Obama's health-care reform bill is hated by the republicans (because it seems like socialism?) and the democrats aren't too keen on it because it's not as effective as Obama promised it would be.
The democrats just lost what should have been a really easy seat in the senate, because their senate candidate made some major gaffes.
This puts the health-care bill in jeopardy, since the GOP now has the ability to veto (?) it since the democrats don't have enough seats to push it through? This also makes Obama a lame duck president, since he has the administration power to propose votes but not the congressional power to vote them through.
Obama might try to sneak the health care bill in by getting the bill passed before Brown can be sworn in, but the republicans can counter by filibustering (stalling by talking about nothing), until Brown gets sworn in.
So for the next few years likely nothing will get done, as the GOP can simply kill any bill the president tries to pass.
Did I get any of this correct? I've been reading a few news stories, but I don't know a lot about American politics.
Obama's health-care reform bill is hated by the republicans (because it seems like socialism?) and the democrats aren't too keen on it because it's not as effective as Obama promised it would be.
The democrats just lost what should have been a really easy seat in the senate, because their senate candidate made some major gaffes.
This puts the health-care bill in jeopardy, since the GOP now has the ability to veto (?) it since the democrats don't have enough seats to push it through? This also makes Obama a lame duck president, since he has the administration power to propose votes but not the congressional power to vote them through.
Obama might try to sneak the health care bill in by getting the bill passed before Brown can be sworn in, but the republicans can counter by filibustering (stalling by talking about nothing), until Brown gets sworn in.
So for the next few years likely nothing will get done, as the GOP can simply kill any bill the president tries to pass.
Did I get any of this correct? I've been reading a few news stories, but I don't know a lot about American politics.
Well first you have to understand that we have two legistlatives houses, and each one has their own version of the health care plan. The Senate plan is much more conservative than the House of Representatives plan, so many of the left don't like the Senate plan anyway. These differences have to be resolved in a conference committee.
The main thing about the Senate is that while 51 votes is enough to pass a bill, it takes 60 votes to end debate and proceed to the vote. This process of not ending the debate is called filibustering, and it's the major reason the minority party has so much influence in the Senate.
JoeUser on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
you're close
1 - the Republicans don't like the health care bill because they've predicated their political stance on hatred for Obama (like the dems and Bush II), and some dems don't like it because there's no public option
2 - yes
3 - democrats no longer have enough seats to break a filibuster
4 - they cannot beat a filibuster with only 40 votes
5 - basically the congressional democrats are bitches and this is accurate
There really are better ways to organize this than Congress has been doing. The Singapore system, for instance, which handles things with forced savings and a universal, public catastrophic insurance plan, and keeps costs very low and health outcomes extremely good. They've solved the root problem, which is insurance itself -- paying for all our medical care through third parties is the reason it costs so much and works so badly.
The "third party" system isn't inherently flawed, it's the free market health care system that's flawed. I remember hearing about a country that has around 200 different health care companies, all of which are heavily regulated. You can change plans and keep your current premiums, costs are fixed, and the competition between companies keeps overhead low. The companies make the bulk of their profits by offering home, car and fire insurance, which incentivizes them to offer great health care service so you don't take all your money over to the other guy. By throwing out most of the free market stuff that doesn't work they end up with a health care system that does work.
The third-party thing I was trying to get at is this.
You don't pay for your own medical procedures so:
1. there isn't a lot of clear price information allowing you to do even rudimentary comparison shopping
2. nobody has an incentive to minimize duplicate treatments or unnecessary tests
3. in addition for paying for the medical care itself, you have to pay for the insurers' administrative costs (and profits.)
4. You're not the consumer, so "customer service" stuff like efficient record keeping doesn't necessarily happen. Doctors and hospitals don't lose money instantly when their consumers are dissatisfied, the way other companies do.
There really are better ways to organize this than Congress has been doing. The Singapore system, for instance, which handles things with forced savings and a universal, public catastrophic insurance plan, and keeps costs very low and health outcomes extremely good. They've solved the root problem, which is insurance itself -- paying for all our medical care through third parties is the reason it costs so much and works so badly.
