So now what?

So now what? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> So now what? (1/20/2010 4:01:34 PM)
Despite the good face Democrats are putting on it now, health care reform is all but dead. Back to the status quo. Trouble is...the status quo is spiraling health care costs, more companies dropping coverage, more people dropped from their coverage when its needed most, more inability to get coverage with some conditions...all while medicaid/medicare is rapidly approaching a far worse crisis than social security, with no political will to fix either. Massachusetts has universal care, but with states strapped for cash themselves, their likely to remain alone in that distinction. Meanwhile, we continue on with a structural deficit exacerbated by a decade with revenue cuts, two elective wars (one to chase Osama bin Laden unsuccessfully in Afghanistan, the other to find weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist in Iraq) that will continue draining the treasury for at least a decade, while we only begin a tentative climb out of recession. I knew Obama's progressive agenda was over when the credit crisis hit before he even took office. And while I give him B- marks for muddling through, it's nothing approaching strong leadership, and his term in office will now be much more about Haiti (where he did step up quickly) than health care. Democrats, realizing the president has no coattails, will keep their heads down too. Republicans have no interest in solving any of this either. Their entire focus was to kill health care and now to take back power. They'll likely gain seats in November, perhaps even several. And it will change nothing but who snips at whom. People talk of alternative parties--but it's all talk. No one has any serious new approaches or solutions going forward, just a feeling to throw the bums out, and then start again with different names in the same old story. We can't afford this. We're ignoring solvable problems--painful to solve, granted, but solvable. They are only going to balloon rapidly while we continue to pretend they don't exist. Our own inaction, not terrorism, is what will bring us down. So the bill is dead. Now what?

popeye1250 -> RE: So now what? (1/20/2010 4:07:19 PM)
Music, assuming everything you said is true then, ...Bankruptcy.

Lucylastic -> RE: So now what? (1/20/2010 4:11:11 PM)
I am so very very sorry for every american that needs affordable healthcare. I am beyond saddened altho not surprised

rulemylife -> RE: So now what? (1/20/2010 4:20:21 PM)
It's not dead yet. And even in its watered-down form without the public option it will be a vast improvement in many of the areas you mentioned. I assume you are basing this on Brown's election, but there are still options available to the Democrats to pass the bill.

maybemaybenot -> RE: So now what? (1/20/2010 4:23:23 PM)
Lucy: Lucy: Brown is for healthcare reform. He voted for it here in Mass, and supports it. He does not support this bill they have now, but has repeatedly said he would work on getting an appropriate healthcare bill thru. He voted FOR the healthcare bill we have here in Mass. I guess it depends on how badly both sides want to work to get it right. "We're past campaign mode: I think it's important for everyone to get some form of health care," Brown told a news conference Wednesday morning. "So to offer a basic plan for everybody I think is important. It's just a question of whether we're going to raise taxes, we're going to cut a half at trillion from Medicare, we're going to affect veterans' care. I think we can do it better." "We have 98 percent of our people insured here," he said at another point. "We know what we need to fix it." - Scott Brown 1/20/10 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/20/AR2010012002822.html

subrob1967 -> RE: So now what? (1/20/2010 4:23:42 PM)
Back to the drawing board, leave out the backdoor deals, and special interest payoffs, and maybe the Dems can salvage some kind of health care reform.

philosophy -> RE: So now what? (1/20/2010 4:32:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot "We're past campaign mode: I think it's important for everyone to get some form of health care," Brown told a news conference Wednesday morning. .......given the stick that some of our more right wing posters have given Obama for not living up to campaign rhetoric, can we now rely on them to utterly condemn this blatant example of a Republican clearly suggesting that what is said on the campaign trail should not bear any relation to how they vote on things?

