TPMDC
HOUSE PASSES HISTORIC HEALTH CARE BILL
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats
Share
Send to a friend!
Updated at 11:38 p.m.
By a razor thin margin of 219-212, the House of Representatives tonight passed far-reaching legislation that will lead to near-universal health care coverage in the United States -- a goal that has eluded Presidents and Congresses for a century.
The vote on the Senate bill concluded at 10:48 p.m., almost 10 hours after Democrats gavelled the chamber into session, confident the vote would be there. Within an hour, the House also passed the "fix" to the Senate bill, on a 220-211 vote. The separate, smaller reconciliation package will go to the Senate, where Democrats are expected to muster the 51 votes needed to pass it.
With two minutes left to vote on the Senate bill, the 216th vote was cast, leading to scattered applause in the visitors' viewing gallery gallery, and loud chants on the Democratic side of the aisle of Obama's campaign mantra "yes we can." As the 15 minutes allotted for the vote wound down, Democratic representatives counted down the clock: "3, 2, 1 ..." The time for voting didn't close immediately after the 15 minutes elapsed.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), whose vote was very much in doubt, was the 219th and final yes vote. She received a big hug from Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA). Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), another whose vote was undeclared, ended up voting against the bill.
When the vote concluded, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) was seen hugging everyone around her on the House floor and clapping and jumping up and down. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), wearing a tie with the American flag printed on it, waved both of his hands in the air as the vote passed. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) pumped his fist in the air.
At the White House, the President watched the vote in the Roosevelt Room with staff. When the vote total hit the magic 216, there were "cheers and clapping ... high five for Rahm, hugs all around," according to press secretary Robert Gibbs.
Shortly after the vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (d-NV) issued a statement lauding the result in the House and saying that the Senate will "complete our work on this historic effort."
The scene on the floor before the key vote was impassioned on both sides. In his final remarks, House Minority Leader John Boehner became so agitated that Democrats had to muffle awkward laughter. Pelosi received a huge, sustained standing ovation from her caucus, and during the vote, autographed copies of the bill for members of her caucus.
Tonight's historic vote was supposed to happen nine months ago, on the heels of the stimulus bill, with more than a year until midterm elections and President Obama's popularity still high enough to push Democrats straight through to the next big initiative. That snowball effect never materialized, and Democrats have watched their popularity fade and their majority shrink. After Republican Scott Brown won election to Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat in January, depriving Democrats of a 60th vote in the Senate, they nearly lost the nerve to pass health reform altogether.
But this morning, Democratic aides were confident. By noon, the whip's office had informed members that the vote tally was at 217: one above the magic 216 needed for passage. And that was the absolute minimum House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would accept: by surpassing the 216-mark by at least one vote, she blunted the Republicans' ability to characterize individual members as the deciding vote for the still-controversial bill.
The precision was vintage Pelosi, who has passed practically the entire Democratic platform by intentionally narrow margins, allowing members in vulnerable districts to keep a safe distance from the President and his agenda, both of which have agitated the Republican base.
But her success this time was not assured. Over the past year, a number of setbacks, and disappointments have piled up, fatiguing and embittering dozens of rank-and-file members whose votes were, as recently as two weeks ago, anything but assured. Tonight's achievement required a tirelessness whip operation, and significant involvement from President Obama himself, when key members continued to insist they would vote against the legislation, even if it meant the whole project would collapse.
The cracks in the Democratic coalition appeared early, and are no doubt familiar to anybody who followed the debate closely. Last spring and summer, House progressives banded together to insist that the final health care reform bill contain a public option. As time went on, and that goal appeared more and more elusive, dozens of them had to walk back their demands, and erase the lines they'd drawn in the sand as part of the process of accepting defeat.
But that episode left progressives raw and less willing to compromise over a controversial tax on insurance benefits, supported by the White House, but broadly opposed by members and unions. Ultimately the White House, Congress and unions came to an agreement on scaling back the measure. But that deal--and indeed the entire push--hit a wall when Brown won. With his victory, the prospect of a true conference between the House and Senate evaporated. Demoralized House Democrats toyed for weeks with the idea of dropping the initiative altogether. And Obama was nearly forced to accept a legislative defeat worse than Clinton-care in 1994.
And that's to say nothing of abortion, which loomed over the entire legislative process--from the early days on committee, to the final hours, when, once again, pro-life Democrats threatened to tank the bill. No less than four times in the past year did the tug-of-war between pro-choice and anti-abortion Democrats threatened to leave the entire party in the mud. But this afternoon, the White House brokered a compromise that brought pro-choice and pro-life Democrats into agreement, if not harmony. The result was meant Pelosi had a surplus to work with.
That's all behind them now. Health care reform, writ large, is a done deal. Democrats now have two separate, but important, responsibilities. First, the Senate must pass a small, but significant, reconciliation bill, changing several of the health care bill's more controversial provisions. Then Democrats need to run--hard--on their achievement for the next six months.
Additional reporting by Christina Bellantoni.
Comments (236) | Join the Conversation!
Follow us!
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
geofu54
March 21, 2010 10:51 PM
Brian? Why is this post not at the top?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Good Ol Days
March 22, 2010 2:24 AM in reply to geofu54
Health Care Reform is about SAVING LIVES not DESTROYING THEM. When are we going to learn...
September 11th was a dark day in American history. What few realize, however, is that a tragedy of equal proportions occurs on our soil every day. "How can you say that?" you ask. "Have you any idea how many lives were lost?" Indeed I do. 3,066. Have you any idea how many lives will be lost tomorrow? 4,000. And yesterday? 4,000. Today? 4,000. Indeed, abortion takes more lives daily than did the nineteen hijackers on September 11th. There was, however, a bright light shining on September that dark day. Passengers on Flight 93 banded together to win the first battle in the war on terror. Isn't it time that we honor their lives by fighting this battle in the war on terror?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
March 22, 2010 9:39 AM in reply to The Good Ol Days
I'm not sure why you are replying to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joekuh
March 22, 2010 10:05 AM in reply to geofu54
Im not sure that poster knows either..
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 22, 2010 12:19 PM in reply to The Good Ol Days
Wellpoint kills more people than al queda ever has, and they do it year in and year out...thank god we do negotiate with terrorists, just as long as they shave and list themselves on the NYSE.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Isepick
March 21, 2010 10:52 PM
FINALLY!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
March 22, 2010 2:04 AM in reply to Isepick
Excuse me while I take a knee and weep with tears of uncontrollable joy! At last! At last!
Much more remains to be done, but for today... I cry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
March 21, 2010 10:54 PM
Congratulations to the Speaker and the President. It feels great to watch Democrats finally snatch victory from the jaws of defeat instead of the other way around. Now let's hope they have the political acumen to reap the deserved political rewards for this achievement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
March 21, 2010 11:08 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Actually, this is good news for the Republicans, and McCain.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 22, 2010 1:28 AM in reply to Why oh why
And Joe Lieberman!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 12:59 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
I absolutely LOVE the photograph!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
March 21, 2010 10:54 PM
Thank you JESUS!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
March 21, 2010 11:58 PM in reply to Jackster
Amen
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 1:27 AM in reply to Jackster
Gee!-[the]-bus didn't work for Dick's Army! That's what they get for being opposed to busing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
March 21, 2010 10:55 PM
Never a doubt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IMNOTBITTER
March 21, 2010 10:57 PM in reply to Rick Jones
I can't wait to see the first Tea party sign saying...."KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY HEALTH CARE REFORM BENIFITS"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
March 21, 2010 11:00 PM in reply to IMNOTBITTER
This October and November perhaps?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
March 21, 2010 11:12 PM in reply to Rick Jones
I think you meant October or November of 2014.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
March 22, 2010 12:20 AM in reply to masanf
Loser! Dick!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 1:08 AM in reply to masanf
The precision was vintage Pelosi, who has passed practically the entire Democratic platform by intentionally narrow margins, allowing members in vulnerable districts to keep a safe distance from the President and his agenda, both of which have agitated the Republican base.
_____
Let it NEVER be said that Pelosi isn't up to the job of Speaker.
And as for your long dishonest and hateful tirades against truth, reality, and the American Way, "masanf": GO AWAY.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 22, 2010 1:35 AM in reply to IMNOTBITTER
LOL.
And "Don't Insure My Pre-Existing Condition"
And "CUT ME OFF AT $75,000!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AdAbsurdum
March 21, 2010 10:56 PM
I'm verklempt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 21, 2010 11:03 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum
ROTFLMAO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
March 22, 2010 12:21 AM in reply to AdAbsurdum
Excellent!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 22, 2010 1:37 AM in reply to AdAbsurdum
If I could spell it, I would be, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
March 21, 2010 10:57 PM
Rethugs keep spouting lies lies and lies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Trasee66
March 21, 2010 11:00 PM
Astounding. And all with no Republicans required!!! LMFAO
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Davran
March 21, 2010 11:00 PM
Yes. We. Did!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FlownOver
March 21, 2010 11:00 PM
My son, who in two months would be forced off our health care and into uninsurability due to a pre-existing condition, expresses his gratitude.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 21, 2010 11:04 PM in reply to FlownOver
I am delighted for your family that this won't be a worry for you now.
I am such a proud democrat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
justaJ0e
March 22, 2010 12:26 AM in reply to lousgirl84
It's going to be interesting to see Republicans run for election in November with platforms based on taking away health insurance from families such as yours with their promise to repeal.
What kind of messed up "values" is that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Given Up
March 22, 2010 1:30 PM in reply to justaJ0e
i have a suspicion they will change their tune if/when they realize it is a losing political strategy, here's hoping they don't notice until it's too late.t
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 22, 2010 1:42 AM in reply to FlownOver
I hope you can continue until he's covered. Adults with PEC won't be covered for a while, I guess, but it to our credit that kids will be in just a few days.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
March 22, 2010 3:27 AM in reply to FlownOver
You and your son have our thoughts and prayers! You have a reason to celebrate!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
StarkyLuv
March 21, 2010 11:02 PM
Stupak just earned back 1,000,000 cool points from me. He just told the Republicans that their attempt to send the bill back to committee isn't a 'right to life' measure, but another attempt to deny health care to millions of Americans.