The "third party" system isn't inherently flawed, it's the free market health care system that's flawed. I remember hearing about a country that has around 200 different health care companies, all of which are heavily regulated. You can change plans and keep your current premiums, costs are fixed, and the competition between companies keeps overhead low. The companies make the bulk of their profits by offering home, car and fire insurance, which incentivizes them to offer great health care service so you don't take all your money over to the other guy. By throwing out most of the free market stuff that doesn't work they end up with a health care system that does work.
If we regulate the insurance companies... we're no better off than the reds.. and it will be a cold day in hell before I accept that the free market system we have here could ever possibly be flawed
(no seriously, insurance companies and banks require regulations.. they've proven that they can't regulate themselves)
Obama's health-care reform bill is hated by the republicans (because it seems like socialism?) and the democrats aren't too keen on it because it's not as effective as Obama promised it would be.
The democrats just lost what should have been a really easy seat in the senate, because their senate candidate made some major gaffes.
This puts the health-care bill in jeopardy, since the GOP now has the ability to veto (?) it since the democrats don't have enough seats to push it through? This also makes Obama a lame duck president, since he has the administration power to propose votes but not the congressional power to vote them through.
Obama might try to sneak the health care bill in by getting the bill passed before Brown can be sworn in, but the republicans can counter by filibustering (stalling by talking about nothing), until Brown gets sworn in.
So for the next few years likely nothing will get done, as the GOP can simply kill any bill the president tries to pass.
Did I get any of this correct? I've been reading a few news stories, but I don't know a lot about American politics.
Sort of. The Neo-con (and therefore Republican) party line right now is one of fear. Gay Marriage isn't just two consenting adults living their private lives how they want, it is an assault on the nuclear family, the very foundation of this country. Terrorism isn't a complicated issue that has roots in longstanding, complicated ethnic and social issues overseas compounded by several countries with incredibly self-serving foreign policies, it is a war brought about by godless muslims who hate us because of our FREEDOM! The war on Christmas, that Fox News still complains about the mainstream media when they are the most watched news network in the country (by a huge margin), etc and so on all factor into this. So that the bill might have some socialist parts doesn't concern Republicans so much as the fact that they didn't write it. If the Democrats show that they are more capable of doing work that's beneficial to the common people than the Republicans, then the Republican party has absolutely no platform. Every political stance they take is predicated on the notion that "Everything in the world is out to get you, and only WE can keep you safe." That's why they are throwing themselves on the tracks for every bill that comes through.
The reason that 60 votes matters is because of a stupid little thing called the filibuster. The filibuster was conceived as a way for the minority party in the Senate to still have a way of affecting change. Any individual senator has the ability to put a bill on hold forever by demanding to speak (about ANYTHING, not just the bill) non-stop, and it requires 60 (a supermajority) votes for that talk to end. Funfact: the actual act of getting up and talking was too hard so the senate put into effect a rule that allows you to "filibuster" by saying, basically, "Yo, i'm a talking" and then going to lunch. You don't have to actually get up in front of people and chat anymore.
This doesn't make Obama a lame duck president. A lame duck is one whom both parties don't give a shit about. The last year or so of his term Dubya was a lame duck because Democrats already didn't give a shit about him and Republicans were desperate to not be associated with him in anyway because most of the country thought he was a shitheel. Obama still has the majority in the House and Senate, it's just a question of the Democrats finally fucking growing a pair, and figuring out how to get their message out to the people. Republicans are still on thin ice with a lot of the country, if public outcry gets loud enough they'll have to listen.
How is it a matter of "growing a pair"?
This isn't the kind of bill you can pass through reconciliation. It's going to have to go to a vote. And the filibuster is here to stay. Seriously how could any Democratic legislation pass now? Going back to Olympia Snowe on bended knee?
How is it a matter of "growing a pair"?
This isn't the kind of bill you can pass through reconciliation. It's going to have to go to a vote. And the filibuster is here to stay. Seriously how could any Democratic legislation pass now? Going back to Olympia Snowe on bended knee?
I think it's "growing a pair" in the same regards as getting the information and facts out to people before the opposition does, and assume a proactive rather than a reactive position.
i.e.
"We have a health care bill and it's going to do list of positive benefits"
instead of
"We have a health care bill. Yay!" followed by having to clear up misconceptions and falsehoods given by people opposed to the bill.