Thadius -> RE: So now what? (1/20/2010 4:34:00 PM)
Evening Tim, The best we can hope for is that the folks still in Washington actually want to fix the problem. If they do, then some good hard debate and negotiating is in order (including everybody in Congress). Unfortunately, I believe they are all too partisan and hard headed to accept good ideas from the other side of the aisle. I do hope that the election last night forces a move to the center from both parties, just like the mid-terms of '94. The next couple of weeks will be interesting to watch. Need to keep an eye on how quickly they certify the election numbers, and how many on the left are willing to walk the plank. It is possible for the Dems to still force feed a compromise between the House and Senate before Brown is seated (with a little help from Mass. Dem Machine). Two of the best ideas I have heard have come from opposite sides of the political spectrum. I love the ideas of a one stop shop for insurance, and allowing companies to compete across state lines (to break up the monopolies that exist in some regions). There are a few more, but just those 2 would go a long way towards bringing down costs. I wish you well, Thadius

philosophy -> RE: So now what? (1/20/2010 4:36:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius It is possible for the Dems to still force feed a compromise between the House and Senate before Brown is seated (with a little help from Mass. Dem Machine). ...except that Obama has already publically ruled that out. i doubt that some of our more rabid right wing posters will give that announcement the respect is deserves. Obama taking the honourable route, rather than sprinting for partisan advantage.

Lucylastic -> RE: So now what? (1/20/2010 4:38:45 PM)
bloodyhell...I actually agree with what subrob posted, theres a banner day:)[:D] fuck pharma, double fuck the insurance companies and their mouthpieces(you know who you are). While there is money to be made from their kickbacks,,,,I dont see it, it seems too entrenched. The clusterfuck of the last 8 months has been despicable I dont know his politics MBMN but if he is serious there may be hope yet. I did realise that Mass has its own system, not the details tho. but going on past politician promises yanno, Im sceptical. WE shall see.

servantforuse -> RE: So now what? (1/20/2010 4:46:43 PM)
They should start from scratch, and this time do what Obama said he would do. Involve both parties. Involve the drug and insurance companies and put the negotiations on C-Span. Remember that word "transparency".

maybemaybenot -> RE: So now what? (1/20/2010 4:47:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot "We're past campaign mode: I think it's important for everyone to get some form of health care," Brown told a news conference Wednesday morning. .......given the stick that some of our more right wing posters have given Obama for not living up to campaign rhetoric, can we now rely on them to utterly condemn this blatant example of a Republican clearly suggesting that what is said on the campaign trail should not bear any relation to how they vote on things? no, philosophy... he wasn't retracting anything he said on the campaign trail, he was repeating what he has said from day one. He campaigned on not supporting this healthcare bill, that we did need reform and that we " could do better " < than what's on the table now >. It was his mantra at every rally and speech... " we can do better ", in regards to healthcare.

DomImus -> RE: So now what? (1/20/2010 5:15:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Republicans have no interest in solving any of this either. Their entire focus was to kill health care and now to take back power. So the bill is dead. Now what? People can frame this issue as a Republican vs Democrat battle all they want but that is overly simplistic and isn't really the root of the problem. It's handy to have the other side to point fingers at but it's not always the case. This health care debate has been as much about liberal dem vs blue dog dem and House vs Senate as it has been about GOP vs Dem or left vs right or conservative vs liberal. The bill is not dead. It still breathes in the House. Is it the bill the House wanted? No. Was the bill they initially sent to the Senate even the bill that most of them wanted? Probably not. It went through the House (dem controlled) and the Senate (dem controlled) and back to the House. That bill could be passed and sent to the Oval Office if the House democrats could agree to do so. I fail to see how their potential inability to do so suddenly morphs into "the bill is dead" because Scott Brown won the 41st republican seat in the Senate although I easily can see how the finger pointing goes that way. Maybe they should pass the bill they have on their plate and look at it as a starter home. Ted Kennedy was reportedly offered a similar sort of starter home during the Nixon administration and rejected the idea. He had gone on record several times as saying that it was one of his own biggest mistakes in his Senate career. Health care reform isn't going to happen in one fell swoop with one big bill. The health care situation in this country didn't get where it is overnight. All the time Congress sends legislation to the president with riders attached that one side or the other does not like that have nothing to do with the main context of the bill. Somehow that same practice regarding this health care bill seems to be a stumbling block. "The bill is dead" is just an easy way for them to wash their hands of the situation and blame the other side.

