[y66]

Time to vote.

[y66]

For

[kenrexford]

Trick question.

In fact, it is a trick question that has been perpetuated over and over and over.

Which box do I check if I am in favor of health care reform but against the specific, existing version of "health care reform" passed by the Senate and considered by the House, with or without the tweaks?

[kenberg]

You're playing real hardball here actually calling for a vote.
I voted yes.
God help us.
There is no God.
Tough situation.

[cherdanno]

kenrexford, on Mar 19 2010, 06:22 PM, said:

Trick question.

In fact, it is a trick question that has been perpetuated over and over and over.

Which box do I check if I am in favor of health care reform but against the specific, existing version of "health care reform" passed by the Senate and considered by the House, with or without the tweaks?

Life is full of trick questions.
You are a member of Congress (heck that would be one gremium where you are less insane than the average member!). There is a roll call. Either the bill passes, or there won't be any reform over the next 10 years. Do you vote yes?

[luke warm]

kenrexford, on Mar 19 2010, 06:22 PM, said:

Trick question.

In fact, it is a trick question that has been perpetuated over and over and over.

Which box do I check if I am in favor of health care reform but against the specific, existing version of "health care reform" passed by the Senate and considered by the House, with or without the tweaks?

you vote no in that case, as i did... i'm not in the camp that says "at least it's a start"... i've seen too many of those, and they're just black holes, money pits that don't do what they're designed to do

[kenberg]

I'm glad to see another vote cast, Jimmy. I hope there will be more.

[Winstonm]

I vote no, but the reason I vote no is I refuse to support someone who has lied to me.

The White House has long claimed support for a public option, and said the only reason a public option could not pass was because of the threat of filibuster.

There is no filibuster threat in reconciliation, and a public option amendment could be added and passed - with a simple majority vote.

There can be only two reasons not to include a public option: 1), it was never really endorsed by Obama and the White house and the claims of support were only political propaganda, or 2), there never has been a majority in favor and the filibuster threat ruse was a lie.

I don't particularly blame Obama - he is only the front man in the U.S. politics' rock 'n roll band. The real deception comes from the guys behind the throne, like Rahm now and Rove then.

I don't trust anyone like these character-less characters to make a decision of this magnitude for me - perhaps it is time to go Constitutional Amendment on their asses.

Glenn Greenwald once again sums up my sentiments nicely:

Quote

In other words, this bill was negotiated using the standard, secret, sleazy Beltway lobbyist/industry practices that candidate Obama frequently condemned and vowed to defeat.  And these industries extracted such huge benefits as a result of these secret deals -- a bill shaped to their liking and profit objectives -- that they are essentially in favor of it.

Again, none of this is proof that the health care bill is a bad idea -- it's possible that a bill which pleases these industries also produces, on balance, more good than harm (by expanding coverage and restricting some industry abuses).  But being in favor of the bill is not a justification for making misleading claims to try to glorify what it achieves or, worse, claiming that it represents a change in the way Washington works and a fulfillment of Obama's campaign pledges.  The way this bill has been shaped is the ultimate expression -- and bolstering -- of how Washington has long worked.

[kenberg]

In choosing my vote, part of my consideration was the political consequences. If the health bill fails, I think that nothing much will get done by anyone for the remainder of the Obama term.If it passes, at least the Democrats will be very highly motivated to make it all work reasonably well. I cannot recall any undertaking that has been so completely locked into one party. The health care bill belongs not to Obama but to the Democratic party. Obama's role has been to urge the congress on, and to assure the nation that we can do this while still dealing with our financial problems. Maybe there will be a price to pay this November, I think that would be unfortunate. But 2012 is a totally different situation. In 2012, maybe folks will look on the nis bill as a good thing. Maybe the budget will be coming under control. If so, Obama will win re-election without a sweat. But if the economy is still screwed up and people start to think this bill was a contributing cause, I wouldn't place an election bet on any Democrat anywhere in the nation.

I don't know if this is going to work or not. I think some claims for it have been more along the line of wishes rather than of fact. Counting revenue from a tax that is to be implemented eight years from now seems to me to be very very optimistic. But I do think that Democrats will be seriously motivated to make it work. Contrary to some ways of thinking, I think that failure is always an option. But it would be very ugly.

In short, we elected a Democratic Senate, a Democratic House, and a Democratic president. After a year of work, this is what they came up with. Maybe it's better than it looks. For their sake and ours, I hope so.

Anyway, I vote Yes.

[Winstonm]

Quote

On Monday, Ed Shultz interviewed New York Times Washington reporter David Kirkpatrick on his MSNBC TV show, and Kirkpatrick confirmed the existence of the deal. Shultz quoted Chip Kahn, chief lobbyist for the for-profit hospital industry on Kahn's confidence that the White House would honor the no public option deal, and Kirkpatrick responded:

"That's a lobbyist for the hospital industry and he's talking about the hospital industry's specific deal with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee and, yeah, I think the hospital industry's got a deal here. There really were only two deals, meaning quid pro quo handshake deals on both sides, one with the hospitals and the other with the drug industry. And I think what you're interested in is that in the background of these deals was the presumption, shared on behalf of the lobbyists on the one side and the White House on the other, that the public option was not going to be in the final product."
Kirkpatrick also acknowledged that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina had confirmed the existence of the deal

Gee, Mr. President, how could you stand there and tell us straightfaced that you wanted a public option while you were making a backroom, private deal with the insiders promising that a public option would never see the light of day?