"Oh, death panels.. no those aren't real" "Oh, costing us trillions of monies? no.. that's not true either" "Oh, the government going to have everyone on file.... well, we already do.. but it's unrelated to a public option"
and robothero, it's not a matter of some of them being for/against the reform bill.. it's about voting as a party, not as an individual
The third-party thing I was trying to get at is this.
You don't pay for your own medical procedures so:
1. there isn't a lot of clear price information allowing you to do even rudimentary comparison shopping
2. nobody has an incentive to minimize duplicate treatments or unnecessary tests
3. in addition for paying for the medical care itself, you have to pay for the insurers' administrative costs (and profits.)
4. You're not the consumer, so "customer service" stuff like efficient record keeping doesn't necessarily happen. Doctors and hospitals don't lose money instantly when their consumers are dissatisfied, the way other companies do.
There are three, possibly four, major "players" involved with health care.
First are the insurance companies.
Second are the consumers (patients).
Third are Hospitals (actual providers).
Fourth, sometimes, are doctors, since there are several hospitals that don't "employ" doctors, they contract them. A doctor is given a place to work, and the hospital gets a small cut of the pie, but they don't pay the doctor. The doctor pays them "rent," for lack of a better term.
Your point number 1. is only the fault of a free market health care system where every insurance provider gets to bargain for their own prices. MA actually has a government panel that sets prices on procedures, but they still have private health insurance. So you can honestly say "This costs $1200."
Your second point is the fault of the consumer, who has this mindset that "more medicine = better medicine!" when the opposite is true. Health insurance companies have EVERY incentive to cut down on duplicate tests, it costs them an assload of money. If Blue Cross is giving MrMonroe four days of hospital stay for his $10 copay, it BEHOOVES them to try and cut down on waste. But the consumer is the problem, because the minute you say "No, you can't have that test," calls are made to newspapers about how Blue Cross kept mah baby from his blood tests and now he's an autism!
As for point three, administrative costs are there, yes, but that competition between private insurers also generates savings for everyone. Coming up with cost saving measures doesn't happen nearly as well in a monopoly.
And number four isn't the fault of the health insurance industry either, it's the fault of doctors and hospitals not wanting to eat the cost of implementing electronic records. That, also, would save the insurance industry billions of dollars, and it would result in more comprehensive records for consumers, resulting in better health. It's only hospitals that stand to lose a ton money there.
Also the Democrats could grow a pair by calling the Republicans on their shit. Get a Republican on a debate panel and keep asking "So what would YOU do to improve health care" and when they have no ideas just say "so your big idea for making sure your constituents are healthy, and that a single medical issue doesn't bankrupt them, is to say "no?" That's terrible, Senator."
and robothero, it's not a matter of some of them being for/against the reform bill.. it's about voting as a party, not as an individual
That's what I was getting at actually. I don't really pay much attention to this kind of stuff, but I know locally they don't always follow party lines on issues. But I guess that's not the case.
and robothero, it's not a matter of some of them being for/against the reform bill.. it's about voting as a party, not as an individual
That's what I was getting at actually. I don't really pay much attention to this kind of stuff, but I know locally they don't always follow party lines on issues. But I guess that's not the case.
It's not the case in this administration because their job is on the line if they don't. If they vote against the party, they're a traitor and they'll get called out nationally and eaten alive by their constituents.
Not to mention the fact that Scott Brown is voting against universal health care and is representing a state that has its own universal health care (which he actually said was part of his platform! "we have it why should we pay for other states to have it")
I had hope that I would be able to get health insurance if I ever left my current job.
Now I'm really nervous. I don't think I can be denied if I can prove I had insurance before I switched, but I think that may just be for the state I am living in (every time I have gotten new insurance, I had to prove I had insurance continuously for the previous 6 (?) months in order to not have any pre-existing conditions denied. In fact, I think my most recent insurance wasn't going to pay for anything for a month or so if I didn't prove I was recently insured.)
It's all so fucking complicated, and the last thing I really want to worry about is being uninsurable due to a liver tumor. I have more important things to worry about. Like paying my 5k deductible.
Fuck Ben Nelson, Lieberman, and the rest of the republicans.