DomImus -> RE: So now what? (1/20/2010 5:22:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy .......given the stick that some of our more right wing posters have given Obama for not living up to campaign rhetoric, can we now rely on them to utterly condemn this blatant example of a Republican clearly suggesting that what is said on the campaign trail should not bear any relation to how they vote on things? Obama has had a year to live up to his campaign promises (or not) and you're ready to run Scott Brown up the flagpole less that 24 hours after his election victory before he's even been seated in the Senate? I'm sure he'll be duly branded as another talking head if that comes to pass. Put away your torch and pitchfork in the meantime.

opiate69 -> RE: So now what? (1/20/2010 5:43:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery So the bill is dead. Now what? Well.. there are actually a couple of alternatives for keeping the bill alive (or for getting an even stronger bill - one that is more heath care reform than health insurance welfare). First, the Dems can push the bill through via reconciliation. Second, someone can remove Harry Reid's fainting couch, so that whenever the obstructionists raise the spectre of the fillibuster, he can't retire with a case of the vapors, and instead will force the Repubs to stand on the senate floor and actually fillibuster. Failing that, there is always the nuclear option.. or changing the fillibuster rules back to 55 votes needed for cloture.. not that any of the Dem leadership will have the stones to actually do any of these things...

TheHeretic -> RE: So now what? (1/20/2010 5:59:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: opiate69 changing the fillibuster rules back to 55 votes The same sort of "keep our power right now" fuckup rule change that created the situation the Dems find themselves in today, Opi? And what do they do when Repubs get 55 seats in the Senate?

Thadius -> RE: So now what? (1/20/2010 6:03:19 PM)
Wouldn't a rule change like that require 60 votes to pass? Perhaps more? Just curious.[;)]

TheHeretic -> RE: So now what? (1/20/2010 6:08:22 PM)
I'm not up to speed on the precise rules for the Senate, Thad, but I don't think that process would be subject to a filibuster. It would just be really, really dumb, and shortsighted. Not that such things keep the Democrats from doing something, mind you.

opiate69 -> RE: So now what? (1/20/2010 6:09:10 PM)
From my perspective, I whole-heartedly believe the Repubs will excercise the nuclear option they spent 6 years threatening next time they gain a majority. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: opiate69 changing the fillibuster rules back to 55 votes The same sort of "keep our power right now" fuckup rule change that created the situation the Dems find themselves in today, Opi? And what do they do when Repubs get 55 seats in the Senate?

Jeffff -> RE: So now what? (1/20/2010 6:10:01 PM)
The way things are going, I think Gil Scott Heron called it. You might want to down load the whole song and give it a listen The Revolution Will Not Be Televised -- Gil Scott Heron (1975) You will not be able to stay home brother you will not be able to plug in, turn on and drop out you will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip skip out for beer during commercials Because the revolution will not be televised The revolution will not be televised the revolution will not be brought to you by xerox in 4 parts without commercial interruption The revolution will not be televised The revolution will not be brought to you by the Schaefer Award Theatre and will not star Natalie Wood and Steve McQueen or Bullwinkle and Julia The revolution will not give your mouth sex appeal The revolution will not get rid of the nubs The revolution will not make you look five pounds thinner because The revolution will not be televised brother There will be no pictures of you and Willie Mays pushing that cart down the block on the dead run or trying to slide that color television into a stolen ambulance NBC will not be able to predict the winner at 8:32 or the count from 29 districts The revolution will not be televised The revolution will not be televised there will be no highlights on the eleven o'clock news and no pictures of hairy armed women liberationists and Jackie Onassis blowing her nose The theme song will not be written by Jim Webb, Francis Scott Key nor sung by Glen Campbell, Tom Jones, Johnny Cash, Engelbert Humperdinck of The Rare Earth The revolution will not be televised The revolution will not be right back after a message about a white tornado, white lightning, or white people You will not have to worry about a germ in your bedroom, the tiger in your tank, or the giant in you toilet bowl The revolution will not go better with Coke The revolution will not fight germs that can cause bad breath The revolution WILL put you in the driver's seat The revolution will not be televised, will no be televised will not be televised The revolution will be no re-run brothers The revolution will be live-- JeffweyX

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.078125E-02