That's not the kind of change we were looking for - exchanging Weapons of Mass Destruction Lies for Public Option Lies.

[kenberg]

The vote that counts has now been taken.

I figure that when they saw the Forum was 14-4 in favor, that turned the tide.

[PassedOut]

Our representative is Bart Stupak from Michigan's 1st District. We'd like to think that our views had at least some part in his eventual decision to accept a face-saving executive order regarding abortions to secure his vote.

[luke warm]

the house just got played by the senate... as for the abortion executive order, wait and see how that goes... if you recall, medicaid originally had much the same language

[y66]

Quote

Why This Moment Matters
MAR 21 2010, 6:17 PM ET

We'll talk some other time about the political consequences, in 2010 and 2012 and beyond, of the health-care reform vote. (My guess: this will not seem anywhere near as poisonous seven months from now as it does today. Jobs jobs jobs is what will matter most then. But we'll see.)

We'll talk about the many things that will prove to be wrong with the bill, and the many more steps that will need to be taken as far into the future as anyone can see, so as to balance and rebalance the potentially-limitless cost of new medical procedures with the inevitably-limited resources that individuals, families, companies, and governments can spend.

For now, the significance of the vote is moving the United States FROM a system in which people can assume they will have health coverage IF they are old enough (Medicare), poor enough (Medicaid), fortunate enough (working for an employer that offers coverage, or able themselves to bear expenses), or in some other way specially positioned (veterans; elected officials)... TOWARD a system in which people can assume they will have health-care coverage. Period.

That is how the entire rest of the developed world operates, as noted yesterday. It is the way the United States operates in most realms other than health coverage. Of course all older people are eligible for Medicare. Of course all drivers must have auto insurance. Of course all children must have a public school they can attend. Etc. Such "of course" rules offer protection for individuals but even more important, they reduce the overall costs to society, compared with one in which extreme risks are uncontained. The simplest proof is, again, Medicare: Does anyone think American life would be better now, on an individual or a collective level, if we were in an environment in which older people might have to beg for treatment as charity cases when they ran out of cash? And in which everyone had to spend the preceding years worried about that fate?

There are countless areas in which America does it one way and everyone else does it another, and I say: I prefer the American way. Our practice on medical coverage is not one of these. Despite everything that is wrong with this bill and the thousand adjustments that will be necessary in the years to come, this is a very important step.

-- James Fallows

[cherdanno]

luke warm, on Mar 22 2010, 05:09 AM, said:

the house just got played by the senate... as for the abortion executive order, wait and see how that goes... if you recall, medicaid originally had much the same language

So? My understanding is it still has. Of course, many states decided to offer payments through abortions from their own funds. I gather you are against such a sweeping expansion of state rights?

[luke warm]

cherdanno, on Mar 22 2010, 09:18 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 22 2010, 05:09 AM, said:

the house just got played by the senate... as for the abortion executive order, wait and see how that goes... if you recall, medicaid originally had much the same language

So? My understanding is it still has. Of course, many states decided to offer payments through abortions from their own funds. I gather you are against such a sweeping expansion of state rights?

that isn't what i said, arend... medicaid was passed with 'no abortion funding' as part of it... and as for "sweeping expansion of states rights" let's see how this all pans out when 30 - 35 states 'opt out' of this legislation... we'll see then whether any states rights arguments are tongue-in-cheek

[cherdanno]

luke warm, on Mar 22 2010, 09:29 AM, said:

cherdanno, on Mar 22 2010, 09:18 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 22 2010, 05:09 AM, said:

the house just got played by the senate... as for the abortion executive order, wait and see how that goes... if you recall, medicaid originally had much the same language

So? My understanding is it still has. Of course, many states decided to offer payments through abortions from their own funds. I gather you are against such a sweeping expansion of state rights?

that isn't what i said, arend... medicaid was passed with 'no abortion funding' as part of it... and as for "sweeping expansion of states rights" let's see how this all pans out when 30 - 35 states 'opt out' of this legislation... we'll see then whether any states rights arguments are tongue-in-cheek

Then it's not the same language as the executive order. I guess you haven't read it.

[PassedOut]

I wonder how quickly Rush Limbaugh plans to move to Costa Rica. Right away, or in 2014?

The number of states who opt out of health care will approximate the number that refused all of the stimulus funds.

[kenberg]

The vote is in. I am very prepared to wait to see how it works out. Fallows' closing line "Despite everything that is wrong with this bill and the thousand adjustments that will be necessary in the years to come, this is a very important step" does not exactly infuse me with confidence, but as he also says (referring however to political fallout) "we shall see". Sometimes, often, maybe almost always, things work or don't work depending on the skill of implementation. Probably the post-Katrina rescue plan looked good to those who devised it. Jimmy Carter's decision to rescue the hostages was a fine idea.

The bill establishes the theory, the next few years will show how it works in practice. My plan is to wait for the evidence to come in before saying much more.

[PassedOut]

Sorry to see that some pinhead elected by texas droolers called my representative Bart Stupak a "baby-killer" on the floor of the house. That is one thing he most certainly is not.

In the days before the vote, Stupak's office was swamped with calls from nuns and from administrators of Catholic hospitals and nursing homes pointing out that the health reform bill was emphatically pro-life. And he already knew how important the bill was to businesses in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

No doubt the "baby-killer" comment was as painful to him as it was disgusting and unfair. Stupak may have been in some political trouble before, but the texas pinhead's comment has pretty much sent his opponents here scurrying back to their holes. For now at least.