MulysaSempronius on
If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
1 - the Republicans don't like the health care bill because they've predicated their political stance on hatred for Obama (like the dems and Bush II), and some dems don't like it because there's no public option
2 - yes
3 - democrats no longer have enough seats to break a filibuster
4 - they cannot beat a filibuster with only 40 votes
5 - basically the congressional democrats are bitches and this is accurate
Well, to be fair, the Republicans seem to be able to get legislation passed even without anything close to the majority numbers the Democrats currently have or have had. The reason is they are party focused and will not only call out members who don't vote the party line, they will throw them under, on, and into the proverbial bus.
The Democrats are too spread out in ideology and don't force party voting on the same scale as the Republicans, which hurts them due to the natural splits in the party (Southern Dems, Blue Dogs, New England Dems vs California Dems...those kinds of things).
I like to think of the parties as lasers. The Republican party is a very focused laser, even if they don't have the same power source (number of seats in congress, presidency, whatever) they focus said energy they have very effectively. The problem is sometimes the target is the dumbest shit possible, like targeting gay marriage while other important shit like 2 wars are raging on or the economy is collapsing. The other problem is they clearly will play obstructionists when they don't get their way, like toddlers. They're good at it too. The Democrats fall for this Lucy and the football shtick every fucking time too, but honestly it's Charlie Browns' fault for not growing a set and finally telling her to fuck off.
The Democrats are a huge power base, but some of the lines are crossed and the mirrors are aligned by a retarded monkey. Not that they try to focus on the smartest shit either, but even when they put a good thing in their sights like Healthcare they can't get anything done to it. It's like a big doopey kid that should kick all kinds of ass but just sucks at everything. It's sad really.
politically, everywhere is fucked up, and all the blame falls into Neoliberalism's lap
And placing all the blame on one specific, vaguely defined group is the best way to fix it.
It's really more of an ideological trend prevalent among many contemporary political platforms. Teefs isn't saying "those guys over there are the problem. Get 'em!" as much as "This popular notion is not only a red herring in many, many issue debates, but also progressively bankrupt."
How is it a matter of "growing a pair"?
This isn't the kind of bill you can pass through reconciliation. It's going to have to go to a vote. And the filibuster is here to stay. Seriously how could any Democratic legislation pass now? Going back to Olympia Snowe on bended knee?
Well, if they really pulled the party reins and hammered out a solid bill without shitting all over themselves with provisions and riders and amendments, they could try to pass it through reconciliation. Or they could wipe the agenda and tell the Republicans to go fuck themselves, forcing them to actually filibuster on the floor, rather than saying, "Oh, no vote today? I guess we'll vote on these superfluous recognitions of honorary D.C. prostitutes and then call it a day. Maybe tomorrow, guys, huh?"
Aneurhythmia on
0
Options
HarrierThe Star Spangled ManRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
Look, I hate the health care bill because it wants to force people to buy shitty insurance even if they can't afford it and doesn't give people enough protections from abuse by health insurance companies
So I hope it dies for good
Then the individual states can start passing single-payer and socialized medicine bills
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
I don't think there's a single thing in that post I disagree with, Hunter
though I would dearly love to see the GOP get its mirrors crossed and end up demonstrating that the queer-hating, racist, fundamentalist kooks don't actually have much in common with the fiscal responsibility, realpolitik republicans except for their love of selling weapons to Israel
this is Lincoln's party for fuck's sake. They made a deal with the devil in 68 to get the votes and now they've paid up in bondage to the lowest form of sub-intellectualism in the country. Good work, Nixon.
Well, to be fair, the Republicans seem to be able to get legislation passed even without anything close to the majority numbers the Democrats currently have or have had. The reason is they are party focused and will not only call out members who don't vote the party line, they will throw them under, on, and into the proverbial bus.
... they focus said energy they have very effectively. The problem is sometimes the target is the dumbest shit possible, like targeting gay marriage while other important shit like 2 wars are raging on or the economy is collapsing. The other problem is they clearly will play obstructionists when they don't get their way, like toddlers. They're good at it too. The Democrats fall for this Lucy and the football shtick every fucking time too, but honestly it's Charlie Browns' fault for not growing a set and finally telling her to fuck off.