Right on!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
March 21, 2010 11:02 PM in reply to StarkyLuv
That was nice to see. Good for him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 21, 2010 11:03 PM in reply to StarkyLuv
I know I just saw it. Go Stupak. He socked it right to the thugs
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Trailerville
March 21, 2010 11:07 PM in reply to StarkyLuv
I'm impressed. That was a hell of a speech. I thought he might just have been grandstanding earlier with his holdout, but that sounded pretty genuine.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barryashe
March 21, 2010 11:54 PM in reply to StarkyLuv
Stupak is still way better than the Republicans, difficult though he seemed at times during this crisis. Stupak is clearly willing to sell his vote on HCR, which he supports in its virtual entirety despite his foolish attachment to one extraneous issue. Stupak acted foolish on this one point but he accepted a compromise in the end.
The Republicans are foolish, not acting foolish on one issue. They will not sell their votes at any price. They are relentless in their attachment to their one overriding concern - that the wealthy not be forced to pay any money to aid their poorer fellow citizens even if these fellow citizens forfeit their very lives for the lack of that aid.
Stupak is willing to tax the wealthy to help the poor. He is so far above the Republicans that he seems like a saint in comparison.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 1:11 AM in reply to barryashe
"sell . . . votes". The CORRECT word is COMPROMISE -- which is the ESSENCE of DEMOCRACY.
Now go back and replace the former with the latter, and we see that Republican'ts HATE DEMOCRACY.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Good Ol Days
March 22, 2010 1:45 AM in reply to StarkyLuv
Health care reform is about SAVING LIVES not DESTROYING THEM!
Some people express the notion that although abortion is wrong, "it is not an area where one person has the right to impose his beliefs on others."
Would they feel that way if they were in the baby's shoes? I know that if someone was about to slice me up with a knife, I'd want somebody to impose his beliefs on the situation for my protection.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
exregis
March 22, 2010 8:14 AM in reply to The Good Ol Days
Nothing in any of these bills and amendments prohibits abortions. They would still occur. The difference is that some people of limited means would have to suffer a financial burden to have the abortion they have decided is best for all. Contraception is not 100% effective. Fetuses can be genetically damaged. For some, one mistake in youth can ruin the lives of both parent and child. It is not for me, or you, to judge their reasons.
Three month old fetuses are hardly aware of anything. They don't have the consciousness, the rich history of a life, passing from youth on forward, the feeling that they are the centers of their own universes -- that the hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq, say, have when invaded by the US for no reason. Or the unfortunate man in Texas wrongly executed for a fire he did not set that killed his own children.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
felix
March 21, 2010 11:02 PM
I don't know who's more pissed off at health reform passing - John Boehner or Brian Beutler
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
March 21, 2010 11:03 PM
They. Passed. The. Damn. Bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 21, 2010 11:05 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Yes. They Did.
VIVA AMERICA!!!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
March 21, 2010 11:12 PM in reply to lousgirl84
We can finally eat something and sleep well, can't we? :)
Then after that, our new fight will start... more work to do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 21, 2010 11:17 PM in reply to geofu54
Yes, we can. I am so delighted and so proud to be democrat.
Yes, we must keep working and stand behind our president and give him our support. He needs it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
March 22, 2010 12:01 AM in reply to lousgirl84
yes. we. can.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
March 22, 2010 12:05 AM in reply to acamus
Yes! We! Can!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 22, 2010 1:50 AM in reply to geofu54
I'm having some celebratory popcorn.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 1:53 AM in reply to Cal Gal
I'm celebrating with steamed pork buns.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SpiderPig
March 21, 2010 11:13 PM in reply to Viva!America!
YES! WE! DID!
(co-sign your statement)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
March 22, 2010 12:24 AM in reply to Viva!America!
Oh. Hell. Yeah!.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 22, 2010 1:49 AM in reply to Viva!America!
O M G !
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
March 22, 2010 8:37 AM in reply to Viva!America!
America! Fuck yeah!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PepperoniToni
March 21, 2010 11:03 PM
Nice touch having Stupak deliver the coup de gras to the Republicans for their last ditch effort to obstruct reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
March 21, 2010 11:21 PM in reply to PepperoniToni
And the Republicans scored again with another "You Lie!" moment. Guess the MSM talking heads who called them calm and rational with reasonable disagreement with the bill will have to think again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 1:58 AM in reply to traitorjoe
"think again"!? They didn't think the first time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
March 21, 2010 11:04 PM
Roll call.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 22, 2010 1:36 AM in reply to agio
Another roll call is here, with sorting by state and party:
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/2/165?ref=policy
I made up a spreadsheet of Democrats voting no, as sorted by their district's Partisan Voting Index Score:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tG23zjuA5gfn8KdhhkS8PnQ&output=html
Comments welcome. IMHO, Daniel Lipinski (Il-3 D+11), Stephen Lynch (MA-9 D+11), John Barrow (Ga-12 D+1), and Michael Arcuri (NY-24 R+2) should receive possible primary challenges. There's no need for bloodthirsty rhetoric, but we might ponder who deserves punishment from the base. Are there other nominees? Do any of these characters deserve special consideration?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 22, 2010 1:37 AM in reply to Measure for Measure
ETA, regarding the vote outcome: Woo-hoo! I've waited for this for a long time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 22, 2010 1:54 AM in reply to Measure for Measure
And let's show the Republican House members a little love.
Cao of course voted no: he hails from a D+25 district in Louisiana and will be pursing other employment in next January.
In IL-10, Republican Mark Kirk voted no: it's a D+6 district. The Delaware at-large district is held by Republican Michael N. Castle is a D+7: nice knowing you Mike!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 1:56 AM in reply to Measure for Measure
They obviously didn't want to be in Congress anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
March 22, 2010 10:08 AM in reply to Measure for Measure
Kirk's running for Senate in IL, isn't he?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barryashe
March 22, 2010 1:58 AM in reply to Measure for Measure
We can get these votes on other issues. Keep your guns focused on the enemy 178 Zombeys though I know the living dead are very hard to kill. They can never do the right thing as they are tools of the Devil.
For all we know some or all of these votes you list were available to Pelosi but she released them as not needed. Pelosi learned that "catch and release" strategy from Tom Delay. Thank heaven she is cutthroat enough to turn all their tricks back on them! She knows who the real enenmy is and never turns her back on them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
March 22, 2010 2:13 AM in reply to barryashe
Right. Let's not focus on our own, when there are so many OTHERS hanging low from the tree that CAN BE replaced. The ones that are our own can be dealt with better once the others are replaced.
A call to arms, my fellow activists! A call to arms!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barryashe
March 22, 2010 2:10 AM in reply to Measure for Measure
My comment above was in reference to primarying Dems in Measure for Measure's initial comment. My opinion is that we should regard all Dems as of a superior breed of human to all Repubs and never waste our time fighting with our own kind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 21, 2010 11:04 PM
one big step forward, much more to do, but I agree that Nancy Pelosi deserves a lot of credit here. Big accomplishment, just watching all the previous presidents calling for universal healthcare, FDR, JFK, but it's BHO who got it done!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
March 22, 2010 2:18 AM in reply to human
Pelosi is the SHIT! In an America 20-30 years in the future, she would be elected president! All because of people like her who have made everything possible today!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
March 21, 2010 11:05 PM
Stupak still neede to be stroked, but happy for his moment of sanity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
March 21, 2010 11:06 PM
Very happy. But I also think one of our problems has been the Pelosi strategy of letting people in difficult districts off the hook on major votes. This time it cost us a year (we should have been long done with HCR by now) but in the long run it's cost us our ability to say that we're voting our convictions. That's important too. Time to start proving we stand for something. This is a start, just could have been handled better and, well, could have been better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 22, 2010 1:55 AM in reply to destor23
Not a problem. A solution.
Nancy D'Alessandro from Bal'mer done her pop and granpop proud today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 22, 2010 11:55 AM in reply to Cal Gal
She sure did. Nancy comes from a long line of good democrats. I love this woman.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
exregis
March 22, 2010 8:17 AM in reply to destor23
Don't blame Pelosi and her strategy. The House had its (stronger) bill passed long before the Senate even started getting serious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stonerscum
March 21, 2010 11:07 PM
I second that! It wasn't pretty and the President made mistakes but Barack did what all the other Democrats couldn't. This is just the beginning, with this steel in their spines they are going to rebuild this nation stronger than ever before.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
likembrave
March 21, 2010 11:07 PM
Way to go NANCY....she's one tough lady! Amazing! She really has my respect. Congratulations! It's about time. Thank you Nancy and Democrats!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 22, 2010 1:58 AM in reply to likembrave
SF says "You're welcome."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wyt
March 21, 2010 11:08 PM
Amusing how they keep lying even after defeat. Is there a single Republican in Congress for whom truth has currency?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Trailerville
March 21, 2010 11:10 PM in reply to wyt
You lie! Baby killer! Socialist! Government takeover of medicare wanter!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 1:37 AM in reply to Trailerville
It's going to destroy the country!
What are they going to come up with when that doesn't happen? It DIDN'T destroy the country?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
March 22, 2010 2:21 AM in reply to JNagarya
2012 hasn't happened yet. They might be right on that one! LOL
(sorry, for some reason it replied to another post).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
March 22, 2010 10:48 AM in reply to Trailerville
You forgot "totalitarian fascist socialist government taker-overer!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
March 21, 2010 11:15 PM in reply to wyt
Yeah, and that with a straight face (and those crazy-wild eyes). Amusing, but at the same time frightening, if we think about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
March 22, 2010 2:20 AM in reply to geofu54
2012 hasn't happened yet. They might be right on that one! LOL
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
March 22, 2010 2:22 AM in reply to mophan
Please ignore above post. It was meant as a response further above.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 22, 2010 2:01 AM in reply to wyt
Nope.
I didn't see or hear any.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
romath
March 21, 2010 11:10 PM
If certain rights for African Americans, ~12% of the population, had been excluded from the bill instead of women, about 51% of the population, would you be celebrating an "historic event?" Well yes, you would have, because that's exactly what white males did for decades after Reconstruction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
March 21, 2010 11:55 PM in reply to romath
say what?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 1:40 AM in reply to romath
Racist jealousy much?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 1:42 AM in reply to JNagarya
My mistake:
Women are the 51 per cent of the population that dishonestly claims to be a "minority" for political advantage.
And then throws a tantrum when an actual minority isn't excluded.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 22, 2010 2:11 AM in reply to romath
That's politics for you.
