow Washington bureaucrats to control our lives.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz122309dAPR20091223031844.jpg