Part of this is the perception of Republicans as literally conservative, and whether they are or not on a specific issue or bill, this gives them the huge benefit of inertia with the bulk of an aimlessly vexed, reactionary electorate.
ArtreusI'm a wizardAnd that looks fucked upRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
All I know is that my RN dad was complaining about doctors not having incentive to become doctors because of the ridiculous cost it takes to become one, and the possibility that under the new plan there will be very little actual compensation going their way.
Like, not a matter of them wanting to become rich (well I am sure a lot of them do..) but that it costs a shit ton of money to become a doctor, and they don't want to be in debt forever after getting their degree.
But I don't actually know how the bill affects that at all. My family is kind of... fundamentalist so I don't really agree with most of what they have to say these days.
Posts
four days in the hospital > "that will be ten dollars, sir"
the motto of the human race
And placing all the blame on one specific, vaguely defined group is the best way to fix it.
Obama's health-care reform bill is hated by the republicans (because it seems like socialism?) and the democrats aren't too keen on it because it's not as effective as Obama promised it would be.
The democrats just lost what should have been a really easy seat in the senate, because their senate candidate made some major gaffes.
This puts the health-care bill in jeopardy, since the GOP now has the ability to veto (?) it since the democrats don't have enough seats to push it through? This also makes Obama a lame duck president, since he has the administration power to propose votes but not the congressional power to vote them through.
Obama might try to sneak the health care bill in by getting the bill passed before Brown can be sworn in, but the republicans can counter by filibustering (stalling by talking about nothing), until Brown gets sworn in.
So for the next few years likely nothing will get done, as the GOP can simply kill any bill the president tries to pass.
Did I get any of this correct? I've been reading a few news stories, but I don't know a lot about American politics.
Well first you have to understand that we have two legistlatives houses, and each one has their own version of the health care plan. The Senate plan is much more conservative than the House of Representatives plan, so many of the left don't like the Senate plan anyway. These differences have to be resolved in a conference committee.
The main thing about the Senate is that while 51 votes is enough to pass a bill, it takes 60 votes to end debate and proceed to the vote. This process of not ending the debate is called filibustering, and it's the major reason the minority party has so much influence in the Senate.
1 - the Republicans don't like the health care bill because they've predicated their political stance on hatred for Obama (like the dems and Bush II), and some dems don't like it because there's no public option
2 - yes
3 - democrats no longer have enough seats to break a filibuster
4 - they cannot beat a filibuster with only 40 votes
5 - basically the congressional democrats are bitches and this is accurate
The "third party" system isn't inherently flawed, it's the free market health care system that's flawed. I remember hearing about a country that has around 200 different health care companies, all of which are heavily regulated. You can change plans and keep your current premiums, costs are fixed, and the competition between companies keeps overhead low. The companies make the bulk of their profits by offering home, car and fire insurance, which incentivizes them to offer great health care service so you don't take all your money over to the other guy. By throwing out most of the free market stuff that doesn't work they end up with a health care system that does work.
You don't pay for your own medical procedures so:
1. there isn't a lot of clear price information allowing you to do even rudimentary comparison shopping
2. nobody has an incentive to minimize duplicate treatments or unnecessary tests
3. in addition for paying for the medical care itself, you have to pay for the insurers' administrative costs (and profits.)
4. You're not the consumer, so "customer service" stuff like efficient record keeping doesn't necessarily happen. Doctors and hospitals don't lose money instantly when their consumers are dissatisfied, the way other companies do.
http://numberblog.wordpress.com/
If we regulate the insurance companies... we're no better off than the reds.. and it will be a cold day in hell before I accept that the free market system we have here could ever possibly be flawed
(no seriously, insurance companies and banks require regulations.. they've proven that they can't regulate themselves)
BEcause the yare noobs
what
Sort of. The Neo-con (and therefore Republican) party line right now is one of fear. Gay Marriage isn't just two consenting adults living their private lives how they want, it is an assault on the nuclear family, the very foundation of this country. Terrorism isn't a complicated issue that has roots in longstanding, complicated ethnic and social issues overseas compounded by several countries with incredibly self-serving foreign policies, it is a war brought about by godless muslims who hate us because of our FREEDOM! The war on Christmas, that Fox News still complains about the mainstream media when they are the most watched news network in the country (by a huge margin), etc and so on all factor into this. So that the bill might have some socialist parts doesn't concern Republicans so much as the fact that they didn't write it. If the Democrats show that they are more capable of doing work that's beneficial to the common people than the Republicans, then the Republican party has absolutely no platform. Every political stance they take is predicated on the notion that "Everything in the world is out to get you, and only WE can keep you safe." That's why they are throwing themselves on the tracks for every bill that comes through.