Use contrception. More than one method.
And if you forget, use the morning after pill (not that expensive).
And if you dont find out for a few weeks, and you're not in a place where giving birth is something you need or want to do, call the "father" right away and have him give you half the $$ for an abortion.
I really have no problem with that as I think women should not be sleeping with men who are not accepting half the risk.
Think of them as mortgage brokers. Are they trying to put you into a subprime deal? Then shut the door in their friggin' faces.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 2:16 AM in reply to Cal Gal
I really have no problem with that as I think women should not be sleeping with men who are not accepting half the risk.
_____
And NONE of the decision-making power?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 22, 2010 2:18 AM in reply to JNagarya
What is this "decision" of which you speak?
The decision to copulate?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 3:13 AM in reply to Cal Gal
Right: sperm is of no consequence -- except when the recipient of it can hold the donor of it hostage for cash.
The political rhetoric is that women want exclusive control of their sexuality. Which is why in reality they attempt INSTEAD to control MALE sexuality.
This is the traditional and continuing paradigm, with 2. and 3. being the only changes:
1. When a couple gets pregnant, and both want it, no problem.
2. When a couple gets pregnant, and both don't want it, no problem.
3. When a couple gets pregnant, and he wants it but she doesn't, she doesn't have it.
4. When a couple gets pregnant, and he doesn't want it but she does, she has it -- and his wallet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joekuh
March 22, 2010 10:13 AM in reply to JNagarya
So its her fault that he wanted to do the act, but not deal with the consequences? Who's the real p***y here, him or her?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 10:11 PM in reply to Joekuh
Did you miss number 4.? --
This is the traditional and continuing paradigm, with 2. and 3. being the only changes:
1. When a couple gets pregnant, and both want it, no problem.
2. When a couple gets pregnant, and both don't want it, no problem.
3. When a couple gets pregnant, and he wants it but she doesn't, she doesn't have it.
4. When a couple gets pregnant, and he doesn't want it but she does, she has it -- and his wallet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 10:13 PM in reply to Joekuh
Did you miss number 4.? --
This is the traditional and continuing paradigm, with 2. and 3. being the only changes:
1. When a couple gets pregnant, and both want it, no problem.
2. When a couple gets pregnant, and both don't want it, no problem.
3. When a couple gets pregnant, and he wants it but she doesn't, she doesn't have it.
4. When a couple gets pregnant, and he doesn't want it but she does, she has it -- and his wallet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SteveS
March 21, 2010 11:10 PM
"Then Democrats need to run--hard--on their achievement for the next six months."
No, they need to pivot immediately to financial reform. If they don't take on the banks, an angry public will have its way with them in November no matter what else they have done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 1:48 AM in reply to SteveS
They've been working on that since the meltdown, and immeiately after passing the stimulus.
They also need to focus on jobs.
Rather: need to get the message out that that is what they are in fact focused on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
March 21, 2010 11:11 PM
The best way for Democrats to trumpet their achievement is to pass follow-up legislation that: 1) repeals the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies (the House already did this by a vote of 406-19); and 2) pass Rep. Alan Grayson's bill so that any American who wishes can buy into Medicare at cost.
Passing these separate measures, or at least voting on them, would reinvigorate members of the progressive base who are demoralized by compromises to corporate interests that are part of the insurance mandate package. Many who supported the bill as a political necessity are still licking wounds from those compromises.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FellowAmerican
March 21, 2010 11:13 PM in reply to Watt Childress
Agreed!! These 2 things would profoundly improve HCR, as it will soon be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
March 21, 2010 11:47 PM in reply to Watt Childress
Now progressives can begin to improve this legislation with the above mention of stripping the anti-trust laws for insurance companies, supporting Grayson's Medicare Buy-In bill. I would also like to see an effort to fix some of Medicare's fraud problems by improving a centralized computer system and ending Medicare license transfer when a business is bought/sold. And since there is a basic minimum for insurance benefits, throw in the buy across state lines as a zinger to the Republican't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
March 21, 2010 11:48 PM in reply to patmcgrowen
And make the exchange national instead of state.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 1:52 AM in reply to patmcgrowen
"ending Medicare license transfer when a business is bought/sold."
That should be determined case-by-case, otherwise you throw the patient out with the bath water.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
March 25, 2010 8:37 PM in reply to JNagarya
I just thought it would be possible when someone is going to buy a medicare licensed facility they could apply for their license before they actually started running the business. I'm sure it's not overnight the business changes hand. Of course we need to make sure the applications can be processed timely. Does anyone else have a better idea to prevent someone buying a pharmacy and using the license to files millions of dollars of fraudulent claims? This is an unnecessary problem and should be addressed. I think we can come up with some good solutions. If we don't start cleaning up some of these programs, Republicans are going to throw Medicare and the rest out with the bathwater as soon as they get the chance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 26, 2010 5:09 AM in reply to patmcgrowen
That's why it should be case-by-case, rather than in keeping with some sort of general standard. There should be, as example, a means to ensure that the facility will maintain sufficient continuity.
Much, if not most, of the fraud is committed by the intermediate recipients -- the medical facilities. A problem there is that the medical industry has the gov't somewhat over a barrel: if the enforcement is "excessive" then medical facilities will opt-out of the system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acanuck
March 22, 2010 3:11 PM in reply to patmcgrowen
Of all these proposals, ending the anti-trust exemption is the one crucial no-brainer. Pass that, and let the DOJ start investigating immediately. I'd bet insurance rates would dip.
Or some greedy execs would go to jail. Win-win either way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
March 21, 2010 11:11 PM
Well, when Brown won in Massachusetts, I was completely pessimistic. I predicted ultimate defeat for the health care package.
Well, as I pledged then, I have come back to TPM to declare unequivocally that I was wrong. Completely wrong. 100% wrong. I underestimated the president and the Democrats in the House.
Bravo, Mr. President. Bravo, Speaker Pelosi. Bravo, Leader Hoyer. Bravo, Mr. Clyburn. Congratulations to you all. And thank you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 22, 2010 12:11 AM in reply to eratosthenes8
Show's what a good person you are to be able to eat all that delicious crow....lol...... but I hear you loud and clear. I am so glad you're back in the fold.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
March 21, 2010 11:13 PM
Let History record this loud and clear.....Health Care Reform got ZERO Republican votes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
March 22, 2010 12:37 AM in reply to Dorn76
Just what you'd expect from a bunch of zeroes. Nothing from nothing is nothing. Double negatives at best.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winning Progressive
March 21, 2010 11:13 PM
Thank you President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and the House and Senate Democratic leadership!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
March 21, 2010 11:14 PM
The Dems need to run on this achievement hard? I can just see the commercials now:
Dems worked hard for a year, to the detriment of everything else, to pass a bill whose benefits mostly don't start for four more years. Vote Democrat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 21, 2010 11:19 PM in reply to masanf
and this year, next year, four years from now, you'll still be a pathetic loser.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 21, 2010 11:20 PM in reply to masanf
It's a bitter pill isn't it? Go back to your freeper sites where I am sure they missed you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
March 22, 2010 12:06 AM in reply to masanf
and the Repubs in all of their control gave us what? hmmm. two wars and an economic meltdown.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gonzo
March 22, 2010 12:18 AM in reply to masanf
Heh, you inadvertently admitted there were benefits. It's great seeing your head explode.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
March 22, 2010 12:51 AM in reply to masanf
I guess we could run on WMD, invasion of privacy, Katrina, fear, terror alerts, missions accomplished, dangling chads, dick cheney, Iraq, trickle-down theories, deficits, Bin Laden connections, axis' of evil, illiteracy, no child left behind, torture, legal memos or the dismantling of our constitution, but you guys have already used all those, repeatedly!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Seraph
March 22, 2010 2:03 AM in reply to masanf
Repubs worked hard for a year to prevent that bill from passing, and failed! Vote Republican!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 2:09 AM in reply to masanf
NOT to the detriment of everything else. Those who've been paying attention to reality, instead of sucking up America-hating FOX hate-speech to regurgitate, know that the Democrats have also been focused on financial regulation immediately upon passage of the successful stimulus, and jobs.
Remember, by contrast, the Republican'ts blocking reauthorization of unemployment benefits? Or is all reality beyond your apprehension?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
March 22, 2010 10:35 AM in reply to masanf
I think you made a typo. Let me fix that for you:
"Republicans worked hard for a year, to the detriment of everything else, to prevent passage of a bill whose benefits mostly don't start for four more years."
If Republicans had actually participated in the governing process instead of doing their best to derail it, it wouldn't have taken a year.
I still don't understand where they get the idea that "America" didn't want health insurance reform, when the majority elected party ran with that as part of their platform. Republicans have done a great disservice to this country over the past 14 months, and I hope voters make them answer for that in November.
I know I will.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lord Mike
March 21, 2010 11:16 PM
High five for Rahm? Why? He wanted to kill the whole thing!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GayIthacan
March 21, 2010 11:17 PM
Now on to Wall Street Reform and Oversight - and Jobs - and an end to DATA - and .............
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FellowAmerican
March 21, 2010 11:17 PM
Listening to C-SPan conduct phone commentary while the recommit vote is transpiring.
The ignorance and complete idiocy of those opposed (e.g. - it costs $10 trillion dollars" - !!) or even undecided is beyond belief. How can people hold such completely false beliefs? AHHHH!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
o224hsday
March 21, 2010 11:43 PM in reply to FellowAmerican
Too much FAUX News! And that 20-something college student saying that most students at Michigan are FOR HCR, when he spouts that we shouldn't be forced to do anything by the gov't. Must be part of the College R's.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
March 21, 2010 11:19 PM
Pelosi did it! She never gave up and forced Obama to put all his chips on the table. And the Republicans lost with style and dignity ... for them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Old Marsalla
March 21, 2010 11:20 PM
Great day to be a dem. To borrow from Jon Stewart, the Straw-man slippery slope dumb guys are squirming. And millions of Americans are better off than they were. One huge step in the right direction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rob_The_A_Hole
March 21, 2010 11:20 PM
Get ready for cash only (well your credit cards will be welcome too) upfront payments to doctors! Especially, the specialists. The American College of Surgeons and 18 other specialists group are against this reform, and there is nothing in this legislation to say they have to take insurance or medicare/medicaid. So the next time you need your ACL repaired or your tumors removed, better hope you're not carrying a high balance on your visa... This was a process already starting (google things like Concierge Doctors and the declining rates of doctors taking new medicare/medicaid patients), things like the Independent Payment Advisory board is going to hasten that process. Enjoy the victory tonight, I pity the ones who need care tomorrow. I'm sure the insurance companies who were just given 31 million more customers are happy!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
March 21, 2010 11:25 PM in reply to Rob_The_A_Hole
Buh-bye troll. Thanks for your Fox News Dick Armey talking points.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rob_The_A_Hole
March 21, 2010 11:28 PM in reply to traitorjoe
Troll my handsome balls... I have a bit of inside knowledge as to what the response down the road by Orthopedic Surgeons is going to be. HINT: you ain't gonna like it. The reimbursement rates for repairing an ACL are going to be the same for a PCP to provide diabetic counseling. You think some doctor who has spent the last 11-13 years of their life in Med School, Internship, Residency and Fellowship is going to stand for that? Like I said, enjoy your victory tonight... the problems will come later... or 2013 or whenever the hell this "reform" kicks in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
March 21, 2010 11:32 PM in reply to Rob_The_A_Hole
Wow! What a comeback! Thanks for your "inside knowledge." I have two doctors in my family and I work with an insurance litigator. Your information is as laughable as your sweaty balls. And yes, I'm going to enjoy this victory. All Democrats will. Enjoy your defeat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rob_The_A_Hole
March 21, 2010 11:37 PM in reply to traitorjoe
Those two docs in your family... are they specialists? My information is as real as it gets. you can easily search for it. Hell the story on Concierge Doctors is from MSNBC. Hope that doesn't make your head explode, being that it can't be true but everything from MSNBC is true. Its not my defeat... I'll be just fine. You guys on the other hand... LOL... not so much. Enjoy being able to just squeak out a win with 59 senators and an overwhelming House majority. November should be fun.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
March 21, 2010 11:42 PM in reply to Rob_The_A_Hole
"As real as it gets." How? Sounds like you want it to be true but that won't make it so. Yes, I will enjoy November, much more after today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pv2k
March 21, 2010 11:42 PM in reply to Rob_The_A_Hole
Until then let us just quote Republican President Calvin Coolige, "You lose."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AOW
March 21, 2010 11:44 PM in reply to Rob_The_A_Hole
uh . . . so what do you think of the AMA endorsing the bill?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rob_The_A_Hole
March 22, 2010 8:36 AM in reply to AOW
The AMA is primarily PCP/family care doctors... they stand to make out better than the specialty docs. Why do you think the American College of Surgeons and 18 other groups representing specialties were against it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
murphthesurf
March 22, 2010 1:51 PM in reply to AOW
The AMA is a lobbying organization that represents many medical service groups: most doctors, many nursing organizations, some pharmaceutical companies, some medical supply companies, a number of independent hospitals and some hospital groups.
Specialists are more likely to gather in related lobbying/professional development organizations. A number also belong to the AMA.
Figuring out why some chose not to endorse the HC bill depends a lot of which group you look at.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
March 21, 2010 11:45 PM in reply to Rob_The_A_Hole
Your "inside knowledge" is something "you can easily search for"? Ha, ha. You are funny.
Now go away.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gonzo
March 21, 2010 11:58 PM in reply to Rob_The_A_Hole
Horseshit. You must be confusing what just passed with single payer. You think the AMA would have kept the hounds at bay if their members were going get royally screwed like that? Orthos, neuros, and other exceedingly highly-paid specialists will still be able to pay for all their medical malpractice insurance,AND their country club membership, AND their annual ski trips to Vail and Chamonix, AND summers in the Hamptons and Nantucket, AND send the kids to Exeter, AND buy the stay-at-home trophy wife a brand new 1,500 square foot kitchen with GE Monogram appliances for her housekeeper to use.
BTW, I come from an ENTIRE FAMILY full of doctors (parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins), including PCPs,anaesthesiologists, surgeons, so, yeah, I think I know more than a little something about healthcare providers, and probably quite a bit more than you do. More to the point, I know that if I hadn't had insurance last summer, my wife's surgery for a brain tumor would have cost us over $90K out of pocket. If you can't see why people who happen to be out of work shouldn't be saddled with that kind of a tab when life just, aw shucks, "throws you that little curve ball," then at least we know you know how to pick a handle, cause you really are an A hole.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
March 22, 2010 1:02 AM in reply to gonzo
You don't need to know or be a doctor to understand that there aren't enough rich people for the "concierge system" to be anything but a niche market for a select group of doctors. It's basic economics 101 supply/demand shit.
Don't feed the troll. Just mock him for being stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rob_The_A_Hole
March 22, 2010 8:40 AM in reply to Stroszek
Actually that is very true... but don't you think that's going to contribute to a vastly unfair system, where the best docs go concierge or cash only and get paid handsomely by the rich, while those who can't afford to pay cash are left with lesser quality and lesser care?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
March 22, 2010 10:40 AM in reply to Rob_The_A_Hole
You're assuming that every doctor who specializes does so for the money.
Please don't project the personalities of the horrible people you must know onto the rest of the medical profession.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
March 22, 2010 12:40 AM in reply to Rob_The_A_Hole
Mmmm mmmm... this is exactly the kind of frantically desperate, sour grapes comment I was hoping to find here!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 1:34 AM in reply to Rob_The_A_Hole
"think again"!? They didn't think the first time -- yet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rob_The_A_Hole
March 21, 2010 11:41 PM in reply to traitorjoe
Here you go pumpkin... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34019606/ns/health-health_care/
Hope that doesn't cause some sort of endless loop logic error for you. You're too much fun to be sent into complete meltdown. LMAO!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
March 21, 2010 11:46 PM in reply to Rob_The_A_Hole
How could you send me into logic error? Only facts and logic could do that. My family members are an orthopedic surgeon and a psychiatrist. And they've never heard of your logic, either. But keep trying. You lost tonight and you're trying to get some vengeance. Ain't working.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gonzo
March 22, 2010 12:05 AM in reply to Rob_The_A_Hole
You're right. They should just leave. Just like all the Going Galt neo-Rand jackasses like to threaten to leave the country for the Bahamas because of our confiscatory taxes, all those poor neurosurgeons who think they're going to lose their 7 figure salaries because of this bill should just...leave. All those specialists can always go live in Saudi or Bahrain instead. First class facilities. Saves the Saudi princes the hassle of having to fly into Baltimore or Rochester. Hope they don't mind the humidity, though. I'm sure the whales in Shanghai or tech barons in Bangalore have great facilities for poor disgruntled multimillionaires, too!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
March 22, 2010 12:44 AM in reply to Rob_The_A_Hole
All the forced LMAOs and LOLs in the world can't hide the bitter pain of defeat.
And that, friend, is truly LOL-worthy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 22, 2010 9:12 AM in reply to Rob_The_A_Hole
Look because you have doctors in your family who don't like this bil doesn't mean shit to us. If they are right wing doctors who cares what they think. My niece is a anesthesiologist and I have an oncologist in my family and they happen to be liberals and are 100% behind a bill that starts to address the problem. So the fact that you have doctors in your family with the mindset of Senator Coburn and the other thug doctors in the senate is unimpressive to say the least
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
March 22, 2010 12:23 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Are you responding to me or to Rob? I like the bill and so does my family including one of the two doctors (the other lives in Texas!).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gonzo
March 22, 2010 12:16 AM in reply to Rob_The_A_Hole
Cue "Don't Cry For Me, Argentina." The Madonna version.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
March 22, 2010 1:08 AM in reply to Rob_The_A_Hole
Why, out of the blue, do you decide to jump in with your feigned concern, now? You serve the purpose of a wart or fart, whatever that is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 21, 2010 11:23 PM
Luke Russert says he heard someone from the GOP call Stupak a "baby killer"--the lashing out in final desperation is actually hilarious and entertaining at this point. Just another "isolated incident", LOL.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
March 21, 2010 11:37 PM in reply to human
Seriously, who was the yeller?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
March 21, 2010 11:36 PM
Finally!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
March 21, 2010 11:47 PM
Here come our President & Vice President.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 22, 2010 12:04 AM in reply to geofu54
The President was stellar tonight as always.
I love my President. I am so proud of he and Nancy Pelosi. What a moment.
Proud to be a democrat and an Obamaton, Obamabot, Obama Worshipper or whatever else I have been called.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
March 22, 2010 12:26 AM in reply to lousgirl84
My feeling exactly... it's a great day to be a democrat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Karl the Marxist
March 21, 2010 11:53 PM
"Yay," shitty law offers marginal improvement. Baby steps.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bolshevik in Jesustan
March 22, 2010 1:41 AM in reply to Karl the Marxist
Your name is relevant to my interests. :D
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
itheuser
March 21, 2010 11:55 PM
This entire fiasco has been fascinating. On one hand, we were at a point when it seemed that Obama was being overwhelmed by the opposition, and didn't know how to handle.
On the other hand, it appears that he played his hand masterfully. Of course, that's not suggesting that he got everything he wanted, which rarely politicians do. Still, he kept on the path.
What is interesting is how this process seems to have been decided on long ago, and the media have kept this narrative moving, with all of its twist, and turns, and moments of doubt. In reality, the reconciliation process had already been discussed, long before people gave up on the effort.
What we have witnessed is masterful political maneuvering by Obama, and his cabinet. I suspected that the Democrats had more up their sleeves than what was being presented by their constituents, and the media.
Of course, until they actually succeeded, it was difficult to make any prediction about the outcome.
In a sense, we were played as fading hopefuls, just like the Tea Party was lead to believe that they had killed the bill. We were all apart of this somewhat scripted narrative.
This is an incredible story for more reasons that one. Also, I hope this is a cautionary tale to any one of the frustrated Liberals who were giving up on this administration when obstacles were placed in front of them.
In politics, there is never any peace. There is no end to the fight. There isn't a point where we can all relax, and be happy with the way things are going. We have to get, and remain tough, because this battle has just begun.
Now begins the long fight of making HC even better. Although, it is clear that any agrarian dreams that Conservatives once had, are now dead.
The pendulum has swung.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gonzo
March 21, 2010 11:56 PM
Horseshit. You must be confusing what just passed with single payer. You think the AMA would have kept the hounds at bay if their members were going get royally screwed like that? Orthos, neuros, and other exceedingly highly-paid specialists will still be able to pay for all their medical malpractice insurance,AND their country club membership, AND their annual ski trips to Vail and Chamonix, AND summers in the Hamptons and Nantucket, AND send the kids to Exeter, AND buy the stay-at-home trophy wife a brand new 1,500 square foot kitchen with GE Monogram appliances for her housekeeper to use.
BTW, I come from an ENTIRE FAMILY full of doctors (parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins), including PCPs,anaesthesiologists, surgeons, so, yeah, I think I know more than a little something about healthcare providers, and probably quite a bit more than you do. More to the point, I know that if I hadn't had insurance last summer, my wife's surgery for a brain tumor would have cost us over $90K out of pocket. If you can't see why people who happen to be out of work shouldn't be saddled with that kind of a tab when life just, aw shucks, "throws you that little curve ball," then at least we know you know how to pick a handle, cause you really are an A hole.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
March 21, 2010 11:58 PM
Proud to be a Democrat! Will now pay the party dues I've been withhholding until this passed.....yeah!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
crazycarnypoptart
March 21, 2010 11:58 PM
I kinda wanna watch beck tomorrow to see what he says( for the record I have never watched glenn beck so I need to look up the time it comes on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FlownOver
March 22, 2010 12:07 AM in reply to crazycarnypoptart
He'll waste an hour of our time crying and wailing incomprehensibly. Good times!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rstephen
March 22, 2010 12:00 AM
Better late than never. I'm glad that Obama finally got into the fight and started leading the nation the past few weeks. Too bad he didn't do this a year ago. And let's hope it isn't the last time. My advice is that he gets rid of Ron Manuel as soon as possible if he ever wants to achieve anything else, foreign or domestic, during his presidency. Manuel's selfish promotion of his own agenda in the W Post and on 60 minutes shows that Manuel is only interested in promoting Manuel's interests, and not in promoting the interests of this country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barryashe
March 22, 2010 12:00 AM
We're in!!! Stupak sold his vote, God love him! Shame on those who would not sell their votes at any price. And shame on those 178 Lockstep Zombeys who will never sell their votes at any price at any time for any cause no matter how just.
At least the remaining Dems who lined up with the GOP on this issue can be persuaded to sell their votes on another issue on another day. The worst, lowest Dem, Bobby Bright or Gene Taylor or whoever, is a paragon of virtue compared to the best, whatever that can mean with those automatons, Republican.
What does it matter what Stupak said or did before - when the chips were down he voted with us. God bless Bart Stupak! God bless Max Baucus! God bless Ben Nelson! And, yes Virginia, God bless Joe Lieberman.
We're in! And they did the right thing when it counted. The bald fact is that we could not have done it without them. God bless them one and all!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
March 22, 2010 12:17 AM in reply to barryashe
Joe Lieberman? What the heck are you talking about?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barryashe
March 22, 2010 1:49 AM in reply to Dorn76
Without Lieberman's vote we could not have broken the filibuster in the Senate and we would not have passed this bill. He acted badly at many turns of events and had to be paid off, but he was there when we needed him. What are you talking about?
I guess you are too pure as the driven snow to accept the help of such as Lieberman, but I 'm not. Satan could have been the 60th vote for all I care and I'd be singing his praises. In the real world you take your friends where you can find them, but I guess you'd have preferred to not give millions of Americans health care rather than make a bargain with the likes of Lieberman.
Lieberman can be had, his vote can be bought if you give him what he wants. We can work with him, but we cannot work with the 178 Lockstep Zombey Fascists on the other side of the aisle. They, like you, are pure as the driven snow and will not tax the rich to help the poor no matter what you offer them.
They are men, angry old white men, of absolute devotion to principle. They know that the rich are rich because God loves them and to steal rich people's money by taxing them is against the will of God. Those that are poor and helpless are the damned; they can eat cake.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
March 22, 2010 2:25 AM in reply to barryashe
I'm increasingly enamored with this idea Nate Silver keeps pushing, which is we should always judge congresspeople relative to their seats. So let's look at Bart Stupak. Well, I don't know where you look up partisan ID by district, but that district did vote for George W. Bush twice. Maybe he actually just represents his constituents and that's the best we were likely to get in that district. Or look at Blanche Lincoln, even. Clearly not the best we could ask for even in Arkansas, but it's also not Arkansas is fertile ground for Democrats at this point. If Lincoln just plain didn't exist we could expect a Republican would be in the same seat and that would be worse. I'd like to see both these people primaried but you can really say they did something for us, they gave us a vote that the alternatives sitting in the same seat might not have.
But Lieberman?
Lieberman is Senator for Connecticut. There is basically no possible world where Lieberman is not holding that seat right now yet where there isn't a Democrat sitting in his place. And basically any non-Republican would be better than Lieberman. I don't think he gets credit for this, we might as well be praising him just for having a pulse. He made the legislation objectively worse but didn't contribute anything unique in return.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barryashe
March 22, 2010 8:30 AM in reply to mcc
Well. the Big Rock Candy Mountain is over that-a-way, but I wanted something to get done now, not some better Pie-in-the-Sky-When-You-Die in a few years maybe. When we needed that 60th vote, there was Joe with hat in hand and chip on shoulder, but ready to make a deal, compromise, sell his vote, whatever you want to call it.
I'm glad Boss Reid never hesitated, gave Joe what he wanted, and took that precious 60th vote from the only person who was offering it. So here we are, safe at home because Joe, God Bless him!, could be bought at a price we could pay. Thank you Joe Lieberman!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
March 22, 2010 12:06 AM
So now are the Republicans in the Senate going to do everything they can to stop them from enacting the fixes? Or has the fat lady finally sung on cynical obstructionism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IMNOTBITTER
March 22, 2010 12:08 AM
Regarding republicans and health care....KICK EM WHILE THEIR DOWN!!!!.......Lets get going on a public option on Monday and then SINGLE PAYER BY 2014!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Backcountry
March 22, 2010 12:11 AM
Right off the bat, my two daughters who are over age 18 will not have to stay in school or make a sudden shift to ANY employer with health benefits as soon as they leave school. They both have until age 26. Whow. That's big to me.
And my oldest daughter's boyfriend, who cannot now purchase health insurance at any price apparently, will at least qualify for some sort of high-risk pool or something.
But unlike the Rethuglicans, I'm also impressed with the impacts this will have on my fellow Americans, nearly all of whom I have never met but for all of whom I care about.
Now it is time for the Rethuglicans to pay the price for their lock-step, facist/racist style opposition to what most Americans soon will find out is a pretty good deal.
I know you Rethugs were willing to pay any price -- including suffering to your families -- to deny a huge victory to our first black president. I'm just glad that other than politically, you won't have to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
March 22, 2010 12:23 AM
Congratulations, folks. You did it!
Very proud of the tremendous effort and perseverance by people from grassroots all the way up to Madame Speaker and President.
Thank you for having the courage to get this done.
I remember how the historic victories of November 2006 and 2008 filled me with hope. That hope has been vindicated.
A more perfect union, indeed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tigerhawkvok
March 22, 2010 12:26 AM
Correction — it's House Minority Leader Boehner (right before 'became so agitated').
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
booch221
March 22, 2010 12:48 AM
I'm celebrating by listening to Waterloo by ABBA.
http://www.last.fm/music/ABBA/_/Waterloo
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOPinNYC
March 22, 2010 1:18 AM
I can hardly wait to read one of you guys whine about the 2% fine one of those new 16,500 IRS agents slaps you with because you don't insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bolshevik in Jesustan
March 22, 2010 1:42 AM in reply to GOPinNYC
I accidentally insurance. Is this dangerous? (Y/N)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 2:30 AM in reply to Bolshevik in Jesustan
Yeah: all those imaginary IRS agents are coming to get your guns!
Or something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOPinNYC
March 22, 2010 12:49 PM in reply to JNagarya
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/16500-more-IRS-agents-needed-to-enforce-Obamacare-88458137.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 10:20 PM in reply to GOPinNYC
“www DOT washingtonexaminer DOT com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/16500-more-IRS-agents-needed-to-enforce-Obamacare-88458137”
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOPinNYC
March 23, 2010 1:52 AM in reply to JNagarya
You got something to dispute that opinion? Nope. Ok. Shush now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 23, 2010 2:12 AM in reply to GOPinNYC
Here's reason, which refutes your irrelevance:
1. News deals in fact -- not "opinion".
2. A lie is not an "opinion" because a lie is FALSE. By comparison, "opinion" has a chance of being true.
3. Not all opinions are equal. Some are informed, some are uninformed. And some are false, therfore not "opinion".
If you can do better than cherry picked opinion which you believe supports your view -- to the exclusion of all evidence to the contrary -- like providing FACT, then do so. If not, then shut your intellectual dishonesty the fuck up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bolshevik in Jesustan
March 22, 2010 11:21 PM in reply to JNagarya
Not to mention dogs and cats living together; mass hysteria!
All kidding aside, though, I ascribe to the Lebedevian philosophy:
"работу, но сохранить свое ружье под рукой"
"Work, but keep your rifle at hand." (Taken from a 1921 Soviet Poster by Vladimir Lebedev)
Even I know no one's coming after my guns. Thus far, they've only done that in Ireland, Britain, and most recently Australia. Of course, if the "survivors group" of the École Polytechnique massacre would like to do that in Canada, too. They're pretty much to Canada what the Brady Center is to the US. As both an American and (until the Canadians changed citizenship law) a Canadian, I would prefer to not see those groups succeed. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto proved that civilian ownership of firearms is good for national security — back in 1941 — by saying, "You cannot invade mainland America. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bolshevik in Jesustan
March 22, 2010 11:27 PM in reply to Bolshevik in Jesustan
erm, that was supposed to read, "Of course, the "survivors group" of the École Polytechnique massacre would like to do that in Canada, too."
I'm not sure where that "if" came from.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 23, 2010 1:58 AM in reply to Bolshevik in Jesustan
In your enthusiasm you overlook the obvious:
The gov't isn't afraid of your pop-gun. The gov't doesn't care about your pop-gun. The gov't needn't "come for your guns". The gov't has bazookas and tanks, artillery and planes, bombs and nukes. The gov't can take you out without ever being in range of your pop-gun.
In addition to which:
US Con. Art. I., S. 8, C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.
In other words: there is no right to shoot at gov't/rule of law.
Even Jefferson, in the "Declaration of Independence," condemns the lie that there is:
[King George III] has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
The Bill of Rights, and thus the Second Amendment, was framed by the first Congress under the newly-ratified Constitution. Congress' debates of that which became the Second Amendment began with this question:
Should we establish a standing army, or rely instead on the militia?
In relatively short order they decided to rely on the militia -- because they viewed standing armies as "the bane of liberty". As THREAT to the gov'ts established. Thus they chose to rely instead on the militia because they DID NOT intend that the militia be a threat to the gov'ts they established.
Only then did they get to establishing the structure governing the militia at the state level -- because the Second Amendment's only purpose was, as a sop to Anti-Federalists to obtain sufficient of their support to ratify the Constitution, to ensure that the states could keep their militia. This is the first draft of that which would become the Second Amendment:
"The right if the people [PLURAL, as in "We the people"; it is not, "We the individual," or, "I the people"] to keep and bear arms [in the MILITIA] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia [NOT "individual"] being the best security of a free country [NOT "individual"]: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in the MILITIA], shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in the MILITIA] in person." Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Johns Hopkins, 1991), Ed. by Helen E. Veit, et al., at 30.
That substance of that debate was summed up by ANTI-Federalist Elbridge Gerry in this sentence:
"What, sir, is the use of the militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army -- the bane of liberty." Id., at 182.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bolshevik in Jesustan
March 23, 2010 9:39 PM in reply to JNagarya
actually, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. In a ruling last summer, they acknowledged the 2nd Amendment to refer to an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Also, most states specifically have individual RKBA language.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 24, 2010 4:12 AM in reply to Bolshevik in Jesustan
I'm very much aware of Heller. But I'm also aware that the same activist extremists decided the lawless Bush v. Gore, and Citizens United, whiuch buries the voice of the vastr majority of the electorate.
OTherwise, this is how it works:
The first Congress under the newly-ratified Constitution framed the Bill of Rights -- and thus the Second Amendment. That Congress' debates of the writing of the Bill of Rights, and Second Ame3ndment, are the LEGAL AUTHORITY to which we refer when we want to determine the intent of those who WROTE the Bill of Rights/Second Amendment.
That is how standard adjudication works. The activist faction that decided the three cases does not operate according to established standards; they operate according to the results they want to reach. Heller is no less a lie than are the other two decisions.
Having read those debates: the first and only issue to be decided in the debates of that which became the Second Amendment was whether to establish a standing army, or to rely instead on the militia. As the Founders/Framers viewsed standing armies as "the bane of liberty" -- THREAT to the gov'ts they established, they chose to rely instead on the militia -- which they DID NOT intend to be a threat ot the gov'ts they established. Those who, to the contrary, insist the Amendment is to protect a private, individual right intend that to be the foundation of their "interpretation" of that Amendment as establishing a "right of revolution". The latter LIE cannot be true --
US Con. Art. I., S. 8, C. 15. The Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia [of the Second Amendment] to execute the Laws of the Union, [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.
Those being the facts, and that being the decision of that Congress -- militia instead of standing army -- they debated the draft of that which would become the Second Amendment in order to determine, centrally and essentially, how to deal with conscientious objection. This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which was drawn from the MILITIA clauses of four of the existing state constitutions:
The right of the people [PLURAL, as in, "We the people"; it is not, "We the individual," or, "I the people"] to keep and bear arms [in the MILITIA] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia [NOT "individual"] being the best security of a free country [NOT "individual"]: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in the MILITIA], shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY, as in DRAFT] to render military service [in the MILITIA] in person. Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Johns Hopkins, 1991), Ed. by Helen E. Veit, et al., at 30.
ANTI-Federalist Elbridge Gerry summed up the whole substance of the debate of that which became the Second Amendment this way:
"What, sir, is the use of the militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Id, at 182.
In other words: the Second Amendment was solely and simply intended to expressly ensure that the states could keep their militia -- which already existed, were already regulated under the states' constitutions and laws, and the commander in chiefs of which were the states' governors. (Except when Federalized, during which the President was/is the Commander in Chief. US Con. Art. I., S. 8, C. 16.)
The Second Amendment was a sop to the Anti-Federalists in order to secure sufficient of their support to ratify the Constitution. It never had anything whatever to do with "individual" ANYTHING. And it still doesn't, the activist extremists of Heller notwithstanding.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bolshevik in Jesustan
March 23, 2010 9:48 PM in reply to JNagarya
That being said, I would be the first person to come to the defense of the nation with my personally-owned firearms to protect the duly elected government from any insurrection.
It is true that there is no right to shoot at the rule of law. In that, we agree. My point is that the private ownership of firearms enhances national security against both foreign and domestic enemies in that both know the American citizens themselves are armed and willing to defend their homeland and their duly elected government.
All being said, though, if they chose to rely on the Militia, why then does the Congress have the power to create and maintain an Army and Navy?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 24, 2010 4:30 AM in reply to Bolshevik in Jesustan
First of all, the militia is not a bunch of ragtag volunteer "patriots" who show up with their guns. It is a gov't regulated and run organization into which one enlists by formal process, or is drafted. Exactly as is done with regular military organizations. Thus it has always been UNDER the law, NOT in spite of it.
Second:
It s a distortion of the facts to say that the battle of April 19 [Lexington-Concord] was a spontaneous uprising of loosely organized "embattled farmers"--it was much more than that. The battle can better be seen as the final clash of arms of the old Massachusetts militia, in which forty-seven regiments, containing over 14,000 men, marched against the British regulars (over 4,000 men from fourteen of the regiments actually struck the column) and employed concepts of organization and methods of command and control that had been forged during a century and a half of nearly constant warfare. The Minute Men: The First Fight: Myths & Realities of the American Revolution (McLean, VA: Pergamon-Brassey's International Defense Publishers, Published with the Institute of Land Warfare Association of the U.S. Army, 1986), Gen. John R. Galvin, U.S. Army, at 3.
In other words: the militia was (and is as National Guard) a highly trained professional organization.
_____
All being said, though, if they chose to rely on the Militia, why then does the Congress have the power to create and maintain an Army and Navy?
_____
Because the militia doesn't have the same level of training and competence. It isn't full time. Standing armies -- for which the Constitution does provide -- are full time. In The Federalist (I think No. 10), Hamilton pointed out that had winning the revolution depended on the militia, the revolution would have been lost.
As well, unless Federalized, a state's militia has no jurisdiction outside its state. In other words, the army and navy are national.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bolshevik in Jesustan
March 26, 2010 5:02 AM in reply to JNagarya
a few key points about the National Guard:
First, the Guard wasn't created until 1917. This makes it, at best, a successor to a previous system for organizing a militia.
Second, the National Guard operates under all federal policies of the active and reserve military, including DADT, preventing women from serving in combat positions, etc.
Third (and very importantly), the Guard was meant to serve as a domestic defense service... never as a reserve component of the active military. Yet, I've seen the 732nd CSSB (Wisconsin Army National Guard) based out of Tomah in Iraq for the last year.
Unless these things are rectified: that the States have no actual power to refuse to disqualify someone from service because of protected status (in Wisconsin, it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in any job — including state employees — yet the National Guard continues to support DADT; that it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex in any job — including state employees — yet the National Guard continues to support preventing women from serving in combat positions), that Guardsmen are frequently placed in foreign combat situations (which I believe can only harm our national security by weakening our national defense) and are treated as a de facto reserve complement to the US Army; the National Guard, in my estimation, is not an adequate successor to the state militia system.
I am a veteran of the USAF; if the Wisconsin Air National Guard had control over their own recruitment (to such effect that it complied with all state laws), I would not be barred from enlistment with the 115th Fighter Wing at Truax Field in Madison. I maintained F-15's which are not fundamentally different from the F-16's that the 115th FW operates (except perhaps the computerized flight control system... which is A-Shop's job anyway, not mine); I would be a valuable asset to the Wing as a fully trained aircraft mechanic. Yet, because DADT applies to the ANG, I cannot enlist with them. Further, I have been through a ground force basic military training and am a skilled marksman, and I am a licensed amateur radio operator; I would be a valuable asset in an infantry unit of the Wisconsin Guard as both a designated marksman and signal corps operator... or after sniper school, jump school, and HALO school, I could be an incredibly valuable asset as a sniper and/or forward recon operator. Yet, because the Wisconsin National Guard must comply with both the prohibition on women serving in combat and DADT, I again cannot enlist. Both of these situations are in violation of Wisconsin Fair Employment Law, yet they are allowed to stand. Why? Because if the unit of which I am a part becomes federalized, they are then considered a part of the US military and thus fall under said provisions of law. If the states are to form their own militias, they should be in conformance with at least federal standards of nondiscrimination, and at most in conformance to state laws regarding fair employment. While this would create inconsistent standards across the force, that is the nature of a state militia: they reflect the values of the state.
I think you have a lot of interesting information regarding the history of the Second Amendment, but to say that it refers to the National Guard is flawed in a number of respects. Further, the Constitution was intended to be a living, breathing document in order to serve the current needs of the people. Just as slavery went the way of the dinosaur (albeit by constitutional amendment), perhaps the Court was true to the present-day needs of the American people. 120 years ago, it was considered proper to have separate facilities for white and colored people. To do so today would be preposterous (and would almost invariably provoke a lawsuit). 90 years ago, it was considered perfectly fine to deny half of the citizens of this country the right to vote. Today, it is abhorrent to consider denying the right of women to vote. 50 years ago, interracial marriage was the evil that would bring about Armageddon (yet here we debate). And today, the country is embroiled in debate as to whether it is ethical to deny same-sex couples the civil ceremonies of marriage.
I find it interesting, however, that while automatic weapons are heavily restricted in this country, every household in Iraq has the right to keep an automatic weapon at the ready (and there is no mention of restriction on semi-automatic and manual action firearms). It's sad that Iraqis have more firearms rights under American occupation than American citizens do within our own country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 26, 2010 6:32 AM in reply to Bolshevik in Jesustan
1. The militia evolved into the National Guard. See "Militia Act" of 1792, then 10 U.S.C.
2. The National Guard was used in Europe during WW I.
3. The National Guard pulled overseas duty during WW II.
Law EVOLVES. That's why the Constitution includes provision for AMENDMENT.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
March 22, 2010 10:11 AM in reply to GOPinNYC
Lucky me, I have great insurance. I supported health reform for all the people who can't get decent insurance, a number that includes a surprising percentage of non-self-aware teabaggers. I suppose I could have said "I got mine, so screw you," but that's not how I roll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
everymaneverywhere
March 22, 2010 1:26 AM
I don't usually sign up for these forums but I just couldn't help myself today! This is truly historic and my hope is that the voters will understand what just transpired and will respond accordingly next Nov. Lets keep this going. Bravo!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuro
March 22, 2010 1:29 AM
YES WE CAN!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 22, 2010 1:32 AM
Junkies that we are, we've been watching all day. And as we got tired of the CNN crew, we eventually switched to MSNBC.
David Schuster, OK. And Ed Schultz, ok, him, too.
But NO ONE ELSE? Where was Rachel? Where was Chris? Where was Keith? (OK, I know his Dad just died, but historic moment and alll ... ) Where was a panel, with ANYBODY on it?
WTF?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 22, 2010 9:43 AM in reply to Cal Gal
I missed Rachel for sure but I will give David Shuster some kudos here. He did a pretty damn good job and the guests were good. It was good to have Ezra Klein on - he is the ultimate health care wonk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mark in Oregon
March 22, 2010 1:36 AM
How soon before Limbaugh leaves the country? Perhaps he'll move to Zimbabwe, and start agitating for a New Rhodesia.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bolshevik in Jesustan
March 22, 2010 1:40 AM in reply to Mark in Oregon
one could only hope — Roberto Mugabe would make short work of him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bolshevik in Jesustan
March 22, 2010 1:38 AM
They said it would be his Waterloo… looks more like it was his Battle of Stalingrad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
5542
March 22, 2010 1:39 AM
Think Obama's entitled to that honorary ASU degree now?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RadioNumber
March 22, 2010 1:40 AM
It will be much more interesting to watch the jaws of the political cynics drop more so than those of the reactionary right. Cynicism has unfortunately become the operating ethic of those on both sides of the issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mageduley
March 22, 2010 1:46 AM
For nostalgia (and idiotic's) sake:
THIS
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PepperoniToni
March 22, 2010 4:09 AM in reply to mageduley
IS
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mageduley
March 22, 2010 4:07 PM in reply to PepperoniToni
EXCELLENT NEWS FOR EVERYBODY! :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tollef
March 22, 2010 2:07 AM
Busting out my "good" whiskey tonight! Cheers from Seattle!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
March 22, 2010 2:38 AM
Right on! All the good & a swift kick in the righties nuts too!
They get to dive in even deeper into their Fox holes now, which from what I've seen, they're already doing. Sad faces & all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
March 22, 2010 3:30 AM
Congratulations everyone. This is the first step. We did it. Our President did it. Nancy busted her ass for it.
Take a breath. But, don't stop. It's only the beginning.
Wow. Love you all. Celebrate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
March 22, 2010 3:32 AM in reply to WaitWut?
P.S. Thanks, Josh for letting us be here. You are a part of all of this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
larue
March 22, 2010 4:59 AM
Josh, TPM, and all of you.
Answer me why you folks think this legislation that mandates coverage and IRS collections upon we the people for the FIRST time in this nation's history is a good thing?
Answer me when I tell you that this historic POS bill will not protect we the people from the enforced purchase of a private product that's mandated by our government, and one mandated purchase that will result in a corporate and facist (when business and government are wedded, like thru legislation like this bill) based relationship NEVER yet encountered in our country's history?
Answer me when I ask you what in the present legislation you gloat about prevents the raising of premiums, the raising of co pays, the raising of deductibles, on those 32 millions that are going to be FORCED to buy insurance, and they don't have a fucking dime for rent, bills, food or care of any sorts now, but somehow, you think they will find money cuz John Law will haul them in if they DON'T spend the money?
Tell me Josh, and your minions, where will the homeless get the money to pay for mandated insurence?
Tell me Josh, as this legislation fills the coffers of the rich and private insurance, where will we the people find the money to pay for shit packages, higher premiums, less coverage, higher co pays, higher deductibles and higher lifetime caps that cut seniors or non seniors off from care once they exceed caps?
And You want to tell me you have LANGUAGE in the bill(s), bills, what bill, which one? Language that will PROHIBIT denial of care?
What language can you quote that will ensure coverage starts now, and the premiums mandate starts LATER???? HMMMM?
There is NO care, not for kids, not for anyone, and the mandate premiums starts NOW.
So tell me Josh Marshall, aside from the loss of women's rights, the loss of a public option, single payer, or real REFORM (where's the fucking anti trust portion Joshua?) and any competition for private insurance, or any lack of REGULATION upon the insurers, or big med, where's the fuckin reform, where's the hope, where's the change and where's the help for the middle class and lower class?
Cus all I see, Josh, is a fucking giveaway to the corporate fascists you have jumped the ship onto, and now support.
What happened to TPM's progressive support of the we the people, Josh?
What happened to you?
Who paid you, Josh, who paid you to go corporate and leave the progressives behind?
Who paid you, Josh?????
To leave we the people, behind, so far, as you have done? Who paid you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
exregis
March 22, 2010 8:29 AM in reply to larue
I suppose you have the option not to pay into the social security system, and the option not to pay into the medicare system, and you're wondering why you don't have the option not to pay into the universal health insurance system. No wonder you're so upset.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JamHandy
March 22, 2010 6:49 AM
Congrats to Speaker Pelosi, President Obama and everyone who worked so hard to get the ball across the goal line, on 4th and 11 yards yet! Now we just need the Senate to kick the point after and that's the game.
I find it interesting how Republicans love to point at the bipartisan support for prior votes on Medicare, etc., something they will not be able to claim for HCR. All their left with is to badmouth the reform and stir up the teabaggers more (if that's possible). Like ashes in their collective mouths.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
exregis
March 22, 2010 8:38 AM
I remember the state of the nation before Medicare; the pathetic position older people were in, older people who had the highest poverty rate of any age group after decades of service to their families, to their communities, to their country -- the service of living full networked lives. I could not believe how callous and selfish were those in the congress who opposed Medicare so strenuously.
If anything, the atmosphere of sheer hatred for one's fellow human beings is much worse today for a smaller, less expensive group of the medically downtrodden and for a smaller tax to pay for relief. This country has gotten ugly.
My heartfelt congratulations for the leaders in the executive and in congress who persisted in their belief that all of us are worthy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 22, 2010 10:30 AM
Guess which headline is Fox and which one is CNN.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joekuh
March 22, 2010 10:59 AM in reply to Brownbagger
I was expecting more fire and brimstone from Faux' headlines.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
murphthesurf
March 22, 2010 11:06 AM
FRUM: A VOICE OF REASON IN THE GOP DESERT
Speechwriter/Adviser David Frum stated yesterday that the HC bill was Obama's Waterloo, but that Obama was Wellington and the GOP was Napoleon. He wrote: "Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s....We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat."
Frum is from the RATIONAL RIGHT and a part of the conservative tradition best represented by William F. Buckley. His area of special expertise is the economy and the politics that surrounded influencing it. Frum was a trusted counselor to George W. Bush when he ran for President and during the first two years of his first term.
The Halliburton Mafia (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove) got him exiled. Other moderates soon followed (Powell being the most notable).
In his book, "The Right Man", Frum summarized why Bush was such an attractive candidate (and pretty well captured why I voted for him). He then lays out what went wrong (and pretty well captures why I worked against a Bush second term).
Frum has been doing the same for the GOP ever since. He has warned that overidentification with a region and an ideology would narrow the base to a point where only the most zealous of stands targeted at the most zealous of supporters will energize the party.
He warned the GOP that the selection of Sarah Palin would brand the Party as jaded and cynical.
And he called on the GOP to work with the Democrats in the creation of a strong Health Insurance/Health Services bill that would represent the interests of both parties. He regarded the bill as one required by the times and that history would look badly on those who stood in the way.
Waterloo, indeed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jeffy Big Boy
March 22, 2010 11:29 AM
Are we on the slippery slope towards totalitarianism? Undoubtedly.
But that's just the beginning.
As I brushed my teeth this morning, it occurred to me: if I push this toothbrush just sliiiightly further, I'll hurl my Cheerios. Without even realizing it, I had put myself on the slippery slope towards bulimia.
After I had dressed, I walked the eight blocks west to my subway stop. Which put me, of course, on the slippery slope towards drowning in the Pacific Ocean. (Once I start walking west, who’s to say when I will stop?)
During my commute, my body brushed uncomfortably against total strangers packed into the train car. Is a life of sex crime that far away?
I stopped to buy coffee around the corner from my office. Sure, today, it's coffee. But tomorrow, it could be methamphetamines.
Now, finally, I'm sitting at my desk, writing this comment when I should be working instead. I can already see where this slope is headed: loss of job, extended unemployment, depression, debt, homelessness, suicide, then finally, the harvesting of my organs by rogue CIA doctors to build a cyborg assassin designed to overthrow our government and install a Communist dictatorship.
I think I've made my point. The truth is, people, there are dangerous slippery slopes lurking everywhere. We can't just enact crazy legislation willy-nilly. We have to stay vigilant.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Left-wing-libertarian
March 22, 2010 11:46 AM
I hope that stupak isn't primaried now. He made a great speech and he wasn't willing to tank the health bill, thankfully.
Ive been a democrat since I was 8, and today was the first day that I made a contribution to the DCCC.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Average Working Guy
March 22, 2010 12:25 PM
March 21, 2010 was a sad, tragic day for America.
Fortunately, the Health Care bill did not come down the mountain carved in stone. Obama thinks he is God, yes, but in reality he is just another egomaniac on a power trip.
And bad legislation, like this, CAN be repealed.
Go to this Website: www.repealit.org
Sign up. In the past few days, thousands of citizens -- not to mention dozens of congressmen -- already have.
Yes, like you, I am tired of this. Yes, like you, I am tired of fighting this battle. I wish Nancy Pelosi would take her socialist agenda and crawl back under the slimy rock from which she emerged.
But what are we supposed to do, just give up? We're talking about your children's future. Pelosi and her crowd are counting on you to just go away. We can't do that.
www.repealit.org
The future of the country is at stake.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 22, 2010 12:25 PM
gosh all this joy, if this bill is such a victory why are ins co stocks THRU THE ROOF? Because they got everything they wanted and absolutely NO OVERSITE...gosh thanks for selling me like a piece of meat to the scum that have corrupted the system for years, I am actually worse off than before, that takes work!
Is it corruption, venality or incompetence that prevents nancy and the rest of the scum from being able to get bulk discounts on meds? Even beer is cheaper the more you buy, you have to work to not get a deal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
murphthesurf
March 22, 2010 1:29 PM in reply to madmatt
Because stocks are short term investments. The insurance companies will profit, but they will also have additional responsibility and limitations. No annual or lifetime limits. No drops for catastrophic illness. No pre-existing condition exclusion for children and then for all.
Insurance companies will do what steel companies did in the mid-60's and early 70's as trade controls, safety requirements, pension and insurance benefits cut deeply into their profit margins. They will function as long as they are profitable. If the profit horizon looks like it will vanish in the near future they will begin to divest and diversify. They will transform.
That's why the stock market is rewarding yesterday's vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
March 22, 2010 6:07 PM in reply to murphthesurf
No it's not. As of now, Aetna is up 0.52%. That's essentially NOTHING. For comparison purposes, the NASDAQ rose 0.88%. You can't look at a single industry without comparing it to the benchmark of the S&P etc. since generally all stocks move in sync.
If Wall Street thinks this means big profits, it's certainly not acting like it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 22, 2010 1:29 PM in reply to madmatt
so are you just gonna throw a hissyfit for the rest of your life or fight along with many members of congress who want to make these types of changes--such as adding a public option and medicare buy in?
I know it's probably pointless to try to talk reasonably with someone who is so far off the deep that he's met the teabaggers on the other side of the political circle. I figured I'd give it one more shot, but at any rate you'll find out soon enough that you'll be able to get the psych meds you so obviously need.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 22, 2010 1:43 PM in reply to human
wouldn't it be nice if anything in the bill actually covered people, but if your broke like me, you still get NO COVERAGE, so FUCK YOU I'll be as pissed as I want. I am worse off than before the bill passed.
Since your such a fan of the bill show me what is going to put a check on the Ins Co abuses? Those state level insurance regulators? What a joke!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
March 22, 2010 1:54 PM in reply to madmatt
As of now, Aetna is up 0.41%.
Over 1 year, it is up 52%, compared to S&P's 51%.
http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=Logarithmic&chdeh=0&chdet=1269288000000&chddm=98141&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=INDEXSP:.INX&cmptdms=0&q=NYSE:AET&ntsp=0
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hornito
March 22, 2010 12:49 PM
Republicans seem to be suffering from a malignant form of mass insanity. Heavy and sustained intervention is needed to save them from themselves, and before they cause further harm to the nation. As a part of the intervention, we need to embarrass them down low, where they reside, day in, day out.
Fact is, these insipid malcontents (repugs, tea baggers, and their talk-radio propagandists) are the biggest losers in the world. From the moment President Obama was inaugurated, they've tried to tear him, and our government down, causing untold damage to the country in the process. There will be no quick healing from this one.
With all of the critical issues facing our nation, one would think the gang that brought us an illegal war, and helped to destroy the greatest economy in the world (through their embrace of no taxes, no regulation, and corporate coddling) might be a little more circumspect, but no, you would be wrong.
They, and their cohorts, have threatened violence and civil war. They've yelled obscenities and racist slurs at members of congress, and further, have shown no respect whatsoever towards our Commander-In-Chief. Fact is, a MAJORITY voted for President Obama, not McCain, and it's well past time they got over it!
Now, back to savoring the sweet taste of victory (such as it is), while figuring out how to further minimize the Republican Party as an entity, .... until we can make them completely disappear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Given Up
March 22, 2010 1:58 PM
Health care may have been Obama's Waterloo but he's coming out of it like Wellington did, battered but victorious.
Ahh, this feels great.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
murphthesurf
March 22, 2010 2:20 PM
SO THE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO STAND IN THE WAY....A HORSE THAT WILL NOT RUN.
What are Republicans going to argue in November, that we need to repeal the legislation?
What part are they going to try to repeal?
----No rescission (when an insurer cancels your coverage even if you've kept your policy current) ?
----No annual/lifetime caps on insurance benefits?
----Expanded health insurance for young adult offspring?
----Gender neutrality in fixing health care premiums?
----No denial for pre-existing conditions?
----No independent review of premium increases?
----No high risk pools?
Yeah, every one of those is a trap for unwary Democrats, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
murphthesurf
March 22, 2010 2:40 PM
RANDY "BABY KILLER" NEUGEBAUER WRONG NO MATTER HIS EXACT PHRASING
So Rep. Randy Neugebauer joins Joe Wilson as a Mad Yeller. Whatever he yelled, he was wrong.
1) The bill does not change the law as it has stood through Democratic and Republican Administrations and Congresses once the Hyde Amendment was passed.
2) I know he says that he said "it's a baby killer" and not "he's a baby killer" but the meaning does not change. Stupak was speaking in support of a bill which the Congressman believes will result in more babies being killed. What does that make Stupak? A baby killer since he supports the instrument of their death.
3) Such an outburst show that the custom of civil discourse in the House is long gone. A great shame since that is how proper debate takes place.
Neugebauer's credibility in general is not great. He is from one of the most conservative districts in Texas and is a staunch GOP/Tea Party idealogue. He made news in June 2009 as a co-sponsor of a bill that required future presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
March 22, 2010 3:07 PM
Congratulations to Pr.Obama, Sp.Pelosi and the Democrats. Nancy is gold-dust in Washington and republicans, I don't think will ever again willingly appear with Obama in the same news frame on national TV.
No one knowns what will happen to the democratic majority in November, but it would have been a political suicide for the party and the president, in case this had failed.
Good to comeback here for the first time after the night of the MA Sen loss and make a comment on such a historical triumph for the country and for the Obama legacy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
murphthesurf
March 22, 2010 5:55 PM
Top 5 lies about health care (from politfact)
By Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Friday, March 19th, 2010 at 3:21 p.m.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/mar/19/top-5-lies-about-health-care/
We've been fact-checking claims about health care for more than a year now, and have noted several distortions that won't seem to die. Here's five that resurface gain and again.
1. It bans private insurance in favor of a government-run plan. Opponents have repeatedly said the plan would force Americans off their current plans, even though most current plans would be allowed to continue. Republican House Republican leader John Boehner said that "forcing Americans off of their current health coverage and onto a government-run plan (is) exactly what the Democrats' plan would do." We rated that False.
2. Preventive care saves the whole health care system money. People who favor the plan regularly imply that preventive care will lower its overall cost. While early treatment can save individual patients money, research shows that the benefits don't outweigh the costs of the additional screening procedures. President Barack Obama said preventive care "saves money." We rated that False.
3. Millions of people will lose coverage. Opponents of the plan have argued that millions of people would lose their health insurance. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that the proposal would result in insurance for 94 percent of the country. Republican commentator Nancy Pfotenhauer said that "hundreds of millions of people (will) lose their current insurance coverage." We rated that Pants on Fire.
4. The plan will lower health insurance premiums for most people. A few people will see significant reductions in what they pay for health insurance if they qualify for low-income tax credits to buy their policies. But the vast majority of Americans will see no decrease or a very slight decrease in premiums, according to projections. Obama said, "The costs for families (in the individual market) for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent." We rated that Half True. Obama's statement is true only for those in the individual market who are buying comprehensive plans right now. For people buying high-deductible, low-cost plans, the premiums will increase, because they'll have to buy plans that offer more coverage.
5. Bureaucrats will dictate treatment for patients, or tell you what insurance plan you have to buy. The proposal does include new boards to make recommendations on evidence-based treatment. But they won't consider any individual cases or deny procedures for specific patients. The bill also sets minimum standards for insurance companies, creating a baseline for basic coverage. People will still be able to pick the plan they prefer. We received a chain e-mail that said, "The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None." We rated that Pants on Fire.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
murphthesurf
March 22, 2010 6:17 PM
SO WHAT HAS CHANGED. HERE IS A LIST COURTESY OF HUFFINGTON POST
Health Insurers cannot deny children health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. A ban on the discrimination in adults will take effect in 2014.
A two year temporary credit for up to a billion dollars to encourage investment in new therapies and treatments disease.
Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering up to 50% of employee premiums.
Seniors will get a rebate to fill the so-called "donut hole" in Medicare drug coverage, which severely limits prescription medication coverage expenditures over $2,700. As of next year, 50 percent of the donut hole will be filled.
The cut-off age for young adults to continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance rises to the age 27.
Lifetime caps on the amount of insurance an individual can have will be banned. Annual caps will be limited, and banned in 2014.
temporary high-risk pool will be set up to cover adults with pre-existing conditions. Health care exchanges will eliminate the program in 2014.
New plans must cover checkups and other preventative care without co-pays. All plans will be affected by 2018
Insurance companies can no longer cut someone when he or she gets sick.
Insurers must now reveal how much money is spent on overhead.
Any new plan must now implement an appeals process for coverage determinations and claims.
This tax will impose a ten percent tax on indoor tanning services. This tax, which replaced the proposed tax on cosmetic surgery, would be effective for services on or after July 1, 2010.
New screening procedures will be implemented to help eliminate health insurance fraud and waste.
Medicare payment protections will be extended to small rural hospitals and other health care facilities that have a small number of Medicare patients.
Non-profit Blue Cross organizations will be required to maintain a medical loss ratio -- money spent on procedures over money incoming -- of 85 percent or higher to take advantage of IRS tax benefits.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 23, 2010 2:01 AM in reply to murphthesurf
This tax will impose a ten percent tax on indoor tanning services. This tax, which replaced the proposed tax on cosmetic surgery, would be effective for services on or after July 1, 2010.
_____
So THAT'S what has Boehner so apoplectically hysterical!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
August 22, 2010 11:45 AM
Thank you for the mp3 dinle information your provide.mp3 indir
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
December 6, 2010 9:54 AM
You have a very good site, well constructed and very interesting i have bookmarked you hopefully you keep posting new stuff, many thanks Refinance Mortgage Rates
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?