Kyl: "I Don't Think A Single Republican Will Support Health Care"

Thx for the explanation. I had assumed they had 60 and it was enough. Apparently there's a substantial percentage of Democrats who are not on board.

I don't think it's really fair to assume those who are against universal health care are automatically being bought off by insurance companies.

The issue is so politicized that any search for "objective" facts is nearly impossible. I think it's to the point that both sides would rather be "right" more than anything else.

I did see an interesting Stossel piece about how we pay for health care and how inefficient it is. Basically he made an analogy to food. If our food costs were covered by insurance companies (who were paid by employers, state, etc.) - we would be dining like emperors every night since we would basically have the same co-pay no matter what we buy. Lasik costs have supposedly gone down over the years since they are not typically covered by insurance companies and doctors have to price their services in a freer market.

 

8.1 percent, all of whom are Blue Dogs. And none of them has come out against it (well, maybe Conrad) -- they just haven't committed to a public option yet.

Part of the reason for this is that the president isn't providing proper leadership on what should/shouldn't be in the bill, preferring to hope for a miracle with the Gang of Six.

It doesn't make sense for everyone to go on record when they don't even know what major elements (public option, co-ops, whatever) are going to be in the bill.

 

Also, 60 is not a magic number. With the GOP it would be -- they have party loyalty down pat. But as Will Rogers famously said, "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

 

Democrats are bound to **** this golden opportunity up - it's their nature.

This time I will not forgive them.

 

Rhamanthus, never again, don't forgive or forget, but don't spazz out and completely reject the good Dems, like Kucinich etc. It will be tough to rid the party of the Blue Dogs and retake the Democratic party for the poor and middle class, but it will be infintely harder to start a third party. The Nader fallacy brought us Dubya who pissed away hard to regain trillions by stupid wars and unnecessary tax cuts for the upper class, spurred gobal warming and killed or displcaced millions in the Middle East.

 

So by "good Dems" I assume you mean the very far left. Would this make any moderates "bad?" You may disagree with them, but that does not necessarily make them bad people.

Of course, I tend to think that the entire lot of Congress (Dem, GOP or otherwise are a tad rotten).

Maybe we need a whole new Congress.

 

Ok people, horribly bad policy that hurts the poor and middle class.

 

If the administration leadership did this now, they would be foolish. Even with reconciliation, they quite likely would lose -- and it would be the Blue Dog Democrats who would be mostly responsible. Republicans would just be their supporting cast.

Like you, and IMO a majority in the country, I believe we need a national health care system. Like you, I want Congress to pass a comprehensive, effective health care plan -- but not just "a" plan.

As for the protesters, I understand their fears. At my age and health condition, like some of them I am looking over the precipice. If Congress enacts a bad plan, I could likely die from it, especially if I am forced to abandon my insurance plan in exchange for a Medicare style plan. My insulin and meds run about $1,500 per month without even considering doctors or hospital time.

Those who are 10, 20, 30 or 40 years younger are sitting way back from that precipice with plenty of "recovery" time. So, protestors should be forgiven their fear/caution just as they should forgive too much youthful exuberance in getting something -- anything -- done. When I lived in Las Vegas, I could care less about gambling a few dollars. This is literally gambling with one's life -- either getting the jackpot (extended life) or snake eyes.

In the end, the failure of passing a national health care plan will fall directly in the lap of Barack Obama, not the Republican Party. He absolutely failed the country by advocating a grand plan and then not following through. He never presented his bill with a point by point plan and then twisting arms to get what he wanted. Instead, he turned everything over to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who in turn guaranteed its failure due to their political hack intransigence. Pelosi and Reid were not elected by a 52% majority of the people. Obama was.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHVwrCzRUX0 Wealth care for billionaires it is a hoot.

 

Whether correct or not, the whole Congress -- not just the Texas delegation -- will pass or not pass what will get them re-elected. Each representative or senator will play to what they believe is the will of their constituents. That is part of the American democracy. Sometimes we get laws we want, sometimes we get laws we fear, and sometimes we slump disappointed into gridlock. Still, I believe ours is the best system around.

 

No matter what Joe Barton or any other Republican asserts, the Democratic Party will shape the vote on health care. If they vote against the will of the people, they will be the minority party in 2010. However, what is the will of the people? But, the Texas delegation will not be the ones to decide -- they will only play a part. Ergo, don't blame the Texas delegation. Congress will decide based solely on what will get them re-elected.

 

I think you are ignoring the point that no matter what the bill looks like, you have a guy who is threatening to repeal it.

That isn't someone committed to any sort of health care reform. It's someone who will go against a bill just because it comes from the Dems.

 

Would a free education bill pass today?

 

As good a thread as any to impart another salvo into one of the more commonly tossed about anti-health-care-reform talking points. It's not all favorable news (from my POV), but good data to discuss as opposed to a certain political persuasions penchant for yelling non sequiturs.

I leave it to the reader to judge how interesting it is that one of the most liberal states in the US was the first to actually address and resolve a real health care issue, instead of just yelling about it incoherently.

 

Barton can threaten to repeal health care .... or Social Security for that matter. However, it can't happen without the majority of U.S. citizens sweeping a group of Congressmen with the same mindset into power.