Presumptious maybe but I don't think it is totally off base. While yes taxes will have an impact on people's voting if the economy improves and a significant amount of people do benefit from things like banning insurers from denying insurance for pre-existing conditions I think those will sway voters more. I don't think that passing health care will save the Democrats, although I think the failure to do so will hurt them badly, but I don't think it will be loadstone on their electoral chances that some say it will be. Its practically inevitable that the Democrats will lose some seats but if the economy continues to maintain a positive direction 2010 might not be a Democractic bloodbath.
Your have caught me with my gown open, sir! :grin: By "during" I really should have said "before" and "after." Before -- cleaned out with GoLightly (ha, what a misnomer!) -- I waited for an eternity in a "processing" area filled with medical folk, then a changing area where I was gowned for the ball, and finally into the anesthesia area with a whole new set of nurses and doctors. I tend to talk a lot anyway but even more when scared stuffless. Then came the count 100, 99, 98, 97 -- that's the last I remember. Then the world refocused in a blink and asked when they were going to start. The nurse said I was done. A few minutes later I got the pictures (but no T-shirt). They observed me for a while and we chatted like old friends. After all, they knew me inside out. Then out I walked -- no dizziness or discomfort or anything. Amazing.
Here's the thing. The GOP missed the boat on this. When they were invited to the meeting with Obama they had an opportunity then to put the pressure on Obama and put the ball in his court. Had they showed up with some different Republican ideas that they wanted to be inlcuded, or changed, those could have been added to the reconciliation. If Obama refused he would have been seen as only partisan. Instead the Republicans came into the meeting demanding the whole thing be scrapped. They brought no new ideas, and declined the chance to make the bill even more bi-partisan. It will be interesting to watch the Republican votes on the fixes to the Senate bill. They have been railing against the special deals for Nebraska and others. Now they have to vote for Obama and his fixes to get rid of those things, or they vote against them which is actually voting for the Nebraska special deal.
I figure I will have to have a colonoscopy sometime in the next few years. Thanks for the description.
Be sure to ask for the pictures and a video disk before the procedure. Some hospitals oblige and some don't, from what I understand. But, if you don't ask, you won't receive. BTW, there's risk in any procedure or surgery, but the anesthesia nurse said my experience is typical. Don't put it off.
Yeah I blew it on the Longhorns, but I have done better with politics. See wmd and all the lies about Iraq.
They blew it big time. It is almost like the GOP legislators actually believe the bs fed the dittos on FOX. HaHa.
The Dems need to push another bill to put in place a ban on pre-existing conditions for adults in 6 months. Let the Repubs be the party fighting to continue insurance companies continuing to ban folks with pre-existing conditions. As an aside I am glad that some of the young Libertarians and conservatives on this site can now continue to get medical insurance through their parents till they are 26 so that my taxes to the Harris County Hospital District don't have to go up for their emergency room visits.
Great idea. Now explain, IN GREAT DETAIL, what provisions you would put in said bill to prevent insurance companies from simply jacking up premiums to a prohibitive level for the pre-existing coverage. Also explain in great detail how these provisions would pass Constitutional muster. Thanks.
Refman I realize that it was a defeat for your side and you might be momentarily very upset but what makes you think that the federal government cannot prevent insurance companies from banning folks for pre-existing conditions? What makes you think that government cannot regulate insurance companies? Surely you aren't going to start talking loosely about things being "unconstitutional" like the tea party types do. Now granted the Republican S. Ct can declare virtually anything "UnConstitutional" with their judicial activism, but....
Obama Recess Appoints 15 Top Officials, End-Running GOP Obstruction "The United States Senate has the responsibility to approve or disapprove of my nominees. But if, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis," Obama said in a statement. * Jeffrey Goldstein: Nominee for Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, Department of the Treasury * Michael F. Mundaca: Nominee for Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Department of the Treasury * Eric L. Hirschhorn: Nominee for Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration and head of the Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce * Michael Punke: Nominee for Deputy Trade Representative - Geneva, Office of the United States Trade Representative * Francisco "Frank" J. Sánchez: Nominee for Under Secretary for International Trade, Department of Commerce * Islam A. Siddiqui: Nominee for Chief Agricultural Negotiator, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative * Alan D. Bersin: Nominee for Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security * Jill Long Thompson: Nominee for Member, Farm Credit Administration Board * Rafael Borras: Nominee for Under Secretary for Management , Department of Homeland Security * Craig Becker: Nominee for Board Member, National Labor Relations Board * Mark Pearce: Nominee for Board Member, National Labor Relations Board * Jacqueline A. Berrien, Nominee for Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission * Chai R. Feldblum: Nominee for Commissioner, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission * Victoria A. Lipnic: Nominee for Commissioner, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission * P. David Lopez: Nominee for General Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
mc mark beat me to it but I will post this article since it has some more info on the appointments. Its sounds like Obama has decided to drop bipartisanship. Personally I'm not surprised. As I said during the election I doubted that Obama would be seriously able to sway the Congressional Republicans. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36067527/ns/politics-white_house Obama issues 15 recess appointments Scolds GOP for holding up filling of key administration vacancies WASHINGTON - Fed up with waiting, President Barack Obama announced Saturday he would bypass a vacationing Senate and name 15 people to key administration jobs, wielding for the first time the blunt political tool known as the recess appointment. The move immediately deepened the divide between the Democratic president and Republicans in the Senate following a long, bruising fight over health care. Obama revealed his decision by blistering Republicans, accusing them of holding up nominees for months solely to try to score a political advantage on him. "I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government," Obama said in a statement. The 15 appointees to boards and agencies include the contentious choice of union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. Republicans had blocked his nomination on grounds he would bring a radical pro-union agenda to the job, and they called on Obama not to appoint Becker over the recess. Obama went ahead anyway, while also choosing a second member for the labor board so that four of its five slots will be filled. The board, which referees labor-management disputes, has had a majority of its seats vacant for more than two years, slowing its work and raising questions about the legality of its rulings. Republicans complain Overall, Obama's appointments will take place through next week, allowing people to make the transition to their new jobs, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. The news of Becker's appointment drew the bulk of the ire from Republicans. "Once again the administration showed that it had little respect for the time honored constitutional roles and procedures of Congress," said Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Obama's foe in the 2008 presidential election. "This is clear payback by the administration to organized labor." Both Republican and Democratic presidents have made recess appointments, which circumvents the Senate's authority to confirm nominees, when they could not overcome delays. President George W. Bush made more than 170 such appointments in his two-term presidency. President Bill Clinton made nearly 140. Obama had been on record as warning of recess appointments if the Senate didn't act. He followed through at the end of a week in which his political standing was significantly bolstered by the party-line passage of a historic health care bill, a student loan overhaul and a hard-fought nuclear arms treaty with Russia. The White House dropped the news in a press release on a quiet Saturday, with Obama at Camp David and lawmakers home in their districts. The recess appointments mean the 15 people could serve in their jobs through the end of 2011, when the next Senate finishes its term. A recess appointment ends at the completion of the next Senate session or when a person is nominated and confirmed to the job, whichever comes first. Confirmations held up Obama filled two posts at the Treasury Department: Jeffrey Goldstein as under secretary for domestic finance and Michael Mundaca as assistant secretary for tax policy. He singled them out: "At a time of economic emergency, two top appointees to the Department of Treasury have been held up for nearly six months." On Becker, Republicans have held up his confirmation for months, saying they fear he would circumvent Congress to make labor laws more union-friendly. Democrats had failed to overcome Republican delaying tactics on Becker's nomination, and all 41 GOP senators wrote to Obama on Thursday urging him not to appoint Becker over the break — to no avail. Becker is a top lawyer at the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO. Labor unions were especially keen on getting Becker installed on the board that is responsible for certifying union elections and addressing unfair labor practices. Under a Democratic majority, the labor board could decide cases or make new rules that would make it easier for unions to organize workers. The board could allow speeded-up union elections that give employers less time to counter organizing drives. The other pro-union lawyer Obama named to the board, Mark Pearce, has not faced opposition from Republicans. The White House says its appointees have been awaiting a vote for an average of seven months. Obama named three people to the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, which has also been operating without a quorum. More obstruction The Senate's top Democrat, Harry Reid, welcomed Obama's move. "Regrettably, Senate Republicans have dedicated themselves to a failed strategy to cripple President Obama's economic initiatives by stalling key administration nominees at every turn," said Reid, the majority leader from Nevada. Obama and Democratic leaders say he faces more obstruction, in terms of the number of pending nominees and the length of their delay in getting a vote, than Bush did. The hyper-partisan atmosphere in Washington began long before Obama's presidency but remains as entrenched as ever, if not worse, during his term. Already in a struggle with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over a financial overhaul, Obama now has another one over Becker. "The business community should be on red alert for radical changes that could significantly impair the ability of America's job creators to compete," the chamber said in a statement. In February, Democrats fell far short of the 60 votes they needed to push through Becker's nomination. Two Democrats joined Republicans to halt Becker. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Saturday that Obama's move is "another episode of choosing a partisan path despite bipartisan opposition."
LEARN TO READ. Nowhere did I insinuate that it was unconstitutional or a bad idea to ban an exclusion for pre-existing conditions. My concern, IF YOU HAD BOTHERED TO READ MY POST, is that insurance companies will likely respond by jacking up the premiums they charge for the new coverage. You can ban an exclusion on pre-existing conditions all you want, but it is meaningless if people cannot afford the new price for the insurance policies. My concern is that there is apparently nothing in the bill to curb this problem. My concern is that any attempt to do so may run afoul of the Contracts Clause of the Constitution. You are such a hopeless, blind ideologue that you willfully misinterpreted my post and proceeded to bash me. Oh...and you are preaching to me about judicial activism. That's rich.
Republicans never considered bipartisanship. a very good article in from FT.com America: The recovery position
It isn't rocket science. The supreme overconfidence that Dems had about this time last year was certain to be punctured. All new administrations make serious flubs their first year or two in office. But the euphoria Republicans enjoyed while Obama's approval numbers declined and they stonewalled nearly everything he wanted to do couldn't last forever. It was just a matter of time before he found his stride. People should have a more even keel when it comes to politics and ditch most of the emotional highs and lows.
Or he just learned from his tsar appointments that it's a lot of fun creating your own government without having to worry about congressional approval. *cue "it's all the Republicans' fault" in 5, 4, 3...*