The reason that 60 votes matters is because of a stupid little thing called the filibuster. The filibuster was conceived as a way for the minority party in the Senate to still have a way of affecting change. Any individual senator has the ability to put a bill on hold forever by demanding to speak (about ANYTHING, not just the bill) non-stop, and it requires 60 (a supermajority) votes for that talk to end. Funfact: the actual act of getting up and talking was too hard so the senate put into effect a rule that allows you to "filibuster" by saying, basically, "Yo, i'm a talking" and then going to lunch. You don't have to actually get up in front of people and chat anymore.
This doesn't make Obama a lame duck president. A lame duck is one whom both parties don't give a shit about. The last year or so of his term Dubya was a lame duck because Democrats already didn't give a shit about him and Republicans were desperate to not be associated with him in anyway because most of the country thought he was a shitheel. Obama still has the majority in the House and Senate, it's just a question of the Democrats finally fucking growing a pair, and figuring out how to get their message out to the people. Republicans are still on thin ice with a lot of the country, if public outcry gets loud enough they'll have to listen.
oem saved a few bux
This isn't the kind of bill you can pass through reconciliation. It's going to have to go to a vote. And the filibuster is here to stay. Seriously how could any Democratic legislation pass now? Going back to Olympia Snowe on bended knee?
http://numberblog.wordpress.com/
I think it's "growing a pair" in the same regards as getting the information and facts out to people before the opposition does, and assume a proactive rather than a reactive position.
i.e.
"We have a health care bill and it's going to do list of positive benefits"
instead of
"We have a health care bill. Yay!" followed by having to clear up misconceptions and falsehoods given by people opposed to the bill.
"Oh, death panels.. no those aren't real" "Oh, costing us trillions of monies? no.. that's not true either" "Oh, the government going to have everyone on file.... well, we already do.. but it's unrelated to a public option"
and robothero, it's not a matter of some of them being for/against the reform bill.. it's about voting as a party, not as an individual
There are three, possibly four, major "players" involved with health care.
First are the insurance companies.
Second are the consumers (patients).
Third are Hospitals (actual providers).
Fourth, sometimes, are doctors, since there are several hospitals that don't "employ" doctors, they contract them. A doctor is given a place to work, and the hospital gets a small cut of the pie, but they don't pay the doctor. The doctor pays them "rent," for lack of a better term.
Your point number 1. is only the fault of a free market health care system where every insurance provider gets to bargain for their own prices. MA actually has a government panel that sets prices on procedures, but they still have private health insurance. So you can honestly say "This costs $1200."
Your second point is the fault of the consumer, who has this mindset that "more medicine = better medicine!" when the opposite is true. Health insurance companies have EVERY incentive to cut down on duplicate tests, it costs them an assload of money. If Blue Cross is giving MrMonroe four days of hospital stay for his $10 copay, it BEHOOVES them to try and cut down on waste. But the consumer is the problem, because the minute you say "No, you can't have that test," calls are made to newspapers about how Blue Cross kept mah baby from his blood tests and now he's an autism!
As for point three, administrative costs are there, yes, but that competition between private insurers also generates savings for everyone. Coming up with cost saving measures doesn't happen nearly as well in a monopoly.
And number four isn't the fault of the health insurance industry either, it's the fault of doctors and hospitals not wanting to eat the cost of implementing electronic records. That, also, would save the insurance industry billions of dollars, and it would result in more comprehensive records for consumers, resulting in better health. It's only hospitals that stand to lose a ton money there.
Also the Democrats could grow a pair by calling the Republicans on their shit. Get a Republican on a debate panel and keep asking "So what would YOU do to improve health care" and when they have no ideas just say "so your big idea for making sure your constituents are healthy, and that a single medical issue doesn't bankrupt them, is to say "no?" That's terrible, Senator."
That's what I was getting at actually. I don't really pay much attention to this kind of stuff, but I know locally they don't always follow party lines on issues. But I guess that's not the case.
Even if they're personally okay with it, they've pretty much got to vote against it.
It's not the case in this administration because their job is on the line if they don't. If they vote against the party, they're a traitor and they'll get called out nationally and eaten alive by their constituents.
Not to mention the fact that Scott Brown is voting against universal health care and is representing a state that has its own universal health care (which he actually said was part of his platform! "we have it why should we pay for other states to have it")
Now I'm really nervous. I don't think I can be denied if I can prove I had insurance before I switched, but I think that may just be for the state I am living in (every time I have gotten new insurance, I had to prove I had insurance continuously for the previous 6 (?) months in order to not have any pre-existing conditions denied. In fact, I think my most recent insurance wasn't going to pay for anything for a month or so if I didn't prove I was recently insured.)
It's all so fucking complicated, and the last thing I really want to worry about is being uninsurable due to a liver tumor. I have more important things to worry about. Like paying my 5k deductible.
Fuck Ben Nelson, Lieberman, and the rest of the republicans.
does anybody under the age of like 25 use email for anything other than receipts and confirming various accounts
and stuff
Well, to be fair, the Republicans seem to be able to get legislation passed even without anything close to the majority numbers the Democrats currently have or have had. The reason is they are party focused and will not only call out members who don't vote the party line, they will throw them under, on, and into the proverbial bus.
The Democrats are too spread out in ideology and don't force party voting on the same scale as the Republicans, which hurts them due to the natural splits in the party (Southern Dems, Blue Dogs, New England Dems vs California Dems...those kinds of things).
I like to think of the parties as lasers. The Republican party is a very focused laser, even if they don't have the same power source (number of seats in congress, presidency, whatever) they focus said energy they have very effectively. The problem is sometimes the target is the dumbest shit possible, like targeting gay marriage while other important shit like 2 wars are raging on or the economy is collapsing. The other problem is they clearly will play obstructionists when they don't get their way, like toddlers. They're good at it too. The Democrats fall for this Lucy and the football shtick every fucking time too, but honestly it's Charlie Browns' fault for not growing a set and finally telling her to fuck off.
The Democrats are a huge power base, but some of the lines are crossed and the mirrors are aligned by a retarded monkey. Not that they try to focus on the smartest shit either, but even when they put a good thing in their sights like Healthcare they can't get anything done to it. It's like a big doopey kid that should kick all kinds of ass but just sucks at everything. It's sad really.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
It's really more of an ideological trend prevalent among many contemporary political platforms. Teefs isn't saying "those guys over there are the problem. Get 'em!" as much as "This popular notion is not only a red herring in many, many issue debates, but also progressively bankrupt."
Well, if they really pulled the party reins and hammered out a solid bill without shitting all over themselves with provisions and riders and amendments, they could try to pass it through reconciliation. Or they could wipe the agenda and tell the Republicans to go fuck themselves, forcing them to actually filibuster on the floor, rather than saying, "Oh, no vote today? I guess we'll vote on these superfluous recognitions of honorary D.C. prostitutes and then call it a day. Maybe tomorrow, guys, huh?"
So I hope it dies for good
Then the individual states can start passing single-payer and socialized medicine bills
though I would dearly love to see the GOP get its mirrors crossed and end up demonstrating that the queer-hating, racist, fundamentalist kooks don't actually have much in common with the fiscal responsibility, realpolitik republicans except for their love of selling weapons to Israel
this is Lincoln's party for fuck's sake. They made a deal with the devil in 68 to get the votes and now they've paid up in bondage to the lowest form of sub-intellectualism in the country. Good work, Nixon.
Part of this is the perception of Republicans as literally conservative, and whether they are or not on a specific issue or bill, this gives them the huge benefit of inertia with the bulk of an aimlessly vexed, reactionary electorate.
Is that a pre-existing condition?
Like, not a matter of them wanting to become rich (well I am sure a lot of them do..) but that it costs a shit ton of money to become a doctor, and they don't want to be in debt forever after getting their degree.
But I don't actually know how the bill affects that at all. My family is kind of... fundamentalist so I don't really agree with most of what they have to say these days.
Rock and roll.