Health 'reform' vs. the Constitution: Although Democrats think their health-care legislation faces smooth sailing to implementation, there is a rock dead ahead -- a constitutional challenge to the legislation's core. Democrats who assume it is constitutional to make it mandatory for Americans to purchase health insurance should answer some questions
Dems Look at Bypassing Senate Health Care Vote: The likeliest scenario would require persuading House Democrats to accept a bill the Senate passed last month, despite their objections to several parts.
Funny how a party named after democracy seems so damn determined to undermine it.
Dems Look at Bypassing Senate Health Care Vote: The likeliest scenario would require persuading House Democrats to accept a bill the Senate passed last month, despite their objections to several parts.
Funny how a party named after democracy seems so damn determined to undermine it.
If the House accepts and votes for the bill that the senate passed how is that undermining democracy?
...Republicans have decried the use of reconciliation for such a massive re-ordering of the nation's economy. To be sure, Republicans were the first to use the tactic outside its intended purpose, and they have used it most often for tax relief, but they say health care reform is different. ...
The difference is they were concentrating wealth in fewer hands with the promise that it would create jobs. That was done at the beginning of what is now known as "the lost decade".
Reflecting Wall Street's expectations for healthcare reform, investors drove health insurance and drug company shares higher, betting a Brown victory would at least slow Obama's healthcare plans.
Hospital companies, which may gain more insured customers under health reform, saw their shares slump.
"If Brown wins, it is our view that Obamacare will not pass Congress," Avik Roy, a healthcare analyst with Monnes Crespi Hardt, said in a research note.
The Morgan Stanley Healthcare Payor Index and the AMEX Pharmaceutical index outperformed the broader market, rising 2.3 percent and 2.0 percent, respectively.
According to MEM in the stimulus thread, the stock market is a good indicator on whether or not we need to do something. I guess this means that we better dump the current health care bills to keep the market happy and going up.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Rep. Barney Frank is not a wobbly moderate in a marginal district, but a liberal Democrat who has been supportive of the health care push. And that's why this statement below, which essentially rules out all of the options being discussed for pushing through Obamacare, deals a potentially fatal blow to the legislation:
Quote:
“I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in Congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the Senate rule which means that 59 votes are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of the process.”
Dems Look at Bypassing Senate Health Care Vote: The likeliest scenario would require persuading House Democrats to accept a bill the Senate passed last month, despite their objections to several parts.
Funny how a party named after democracy seems so damn determined to undermine it.
If the House accepts and votes for the bill that the senate passed how is that undermining democracy?
Ramming Obamacare legislation down the throats of Americans, when they clearly oppose it in the polls by a 2-to-1 margin, is undermining democracy.
It is tyranny of a liberal elite minority, where an elite shoves their agenda on the people (to use the words of liberal-indoctrinated elitist ABC News reporter Andrea Mitchell) "because the people don't know what's good for them".
Rep. Barney Frank is not a wobbly moderate in a marginal district, but a liberal Democrat who has been supportive of the health care push. And that's why this statement below, which essentially rules out all of the options being discussed for pushing through Obamacare, deals a potentially fatal blow to the legislation:
Quote:
“I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in Congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the Senate rule which means that 59 votes are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of the process.”
Let's make no mistake, though. Barney Frank --for me the most vicious partisan and worst liar of all the Democrats in Congress-- and the one most responsible for the collapse of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the larger financial collapse, clearly wanted to ram through Obamacare legislation, on the path toward a single payer system and destroying private care health insurance completely. But Barney Frank simply sees it as politically unfeasable, and has just enough survival instincts to back off this policy, despite how bad he really wants it.
And would ram it through any way he could, if he could get away with it.
Barney Frank's remarks are a powerful statement. That as much of a zealot as he is, even he knows the political wind against this is too strong, so he's backing off ramming it through. Much as he'd like to.
The six-foot-four Lesnar, who has to cut weight to make the UFC heavyweight limit of 265 pounds, said he had been ailing for some time last year, before falling seriously ill during a trip to Canada. What had started as flu-like symptoms was upgraded to mononucleosis and then diverticulosis.
Asked about the low point during the last few months of his illness, Lesnar said: "Probably the lowest moment was getting care from Canada."
"They couldn't do nothing for me," he noted in a later media conference call Wednesday. "It was like I was in a Third World country."
"I'm just stating the facts here and that's the facts," he continued. "I love Canada. I own property in Canada but if I had to choose between getting care in Canada or the United States, I definitely want to be in the United States. Canadians, don't get me wrong here. Listen I love Canada, some of the best people and best hunting in the world. I have family up there. But I wasn't at the right facility. And it makes sense for me to say that."
Lesnar, who makes his home in Minnesota, refused to say where he was treated in Canada although he talked of his wife driving him "in excruciating pain" to the border.
"I knew that I had to get out of there. And my wife saved my life. She got me out of there and drove 100 miles an hour to get me down to Bismarck, North Dakota, to Medcenter One (hospital) and got me with Dr. (Brent) Buderer and his staff, and that doctor there saved my career and saved my life."
At hospital in Bismarck, Lesnar said he was immediately diagnosed with a severe case of diverticulosis. "I had a hole in my stomach."
Doctors put him on antibiotics and pain medication, while suggesting surgery was likely the final option. Lesnar spent the next 11 days there. "No food, no water, fed intravenously. Lost 40 pounds."
He underwent a small procedure, having a six-inch needle inserted into his stomach to drain three pockets and withdraw 14 cubic centimetres of fluid.
he's playing smart, he knows there isnt enough votes for the nuclear option but this way he can endear himself to his liberal base without ever voting for reconciliation that would kill him with the independents.
Did you learn nothing from the Mass election, Pariah? It isn't his office.
To my understanding, the density of voters favorable to Frank in his own area is even worse than it was for Kennedy in Massachusetts.
Yes, we all learned something from Scott Brown's Coakley bitch-slap in that even DEMs are angry enough to vote in conservatives. But it's just not practical to assume that Frank's and Pelosi's voter areas would turn on them.
Boxer is different insofar as she's more peripheral than Pelosi. She's not the Speaker of the House San Francisco golden child. As such, she's been getting herself on everyone's shit-list down here lately with her idiocy.
I quite enjoyed that. Grayson is quite the zealot. Scumbag fuck face too. That was quite the bitch slap. Matthews may as well have pulled his penis out and slapped Grayson in the face with it.
White House Debates Pushing Health Care Through: The White House is evaluating whether to take a breather on health care or try to push for passing legislation, but is not convinced Massachusetts voters were trying to block health insurance reform in last week's vote.
In fact, here's WH spokesman Robert Gibbs explaining their strategy:
