 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Mass. Senatorial race
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Jan 10 - 02:48 PM From the Washington Post: Just deserts for Massachusetts Democrats? A new poll from Suffolk University and the decision by two noted pollsters to declare the race a toss-up provide more evidence that voters in the Bay State could do the unthinkable next Tuesday: fill the senate seat held for almost 47 years by Ted Kennedy with a Republican. If that happens, it will be a bit of cosmic justice exacted on the state's Democrats. Not once, but twice, they changed the Massachusetts law on filling Senate vacancies to maintain their hold on power. The Suffolk survey of 500 Massachusetts voters shows Republican state Sen. Scott Brown leading the commonwealth's Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley 50 percent to 46 percent. Because the margin for error is 4.4 percent, they're tied. But this shouldn't be in a state where the Democrats currently control the governor's mansion, the state house and senate and every seat in the congressional delegation. The survey shows that crankiness over the health reform effort in Washington is playing a roll in Coakley's problems. She hasn't helped herself with a bad debate performance this week and a clumsy and listless campaign overall. But I suspect the voters don't like being manipulated, either. Before 2004, Massachusetts law gave the governor power to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy. But Democrats feared that then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, would put a fellow GOPer in the seat if Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, made it to the White House. So they changed the law to require a special election 145 to 160 days after declaration of the vacancy. Until then, the seat would sit empty. Before his death last August, Kennedy called on Gov. Deval Patrick (D) to quickly appoint someone to his Senate seat. After his death, the state legislature changed the law again to allow Patrick to fill the seat with someone who would serve until Tuesday's election. Patrick tapped Paul Kirk, a former chairman of the Democratic Party and close friend of Kennedy's. Gubernatorial appointment to fill senate vacancies is undemocratic. Voters should have a say in who represents them in Washington. But had Massachusetts Democrats left the system enough alone six years ago, they wouldn't be facing the scare of their lives right now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: SINSULL Date: 15 Jan 10 - 02:58 PM The single most disturbing aspect of this race is the appearance of Bill Clinton, stomping for the Democrats. Seems he forgot he is the UN's Special Envoy to Haiti. A few grim-faced appearances on TV will have to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:04 PM A Senate seat vs a few million Haitians? Obvious choice as to which is more important to Democrats... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:12 PM APNewsBreak: Obama to Massachusetts AP - Friday, January 15, 2010 9:10:24 AM By GLEN JOHNSON and LIZ SIDOTI His health care bill at stake, President Barack Obama plans a weekend trip to Massachusetts to campaign for endangered Senate candidate Martha Coakley after a poll showed an edge for Republicans in the race for a seat Democrats have held for over a half-century. The White House said he will travel there Sunday. "If Scott Brown wins, it'll kill the health bill," Democrat Barney Frank, D-Mass., said, underscoring the stakes of Tuesday's special election. Said presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs: "I don't think Scott Brown is going to win on Tuesday." Obama's trip was hastily arranged as the White House and Democratic leaders in Congress sought to nail down a deal on historic legislation overhauling the country's system of medical care. His visit comes after he taped a Web video e-mailed to his supporters and an automated phone call asking Massachusetts to vote for Coakley, and promising "She'll be your voice and my ally." A Suffolk University survey released late Thursday showed that Brown, a Republican state senator, with 50 percent of the vote in the race to succeed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in this overwhelmingly Democratic state. Coakley had 46 percent. That amounted to a statistical tie since it was within the poll's 4.4 percentage point margin of error, but it was far different from a 15-point lead that Coakley, the Massachusetts attorney general, enjoyed in a Boston Globe survey released over the weekend. The Suffolk poll also confirmed a fundamental shift in voter attitudes telegraphed in recent automated polls that Democrats had dismissed as unscientific and the product of GOP-leaning organizations. And it signaled a possible death knell for the 60-vote Senate supermajority the president has been relying upon to stop Republican filibusters and pass not only his health care overhaul, but the rest of his legislative agenda heading into crucial mid-term elections this fall. Brown has pledged to vote against the health care bill, and his election would give Senate Republicans the 41st vote they need to sustain a filibuster. But Secretary of State William F. Galvin, Massachusetts' top election official, said certifying Tuesday's results could take more than two weeks. That delay could give Senate Democrats time to push Obama's signature legislation through Congress. Sen. Paul G. Kirk Jr., the interim replacement for the seat, says he will vote for the bill if given the chance. Republicans are using the threatened delay as a rallying point to argue Democrats have been gaming the rules to pass the health care bill despite public opposition. The third candidate in the race, independent Joseph L. Kennedy, had 3 percent in the Suffolk poll. The Libertarian businessman is unrelated to the senator, who died Aug. 25 of brain cancer. "Although the results show a race within the statistical margin of error, Scott Brown has surged dramatically," David Paleologos, director of Suffolk's Political Research Center, said in a statement. "He is attracting independent support by a wide margin and even winning some Democrats who won't vote the party line this time." Paleologos said Joseph Kennedy's supporters could end up being pivotal in the election's outcome. "A late rotation away from Kennedy to one of the major candidates could have a significant impact," he said. The survey of 500 registered Massachusetts voters was conducted in a three-day span ending Wednesday, when Brown enjoyed a surge after being widely seen as beating Coakley in their final debate on Monday. The question surrounding it and a number of recent surveys was whether the group sampled accurately reflected the likely field of voters Tuesday. The election comes the day after the three-day Martin Luther King holiday weekend. Snow is also forecast for Monday, and many locals often head south for warmer weather or north to go skiing during the shortened work week. Brown supporters, meanwhile, are mimicking Republicans and independents who shaped recent GOP victories in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races. They are showing a high degree of enthusiasm for their candidate, a relative unknown who has never run statewide, while Democrats have shown little passion for Coakley although she cruised in the four-way Democratic primary with nearly 50 percent of the vote. Former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani urged voters who rallied in Boston's North End to elect Brown for his anti-terror credentials. "His election, I believe will send a signal -- and a very dramatic one -- that we're going in the wrong direction on terrorism," said Giuliani, who opposes having the trial of Sept. 11 terror suspects in New York City. Former President Bill Clinton was making two stops in Massachusetts Friday on behalf of Coakley later in the day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:13 PM Getting health care reform passed will save lives, too. They're both important. Republicans, on the other hand, couldn't give a crap about saving any of those lives. If they did, they would spend less time sniping and more time helping. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:18 PM Wrong again, CarolC, YOU do not know what anyone gives a crap about. You want people to push through a bill that they think ( by all available evidence) will raise rates, increase taxes, reduce available medical care and STILL leave millions uninsured? Try reading wht the Congress is pushing instead of the press releases from the Whitehouse as to what the bill is. Obama WILL sign what Congress puts out, regardless of his promises. BTW, there is NO ONE keeping you from getting health care- you might have to pay more for it that you can afford, or move somehwere where the taxpayers pick up the cost, but that is the same for me and a house. I can't afford one in Northern VA- so should I demand that the government make everyone pay more so I get one??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: SINSULL Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:23 PM Wrong Bruce - Clinton chose the senate seat over the Haitians not the Democrats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:29 PM None of what you're saying about what has been proposed so far is true, beardedbruce. And if you don't have the money to pay for something, you can't get that thing. If someone doesn't have the amount of money that insurance companies charge to older people with pre-existing conditions for insurance, how are they supposed to get it? You have to pay them in order to get the insurance. How does someone get it without the money? Explain that one to me, Mr. financial expert. And if someone doesn't have a means of support in a state that has universal health care, they can't move to that state. So in the absence of having the money to do those things, you explain to me how it is possible to get them. Oh yeah, I forgot... let them eat cake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:33 PM YOU claimed that THEY were "preventing" you from getting it- NOW you claim you can't afford it. Well, I can't afford a house near where I work- DO I HAVE THE RIGHT to demand that the government make it possible for me to afford it? I can't afford an airplane, either- WHen will they pass a bill letting me have one? "You have to pay them in order to get the insurance." And what part of ANY proposed bill will change this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: SINSULL Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:40 PM I guess the question is: Is it the responsibility of government to ensure that its citizens get adequate health care. I think YES. I don't need a jet or an expensive home to survive. I do need affordable health care. And I am willing (and in fact do) pay for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:44 PM Like I said, "let them eat cake". That sums up your attitude about people without access to health care, beardedbruce. They're preventing me from getting it by pricing me out of the market. They do that on purpose so they won't have to insure people who will cut into their profits. It's a deliberate strategy. They use every means at their disposal to cull their clientele of anyone they will have to actually pay for their care. They make their money by denying care, rather than providing it. Insurance companies don't have a right to discriminate against older people and people with pre-existing conditions. They have rendered themselves irrelevant. They don't have a right to exist, much less rip the consumers off. The taxpayers, on the other hand, have a right to set up insurance pools that will charge everyone the same amount regardless of age or infirmity. That is our right. That is also what the propose legislation (so far - it isn't finished) will do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Jack the Sailor Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:47 PM Bruce, There aren't any market forces preventing us from getting health care; just the artificial government support of PRIVATE INSURANCE companies. The only way that health insurance works, anywhere that it does work is where PRIVATE INSURANCE companies cannot pick and choose who they cover. And no, the Republicans do not give a fuck who dies for lack of insurance, and obviously neither do you. I am so sick and tired of Republicans being unwilling to do their share for the well being of society while refusing to do their part. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 15 Jan 10 - 04:01 PM Just goes to show ya' that Obama ain't no liberal 'er the Democratic base would be more energized in Massacuttes... One thing fir sure is that the Repubs have done at rilin' up their base... That's really what elections anymore are about... Rile the base and split the moderates... My gut feeling is that the Dem will pull off a sqeaker but who knows until the fat lady sings... One thing I do know is that if the Dems lose this one and don't get health care reform thru then it's gonna be a bad year for them come November 'cause the voters are purdy scared and pissed off... That is never a good sign for any majority party regardless of the factors for which that party has no power to change... Actually, I wouldn't mind seein' the Repubs do well in November... I think the American people are too qucik to forget just how messed up things get with them in power and maybe need a refresher course... One thing is fir sure, until the Senate rules are changed the voters are going to stay pissed off at Wsahington... That is a given... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Jan 10 - 04:17 PM Of course Obama isn't a liberal, he's a decent moderate kind of conservative. Of course in a country where people who elsewhere would be seem as extreme right-wing can be regarded as middle of the road... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 15 Jan 10 - 07:39 PM McGrath: Obviously the description of a "conservative" in GB is different than in the US. Obama, I believe, by most liberals in the US describe him as a liberal. I certainly do. BB: Seems reasonable to me for everybody in the US to subsidize you so that you can buy that dream home in northern Virginia. Of course there are some heartless Americans that wouldn't want to go along with it I guess. Bobert: You probably are right. They probably will figure out some way for the Democrat to take the Mass. seat in the Senate even if it means getting votes from local cemeteries. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 15 Jan 10 - 08:09 PM Whatever it takes, Dougie... lol... But really, I don't much care... The screwed up rules in the Senate and blowhard radio-righties are sure fire formula for endless bickering no matter who wins elections... The country is purdy much screwed 'cause the governemnt is hopelessly broken and Boss Hog has coralled all the money and won't share... The US isn't that far behind Haiti... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: GUEST,999 Date: 15 Jan 10 - 08:14 PM "A Senate seat vs a few million Haitians? Obvious choice as to which is more important to Democrats..." "Wrong again, CarolC, YOU do not know what anyone gives a crap about." Both posts from BB. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Donuel Date: 15 Jan 10 - 08:16 PM ITs all true! That is if you trust polls bought and paid for by Right Wing FOX contractors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 15 Jan 10 - 09:18 PM Clinton didn't choose the senate seat over the Haitians, he was just the last president we had who could walk and chew gum at the same time. Some folks have forgotten what that was like. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bill D Date: 15 Jan 10 - 10:25 PM I'd better not say what I am thinking right now about some of the conservative posts above, but I am tired of the Republicans campaigning on slogans, and when they DO have power, they do less than NOTHING about heath care. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Genie Date: 15 Jan 10 - 10:35 PM Ah, Bruce ("A Senate seat vs a few million Haitians? Obvious choice as to which is more important to Democrats..."), would that things were that simple and easy. Would that Bill Clinton's going to Haiti a day or so sooner would save even a few dozen lives. A few million? Seriously doubt that. I do hope Clinton as well as other politicians and former politicians will do what they can to help the relief effort for Haiti, but I'm not sure that having them all fly down there is the most helpful thing. I also think most people not only can but need to be able to have more than one project going right now. Some estimates say that failure to reform our US "health care system" will cost hundreds of thousands, even millions of lives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Genie Date: 15 Jan 10 - 10:57 PM Bobert, you're right that Obama sure hasn't been acting like a liberal. Neither have most of the Democrats in Congress. Giuliani is right that many, if not most voters think "we're going in the wrong direction" (on health care, terrorism, and various other issues. But to spin that as meaning that the disenchanted want the country to move to the "right" is disingenuous. A lot of voters think Obama and the Democrats are not liberal or progressive enough. That may indirectly help conservatives win elections -- as in NJ and Virginia, where the Democratic candidates weren't even as progressive as Obama -- when Dems. stay home or back 3rd party candidates, but it doesn't mean they want anything like the Bush-Cheney administration or a conservative Congress back. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Genie Date: 15 Jan 10 - 11:11 PM [[And it signaled a possible death knell for the 60-vote Senate supermajority the president has been relying upon to stop Republican filibusters and pass not only his health care overhaul, but the rest of his legislative agenda heading into crucial mid-term elections this fall.]] WHAT 60-vote supermajority??? First, there are only 58 Dems. in the Senate. Second, one of the 2 independents who caucus with them acts like he's a Republican half the time, including joining Republican filibusters. Third, there are 3 to 5 "blue dog" (conservative) Democrats who similarly do what they can to keep majority-Democratic-sponsored bills from coming to the Senate floor for a vote. And then there's the very elderly Robert Byrd, whose health precludes him from being present a lot of the time. I am so sick of hearing our media - abetted even by some Dem. talking heads sometimes - pronounce that "the Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority." Nothing of the kind has existed in this Congress. That's a major reason why the Senate's "health care reform" bill is such a mess and such a giveaway to the big corporations. [[Brown has pledged to vote against the health care bill, and his election would give Senate Republicans the 41st vote they need to sustain a filibuster.]] Whatever you citizens of Mass. think of the Dems, do you really want Ted Kennedy's old seat to be filled by someone who's basically promising to filibuster just about any important legislation that the majority Democratic party proposes? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Jan 10 - 12:01 AM Obama is pretty conservative. People who call them selves in this country generally are either radical right wingers or religious wing nuts. What else would you call someone who wants a big adventurous military, as long as their guy picks who it bombs? Or people who write a medicare entitlement that pays private insurance companies as much money as they want to give still more money to drug companies for medicine at full retail? People who spend like drunken sailors increase government then say the answer is cutting taxes and less government. Doug you can't talk about Bruce's house with your extra medicare benefits. Your sarcasm would have some sting if your were not sucking off the federal teat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 16 Jan 10 - 12:05 AM Those of us without insurance are subsidizing the health care of those who do, DougR. And while we are subsidizing their health care, we go without. So spare me your bullshit about beardedbruce and his fucking dream house. Without access to health care we die. If beardedbruce doesn't get his dream house, the worst thing that happens to him is that he drives further to work. You really do show everyone how utterly heartless you and your fellow Republican are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Richard Bridge Date: 16 Jan 10 - 05:20 AM Once again (indeed as almost always) McGrath is right. It is frankly unthinkable (on a world scale) that any allegedly civilised country should be prepared to let people suffer and die so that insurance companies and drugs companies and private hospitals can make more profit. It is a gross obscenity, and the comparisons above of a proper national health service with a wish for a better house demonstrate a loathsome want of conscience in the utterers. From each according to their means: to each according to their needs. It has to be admitted however that the only presidential candidate with a real grasp on the healthcare needs of the USA was Kucinich. I can only agree with the form of words - if not the meaning of the usual utterers: "God save America". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: VirginiaTam Date: 16 Jan 10 - 07:47 AM The rich, by unfair combinations, contribute frequently to prolong a season of distress among the poor. Thomas Malthus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 16 Jan 10 - 08:53 AM BillD, The reason that the right is stuck with bumper-sticker length positions is because that's about the lenght of the knowledge of the real world... This is where the Dems are failing... The Dems need to counter with their own bumper-sticker positions... Face it, the American people are either so dumbed down that you can't converse with them or they are too consumed trying to figure our how not to end up homeless... This is the perfect storm for the Repubs... But back to the Dems... When was the last time you heard a Dem stand up and say, "The reason we need to reform health care is because it's costing us 17% of our GNP as opposed to the 9% that our competitors are paying and that is costing us jobs"... If the Dems would "Keep it Simple, Stupid" they would be doing alot better in the polls... But, no... The Dems have to run on and on and on and, frankly, are boring the electorate to death... POkay, they maybe right but they aren't matching the right bumper-sticker for bumper-sticker and they had better wake up to the PR battle they are losing... This ain't about right or wrong policies... The Repubs had 8 years toprove that they are the party of wrong policies... It's about salesmanship... Period!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 16 Jan 10 - 07:42 PM Jack the Sailor: I paid into Social Security all of my working years. All I'm receiving is what any other American citizen who has done the same and is over the age of 65 receives. Just think about JTS, when YOU are 65, even YOU will be eligible. Richard Bridge: "McGrath is right, etc." So that's it then right? No more discussion, no more speculation? No more opinions? Must be great to be king. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 16 Jan 10 - 07:46 PM OOPS! Sorry Genie, didn't mean to slight you. Your remark about opposing legislation proposed by the Democrat leadership ..., Uh, yes, I'm delighted that there are those in the congress who oppose a bill such as that that is currently intended to take over America's health care. It's a lousy bill! If it wasn't, why does the Democrat leadership go to such extremes to conceal the deal making going on to buy votes to pass it? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: VirginiaTam Date: 17 Jan 10 - 05:20 AM Deal making? That is what lobbies do. They make deals. If you think the Republicans haven't been into deal making right up to their eyebrows, think again. Since the 1980's (thanks to Reagan and Thatcher) a nasty selfish consumerism has infected the voting public, been a boon to capitalism (including and especially medical and insurance) and thereby benefited conservative politics. Unfortunately, historically, it is not the poor who vote. Said it before and I will say it again on any thread of this ilk. If health care had been free or at least affordable to my 23 year old daughter in 2005, she would in all probability be alive now. You read her journals in the last months and see if you can stomach her anxiety over mounting medical bills, caused by an easily treatable condition. Nuff said! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 17 Jan 10 - 12:46 PM DougR couldn't give a crap about your daughter or the daughter of anyone else, VirginiaTam. If she didn't have the wisedom and foresight to be born DougR, it's just too fucking bad for her (and you). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 17 Jan 10 - 12:53 PM Now, now, now, Carol... Dougie can't help himself... He's a Republican... They really aren't wired for critical thinkin' or sharin'... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Greg F. Date: 17 Jan 10 - 02:11 PM Carol, you're being WAY to kind to Douggie-boy. He's not amusing, he's not entertaining, he's not a "Gentleman". He's a selfish, ignorant prick who doesn't care about anyone but himself. Its his kind that are rapidly turning the U.S. into a shithole. Why anyone suffers him is beyond me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 17 Jan 10 - 02:29 PM From my reading, it's still unlikely the Republican will win. Registration is lopsidedly Democratic--and in Massachusetts they know how to get out the vote. I'm sure unions will be active. The Republican would have to get both Republicans and independents. I'll bet a nickel the Democrat will win. And this will be yet another tempest in a teapot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: kendall Date: 17 Jan 10 - 03:43 PM And I still say they are all tarred with the same brush. Their priorities are: 1.Me 2 the party 3 the country. And it should be the other way round. What I don't understand is why have the democrats allowed the right wing nuts to spread such lies about the national health care system in the UK? It works there and it would work here if we could get rid of the greedy fat cats who bleed us dry then dump us when we get really sick.This is the only civilized country in the world who has no national health care system and it's barbaric! Protection from disease is a right just as protection from invaders is a right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Jan 10 - 03:57 PM Obama and the Democrats are on a knife edge and must tread carefully. I hope that they pass the health bill, but their 60 senate votes are hard to hold. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Stilly River Sage Date: 17 Jan 10 - 05:06 PM A quick skim through this thread allows me to conclude that BeardedBruce is still one who feels entitled to his own facts, regardless of their fictional origins. Too bad we can't dump the insurance companies, but even if we can't, once the Democrats get health care reform out of the way many other important causes will begin to fall into place, as jobs are created because everyone has a better shot at health care and employers have more options. So what if we have higher taxes? When a nation chooses to make sure that something important like health care is available to a huge percentage of the population, people pay for it. But the trade off should be that insurance companies can't play fast and loose, can't arbitrarily raise rates or drop people. Better to have a predictable amount of taxes go into the program in exchange for a whole bunch of people not turning up in the poorhouse because of the insurance industry behavior. And more people will have jobs because small employers will be able to compete on a level playing field. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: kendall Date: 17 Jan 10 - 07:16 PM Capitalism is nothing but legal greed.And there's gold in them thar ills. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 17 Jan 10 - 07:44 PM Ron: A WHOLE nickel? Wow, you sure have a of confidence in your prediction don't you? Greg F: Thank you for those kind words. You're a peach. Bobert: Thank you Bobert. I know I can always count on you to defend my honor. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Jan 10 - 07:48 PM Thank heaven for legal greed. It pays my bills. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 17 Jan 10 - 08:00 PM Fortunately for you, Q, the legal greed in the country in which you live doesn't include allowing people to go without adequate health care so that insurance companies and drug companies can make a bigger profit. You live in a country with a sensible attitude about the free market. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Jan 10 - 08:25 PM The idea of a mass senatorial race appeals to me, and I'll tell you why. A lot of Senators are fat men in not terribly good shape. I think if we got the whole Senate to engage in a huge race...something like the Boston Marathon...that there's a good chance half of them might have a heart attack and die. This couldn't hurt the country, and it might help it significantly. Therefore I think it is worth a try. It could be done with other famous "old boy" hierarchies too, like the Vatican or the Mafia or the Ayatollahs in Iran and the royals in Saudi Arabia, etc. Then put some younger women in place of the fallen heroes, instead of more old men. We need a brand new perspective in the halls of power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Jan 10 - 08:28 PM We pay a portion of health care in Alberta, about $1000/year, and part payment on drugs. Many carry additional insurance; I would but my pension includes much of the additional drug coverage. Canada is |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ref Date: 17 Jan 10 - 08:30 PM Kendall, I love "Gold in them thar ills." The Repubs, and too many of the Dems in DC are really only interested in their bank accounts and their continuing hold on power, so I'd argue that they don't care about country at all. If they did, they wouldn't be such lockstep opponents of anything proposed by Dems. I don't live in Mass, but if I did, I'd be holding my nose hard while voting for Coakley or, rather, for the "D.". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Jan 10 - 08:30 PM That should have read Canada is not uniform in health care across the provinces. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 17 Jan 10 - 09:40 PM It would be funny, though if Brown won. In as much as the health care bills before Congress wouldn't do much to help anyone anyway, and the cost of Medi-Care would go up for seniors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bill D Date: 17 Jan 10 - 09:54 PM "Gold in them thar ills." is a line from a song about Dr. Freud. "...the health care bills before Congress wouldn't do much to help anyone anyway..." Not as much as the one they started with...but we couldn't allow the Democrats to pass anything REALLY useful, could we? The current bill, if passed would get health care to millions who don't have ANY now. If you want to call that "not doing much to help anyone", I'd hate to see what you WOULD recommend. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 17 Jan 10 - 11:52 PM Sorry Doug, I only bet a nickel on anything. Some won't bet at all--fearing for their egos, it appears. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 18 Jan 10 - 01:21 AM Hell, Q, if JtS and I could pay $1000 a year for heath care, we would be feeling quite blessed. We would have to pay more than $12,000 a year for health insurance if we could afford it, and that would not include the co-pays and deductibles. The deductibles alone would be at least $1000 per year, and the co-pay would probably be at least 20%. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Stilly River Sage Date: 18 Jan 10 - 03:51 AM ouch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 18 Jan 10 - 07:49 AM Well, tomorrow is the big day... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: kendall Date: 18 Jan 10 - 10:27 AM I have nothing against profit. I do have something against profiteering. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 01:06 PM "We would have to pay more than $12,000 a year for health insurance if we could afford it, and that would not include the co-pays and deductibles. The deductibles alone would be at least $1000 per year, and the co-pay would probably be at least 20%. " For myself alone, I had $5,000 deductable with a monthly premium of $168. When I was unemployed ( over 2 years), and for 4 years as I commuted 1 1/2 to 4 1/2 hours ECHA way EACH day ( before getting a job with benefits). And I was uninsurable ( pre-existing conditions) But that is why MD has one of the highest state tax rates around. "Without access to health care we die." Go to the emergency room. THEY will treat even you- Or move somewhere with better benefits, or get a job with those benefit. You want the privilidge of staying where you are, and you want the rest of us to pay for your medical care. WHY should over 80% of the nation get MORE expensive costs and less coverage so that YOU can avoid paying what the rest of us pay??? "The taxpayers, on the other hand, have a right to set up insurance pools that will charge everyone the same amount regardless of age or infirmity. That is our right." TRUE- so move to a state which has done so, or get YOUR state to do so. If the taxes are too high in those states, or the industry is moving out of them ( so there are no jobs), guess what? There is a reason for it. "That is also what the propose legislation (so far - it isn't finished) will do. " FALSE- Neither of the present bills under consideration, nor any proposed comprimises will do so. Rergardless of Obama's speeches. TRY reading what you WILL get, instead of pretending it will be someimaginary pot of gold. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 01:52 PM For myself alone, I had $5,000 deductable with a monthly premium of $168. When I was unemployed ( over 2 years), and for 4 years as I commuted 1 1/2 to 4 1/2 hours ECHA way EACH day ( before getting a job with benefits). And I was uninsurable ( pre-existing conditions) BTW, if I selected only $1000 deductable with copays it would have been $ 475 per month for me alone. So it was comparable to what you claim is too high for you to afford. Anyway, EVERY doctor I know will take patients without insurance- you just need to PAY for the services you receive. NOONE is keeping you from getting medical care: YOU have decided that YOU are not worth the cost it takes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 01:55 PM BTW, since I pay 1.45 cents on EVERY dollar I make to Medicare/Medicaid, I suspect I am paying a lot more towards the cost of medical care for the poor than those here telling me I am not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Jan 10 - 02:12 PM If you had a chance to live in a modern and peaceful society with all the same conveniences you have now, yet you only had to pay about $1,000 a year in taxes for full medical coverage at no charge...would you move there? Would you consider it? Would you wonder how they managed to do that when your country can't seem to manage it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 18 Jan 10 - 02:20 PM For myself alone, I had $5,000 deductable with a monthly premium of $168. Hell, that's peanuts. Our monthly premium would be $1000 at a minimum, and most likely would be a lot more. We were paying $1000 a month premium several years ago and we are both older now, so our premiums would be higher. $5000 is too much for a deductible. With a deductible that high, people tend to put off getting care until providing such care becomes a lot more expensive. When I was unemployed ( over 2 years), and for 4 years as I commuted 1 1/2 to 4 1/2 hours ECHA way EACH day ( before getting a job with benefits). And I was uninsurable ( pre-existing conditions) So if you find yourself again at some time in the future being uninsurable because of pre-existing conditions, this health care reform would help you. By the way, both of us have pre-existing conditions, and we are as uninsurable as you were then. But that is why MD has one of the highest state tax rates around. Not sure I follow your reasoning there. "Without access to health care we die." Go to the emergency room. THEY will treat even you No they won't. They might set a broken bone or rehydrate me if I have sever diarrhea, or stabilize me if I have a heart attack (if I don't die first), but they won't provide regular examinations to determine if I am at risk of heart attack, or provide me with chemotherapy if I get cancer, or even do regular cancer screenings to determine if I have cancer. If I require lengthy and expensive treatment for any kind of illness whatever, they will not provide that. You think you know a lot about what is available to people without insurance, but you no precisely zero. Or move somewhere with better benefits, or get a job with those benefit. You want the privilidge of staying where you are, and you want the rest of us to pay for your medical care. WHY should over 80% of the nation get MORE expensive costs and less coverage so that YOU can avoid paying what the rest of us pay??? This is not possible. We don't live here because it's a privilege to live here. We live here because this is where we are able to live. If we had better options at this time, we would take them. "That is also what the propose legislation (so far - it isn't finished) will do. " FALSE- Neither of the present bills under consideration, nor any proposed comprimises will do so. Rergardless of Obama's speeches. Prove it. beardedbruce, who buys the goods and/or services that the company you work for provides? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 02:26 PM " "That is also what the propose legislation (so far - it isn't finished) will do. " FALSE- Neither of the present bills under consideration, nor any proposed comprimises will do so. Rergardless of Obama's speeches. Prove it." No, CarolC. YOU made a claim that is false- YOU get to prove it before you ask me to. "beardedbruce, who buys the goods and/or services that the company you work for provides? " Let me see... Telkom was Norwegian, Optus was Australian/New Zealand, Galex and Ibex were US, Various others were commercial birds for several nations. I know Al Jezeerha had several transponders on one... Who buys the services that YOU provide, that you can only stay where YOU are? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 02:32 PM "So if you find yourself again at some time in the future being uninsurable because of pre-existing conditions, this health care reform would help you." No. THAT is the point I am trying to make- THIS health reform would make it MORE expensive and harder for me to get coverage: I would have to spend money I do not have to get a lesser plan than I did before. You can get ANY health care that you want- IF you pay for it- BUT WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR YOUR HEALTH CARE? If you are poor, and cannot afford it, go on Medicare ( which I already pay for) If you do not qualify for Medicare, YOU ARE NOT POOR ( according to the government you expect to pay your bills). Argue that the Medicare level is too low- I might agree with that- but to demand that everyone else ( 80% at least) pay more and get less so YOU get an advantage without paying for it is WRONG. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 18 Jan 10 - 02:40 PM No, CarolC. YOU made a claim that is false- YOU get to prove it before you ask me to. No, you are making a claim that is false, so that means that it is your responsibility to prove it. "beardedbruce, who buys the goods and/or services that the company you work for provides? " Let me see... Telkom was Norwegian, Optus was Australian/New Zealand, Galex and Ibex were US, Various others were commercial birds for several nations. I know Al Jezeerha had several transponders on one... So this means that JtS and I are paying for your health care. Because the companies in the US that buy the goods and services that the company you work for provides are passing those costs on to the consumers, who then pass those costs on to other consumers in this country, which inflates the price of pretty much everything in this country. JtS and I are paying for your health care, while we don't have any health care ourselves. Who buys the services that YOU provide, that you can only stay where YOU are? Some marketing consultation firms buy the services we provide. In terms of employment, we can live anywhere in either North Carolina, South Carolina, or Georgia, because that is where the work is available for us. None of these states has the kind of health care programs you are talking about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 18 Jan 10 - 02:42 PM No. THAT is the point I am trying to make- THIS health reform would make it MORE expensive and harder for me to get coverage: I would have to spend money I do not have to get a lesser plan than I did before. No it wouldn't. You wouldn't be able to get any insurance because you have a pre-existing condition. Remember? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 02:55 PM "Because the companies in the US that buy the goods and services that the company you work for provides are passing those costs on to the consumers, who then pass those costs on to other consumers in this country, which inflates the price of pretty much everything in this country. " Yet YOU claim that the governemnt taxing the insurance companies will not increase costs??? Make up your mind as to what dreams you want to believe in. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. ANd I pay a lot more towards YOUR benitits than you pay towards mine- IF YOU DO NOT qualify for Medicaid, I have NO obligation to get you medical care- YOU can afford to pay for it, just as most of us do. If YOU HAVE Medicaid, then I AM paying for your medical care, and all your arguements are invalid. BTW, YOU made a statement that is unsupported, and known by those who read the present bills and the proposed changes to be false- YOU have to prove it true before calling for evidence that claims against YOUR statement are false ( without any evidence on your part.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 18 Jan 10 - 02:59 PM Carol C: to find the kind of health care insurance you are looking for, you are going to have to move to a country that provides it. I know you have addressed the problem of moving, but as I see it, that's your solution. I seem to recall Little Hawk imploring you two to move to Canada and you replied that it is impossible, as I recall, to do that. Perhaps not. Make it happen. Even if the current bill passes (which at this point is a real possibility)you are not going to get he kind of coverage and cost you are looking for. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 03:00 PM "No it wouldn't. You wouldn't be able to get any insurance because you have a pre-existing condition. Remember? " No, CarolC. I live in MD- thus the long commute. MD has a program to cover those who are uninsurable. THAT isd why the taxes in MD are so high. If you want to move here, you would get coverage- upon paying the premiums ( see previous: "BTW, if I selected only $1000 deductable with copays it would have been $ 475 per month for me alone. So it was comparable to what you claim is too high for you to afford. Anyway, EVERY doctor I know will take patients without insurance- you just need to PAY for the services you receive. NOONE is keeping you from getting medical care: YOU have decided that YOU are not worth the cost it takes. " ) You seem to think you can not pay for what you get: Either you pay yourself, or you pay in higher taxes. MY choice is to split the difference. NO ONE is keep[ing you from going to a doctor and paying out of pocket. It all depends on how much value you assign to your health. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: VirginiaTam Date: 18 Jan 10 - 03:24 PM You say go get a job that has benefits. What decade are you living in? Have you noticed the unemployment and under employment stats across the country? My daughter Andie could not get medicare, because her condition when treated correctly helps a person live a somewhat normal life. She was not entitled. But untreated, Addison's disease had left her so weak and ill, she could not physically cope with the only jobs she could get in the small town she lived (she had to live with her Dad due to illness), waiting tables, stocking shelves. How was she supposed to get the treatment and meds she needed without first having money to pay for them? BTW - she had $1,000s in debt from 5 previous emergency room visits and hospital observations in only 2 years which were worrying her no end. She could only pay $10 per month when she was able to work. She did not get a diagnosis until about 8 or 9 months before she passed away. Had that happened when she was first getting ill, her body would not have been reduced to such a weakened state. But how do you get a diagnosis, if doctors will only see you if you have insurance or can pay up front? Then you have to pay for tests, up front. This Health bill - what has been "finally" proposed may not be ideal, but baby steps may get the US on the way to providing fair and adequate health care for all people regardless of their means. Those who have more means can go private if they so wish, just as is done in the UK. The problem in the US is that a certain several generations have been educated to believe that any attempts at socialistic anything, including health care is seen as too closely related to communism. We are also brought up to think we should take care of our own and so do not like being told by the government that we should look to other's needs. I for one do not mind my taxes going to pay for decent health care for everyone. I don't care a wit whether or not we all contribute equally to the system. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bill D Date: 18 Jan 10 - 03:26 PM Bruce... I cannot believe you actually think thru the implications of some of the claims and 'advice' you offer. Not only that, people at places like the Congressional Budget Office, the AARP and various other concerned groups disagree with you as to what will 'cost more' and who will pay what. A search leads to many, many claims about higher costs, but most are from those who simply have an interest in seeing Obama & the Democrats fail. They are frantic to regain power, and they YELL loudly...yell ANYTHING, whether based of fact or not, to discredit anything the Democrats try to do. I can only assume that many of them actually have convinced themselves that they have the high moral and economic ground, but the list of those who simply don't want THEIR stream of money diverted or dammed is long, indeed. Those cynically cover their own ass, and Devil take the hindmost. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 18 Jan 10 - 03:53 PM "Because the companies in the US that buy the goods and services that the company you work for provides are passing those costs on to the consumers, who then pass those costs on to other consumers in this country, which inflates the price of pretty much everything in this country. " Yet YOU claim that the governemnt taxing the insurance companies will not increase costs??? Make up your mind as to what dreams you want to believe in. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. First of all, I have not said that. What I have said is that you don't know what is in the final bill. You don't even know if taxing employer provided insurance is going to be in the final bill. ANd I pay a lot more towards YOUR benitits than you pay towards mine- IF YOU DO NOT qualify for Medicaid, I have NO obligation to get you medical care- YOU can afford to pay for it, just as most of us do. You aren't paying anything at all towards my benefits. Not one single red cent. I do not currently receive any benefits. None. Zip. Nada. No benefits for me. You do not pay any money at all towards anything that I currently receive. All of it comes from me and JtS. But I do pay for your health care. Which makes YOU a FREELOADER. If YOU HAVE Medicaid, then I AM paying for your medical care, and all your arguements are invalid. Think about it for just a minute, Mr. Rocket Scientist. If I had Medicaid, whould I be complaining that I don't have any access to health care? If your answer is 'yes', please go to the back of the class. BTW, YOU made a statement that is unsupported, and known by those who read the present bills and the proposed changes to be false- YOU have to prove it true before calling for evidence that claims against YOUR statement are false ( without any evidence on your part.) Bullshit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 18 Jan 10 - 03:56 PM Carol C: to find the kind of health care insurance you are looking for, you are going to have to move to a country that provides it. I know you have addressed the problem of moving, but as I see it, that's your solution. I seem to recall Little Hawk imploring you two to move to Canada and you replied that it is impossible, as I recall, to do that. Perhaps not. Make it happen. Even if the current bill passes (which at this point is a real possibility)you are not going to get he kind of coverage and cost you are looking for. Ah yes... more of the "let them eat cake" solution to the problem of 45 thousand people dying every year because of a lack of access to health care. You really can't see how utterly lacking in any kind of morality or conscience your arguments are, can you? "If they can't move to another country, fuck them. They probably don't deserve to live anyway." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 04:01 PM CarolC, Since you do not have medicaid, that means either youy choose to not have it or you do not qualify. If you do not quyalify, there is no good reason not to have a large deductable policy like I had- to cover major expenses, since you make enough ( according to the government ) to cover the minor ones. You can only blame yourself for no coverage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bill D Date: 18 Jan 10 - 04:03 PM "You can only blame yourself for no coverage." quote: BS unquote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 04:05 PM BillD "Those cynically cover their own ass, and Devil take the hindmost. " As opposed to those high-minded Democrats who are selling votes and the public down the river? When I see you make such comments about BOTH sides, I might listen. Until then, you are claiming that those you oppose are lying because you don't like what they say, and those you support have to be taken at their word even when the evidence ( and the written bill) is agaist them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 04:08 PM BillD If you bother to read MY statement, I show that either she IS covered by medicare, or that she has chosen NOT to have coverage that the GOVERNMENT has determined she can afford. "The Devil take the hindmost." DIRECT quote from BillD |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 18 Jan 10 - 04:12 PM "No it wouldn't. You wouldn't be able to get any insurance because you have a pre-existing condition. Remember? " No, CarolC. I live in MD- thus the long commute. MD has a program to cover those who are uninsurable. THAT isd why the taxes in MD are so high. If you want to move here, you would get coverage- upon paying the premiums ( see previous: Well, that's nice for you, beardedbruce, but commuting from Maryland to Georgia is not an option for us. And we can't afford the real estate prices or cost of rent in Maryland, either. We need to live in a place where we can afford the basic necessities like shelter. "BTW, if I selected only $1000 deductable with copays it would have been $ 475 per month for me alone. So it was comparable to what you claim is too high for you to afford. So you were not well served by your insurance company. All the more reason to have comprehensive health care reform. Anyway, EVERY doctor I know will take patients without insurance- you just need to PAY for the services you receive. NOONE is keeping you from getting medical care: YOU have decided that YOU are not worth the cost it takes. Yes, this is true. But if we don't have enough money to pay for insurance, we sure as hell don't have enough money to pay for all of our health care needs out of pocket. What we can afford, we get and we pay for (which is precious little at this time). What we can't afford, we go without. This means I have not had a comprehensive medical examination, or anything more than the most cursory health screening in several years, and I don't see myself being able to get one any time in the near future. You seem to think you can not pay for what you get: Either you pay yourself, or you pay in higher taxes. MY choice is to split the difference. NO ONE is keep[ing you from going to a doctor and paying out of pocket. It all depends on how much value you assign to your health. You don't know that you would have to pay higher taxes for the final bill, because you don't know what's going to be in the final bill. However, I would definitely pay higher taxes for health care, because even those higher taxes would cost me a hell of a lot less than what I would have to pay in order to get insurance under the current system. It's entirely untrue that doctors will always provide care to people who don't have insurance. Doctors will absolutely not provide care unless you pay at the time services are provided. If you can't do that, you are out of luck. So we are only able to get what care we have the money for at any given time. And doctors usually charge more for services to people who don't have insurance, so that makes it even more difficult for people like JtS and me to get care by paying out of pocket. That's another way JtS and I are subsidizing your health care. Because doctors charge us more for services than they do you. You are not paying for the care you get, beyond your premiums, deductibles, and co-pays. For everything else, other people are paying for your health care. Those other people are the people who pay more for goods and services so your employer can provide you with insurance, and the other people in your insurance pool whose premiums go to pay for your health care. If you had to pay for all of your care out of pocket, even you, the amazing beardedbruce, would not be able to afford it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 18 Jan 10 - 04:16 PM Since you do not have medicaid, that means either youy choose to not have it or you do not qualify. If you do not quyalify, there is no good reason not to have a large deductable policy like I had- to cover major expenses, since you make enough ( according to the government ) to cover the minor ones. Beardedbruce, even the large deductible policies are beyond our reach because of our pre-existing conditions. Believe me, I have looked into it. If we could afford even a high deductible policy WE WOULD ALREADY HAVE ONE! Please, grow a brain cell or two, ok? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 04:25 PM "And we can't afford the real estate prices or cost of rent in Maryland, either. We need to live in a place where we can afford the basic necessities like shelter." BUT YOY SAY "However, I would definitely pay higher taxes for health care, because even those higher taxes would cost me a hell of a lot less than what I would have to pay in order to get insurance under the current system" The costs of rent and real estate are due in part to those taxes you are so eager to pay. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 04:28 PM CarolC, In MD they would be at the rates I indicated, even for you ( See MHIP). YOU are saying you can't move, so the rest of the world should pay more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 04:30 PM " All the more reason to have comprehensive health care reform. " Which this set of bills IS NOT. I agree it would be nice for us all to have lemonade fountains and rock candy mountains- but why do you think THIS BILL will create it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 18 Jan 10 - 04:37 PM "And we can't afford the real estate prices or cost of rent in Maryland, either. We need to live in a place where we can afford the basic necessities like shelter." BUT YOY SAY "However, I would definitely pay higher taxes for health care, because even those higher taxes would cost me a hell of a lot less than what I would have to pay in order to get insurance under the current system" The costs of rent and real estate are due in part to those taxes you are so eager to pay. The cost of real estate has nothing whatever to do with taxes. You pay the price of the real estate plus the taxes. The real estate prices in Maryland are higher by orders of magnitude than the real estate prices in the area where we live. I know, because most of my family lives in that area. And the amount of increase I would have to pay in taxes would still be a lot less than the amount we would have to pay to get access to health care. Although it still hasn't been established that this is what will happen if we get a health care reform bill passed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 18 Jan 10 - 04:42 PM In MD they would be at the rates I indicated, even for you ( See MHIP). YOU are saying you can't move, so the rest of the world should pay more. No, beardedbruce, the rest of the world is paying less (at least the rest of the developed world), because they either have single payer not for profit health care, or their insurance industries are very tightly regulated. So you are saying that since I am unable to move to Maryland, I should just die. How high do you think your taxes would go up there where you are in Maryland if all of the 50 million uninsured people in the US moved there so they could get access to your health care system? Do you really think that's a workable alternative? And it still hasn't been established that you would have to pay more if a health care reform bill gets passed. You are just making stuff up as you go along. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 18 Jan 10 - 04:48 PM " All the more reason to have comprehensive health care reform. " Which this set of bills IS NOT. I agree it would be nice for us all to have lemonade fountains and rock candy mountains- but why do you think THIS BILL will create it? There you go again comparing an essential for life to frivolous non-essentials. Like I said, "let them eat cake - I've got mine so fuck everyone else". No, none of the bills so far offered is comprehensive health care reform. But if they were, you would oppose them even more strenuously than you are the various bills that you keep referencing, because they would either involve single payer not for profit, or a very tightly regulated insurance industry. But we don't know yet what the final bill will contain, so we really can't say exactly what's going to be in it, but all of them are an improvement over what we have now, because they do provide some regulation of the insurance industry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: John P Date: 18 Jan 10 - 05:04 PM For those of you who are opposed to changing the way health care is paid for in this country because it's taking money out of your pocket and giving it to others: How do you feel about Social Security, the police and fire departments, Congress, and the U.S. Army? All of these take money from everyone in order to supply us with things we need. I, for one, would much rather have universal health care than our military. As soon as we allowed our corporations to send most of our good jobs out of the country, we needed health care reform. Before that, most people who wanted a job could get one that included insurance. That's no longer the case. The Republican party has become the party of "no". If you don't like the health care bill, please tell us your alternative. Please make it one that doesn't involve thousands of our fellow citizens dying while their neighbors don't die of the same illness. "Get a job" or "Move" are asinine suggestions. Do you have anything real to offer? If you don't like the health care compromise that they are getting ready to stick us with, get on the phone to your Republican congresspeople and encourage them to get out of the way. They've been blocking the door way too long. As for whether or not Obama is a liberal -- all the liberals I know consider him to be slightly right of center, like almost all Democrats. The Republicans who have pandered to their base enough to get elected are so far to the right they are off the scale. The differences between Democrats and Republicans are just different degrees of corporocracy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bill D Date: 18 Jan 10 - 05:24 PM Bruce...Carol has asked in detail the questions which boil down to: "Is there any **practical** way to follow your advice." I am reminded of Will Rogers who, during WWII, replied to a question about how to deal the German submarines by saying, "It's simple...boil the oceans!" "...you are claiming that those you oppose are lying because you don't like what they say.." You know I did not say that. I 'implied' that SOME of them are directly lying, while others seem to have convinced themselves that the liars are right. (And why should *I* be the one to "...make such comments about BOTH sides, "? You go first.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Jan 10 - 05:25 PM I don't think Obama's a liberal...he just gives a vague sort of impression of being liberal, but he doesn't pursue liberal policies. Nor does the Democratic Party. They are to the right of center. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 18 Jan 10 - 05:30 PM "I agree it would be nice for us all to have lemonade fountains and rock candy mountains" There you go again comparing an essential for life to frivolous non-essentials. Like I said, "let them eat cake - I've got mine so fuck everyone else". And I have to say that your doing it here in this thread is particularly obscene considering that you are doing it in sight of a mother whose child died because she didn't have access to health care. Really, you should be very ashamed of yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 06:13 PM "Although it still hasn't been established that this is what will happen if we get a health care reform bill passed. EXACTLY!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 06:15 PM "How high do you think your taxes would go up there where you are in Maryland if all of the 50 million uninsured people in the US moved there so they could get access to your health care system? Do you really think that's a workable alternative? " YET yopu seem to think if they are put on the FEDERAL tax roles the impact will be reasonable??? If they ALL moved here, they would ALL pay the MD taxes. Which, with the cost of the polocies, covers the cost of the insurance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 06:16 PM "So you are saying that since I am unable to move to Maryland, I should just die." No, YOU are now the one putting words into other's mouths. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 06:18 PM "none of the bills so far offered is comprehensive health care reform. But if they were, you would oppose them even more strenuously than you are the various bills that you keep referencing," Wrong again. YOU do not speak for what I would or would not support. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Jan 10 - 06:20 PM One thing for sure, it looks like the Senate race in Massachusetts is all about health care. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 06:21 PM "And I have to say that your doing it here in this thread is particularly obscene considering that you are doing it in sight of a mother whose child died because she didn't have access to health care. Really, you should be very ashamed of yourself. " And when the bill passes, and children still die, will YOU be very ashamed that you supported a bill that lowers the level of care while increasing the cost? Shame, shame , shame on YOU. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 06:25 PM "For those of you who are opposed to changing the way health care is paid for in this country because it's taking money out of your pocket and giving it to others" Well, since I am NOT in the group you refernce- I am against THIS healthcare reform because I think it will do more harm than good, and the effort by liberals to gain control over so much ( at such a cost) is something to be fought. I guess you can't acknowledge that there may be those opposed to something for any other reason than what YOU decide. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Jan 10 - 06:40 PM People are constantly ascribing the darkest and most horrible of motives toward other people for disagreeing with them on some issue. I see that happening all the time, on every side of various political debates. It's misleading. Generally speaking, everyone takes the position they do on an issue because they think they are defending the public interest, standing up against corruption, fighting for freedom and justice and fairness, etc... They all have good intentions on some level. They just have differing notions about how to achieve the good that they desire. This is also true of people who go to war...all the way from an American serviceman to an Al Qaeda suicide bomber. They all believe they're defending something valuable and fighting for what's right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 18 Jan 10 - 07:55 PM Every cridible poll that I know of shows that the majority of the American people do not want the bill currently being considered by the Democrats to become law. Now it's conceivable that the majority is wrong, however, I would think reasonable people might consider the possibility that they are. DougR And Carol, cut out the crap accusing folks here of wanting people to die. No one on the forum wants that and it does not strengthen your argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: John P Date: 18 Jan 10 - 08:06 PM BB -- Since I didn't name you with my comments, it's a bit odd that you assume I was talking about you. Since I was very specific about who I was talking about, saying that I can't accept any other reason for being against the health care bills is a specious comment. Be that as it may, here's a couple of quotes by you from earlier in the thread that certainly make it sound like you don't like the thought of being asked to pay your share of national health care: "BTW, since I pay 1.45 cents on EVERY dollar I make to Medicare/Medicaid, I suspect I am paying a lot more towards the cost of medical care for the poor than those here telling me I am not." "You can get ANY health care that you want- IF you pay for it- BUT WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR YOUR HEALTH CARE?" I repeat my question, since you decided to answer it with a non-answer: why should anyone pay for any group endeavor? Why should I pay for weapons of war? Why should I pay crooked congresspeople? Why should I pay for schools, since I don't have any kids? Why SHOULDN'T you pay for other peoples' health care? We all pay for all sorts of things for each other. Most of us call it civilization. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Jan 10 - 08:54 PM "They all have good intentions on some level." I suppose, if you can include the Adam Smith kind of folks who maintain that looking out for their own best interest will benefit everyone in the long run. There are a number of less fortunate beings who will perish in the short run, but... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bill D Date: 18 Jan 10 - 09:04 PM Doug... "Every cridible poll that I know of shows that the majority of the American people do not want the bill currently being considered by the Democrats to become law." That is NOT what the polls have shown. That is a distortion of what the polls have shown for months. The majority of American people wanted the versions of the bill that they started with...before the Republicans demanded it be gutted, and when it WAS gutted, they refused to vote for what they got! Sure, the polls show that the majority are unhappy with the state of the current bill....but that is NOT the same as saying they "...do not want the bill...to become law." Polls are interesting. They can ask the question in such a way as to make ANY answer agree with certain viewpoints. Really "credible" polls reflect the underlying truth of what people are thinking, not what 'sound byte' they are promoting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: GUEST,999 Date: 18 Jan 10 - 09:09 PM I can't be arsed to read all of this thread. IMO, what Haiti needs is NOT politicos of any stripe/bent in Haiti right now. What Haiti needs are people trained in emergency work: SAR, crowd control, foods distribution, doctors and dentists; people trained to assess the situation, not there for a photo op. So where this or that politician was when there's shit goin' down that requires work--not opinions--is what so many of you call 'straw dogs'--a term I dislike very much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Greg F. Date: 18 Jan 10 - 10:34 PM Douggie-boy DISTORT something? Unbelievable! Now maintaining that 1. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at once or 2. He's a moron since he actually BELIEVES the crap he comes out with has a lot more credibility |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 19 Jan 10 - 02:03 AM "Although it still hasn't been established that this is what will happen if we get a health care reform bill passed." EXACTLY!!!! It's nice to see that you agree that it has not been established that our taxes will increase if a health care reform bill is passed. "How high do you think your taxes would go up there where you are in Maryland if all of the 50 million uninsured people in the US moved there so they could get access to your health care system? Do you really think that's a workable alternative" YET yopu seem to think if they are put on the FEDERAL tax roles the impact will be reasonable??? First of all, you are the one suggesting that taxes will go up if health care reform is passed. I don't agree with this premise. However, let's use a hypothetical. If you have 50 million people who are currently uninsurable, it is either because they too poor to pay for private insurance, or they are older or have pre-existing conditions. All of which makes them more expensive as a group than the overall population, which also includes a lot of young healthy people. Spreading the cost over the whole population of hundreds of millions of people means each person pays a lot less than if the cost of that group of 50 million uninsurables was spread over the current population of the state of Maryland, which is only a few million people (a little over five and a half million total, but only a fraction of those are taxpayers, since some are children, people on disabilities, or retired). So yes, in such a scenario, taxes would go up a lot less for everyone if everyone was paying for it than if only the people in the state of Maryland were paying for it. It's just basic economics, beardedbruce. Economy of scale. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 19 Jan 10 - 02:05 AM I should rephrase this. It should read... So yes, in such a scenario, taxes would go up a lot less for those paying for it if everyone was paying for it than if only the people in the state of Maryland were paying for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 19 Jan 10 - 02:18 AM "none of the bills so far offered is comprehensive health care reform. But if they were, you would oppose them even more strenuously than you are the various bills that you keep referencing," Wrong again. YOU do not speak for what I would or would not support. Oh, yeah? Am I wrong? You wouldn't oppose single payer not for profit or a very tightly regulated insurance industry? "And I have to say that your doing it here in this thread is particularly obscene considering that you are doing it in sight of a mother whose child died because she didn't have access to health care. Really, you should be very ashamed of yourself. " And when the bill passes, and children still die, will YOU be very ashamed that you supported a bill that lowers the level of care while increasing the cost? This would be funny if it weren't so stupid. 45,000 people in the US die each year because they don't have access to health care. No other developed country in the world has 45 million of people dying each year because they don't have of access to health care. Only the US has this problem. None of the bills being considered is going to reduce the quality of care for children or anyone else. The number of people dying for lack of adequate medical care will be drastically reduced. However, it wasn't your stance on this issue that I was saying you should be ashamed of. It was your trivializing the deaths of 45,000 people each year by comparing providing them with health care to "lemonade fountains and rock candy mountains". And I stand by what I said about that. You should be very, very ashamed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 19 Jan 10 - 02:20 AM I disagree, LH. Some people are just plain selfish, and that's all they care about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 19 Jan 10 - 02:30 AM And Carol, cut out the crap accusing folks here of wanting people to die. No one on the forum wants that and it does not strengthen your argument. I didn't say anyone wants people to die. People like you and beardedbruce don't care one way or another whether those without insurance die or not (which is bad enough). But neither of you would bother to lift a finger to prevent those without insurance from dying, either. That was my point. And I am entirely correct in saying that. You just couldn't give a shit. You're too focused on yourselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Richard Bridge Date: 19 Jan 10 - 08:07 AM Go, girl! Although I do think that some of the wannabee ubermensch here would actively like the inferior peoples exterminated (or enslaved). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 19 Jan 10 - 11:47 AM Right, Carol C., anyone who does not agree with your POV is heartless, selfish, etc. etc. That's horse pucky of the first order and your tirades does nothing to advance your POV. (other than the likes of Richard Bridge evidently). DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: MMario Date: 19 Jan 10 - 11:52 AM Massachusetts instituted universal health care; and since they have, heath care costs have skyrocketed; health care services have closed in droves, and there is LESS health care available to the general public then prior to the "universal" health care passed. But now everyone is equally entitled to what doesn't exist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Jan 10 - 12:00 PM MMario CarolC and her ilk are NOT interested in any facts- THEY want the world to be as they state it should be, for their own benefit. And they do not care to EVER look at the unintended consequences, no matter how obvious, of what THEY think the rest of us need and should pay for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 19 Jan 10 - 12:06 PM Well, not realizing just how desperate alot of folks are in this country or the fact that we have a higher percentage of kids going to bed hungry at night and living in poverty is no defense for being acsued of being selfish and cruel... Especially when one spends alot of time here and has these things brought to their attention... There is no excuse for the vast disparity of wealth in this country... None... And it is absolutely heartless and cruel to deny our own citizens basic needs... But the right-wing has come up with all kinds of smoke and mirrors and absolute bullshit diversions to protect the heartless and cruel among us with so they can sleep at night... There is no reason on earth why the upper 5% should have 80% of the wealth... What is equally immoral is that that 5% cleverly brainwashes so many folks to vote against their own best interests... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 19 Jan 10 - 01:18 PM They must be doing it badly, MMario. Hawaii has universal health care and the premiums there are tied with North Dakota for the lowest in the country, the Medicare costs per person are the lowest in the country, life expectancy in Hawaii is longer than anywhere else in the country, and while it has the highest incidence of breast cancer in the country, it has the lowest death rate in the country from that disease. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 19 Jan 10 - 01:20 PM CarolC and her ilk are NOT interested in any facts- THEY want the world to be as they state it should be, for their own benefit. And they do not care to EVER look at the unintended consequences, no matter how obvious, of what THEY think the rest of us need and should pay for. beardedbruce, see my previous post. The facts show that MMario's example does not in any way predict the outcome of the current health care reform initiative. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 19 Jan 10 - 01:22 PM Right, Carol C., anyone who does not agree with your POV is heartless, selfish, etc. etc. That's horse pucky of the first order and your tirades does nothing to advance your POV. (other than the likes of Richard Bridge evidently). DougR, I don't think my posts are hurting my side of the issue one bit. This is because people can see for themselves how you and beardedbruce have been trivializing the deaths of many thousands of people, right here in this thread. It's all right there for everyone to see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bupkes Date: 19 Jan 10 - 01:54 PM Whatever Health Insurance Reform comes from all this, it's got to be just the start, and at least we'll have established that (almost) everyone gets covered one way or another, and they can't exclude preexisting conditions, nor cancel your insurance when you get sick. But we have to learn to demand what every other advanced country seems to have agreed on: Health care can be universal, of higher quality than we have here, and it can cost at least HALF of what we currently pay, and certainly shouldn't be costing more! If you lived in Germany or France or England or Japan, you'd pay something like $400/year/individual or $800/year/family. How they do it should be studied and emulated, not just ignored. I'll send you links to back up any of this if you send me a private message. Social Insurance, the concept, is very broad. You don't buy Police Insurance so you have the right to call a cop when you're in trouble; you don't buy Air Traffic Control Insurance so that you can get on a plane that's guided by a professional tracker; you buy Fire Insurance and hope you don't have your house burn down so that your premiums pay for the unlucky ones whose houses catch fire. We send our money to New Orleans or Haiti to help people who suffer huge catastrophes. Why is someone getting breast cancer less of a catastrophe than having a hurricane strike or an earthquake? Corporations with limited liability form so that investors can pool their resources and not suffer personal bankruptcy if the business goes down. That's all social insurance, and even Friedrich Hayek, the conservative economist, saw no reason we shouldn't have it as broadly as possible. Even Margaret Thatcher didn't try to repeal England's social medicine. So, vote for Coakley just to preserve the 60-Senate-vote majority; no Republican can be trusted to even begin to foster social insurance now. And if she loses, the Democrats should still use every trick in the book to ram Health Reform through as it is, as a start, and we must work like hell to start getting more for ourselves, improving it, as soon as we can. If Health Reform fails now, your insurance rates will just escalate to monstrous unaffordability soon anyway, and we'll be screaming for Medicare for All perhaps sooner than we think! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 19 Jan 10 - 02:01 PM MarioM: suppose the rush to the polls to vote in Mass. could be the result of the disappointment of people with the state run health care program there? Perhaps the end result of the election might offer a clue. CarlC: seems to me you should move to Hawaii. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Jan 10 - 02:06 PM She can't afford to. The costs of housing and the taxes are too high for her. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 19 Jan 10 - 02:08 PM The high turnout in Mass. will probably elect the Democrat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: pdq Date: 19 Jan 10 - 02:13 PM ... Martha Coakley on Terrorist in Afghanistan: "…They're gone. They're not there anymore." Tell that to the NATO forces (including US troops) who are fighting there. "You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room." Coakley said this even though the Catholic Church encourages health care workers to act according their religious beliefs or conscience. Ms. Coakley is seen as mean, inarticulate and ill-informed (being polite here). As a candidate she ain't very good. This race looks a bit like Janet Reno v. Bruce Jenner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 19 Jan 10 - 02:21 PM CarlC: seems to me you should move to Hawaii. This is precisely the kind of trivialization of other people's problems and other people's deaths that I am talking about, DougR. This is the "let them eat cake" approach to problem solving. You are mocking people who don't have access to health care when you cavalierly suggest that they move somewhere else in order to solve their problems. You really don't give a shit about anyone but yourself, and you prove it every single time you make a stupid, puerile, contemptible, condescending, suggestion like that one. You should be ashamed of yourself, too. Very ashamed. And tell me this, DougR... where did the money come from that paid for your health care while you were working? In at least two of your jobs, I know it came from the taxpayers. So you've been sucking at the taxpayers' teat (as JtS put it) for a very long time. It's the taxpayers who paid for your health care while you were working, the taxpayers who paid into the Social Security and Medicare funds for you while you were working, and the taxpayers who are providing you with those things now. You have been the beneficiary of the very thing you are trying to deny others. That proves that you only care about yourself, and it shows that you are a freeloader, just like beardedbruce. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 19 Jan 10 - 03:54 PM If you live in Massachusetts now is the time to keep Martha Coakley from "sucking at the taxpayer's teat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 19 Jan 10 - 04:38 PM And what two jobs did I have where my health care insurance was paid for by the tax payers, Carol C.? News to me. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bill D Date: 19 Jan 10 - 04:49 PM You didn't bother to reply to MY comment at 9:14 PM last night, Doug. I have no idea if you bothered to read it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 19 Jan 10 - 05:15 PM Bill D.: I read that post, but didn't consider it warranted a reply. The Rassmussen Poll released today showed that 38% of respondents wanted the current bill being considered to pass. 56% did not. You evidently have little faith in polls. So be it. I assure you, if you are not aware of it, the politicians sure do. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bill D Date: 19 Jan 10 - 05:41 PM I see... you just repeated what you said before, referencing what people think of the **current** bill. I'm sure the politicians do read the polls...since many of them work overtime to manipulate the polls, I'm not surprised. You still ignore the point I made. **THe polls DID show that people don't like the 'current' bill because they wanted the original bill with the public option!** Ah, well...perhaps others who read this thread will see it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Greg F. Date: 19 Jan 10 - 06:18 PM Carol, Douggie-boy doesn't really give a shit about himself, either. If he did, he wouldn't continue to prate and to preach and to vote against his own interests. He can't even be bothered to educate himself for his own benefit. His lips may be moving, but Rush is doing the talking; he can't even be bothered to think for himself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Richard Bridge Date: 19 Jan 10 - 06:25 PM It would I have thought been obvious that they who support a proper health service in the USA care not only for themselves but also for others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Jan 10 - 06:53 PM Carol C: to find the kind of health care insurance you are looking for, you are going to have to move to a country that provides it. That'd be virtually any country outside the United States that isn't on the breadline. "Only in America"... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: John P Date: 19 Jan 10 - 07:10 PM DougR, Beardedbruce: I ask again: What's your alternative to universal health care? "Move" or "get a job" are not viable solutions and indicate a serious lack of connection with reality, so please don't say those things again. What do you, as individuals, intend to do about the millions of people who don't have affordable health care in this country? Do you really not care about your fellow citizens to the point where you are willing to sentence them to death for getting sick? Do you really believe it is the job of businesses to supply health care to employees? If so, why? As the manager of a small business, I can assure you that health insurance is the biggest single thing eating into our profitability. From a purely pro-business standpoint, I would expect the Republican party to in support of getting American businesses out of the health care business. Why should I spend my time at work staying tuned into the vagaries of insurance companies' policies and trying to figure out how to keep the business going while paying their obscenely large yearly price increases? You keep saying the current bill is not a good one. No argument there -- the bill has been gutted by the Republicans, who still refuse to vote for it. But it's a start, and can get fixed up later. Tell us your alternative plan if you're going to tear down the only other plan in town. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Jan 10 - 07:20 PM "Tell us your alternative plan if you're going to tear down the only other plan in town. I think that has to count as a rhetorical question - one where you can be pretty certain it won't get an answer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 19 Jan 10 - 07:42 PM For the record, should the House ping-pong the Senate's bill and gvote on it without changes it goes to Obama's desk and become law... BTW, for anyone who is parroting this right-wing argument that people in Mass are voting agasint one party rule: That is rediculous... While I give the Repub credit for framin' their lie this way the reality is what we have is "minority rule" with 40 Senators over-riding the interstes of 60... That is what is pissin' more folks off than anything but most voters haven't had it frqamed that way to them so they just say what ahs been hammered into them by the right, which BTW, now either owns much of the media or can afford to run anti-Dem ads 24/7 becuase they have unlimited corporate money... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Jan 10 - 09:22 PM "so they just say what ahs been hammered into them by the right, which BTW, now either owns much of the media or can afford to run anti-Dem ads 24/7 becuase they have unlimited corporate money... " Since the actual figures from the last election show that Obama got more corporate money than McCann, I guiess that means it is the LEFT that has control of the voters' minds. Sorry to interupt your daydream with facts, Bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Jan 10 - 09:33 PM See what I meant? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Sawzaw Date: 19 Jan 10 - 09:38 PM DNC rolls Coakley under da bus: Washington is already blaming the Coakley camp for today's loss so, naturally, the Coakley camp is hitting back. As Jim has already noted at Campaign Spot, Politico has a leaked memo the campaign is circulating, faulting unpopular Obama policies and a belated response from the DNC for the race's sudden competitiveness. Here are the talking points: National Dems Failed to Aid Coakley Until Too Late — Coakley campaign provided national Democrats with all poll results since early December — Coakley campaign noted concerns about "apathy" and failure of national Democrats to contribute early in December. Coakley campaign noted fundraising concerns throughout December and requested national Democratic help. — DNC and other Dem organizations did not engage until the week before the election, much too late to aid Coakley operation And it gets uglier. A senior Democratic party official, responding to the leaked memo, returns fire, blaming the Coakley campaign for perpetrating "political malpractice" and allowing "one of the worst debacle[s] in American political history to happen on their watch" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Sawzaw Date: 19 Jan 10 - 09:40 PM 9:13 p.m. -- Coakley has conceded in a call to Scott Brown, according to a Brown aide. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 19 Jan 10 - 09:59 PM John P: The current bill has been gutted by the Republicans? What planet do you live on? The Republicans have had NO voice, pro or con on the current bill. Get a life. As to companies being expected to provide health care, when and where did I say that? Companies offer health care to attract the best employees and keep them. If a company cannot afford to offer health care to their employees they run the risk of losing good employees to companies that do! That's free enterprise! Tell me, John P., where in the Constitution of the United States, does it say that the government should be required to provide health care to it's citizens? I don't think it's in there anyplace. Governments of other countries do provide health care, but we are not other countries, and I repeat ...IF anyone on this forum prefers services offered by other countries to it's citizens not provided in the U.S., they have the option of moving to those countries. Good luck to those who do! I've watched the voting returns from the election in Mass. tonight and have spent time on Fox News Network, where there is celebration, and MSNBC and CNN where reporters have very long disappointed faces. On Fox, Frank Lunt, the pollster, had a group from the state many who voted for the Democrat and some who voted for the Republican. One of those, when asked why, as a Democrat, why he voted for the Republican said, "because I believer neither party should have a "super" majority in the congress. The Democrats under Obama have had it, and have totally screwed up. The Republicans had it and THEY screwed up. The elections in New Jersey, Virginia, and now (of all states) Teddy Kennedy's home state, should teach the Democrats a lesson. Super majorities by EITHER party is not in the best interest of the country. I do not, however, delude myself that the Democrats will learn anything from the drubbing they have taken in all three elections. They will continue to try cram liberal legislation down the throats of the American electorate and they will shoot themselves solidly in their foot(s). They cannot accept that the majority of Americans are either in the center, or center right. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 19 Jan 10 - 09:59 PM Pelosi and Reed better pass the Senate bill now, or forever hold their piece. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 19 Jan 10 - 10:19 PM And if they do, Rig, they are going to be in deep doo-doo. I think they would both like to hang on to their jobs next November. Pulling that shenanigan wouldn't, I believe, go down well with the majority of Americans, liberal or conservative. Amos: Real Politics, huh. Well I took a look at their website. Seems Sean Trenke on that site, while predicting a Democrat win prior to the election wrote the following: "So, at the end of the day, you can still place me pretty firmly in the 'Will be stunned' if Brown wins category. That said, I wouldn't be bowled over if the race was much closer than it should be, perhaps in the 54% - 45% range. Sounds like a real neutral polling group to me, right? I wonder if Mr. Sean Trenke has recovered from his stunning yet or if it might take a day or two? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Stilly River Sage Date: 19 Jan 10 - 10:23 PM It's passed both houses and is in the compromise phase now. They are perfectly within their rights to see this to the end. And they'd better do it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 19 Jan 10 - 10:28 PM But they can't change anything or it will go before the Senate for another vote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Sawzaw Date: 19 Jan 10 - 10:38 PM "for anyone who is parroting this right-wing argument that people in Mass are voting agasint one party rule: That is rediculous... While I give the Repub credit for framin' their lie this way" Washington Post: January 19, 2010 "But we think Tuesday's election offers a different lesson. Of course voters are inclined to blame the incumbent party for the troubled economy, and there's not much Mr. Obama can do about that in the short term. But voters also are nervous about one-party rule, especially when it tends toward arrogance or taking them, the voters, for granted. When state Democrats rewrite and then re-rewrite their special election law in the space of five years to suit their party interests, people notice. When the federal tax code is stretched in the health-care bill to give advantages to union workers that non-union workers won't share, people notice that, too." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Sandy Mc Lean Date: 19 Jan 10 - 11:10 PM I don't understand why health care has not been made public and universal in the USA many years ago. Why some people insist on being gouged by big insurance and drug companies, or why so many seem to lack empathy for their less fortunate fellow citizens is beyond me. Such a shame that in an otherwise prosperous land when a poor country like Cuba does so much better! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 19 Jan 10 - 11:25 PM America's health insurance "system" is the shame of the industrialized world. And the lies the Repuglicans told to shoot down this bill really should make their God very pissed at them (e.g. "Stephen Hawking would be dead if he had been under NH."). No, there's nothing in the Constitution that says the Federal Government has to supply health care. But there are a lot of things not in the constitution that we still do. It's not meant to be legislation, only to define the roles of the branches and protect our meagre freedoms (which are under systematic attack by a succession of Repuglican administrations but that's a tale for another day). That there should be people in this country who die from treatable and preventable illness is an outrage. "Why should I pay for your health care?" Because it's the right thing to do. I don't just think so. The entirety of the civilized world thinks so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: John P Date: 19 Jan 10 - 11:31 PM Doug, What's your alternative to universal health care? As I said before, saying "move" is not an answer that makes any sense, or deals with the millions of people who don't have access to medical care. What are you doing with your Social Security checks that the Constitution doesn't say you can have? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:11 AM I cash 'em John P., just like every other qualified recipient. Social Security is earned, not a gift. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:17 AM When you've withdrawn as much out of Social Security as you've put into it, taking into account inflation, do you promise to die? O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:28 AM DougR, you have said here in the Mudcat that you were the manager of a community theater and that you worked for the National Endowment for the Arts. Were you not telling the truth when you said those things? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: kendall Date: 20 Jan 10 - 06:05 AM Two things. The dems lost that seat. Not unusual in a mid term election. Doug, I'll tell you where it says the government should provide health care...the 9th amendment says that our rights are not limited by the bill of rights. We have many unwritten rights. It also says, ..to provide for the general welfare.. To me that means protection from invaders INCLUDING DISEASE! I see no difference. It's pretty plain that both the military and the insurance companies and the health care industry are making billions on our vulnerability and it is BARBARIC. I am totally disgusted by the lies the right wing has been spreading about the National health care system in the UK. Scare mongers have convinced the non thinkers that the fat cats are a bulwark against invaders. A pox on all those lying bastards. Hell, I know some fairly intelligent people who are buffaloed by their lies! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: John P Date: 20 Jan 10 - 09:50 AM Doug, What's your alternative plan for providing health care to all the Americans who are now dying because they don't have it? Come up with a workable plan, get on board with fixing the problem, or admit you share responsibility for a system that kills tens of thousands people every year. Put up or shut up. Take responsibility for your actions. If you are a Christian, act like one. Be an adult. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Greg F. Date: 20 Jan 10 - 09:52 AM Don't hold your breath, John. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 20 Jan 10 - 09:55 AM So it appears I underestimated the depth of discontent with health-care reform--and possibly the slowness of the economic recovery-- in Massachusetts. What's interesting is that the Democratic loss happened there--the very state that has already experienced a health-care overhaul. And "Romney-care" was thought to be at least in part a model for the whole US. And Rig, like a broken clock, you're right at least sometimes--(and all you got wrong this time was the wrong word). This is one of those times. The Democrats have to accept the Senate bill as is "or forever hold their piece (sic)". They have to stop playing the blame game on Massachusetts, hold their noses, and pass the Senate bill--and hope to fix some of the problems with other legislation down the line. They have to pass something--or the Republicans will be able to make hay on a vast scale by talking about how huge Democratic majorities could not even get a health bill of any kind through. And the Republicans are salivating at this prospect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Greg F. Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:09 AM What's REALLY interesting about the Mass. result is that the enlightened citizens of the Commonwealth, being dissatisfied with a situation brought about largely by Republicans in Congress (Gov. Romney was a disaster, too) figured that they could improve the situation by - wait for it - electing a Republican to Congress. We have successfully raised up a nation of morons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Donuel Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:21 AM Roston was the most openly racist town I have ever lived. It seems a candidate can not dismiss the Red Sox, insult Catholics, refuse to shake hands and still win an election in Massacusetts. Coakly seemed as disinterested as the first candidate Caroline Kennedy who mumbled and dropped out early. Coakly mumbled and dropped out mentally. SHe pulled a Silber. Its about time a Real American who isn't afraid of public nudity, sexism, racism, corporatism and still relies on God Almighty for endorsments and drives a Pick U truck to win in Mass. Maybe now the gays, lesbians, transsexuals, cross dressers, bestial, pedophiliac, necrophiliacs and double transexuals will think twice about getting married or even be in public when thier Senator has such strong feelings against the existence of such godless gay abominations. I guess they didn't know this guy was God Fearing male version of Palin when it comes to morality politics. Boston shall be the official capitol of the 2nd American tea bagging revolution. Aside from the Universities, Massachusetts is very much a red state from my POV. Let the witch trials begin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:51 AM Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 20 Jan 10 - 11:00 AM I think the loss had more to do with how the campaign was handled than voter discontent. Coakly was the front runner with a margin of more than 30 points early in the campaign. But she didn't campaign. She took those 30 points for granted, and she lost them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Donuel Date: 20 Jan 10 - 11:04 AM Mass still has black box voting and exit polling is still banned which makes certain that elections can not be entirely trusted. Mass already has near universal health care. Mass is potently racist. Just bring up bussing and raw nerves still twitch. Mass has noticed the remarkable failure by Obama to seek a middle ground including Republicans who consider bi partisanship suicidal. Where's the change? Wall St is stronger and main St is weaker. While this Senate seat was won without openly running against Obams, despite the birther tea bagger crowd, it was won because of the failure of a legislative strategy. The attempt to get one vast single reform, instead of taking each good reform seperately in a piecemeal fashion, has failed for all except the Insurance companies. If Obama had been a real FDR going straight at the banks things would be different. The pain of the economic collapse would be quicker and stronger if Obama had been a FDR. The course chosen merely diminishes the president as vet another Wall St. puppet while spreading out the effect of the collapse and extends the life of everything unsustainable. None of this is to say that Republicans and tea baggers are in any way part of a solution, they can only accelerate the fall of the union by just saying no or by saying yes to perverse patriotism that actually did resemble fascism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 20 Jan 10 - 11:09 AM "And Rig, like a broken clock, you're right at least sometimes--(and all you got wrong this time was the wrong word)... The Democrats have to accept the Senate bill as is "or forever hold their piece (sic)"." Ron - You have no sense of humour! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 20 Jan 10 - 11:13 AM Once Obama thought health care was in the bag, he announced that he was going to tackle "comprehensive immigration reform." The voters rightfully interperated this to mean amnesty, and Coakley's lead vanished over night. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 20 Jan 10 - 11:39 AM Mass has noticed the remarkable failure by Obama to seek a middle ground including Republicans who consider bi partisanship suicidal. This statement is only correct if you consider the public option to be "middle ground". If you think he didn't pander to the Republicans in his approach to health care reform, then you are just wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 20 Jan 10 - 11:43 AM From mousethief, "When you've withdrawn as much out of Social Security as you've put into it, taking into account inflation, do you promise to die?" While I think you said this in jest, you are not, in fact, far from stating the truth. The Social Security Act was instituted about 1935, with a retirement age of 65--it now is approaching 70. The overall life expectancy in 1935 was 62, with white male (the main workforce then) expectancy at 61. This meant that most workers would never collect any Social Security, which they and their employer had paid for, and those who did live to 65 wouldn't live to collect for very long. Overall life expectancy in 2005 was nearly 78 years. This means that most folks will be collect this money for perhaps 10 or more years, as opposed to most not collecting at all. Considering all the things that have been added to Social Security, and other legal changes and requirements is it any wonder that we have problems with the program. Lastly, Social Security was envisioned as a safety net, not as the sole source of income in old age. Unfortunately that is often not the individual case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:01 PM JohnP "Come up with a workable plan, get on board with fixing the problem, or admit you share responsibility for a system that kills tens of thousands people every year. Put up or shut up. Take responsibility for your actions." So, since thne plan that is being pushed down our throats is NOT workable, YOU anbd those supporting it will "admit you share responsibility for a system that kills tens of thousands people every year."? Take responsibility for your actions |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:04 PM GregF " being dissatisfied with a situation brought about largely by Republicans in Congress" You mean the same Congress that kept the Republican out of the meetings, and voted in a bill on strictly Democratic votes??? You are a real piece of work! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:06 PM "Mass is potently racist." Ovbviously- they went for Obama in a big way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:14 PM I was Director of Performing Arts, Films and Television at the National Endowment for the Arts. The taxpayers did not pay my health care. I was Director of Development for The Arizona Theatre Company (a professional theater)and the taxpayers did not pay for my health care. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:17 PM "SodaHead Brief: Scott Brown Revolution Heard 'Round The World Posted 1 day ago In a stunning, though less stunning on the actual day, upset, Republican Scott Brown has won Tuesday's special election for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy, beating Democrat Martha Coakley. Fueled over discontent with bank bailouts, stimulus spending bills and health care reform, the win will allow Republicans to end the 60-seat Senate majority Democrats needed to overcome GOP filibusters against future Senate action, including any health care bill different from the one passed by the Senate recently. While this is a setback for President Obama, it's not all good for Republicans. They have to somehow deal with frustrated Tea Party members who galvanized voters. Also, since they now have some power, Republicans can't just blame it all on Democrats. They have to come with a plan to ease a myriad of problems facing the country. Maybe the 'Brown Revolution' can truly give us hope and change. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:19 PM "If you are rich you have the best quality healthcare in the world, but at the same time, over 18,000 Americans die every single year because they don't have access to a doctor when they need that access." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:20 PM Democrats: stop blaming each other -- you're all guilty There is one thing worse than losing an election. It's losing your dignity, your credibility and your sense of responsibility. Long before Republican Scott Brown was declared the victor in Tuesday's Massachusetts Senate special election, Democrats turned on each other with an unseemliness that does not behoove a party that wants to hold power. The truth is that everyone who is attacking someone else shares responsibility for this loss. This race was the Democrats' to lose, and they managed to lose it. Democrat Martha Coakley and her campaign fell asleep while Brown was hustling from one end of the state to the other in his pickup truck. The Coakley crowd woke up too late. Her campaign pollsters and strategists failed to catch the movement of voters to Brown early enough to arrest the swing. They let Brown define the campaign. The United States Senate should take a lot of blame for taking forever to pass a health-care bill. The Senate Finance Committee in particular delayed and delayed, failing to produce a bill before Congress' August recess. This allowed the raucous conservative protests to dominate the late summer news and prevented Congress from passing a bill this fall, which is when it should have been sent to the president. The longer Congress took, the worse the process looked. The ugliness of the process badly tarnished the bill itself. The excessive time consumed by health care prevented Congress from acting on other issues. And having still not passed it, Democrats now have to figure out how to get it done without that 60th Senate vote. The Obama White House should have been keeping a watchful eye on this race, realizing the 60th Democratic vote in the Senate was at stake. More broadly, Obama also needed to create a national narrative that Democrats could proclaim with pride. The narrative has been missing, and conservatives have filled the vacuum. And, by the way, whoever sold the White House on claiming that under the stimulus bill unemployment would rise to only 8 percent last year and peak at 9 percent this year should be sent off on a long foreign trip. There are other culprits, including the unpopular (and, in the case of some individual members, corrupt) Massachusetts legislature. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick's low standing in the polls also hurt Coakley. Why does the term "circular firing squad" seem to pop up after every Democratic defeat? Those Democrats whose mistakes led to this fiasco know who they are. If they don't take responsibility and instead just try to shift all the blame to someone else, they will prove themselves unprepared for the work they now have to do to get their party out of this hole. By E.J. Dionne | January 19, 2010; 10:07 PM ET |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:24 PM Washington Post: For Democrats and Republicans alike, lessons from the Massachusetts Senate election Wednesday, January 20, 2010 IT WILL BE tempting for the White House to blame the stunning Democratic defeat in Massachusetts Tuesday on local factors. Attorney General Martha Coakley was complacent, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick is unpopular, Republican candidate Scott Brown looked great in the buff -- anything to avoid the course corrections that may be called for. GOP win doesn't mean health reform is dead By the same token, national Republicans are likely to take the results of the special Senate election in Massachusetts as vindication of their strategy of obstruction and exaggeration. On the surface, it seems to be working pretty well for them. But they, too, may be sorry if they don't look a bit deeper into Mr. Brown's upset victory, as well as at their gubernatorial wins last fall in New Jersey and Virginia. The hard truth for Democrats is that the Massachusetts election resonates with national polling results. Voters, not just in Massachusetts and certainly not just in the Republican Party, are worried about government spending. Budget deficits and the national debt alarm many Americans, and rightly so. Voters also are disappointed that President Obama's promises of pragmatic, bipartisan cooperation have not been fulfilled. On that score, too, we sympathize. The White House answer will be: We tried, and Republicans didn't want to play ball. That's true, and the growing strength of the party's Tea Party wing is making cooperation ever more difficult. But imagine that Mr. Obama had refused to take the Republicans' no as his final answer. The president acknowledged, for example, that malpractice litigation is a factor in driving up health-care costs. He signaled he might be open to its reform if Republican senators would support his overall framework. When none did, malpractice reform fell by the wayside, which was the predictable response; why offend a Democratic interest group (trial lawyers) for no apparent political gain? But Mr. Obama could have insisted: This is a good idea, not just a Republican idea, and it belongs in health-care reform. A series of such steps, difficult as they would be, might have a real effect on public opinion and the political climate. The president's liberal base will conclude that he needs to be more combative and ideological. Bash Wall Street, take it to the Republicans, really go after the evil health insurance companies. That would appeal to many. But we think Tuesday's election offers a different lesson. Of course voters are inclined to blame the incumbent party for the troubled economy, and there's not much Mr. Obama can do about that in the short term. But voters also are nervous about one-party rule, especially when it tends toward arrogance or taking them, the voters, for granted. When state Democrats rewrite and then re-rewrite their special election law in the space of five years to suit their party interests, people notice. When the federal tax code is stretched in the health-care bill to give advantages to union workers that non-union workers won't share, people notice that, too. We don't believe that Tuesday's defeat means Mr. Obama should back away from his goal of expanding access to health care while controlling health-care costs. But if losing his filibuster-proof majority in the Senate prompts him to stretch a bit further beyond party positions in search of practical solutions, both he and the nation might benefit. We recognize and regret that Tuesday's election isn't likely to have any such tempering effect on Republicans. With their scare talk of a "government takeover" of health care, and their demagogic about-face on Medicare savings, they no doubt feel they've done well for themselves. But ultimately we don't believe voters will reward a party that just says no, either; Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell won with a very different promise, of a pragmatic and cooperative conservatism. A little of that would go a long way in Washington. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:27 PM I was Director of Performing Arts, Films and Television at the National Endowment for the Arts. The taxpayers did not pay my health care. I was Director of Development for The Arizona Theatre Company (a professional theater)and the taxpayers did not pay for my health care. Where did the funding for these organizations come from, DougR? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:30 PM "If you are rich you have the best quality healthcare in the world, but at the same time, over 18,000 Americans die every single year because they don't have access to a doctor when they need that access." Significantly more than 18,000. 45,000 Americans die every single year because they don't have access to health care. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:35 PM Kendall: The loss of the seat by the Democrats is "not unusual"? The seat held by the #1 liberal in the senate? Senator Ted Kennedy's seat? Not a big deal? Get real, my friend, it is a HUGE deal. Your belief that health care is a "right" guaranteed by the Constitution is an opinion, one in fact, that is being challenged in the courts by a group of Republican senators, including Senator Hatch of Utah. Do you also believe that having a job is a "right"? John P.: Who died and made you God? How dare you "preach" to me when I am expressing my views which ARE guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights! Have I questioned your right to express your views? As to your question, I do not believe the Constitution guarantees anyone the right to health care so it's a mute point. Greg F: (My very old friend) "We have successfully raised up a nation of morons." You may be right, takes one to know one. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bill D Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:37 PM A lot the funding came from a federal subsidy until the Conservatives ahold got of it. These days, it is reduced to begging in order to do much. "Between 1965 and 2008, the agency has made in excess of 128,000 grants, totaling more than $4 billion. From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, Congress granted the NEA an annual funding of between US$160 and US$180 million. In 1996, Congress cut the NEA funding to US$99.5 million as a result of pressure from conservative groups, including the American Family Association" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Greg F. Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:48 PM News flash, Douggie-boy: I'm not your goddamn friend. I seen to recall something in the Declaration about being endowed with the right to life, liberty...... oh, screw it. One cannot reach a reasoned accommodation with a crazy person. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:52 PM My guess is that most of DougR's tenure at the NEA coincided with the years it was receiving the larger amount from the taxpayers, but 99.5 million is nothing to sneeze at. DougR's pay and benefits came from the US taxpayers, and that means that his health care and the money that was paid to Social Security and Medicare on his behalf came from the US taxpayers. DougR has been living off the US taxpayer teat for a very long time. And JtS and I are paying for DougR's health care, while we don't have any ourselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: John P Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:55 PM DougR, What's your plan for dealing with the millions of Americans who don't have health care? beardedbruce, What's your plan for dealing with the millions of Americans who don't have health care? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:57 PM Carol C: How were the National Endowment for the Arts and the Arizona Theatre Company funded? I am sure you are aware that the National Endowment for the Arts is a federal agency and is funded by the federal government. Employee's health care is NOT paid by the agency (at least when I worked there). The Arizona Theatre Company is funded by ticket sales, donations from individuals, corporations, private foundations, grants from the federal government, and state government. Less than 1% of it's budget comes from federal sources. Health care is paid for by the Company and the employee. So what's your point? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 20 Jan 10 - 01:05 PM I am sure you are aware that the National Endowment for the Arts is a federal agency and is funded by the federal government. Employee's health care is NOT paid by the agency (at least when I worked there). Where did the money for your salary and benefits come from DougR? The Arizona Theatre Company is funded by ticket sales, donations from individuals, corporations, private foundations, grants from the federal government, and state government. Less than 1% of it's budget comes from federal sources. Health care is paid for by the Company and the employee. You say that health care was paid for by the company and the employee. The part of it that the company paid for - where did that money come from? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 20 Jan 10 - 01:35 PM Oh for crying out loud, Carol, where in the hell are you coming from? I could accomplish more going out and digging worms in the garden than continuing to feed your ego because you can't admit you are wrong about something. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: kendall Date: 20 Jan 10 - 01:36 PM Doug, it is not unusual for the party in power to lose seats at mid term elections. That is a fact. That seat did not belong to Ted Kennedy. He is all done with it and it still belongs to the people of Mass. Ms Coakley is not Ted Kennedy! As far as what I said about the government being responsible for our "General welfare" that is a s plain as it can be. What is the difference between a foreign invader and a disease? Who do you think is responsible for the untimely deaths of thousands of uninsured people, including INNOCENT CHILDREN? I still say the republican motto should be "I'm aboard, pull up the ladder." Or, "Hooray for me and fuck the rest of you." By the way, Doug is not crazy; that is uncalled for. He is just wrong headed, a dinosaur stumbling around looking for the tar pits. National health care will happen in time because the common people will wake up to what the insurance companies and the medical profession is doing to us. I say expand Medicare and cover everyone. Put the fat cats out of business. If that sounds like I'm in favor of socialized medicine, it should. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 20 Jan 10 - 01:42 PM DougR, I am saying that the taxpayers paid for your health care while you were working. I am saying that since the funding for the agencies that you worked for came at least in part from the taxpayers, that means that the taxpayers paid for your health care and they paid into your Social Security and Medicare accounts so you could collect on those programs now. If it wasn't from the federal funding that these things were paid, then where did the money that paid your salary and benefits come from? How were the monies allocated? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jan 10 - 01:54 PM No, Doug is not crazy. He's just a man who lived off charity and government largess in his working life, doing the same thing now who wants his own benefits maximized while saying that others do not deserve the same. A "small government conservative" with the nerve to live off the taxes paid by others is not crazy, quite the opposite. But such a person might safely be called a hypocrite. An ignorant one at that if he, has he has implied, thought that his Medicare and Social Security payments were being saved for him to draw against. Those taxes are to cover those who are already in the system. BeardedBruce says that affordable health care for all is "pie in the sky." but it is pie in the sky that every other industrialized country and many under developed countries such as Cuba, manage quite nicely. Obviously there is a large gap between Bruce's expressed opinion and easily observable reality. The fact is the US system is the worst of all possible world for the citizen and for the consumer. The insurance companies get all the most profitable clients while the government pays for those to old and sick for those companies to profit from. The reason for this was quite well illustrated but the election results last night. The insurance companies have enough money to buy important elections and to convince people to vote against their self interest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Jan 10 - 02:28 PM Jack the S, "BeardedBruce says that affordable health care for all is "pie in the sky." " NO. THAT is NOT what I said- You want ME putting words into YOUR mouth??? Should I say that you and CarolC want to kill all Jews, because that would make my argument easier? I said that THIS bill will not accomplish what is claimed. Show me a reasonable bill, and I might even support it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 20 Jan 10 - 02:46 PM Should I say that you and CarolC want to kill all Jews, because that would make my argument easier? You've already done so - many times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: kendall Date: 20 Jan 10 - 02:52 PM I'm still waiting for some right winger to tell me what the republican party ever did for the working man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Jan 10 - 02:53 PM Did you vote Kucinich then? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Jan 10 - 02:55 PM "Should I say that you and CarolC want to kill all Jews, because that would make my argument easier? You've already done so - many times. " No, I have just pointed oput that those you support have stated so. Many times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 20 Jan 10 - 03:13 PM No, you've actually said so yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jan 10 - 03:25 PM No Bruce, I have been arguing against Israeli Zionists killing innocent people. You don't even try to be rational, do you? If you don't think it is "Pie in the Sky" what do you think? Why don't you state your position rather than tossing around irrational attacks? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: GUEST,Neil D Date: 20 Jan 10 - 03:46 PM Said BeardeBruce to CarolC "Or move somewhere with better benefits, or get a job with those benefit. You want the privilidge of staying where you are, and you want the rest of us to pay for your medical care. WHY should over 80% of the nation get MORE expensive costs and less coverage so that YOU can avoid paying what the rest of us pay???" Why Bruce, how kind of you to offer CarolC a good job with benefits. What? You say you don't have a job to offer. I thought you must have. How typical of Neocons to ccome up with solutions that aren't based in the real world. Like Doug saying " to find the kind of health care insurance you are looking for, you are going to have to move to a country that provides it. I know you have addressed the problem of moving, but as I see it, that's your solution". Do you really think the rest of the industrialized world is going to let Americans have citizenship just because they got Healthcare right and we didn't. That's why neither of you responded to Bill's repeated request to offer an alternative to the proposed legislation. Conservatives really don't think that thousnds of people dying IS a problem as long as it's not them. To date the only Republican ideas I've heard of are allowing us to buy insurance across state lines (if this was law, the lowest standard of coverage in the least regulated state would become the standard of the whole country) and restricting victims of malpractice from seeking to be compensated. Neither of these would significantly reduce what we pay for healthcare or cover a single uninsured American. Ironically none of the proposed legislation which conservatives call socialism even considered a single payer system that many countries consider moderate. Americans won't consider such a system because it would require higher taxes, but if you consider no premiums,copays or deductibles most of us would be ahead of the game. And covering everyone in this age of emerging, very contagious, viruses would be a great boon to disease control in the population as a whole. On top of all that, getting businesses out of the the healthcare business would contribute more to job growth than any stimulus package ever imagined. On a lighter note, since the new Senator is anti-gay, I wonder if he gets all icky inside at the thought of thousands of gay men gazing longingly at his naked picture while they, as Doug would say, forever hold their piece. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Donuel Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:03 PM Carol I am saying in my imitable dyslexic way, is that Obama foolishly pandered to the Republicans even after not getting a single Republican vote after going to Congress in person. That should have told him that bipartisinship was game over. But there was no strategy change. He has not demonized Republican do nothingism that always shouts no - and - youre a liar. When Bush wanted Democratic votes he just said that if they didn;t vote for his tax cuts for the rich "they don't support our troops". Yep you were called a traitor. As distasteful as that kind of politics is, it worked. Obama needed sonting reasonable, real and similar to bully Republicans. You can.t rely on fairness when dealing with slime balls. The economic collapse could have been handled by people outside the organized crime banksters like Paulson and Bernenke and our current Sec of Treasury. Perhaps Obama knew doing that would certainly invite his demise but instead he did the cowardly thing and put all the good ol boys back in charge. He tried to explain this by saying we needed experienced people who could unwind the problems. Unwind indeed. Just because they know where the bodies are buried doesn't mean you can get them to tell you where they are without making them Sheriff. Gabiche? If I am ashamed at the way he handled Wall St. means all those to my right have noticed it as well, and to their own advantage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:07 PM "To date the only Republican ideas I've heard of are allowing us to buy insurance across state lines (if this was law, the lowest standard of coverage in the least regulated state would become the standard of the whole country) and restricting victims of malpractice from seeking to be compensated. Neither of these would significantly reduce what we pay for healthcare " Actually, it would. Obviuosly. But then you would have to concede that the Republican ideas are more practical and effective than the Democrats. I showed that CarolC ie UNWILLING to pay for her health care. She said she could not get Medicaid, so the government is NOT going to give her coverage- THEY think she makes enough to afford it without help. She refused to consider high deductable ( and lower cost) insurance, since she does not feel that she is worth the $5000 deductable before insudrance covers her. I pointed out that I have increased costs due to MY choice to stay in the ( higher tax) state of MD to retain the plan I was in- but she insists that she cannot do anything anywhere except where she is, and will not push for the increased benefits ( and taxes) THERE. I took a job with a commute of 1 1/2 to 4 1/2 hours , at a reduction in pay, to get the benefits including insurance- it is PART of my compensation. I have paid Medicare for the last 32 years, and will take the PAID-FOR Medicare benefits when I am qualified. I will claim that those demanding coverage that they are not willing to pay for themselves to be the ones who "come up with solutions that aren't based in the real world." The poor are covered by Medicaid- IF you want to raise the income level to get into it, FINE- JUST don't lie and say you are not raising taxes, because you are. "Why don't you state your position rather than tossing around irrational attacks? " I HAVE stated my position- THIS bill is BAD, WILL NOT provide the care sought, and would harm ALL of us. I have made no irrational attacks- I leave that for you and those who seem to think that personal attacks on those that disagree with them are a replacement for reasoned discourse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Donuel Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:08 PM dear bearded bruce, I do not write this to admonish you but rather have you strongly consider having admin exponge part of your statments, that if left intact, can only come back to haunt you, your reputation, your security and your future self that may have a conscience about such hasty remarks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Stringsinger Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:11 PM Coakley won the hand count. Diebold (crooked machines) won for Brown. Brown is not only anti-gay but sexist, pro-torture and generally has no solutions for issues. He is a disgusting pretty-boy who won on the basis of misplaced anger by so-called independents who knew that he was a Republican. The Tea-bag idiots have once again shot themselves in the foot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:14 PM No, Guest Neill, I don't think I would say that. I believe if the Democratic leadership and White House would agree to work with the Republican leadership a reasonable, affordable health care bill could be passed with bi-partisan support. From the Republican POV I would imagine that it would have to include at the least: 1. Allowance for people to purchase health care insurance from across state lines. 2. Tort reform. A major reason for high health care costs is the cost of doctor's having to purchase insurance to protect them from predator lawsuits. 3. Assurance from private insurance companies that people with medical conditions that currently prevent them from buying insurance, be allowed to do so at reasonable cost. 4. Allow prescription drugs to be purchased from countries that offer them at less cost than is available in the U. S. These would be the primary points I would support in such a plan. Kendall: Social Security, Medicaid, Prescription drug programs for Seniors, Civil Rights legislation ...none of these would have become law without Republican support. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:14 PM One more: Abortions would not be paid for from federal funds. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:16 PM I do have to alter one point: "and will not push for the increased benefits ( and taxes) THERE" I do not have documentation of this point, having inferred it from her posts. Thus, I should withdraw it. She MAY have done so, albeit quietly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Donuel Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:16 PM Any of us are one organ transplant away from getting more benefits than we ever paid in. Even 32 years of paying in as part of one's compensation would cover the procedure and life long therapy of an organ transplant. Now if bruce's heart and liver failed, I doubt he would opt out of ta life saving transplant procdure because the cost would exceed his 32 years of contribution. No he wouldn't die for the priciples he wants you to live by. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:17 PM "Coakley won the hand count. Diebold (crooked machines) won for Brown." Bullshit! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Donuel Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:19 PM Doug None of your proposals are favored by Insurance or Drug companies. In fact they spend many hundreds of millions of dollars to kill such proposals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:19 PM Brown's election signals the end of Democratic initiatives. Expect legislative stagnation until at least the 2012 election. The people and their elected representatives are divided to the point that significant legislation is impossible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:21 PM Donuel Do YOU have ANY idea what INSURANCE is? I pay into the insurance - the Insurance then pays the costs of my care- based on acturial tables- some cost more than the amount paid in, some less. There ( usually ) are limits on lifetime benefits, but that is dependent on the policy (and premium paid). Are you claiming that those who pay in less than ME should get less care? If so, CarolC should be shaming YOU. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:27 PM Now as for BB's assertion that Obama got more corporate donors during the campaign... That is not what I said... What I said is that the right wing has since been pumping gobs of money into anti-Obama, anti-health-care refore and anti-Dem ads... Far more than the Dems... Where is all that oney coming from??? I'm seeing 10 to 1 rightwinged ads against healtyh care reform... Sure, Obama can get up everyday and do a speech and what does that get him in terms of equal time in prome time??? 20 seconds on the news compared to 20 anti-health-care-reform ads for the rest of the night??? Then you have tea-baggers out there telling outright lies and getting even more news coverage... I mean, media wise the Dems and progressives don't have the access or that big kettloe of corpoarte money to begin to compete... Same rssponse to you Sawz... The reason that people in Mass are parroting this "one party" crap is because it has been equally hammered into the parrots in unequal doses... This really comes down to who has the money to control the "noise" and the folks who have the money are the Boss Hogs and Fat Cats and they are using the stupidest of the stupid who always fall easily for any campaign that pits them against any6one who has bothered to get an education... But now with the incessant media buys they have absoluted drowned out the Dems and Obama with 24/7 hammering... That is why even moderates have fallen victim... Ain't like the average moderate is all that well informed these days 'cause most are out beating their brains out trying to pay their bills and keep their kids in college... They really don't have time that most of the folks here in Mudville have or the story in Mass would be much different... Tom Jefferson said it would take an informed electorate for democrary to work... One thing for sure is that it ain't workin'... That really is what people are pissed off about... They wanted change and then the corporations and their Babbit-brained followers have pulled out all the stops to stop change and folks are either too stupid or too busy to figure out who gets and deserves the blame... And in the words of Walter Cronkite, "That's the way it is..." B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:31 PM I showed that CarolC ie UNWILLING to pay for her health care. This is a bald faced lie, beardedbruce. You were shown that there is no health care available to me that I am able to pay for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:34 PM >>Do YOU have ANY idea what INSURANCE is? I pay into the insurance - the Insurance then pays the costs of my care- based on acturial tables- some cost more than the amount paid in, some less. There ( usually ) are limits on lifetime benefits, but that is dependent on the policy (and premium paid). Are you claiming that those who pay in less than ME should get less care? If so, CarolC should be shaming YOU. << It is you who don't know what insurance is. In this country there is no health insurance. There is a con game where the companies write the rules and even then constantly cheat to favor themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:39 PM ">>Do YOU have ANY idea what INSURANCE is?" It's a complete rip. Before they had the money to buy Congressmen and Senators it was called the protection racket. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:49 PM Yeah, Rigs, that is exactly what it is... A rip... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:50 PM And for the record, the insurance industry produces absolutely nothing... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Donuel Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:52 PM Then why do you say Govement health insurance benefits are wasteful hand outs. Or is that only when compared with defense spending. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:58 PM I don't think of a government provided yhealth care as insurance anymore than I think that educatin' kids is insurance... Or fixin' roads... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Jan 10 - 05:07 PM Donuel I don't. Try reading what I write instead of making it up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 20 Jan 10 - 05:22 PM You've got it straight, Bobert, re. the ads the Repugs and their backers are running. If you tell a lie often enough, people will begin to believe it. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Greg F. Date: 20 Jan 10 - 05:34 PM By the way, Doug is not crazy; Documentation, please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 20 Jan 10 - 06:20 PM Yeah, mouse-t... Any given night on any given netwrok (except FOX): Obama: 20 seconds Tea-bagger: 20 seconds Birthers and/or other dillussional people: 20 seconds The health insurance companies: Oh, maybe 10 minutes of 15 and 30 second ads in prime time... Final Score for the average night: Obama: 20 Obama haters: 640 You do the math... Ain't rocker surgery here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Jan 10 - 06:55 PM A post of mine above (indeed the most recent post of mine above) has become meaningless thanks to the deletion of the post to which it responded. That and this should be deleted please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 20 Jan 10 - 07:44 PM Donuel: "The Insurance companies won't like it ..." So? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: kendall Date: 20 Jan 10 - 07:49 PM Doug, you must know that the republicans not only never introduced any such legislation as SS, Medicare, etc. but actively fought them tooth and nail. If they had their way we would still be working 8 days a week for 10 cents an hour with no benefits at all. The Robber Barons would still be in charge with their own flunkies such as Harding in the White House. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 20 Jan 10 - 07:59 PM So nothing's changed, except the Democrats have become more like Republicans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: dick greenhaus Date: 20 Jan 10 - 09:05 PM Rig- and that's why they've lost ground. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 20 Jan 10 - 09:20 PM So nothing's changed, except the Democrats have become more like Republicans. Alas! Oh, for a real progressive party. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: GUEST,999 Date: 20 Jan 10 - 09:20 PM Well, Coakley would likely be in had she not referred to Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling as a Yankees fan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 20 Jan 10 - 09:40 PM There is a silver lining here, folks... Now the Repubs have their 41 they are gonna have to play ball whether they like it or not... No more "Party of No"... Party of stupid??? Yeah, maybe... But the ball is really in their court now... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 20 Jan 10 - 09:48 PM Sorry, Bobert, the ball is still in the court of the party with the huge majorities. It ain't the Republicans. And the Democrats have to prove they can actually get major legislation through. Or maybe they should join us here below the line, where some Mudcatters seem to believe ideological purity is more important than accomplishing something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:01 PM Re: Coakley: evidently one of her many mistakes was casting herself as "the woman candidate". I suspect people could tell that by looking at her. Supposedly a guy listening to her speak said he thought she was about to break into "I am woman, hear me roar." Not the way to win hearts and minds of blue-collar voters--or many others. While she wrapped herself in EMILY's List, Mr. Brown didn't exactly wrap himself in the banner of the Republican party--or the Tea Party either. One columnist said she heard it put: sexy independents win. Doesn't matter if it's a total fabrication. Just like Hillary sold herself as a blue collar gal--and won the Massachusetts primary. Also didn't help that Coakley supposedly didn't campaign for the first 4 of the 6 week campaign. Just because the electorate is 11% registered Republican in the Bay State--and about 37% Democrat? She forgot it's 51% independents, perhaps. She's somewhat of a political novice. But should have gotten better advice. Like: assume nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:08 PM Clearly Coakley was beyond stupid and Brown was sharp as a tack (at least about how to win an election -- I can speak to his truck purchasing abilities). Whether it says something more universal about "the Country", or the health care bills, or which party the public would rather be seen with on a nude bathing beach, is rather doubtful and at any rate far too early to tell. But we'll find out, I suppose. As a left-leaner, it does make me feel uneasy for the coming year and a half. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: katlaughing Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:53 PM My very liberal friend in MA said he basically ran as an Independent and she has been impressed by what she's heard from and of him so far. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:58 PM He'd better watch his back. The Republicans don't take too kindly to anyone within their ranks who isn't in lockstep with the party's far right. At least nowadays when keeping the teabaggers on board appears to be their raison d'être. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Neil D Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:47 AM From: DougR - PM Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:14 PM No, Guest Neill, I don't think I would say that. I believe if the Democratic leadership and White House would agree to work with the Republican leadership a reasonable, affordable health care bill could be passed with bi-partisan support. From the Republican POV I would imagine that it would have to include at the least: 1. Allowance for people to purchase health care insurance from across state lines. 2. Tort reform. A major reason for high health care costs is the cost of doctor's having to purchase insurance to protect them from predator lawsuits. 3. Assurance from private insurance companies that people with medical conditions that currently prevent them from buying insurance, be allowed to do so at reasonable cost. 4. Allow prescription drugs to be purchased from countries that offer them at less cost than is available in the U. S. These would be the primary points I would support in such a plan. OK Doug, let's pretend we're sitting on a bipartisan congressional committee and negotiating these points. 1. Allowance for people to purchase health care insurance from across state lines. The only way this would be possible is if you took standards on minimum coverage, pricing etc. out of state hands and made a universal policies that not only cost the same but have the same amount of coverage as well. Otherwise you would have the Insurance commissioner of Mississippi setting policy standards for the state of New York. In the first place, I don't know how you do this fairly when the CODB varies wildly from one state to the next and secondly, if you could create such universal policies what would be the advantage of buying across state lines. 2. Tort reform. A major reason for high health care costs is the cost of doctor's having to purchase insurance to protect them from predator lawsuits. The major tort reform proposals have been: A.Special medical malpractice courts B.Limits on noneconomic damages C.Reduction in the statute of limitations of action Ok then, one at a time. A. I'm not totally against this but who makes up these courts and how are they appointed. Where do we find court officers who have the necessary medical knowledge to navigate medical issues yet are not going to be naturally prejudicial towards the defense (medical professionals and institutions). If this could be accomplished this one's a go. B. That's fine. I would recommend it be based on a percentage of the economic damages rather than a flat rate like the $250,000 allowed in the prototypical California reform law. You can also limit or eliminate punitive damages which are only evoked when recklessness is a factor, but in the case of recklessness a much tougher censure of medical pros(license suspensions and revokations) must be applied for the public good. C. OK fine with one exception. It be based on the date that the resulting damage from malpractice manifests itself and not on the date of the malpractice. Fot example, you could be carrying a misplaced metal pin or staple internally with no effect until years later an MRI tries to rip it out of your body. So some tort reform is possible. I'll have to get my side to turn their backs on heavily contibuting trial lawyers just like you'll have to get your side to go against their insurance company overlords when we get to your third proposal and big pharma on #4. 3. Assurance from private insurance companies that people with medical conditions that currently prevent them from buying insurance, be allowed to do so at reasonable cost. Assurance from insurance companies is not enough, it would have to be mandated. I can see them saying we promise to play fair with their fingers crossed behind their backs. What is required is a federal oversite agency like a cross between a public utilities commission and the price fixing boards we had during WW11. Some European countries have not done away with private health insurance companies but they have made it illegal to make ANY profit from selling basic policies. Believe it or not these companies still compete for the business. They can make profits by selling upgraded plans to those who can afford them. We might not need to go that far but we must drastically curtail the nearly 40% overhead that currently lets insurance executives live like kings. The wealthiest of kings at that. Of course this is anathema for the insurance industry and if any of your side (and I include the Blue Dogs) seriously considered this they'd feel a hard tug at their leashes. Some Senators have taken over 4 million dollars from insurance and pharma. 4. Allow prescription drugs to be purchased from countries that offer them at less cost than is available in the U. S. I have no problem at all with #4. Hell, its a liberal idea. But see what I said above about the millions flowing to Senators and Reps from Big Pharma. So do you think if the Dems give in on tort reform we could get some Republicans to sign on? There might be enough of them who aren't completely in thrall to the industry to get something passed. I suggested that very idea in an E-Mail to the one of my Senators who is a liberal Dem months ago.(I got a nice generic form letter from his office for my trouble.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Neil D Date: 21 Jan 10 - 01:10 AM Funny how this thread about Mass. Senatorial race turned into a second thread on healthcare reform. I guess maybe that really was the overriding issue of that election. From: katlaughing - PM Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:53 PM My very liberal friend in MA said he basically ran as an Independent and she has been impressed by what she's heard from and of him so far. Being an independent can mean being to the right of mainstream Republicans, a feat that is increasingly difficult. He's a darling of the Tea Party movement who, whether they realize it or not, are the de facto right wing of the Republican Party masquerading as populists. They're shadowy quasi-leader is Dick Armey a longtime Republican insider.(He was co-author of the Contract With America and co-founder of the Republican Revolution of the nineties which spawned from the killing of healthcare form back then.) Test them on their populism. Ask if they support a windfall profit tax on corporations who took Tarp funds and more regulation on investment banking like reinstating Glass Steagall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Richard Bridge Date: 21 Jan 10 - 05:13 AM A short UK summary of what (political) tea-bagging means http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/13/pass-notes-tea-party-movement |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: GUEST,Kendall Date: 21 Jan 10 - 07:30 AM Tort reform. Doctors have to pay outrageous premiums for mal practice suits. Why? because they screw up! that's why. Who awards high awards? common juries! Do lawyers create these problems? NO! people do. Greedy people. Lay the blame where it belongs. Here is one case, a minor one but personal. A few years ago my dentist fitted me for a partial upper because I broke a tooth and cracked it down to the root. No other option than to remove it and make a partial. In the process he cut deep grooves in my other healthy teeth to anchor the plate. Over the years they have been breaking off because he cut the grooves too deep and weakened them. Now I need over 2000k worth of dental work and he denies doing anything wrong. My lawyer/friend tells me that mal practice against a dentist is difficult to prove and could run into real money. This is why they have to carry high insurance policies. If a doctor left a sponge inside me, as one did to a friend of mine, and it nearly killed me when it went septic, I would sue! So, what is the answer? Let them run amok? I don't think so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 21 Jan 10 - 07:41 AM Yes, tort reform would be a big step forward, but health care wasn't the only issue in this race. There's this: ALIPAC Endorses Scott Brown for US Senate Americans for Legal Immigration PAC Endorses Scott Brown for US Senate Due To Opposition To Amnesty ALIPAC) is endorsing Scott Brown for US Senate today due to his campaign's focus on the issue of the illegal immigration and his opponent Martha Coakley's support for Amnesty for illegal aliens. ALIPAC is one of the nation's largest multi-ethnic and non-partisan grassroots organizations dedicated to opposing illegal immigration and amnesty for illegals, while supporting the enforcement of America's existing immigration laws and borders. "Scott Brown has publicly stated he opposes Amnesty for illegal aliens while Coakley has state she supports Amnesty," said William Gheen President of ALIPAC. "His vote in opposition to Amnesty will be needed in a few weeks as President Obama, with Democrats in the Senate and House, and a handful of misguided Republicans attempt to pass new Amnesty legislation." Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty legislation was defeated in 2006 and 2007 due to massive public opposition, which collapsed the Washington, DC phone systems connected to the offices of lawmakers. Certified scientific polls continue to show that 66-80% of Americans support immigration enforcement, instead of a "path to citizenship" for illegal aliens. Amnesty legislation was filed in the US House on December 12, with 91 Democrat cosponsors lead by Congressman Luis Gutierrez supporting the bill. The legislation would legalize over 12 million illegal aliens currently in the US, increase current hyper legal immigration levels, and turn immigration regulating efforts over to big business. Democrats in the US Senate are working with a few Republicans in an attempt to file similar legislation in the Senate this month. Scott Brown's Democratic opponent, Martha Coakley, has clearly stated she supports Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Greg F. Date: 21 Jan 10 - 08:05 AM One more: Abortions would not be paid for from federal funds. DougR Yesiree, Douggie-Boy: Zygotes, blastulas and clumps of undifferentiated cells have a "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"- its just human beings that don't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 21 Jan 10 - 08:23 AM Ron, Think about it this way... When the Dems had the 60 votes that allowed them to play "one party rule" if they could pull it off... And the Repubs knew it and forced them to play that game... That game is over and the Repubs no longer can force the Dems to do the 60-vote-shuffle because the Dems no longer have the "super majority"... This makes the Repubs claim that the Dems are doing whatever they want regardless of the wishes of the voters a null-and-void arguement... So what we have is a new game here where the Dems can "legitimately" call the Reoubs "obstructionists"... This is why the Dems are better off without the "super majority"... Especially since the "super majority" had so many righties in it... Watch how this plays out before telling me that I am wrong here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 21 Jan 10 - 09:01 AM Bobert-- I'm afraid your analysis is just too complex for most voters to understand it. The general view is bound to be: the Democrats still have 59 votes in the Senate--the loose-cannon status of Lieberman and the conflicting views of some others will not be taken into account. And they have a sizable majority in the House. Therefore they should be able to get legislation through. My father always said : "We pay off on results". i.e. not excuses. If the Democrats get no health care bill through Congress, there will be hell to pay at the polls. I hope they realize this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 21 Jan 10 - 09:09 AM All depends on just how the Dems frame it, Ron... It's really not complex at all... I have volunteered my services to the Obama folks to help them simplify their message to bumper-sticker length nuggets... That is what the right does... This is where the Dems are losing these battles... It has nothin' to do with ideologies or policies but everything to do with PR... The Dems can turn this one back on the Repubs very easily by taking up the slogan "No work, no pay" in regards to the Repubs... If they were to all adopt that and use it for one week the message would get thru to the votersw and the voters would get it that the Repubs are just taking up space in Congress... This is how you win the PR wars... Keep it simple, stupid" is what the right has mastered... "No work, no pay!!!" That will sho nuff put the Repubs on the defense which, BTW, they have had the Dems on since the last election... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 21 Jan 10 - 09:40 AM Sorry, Bobert. It just doesn't work that way. The Democrats could already paint the Republicans as obstructionists. But either you get legislation through or you are seen as incompetent. And don't be spooked by "polls" saying that supposedly 46% of the electorate is against this bill. We don't know the exact wording of such polls--and that makes a difference. Also, the "46%" reflects not only Republican nay-saying but also Democratic bitterness that there is no public option in the the bill and that there is language, as I understand it, that restricts Federal funding for abortions. There is good stuff in the bill--even the Senate bill, which is the one which must be accepted, as is, by the House. For one thing it ends the insurance firm practice of denying people because of pre-existing conditions. And there are other items--which the Democrats can run on. Also, is there a trigger mechanism for public option now in the bill or not? They can't spend all this time and energy and just walk away now, without telegraphing that--with majorities in the House and Senate, and a Democratic president--- they can't govern. Remember those famous political analysts, the Stones: "You can't always get what you want. ...But if...." You can try to get everything you want in a bill. But if the votes for all your wishes aren't there, you need to work on the voters for later legislation. And remember, there is still is desire for health-care reform---not least from President Obama, who has made it a key issue. As it should be. They need to pass what they can, and go on to employment issues, etc. |
|
Subject: BS: Luis Gutierrez defeats Martha Coakley From: Riginslinger Date: 21 Jan 10 - 10:40 AM On December 8 Martha Coakley won the Democratic nomination of the Senate in Massachusetts. On December 15 Luis Gutierrez introduced a bill to grant citizenship to millions of illegal aliens. The administration had already announced that after health care, the next issue they were going to tackle was immigration reform. The voters in Mass. knew that; most of them probably thought health care was a done deal. It would make more sense that immigration reform was the real issue that defeated Martha Coakley.
Like threads combined |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 21 Jan 10 - 11:47 AM Actually, they were quite a bit different. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:12 PM The most recent poll shows that a plurality of people who voted for both Obama and Brown did so as a protest vote because they feel that both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill don't go anywhere near far enough, rather than too far. So that means, for instance, had Congress already passed a bill with a public option, those people would not have voted for Brown. The poll also showed that the poor showing of Democrats at the polls was for the same reason - they feel that the proposed bills don't go far enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:16 PM NealD: That's an excellent critique of my post. You obviously know much more about such things than I do. Any solution to the problem is obviously going to be difficult to resolve. However a bi-partisan approach will be much more likely to pass than one proposed by a single party I believe. Yes, I do believe sufficient Republicans would join Democrats in reforming health care if both parties would begin working toward a bill that is best for the country rather than best for their party or themselves. Kendall: Tort reform does not have to mean that it is eliminated. People should still be able to sue doctors that screw up, but I would suggest a cap on awards. Juries often go a bit wild when awarding dollar amounts to plaintiffs. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: kendall Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:21 PM This is nothing new; the republicans have been obstructionists since they were invented. Every bit of social legislation has been fought hammer and tong by them. It's been 100 years since T. Roosevelt first proposed health care and the republicans are still saying, "Not now" or "this is too much too soon". As long as they can prevent it. (health care) thousands will die needlessly for lack of care. "So many Christians, so few Lions." (Utah Phillips) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:23 PM DougR The Republicans have not been working in good faith. Their public, stated goal is to make Heath reform "Obama's Waterloo." It may be better to have a bipartisan bill, but there is no way that is going to happen. Personally I don't see this election result as much of a setback. As long as Lieberman is the 60'th vote, there is no workable super majority. The US Senate would be a much better place without his small mindedness and his Napoleon complex. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:30 PM Jack the Sailor: the Republicans were a super minority in the senate. The Democrats held the super majority. They didn't NEED Republican votes to pass the legislation under consideration. All they had to have was enough Democrat votes. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:45 PM Doug, You need 60 votes to get by a filibuster in the Senate. Putting aside the fact that a filibuster is by definition obstructionism, the Democrats never had more than 58 votes. Last week the Senate was D 58, R 40, I 2, Today it is D 57, R 41, I2. The "supermajority" that the Democratic party supposedly had was a fiction of the media. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bill D Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:51 PM " They didn't NEED Republican votes to pass the legislation under consideration. " They need 60 votes to stop a filibuster, and the Republicans have sworn to filibuster forever to stop this bill. They have pass the SAME bill in the House & Senate, and there are votes required to agree on a version, and the Republicans can filibuster the debate on the versions. It is barely, theoretically possible to pass this, at the risk of angering many of their own supporters AND the public who want a stronger bill. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, as I have already said about polls: this vote does not show people wanted 'no health care reform' ... Polls show that Those independents who voted for Obama in Mass., but then voted for Brown against Coakley, did so because they **wanted a stronger bill**!! This seems to be a protest vote saying "Give us real reform, or don't bother". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 21 Jan 10 - 01:28 PM On capping medical tort lawsuits: Maybe the cap (max amount the jury can award) should be set at a simple multiple of the insurance company CEO's total compensation package. Say 5x. What could be more fair? O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 21 Jan 10 - 01:58 PM See why it's different? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: kendall Date: 21 Jan 10 - 02:01 PM I'm changing my name to Bank of America. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 21 Jan 10 - 02:15 PM Jack the Sailor: the Republicans were a super minority in the senate. The Democrats held the super majority. They didn't NEED Republican votes to pass the legislation under consideration. All they had to have was enough Democrat votes. Unfortunately, unlike the Republicans, the Democrats don't all march in lockstep. There are actual differences of opinion between Democratic senators. But I doubt the hoi polloi will understand that, used as they are to the teabaggers and the Republican senators who lick their feet. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Greg F. Date: 21 Jan 10 - 03:11 PM The most recent poll shows that a plurality of people who voted for both Obama and Brown did so as a protest vote because they feel that both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill don't go anywhere near far enough, Q.E.D. - that confirms the "Generation of Morons" thesis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 21 Jan 10 - 04:01 PM Exactly, Greg... This is the point I was trying to make to Ron about the framing of issues... I argued that the Dems have not realized just how moronic the voters are and need to simplify the message down to their level... The word "obstruction" is way over their heads... Plus, it is old and tired having been used so often by the Repubs... No, these morons are like sports fans... They go strictly on emotion... That's where the Repubs are winnin' the race and bumpin' the Dems into the wall... The Dems have been accused of being these Volve drivin', latte drinkin' elitists and when the Dems use big words or concepts that won't fit on a bumper sticker they come off just as the Repubs have painted them... I'm stickin' with "No work, no pay"... It is simple... No long words... Gets the point accross that the Repubs gotta show up in Congress... Put the Repubs on the defense... Uses the Repub strategy of dumbed down messages... Yeah, I know that most of the money that Congressmen get is from lobbiests and kickbacks but that really isn't the issue here... What is at issue is that these people are being paid to participate and even if they think doing nothin' is their way of particiaptin' the Dems can use this to their advantage... One thing for sure is that the Dems had better start fightin' 'cause with today Supreme Court rulin' they are in danger of becoming an endngered species real soon... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: GUEST,Neil D Date: 21 Jan 10 - 04:27 PM DougR, I hope your right about enough Republicans joining in. But Senator Demint really did call for Republicans to make Healthcare Reform Obama's Waterloo. He reiterated it yesterday while crowing about Brown's victory. So far no Republicans have been willing to break ranks. To bad Dems don't have the same party discipline. The Democrats did have a 60 seat majority if you count Sanders(Democratic Socialist) and Lieberman(Connecticut for Lieberman party) who caucused with them. Lieberman chairs the important Homeland Security Committee in a deal he made with Majority Leader Reed in return for agreeing to Caucus with the Dems. Unfortunately that doesn't mean he had to vote with them. So the Supermajority wasn't all that super. What people don't realize is this. You don't need a 60 seat majority to pass legislation but you do need it to avoid filibuster. I say let them filibuster, nay, force them to filibuster. Bobert and Ron were discussing how to paint the Republicans as obstuctionists, well this is it. When the American people see that spectacle going on they'll have little doubt as to who's standing in the way of progress. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 21 Jan 10 - 10:13 PM "...or don't bother" Sorry, that's not an option. "Don't bother" appears to mean "Don't push the current Senate bill through"--which is the only chance now to get a bill. As I said, this declares to the electorate: "With majorities in the House and Senate and a Democratic president for whom this is a top priority, we are so hopelessly incompetent at governing that we can't get a health care bill through." "By the way, please re-elect us." Much as it pains me to agree with Greg F on anything, the idea of voting for Brown as a protest vote against a health care bill which doesn't go far enough is plain stupid. So you who espouse the "protest against a weak bill" theory are saying that people in Massachusetts who voted for Brown in this protest meant to vote for somebody who guaranteed that there would be no health care bill rather than a flawed bill? They would vote for an arsonist rather than an imperfect fireman? This says bad things about Massachusetts liberals: i.e. that they are complete idiots and possibly unstable-- disciples of the "burn the village down to save it" school. I would hope you would not rate the liberals in Massachusetts as quite such perfect fools. I would certainly hope they are not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 21 Jan 10 - 10:19 PM To clarify, in case there is any doubt: House liberals must accept the Senate bill as is--and Mudcatters should be telling them so. This is the only chance to get a bill through now. Nobody said this is the last word on health care. But it's a start. Otherwise you get nothing. Good luck running on empty And if you don't think the helplessness of the Democratic majority would be a winning issue for Republicans, I have a bridge to sell you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 22 Jan 10 - 12:54 AM The current bill is dead. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:00 AM How is the right to filibuster and freedom from guillotine motions enshrined in the US constitution? They are simply matters of procedure. Is there no way that the majority in the senate can change its procedures so as to reduce the impact of the malicious (and undemocratic) filibuster? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:13 AM I heard a possible approach that I think could be very effective if they were to use it. Someone said they should break down the bill into a bunch of smaller bills, each containing one component of the overall reform that the Democrats are trying to enact. For instance, one bill would just address the problem of people with pre-existing conditions, and another one would deal with the problem of insurance companies dumping sick people from their rolls, etc. The person who suggested this said, just let them try to filibuster each of the proposals separately. Let them stand there and recite the phone book while people are losing their health insurance because they got sick, or are unable to get insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Let them show themselves to be the obstructionists that they really are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Claymore Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:00 AM I have read the above posts and hae noticed several ommissions that seem to destroy the very points that some individuals have attempted to make. "Morons/idiots/the confused etc. voted for a charamatic candidate without understanding the issues"... Oh! I thought you were talking about Obamas election... and the after-action polls show that the number of registered Republicans remained constant during the race, so these "idiots" are same independants who voted for Obama by 27% just a year ago (Quick, call the Logic Bomb squad). "The voters want more health coverage:"... But shouldn't someone point out that Massachusetts already has universal health-care coverage, statewide? Even the Blue dog Democrates were appalled by the "Lousiana Purchase" and the "Nebraska Corn Husker" to get the senators from those states to vote for the bill. And if the unions were weaker than the Wall St. types, how come they were exempted from the taxes on their Cadillac plans which now add some three thousand dollars to each American car we purchase, and additional taxes on every non-union health care medical bill. And if we desire those who have outlived the actuarial tables on their Social Security payments to die upon parity, can we now have a killing spree on the folks who receive SSI who have never paid a cent into Social Security. Those folks are mostly mentally or physically disabled so you wouldn't have to lead them much to get a couple of "double taps" off to thin the herd. And if that scenario seems a little uncaring I recently had one poster tell me that my VA benefits were socialism. Some-how when I was drafted into the Corps and spent a year running and doing endless push-ups with heavy stuff on my back, etc, and then being sent to land were the locals shot at you for a $100 bucks a month; or the alternative was four years in prison, I just never saw anyone jump in front of my line... Now since my youngest daughter just finished her BS in Accounting and her MBA in Finance, and my oldest is buying up forclosures in the Outer Banks, Richmond, and Winston-Salem, we share laughter over "Liars Loans" and our family motto is "Drive Them Into The Sea". Now don't let me stop your prattling on... After all if there are mendacious forces beyond your control, ruining your life, what else can you do but howl at the moon... And do remember the old Arab saying that "Mangy dogs bark, but the caravan moves on..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: kendall Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:09 AM Coakley did not campaign. She took the voters for granted, always a mistake. I believe that the main reason the dems lost that seat is because of the lies that the right wingnuts spread all over about "Socialized medicine" and other crap designed to kill the bill and keep the fat cats in business. Rupert Murdock wins again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:42 AM The real reason the bill failed wasn't related to health care. It was because the administration tipped their hand and announced they were going to tackle immigration reform next, and Cloakley was already on record of favoring amnesty. History will bear this out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:11 AM The current bill is only dead if foolish liberals allow it to die. The fact that Doug says it is dead should tell you that's what he wants. Do the rest of you also want no bill? It is classically self-defeating to speak of it in the past tense. It is a start, not the final goal. Or perhaps you would like to face the electorate in the fall with no bill. Does the phrase "pitiful helpless giant" ring any bells? As has been said before, politics is the art of the possible. Seems to be a very hard lesson for some liberals to learn--and I count myself as a bit left of center--but somebody willing to deal with reality. House Democrats need to accept the Senate bill, let the president sign it, and move on to other things--especially employment-related issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: kendall Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:52 AM All or nothing is a stupid philosophy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:53 AM And if that scenario seems a little uncaring I recently had one poster tell me that my VA benefits were socialism. Some-how when I was drafted into the Corps and spent a year running and doing endless push-ups with heavy stuff on my back, etc, and then being sent to land were the locals shot at you for a $100 bucks a month; or the alternative was four years in prison, I just never saw anyone jump in front of my line... They are socialism, as is the military itself. Who pays for it? The taxpayers do. Not the market. Any time people pool their money together in the form of taxes to pay for services that are broadly distributed by the government, they are practicing socialism. Our government, military, and your VA benefits are all socialist. Even private insurance has a basically socialist structure right up to the point where the people running the insurance companies skim huge profits off the money that would be better spent providing care. Now since my youngest daughter just finished her BS in Accounting and her MBA in Finance, and my oldest is buying up forclosures in the Outer Banks, Richmond, and Winston-Salem, we share laughter over "Liars Loans" and our family motto is "Drive Them Into The Sea". I'm having quite a lot of difficulty understanding why anyone would brag about this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:59 AM "our family motto is "Drive Them Into The Sea"." is your family surname by any chance Sherman ?? .. :) ok I'm outta here ... this ever spinning thread that has no no definite conclusions. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:08 AM No, Doug is right... The bill is dead... It's not just about foolish liberals anymore but the reality that alot of Representatives are scared about the upcoming election and self preservation is the highest goal that most aspire to... So really waht we have is a Congress that has imploded... With the current rules there is really no advantage in being part of the majority because the minority has the power to stop anything it wants... BTW, I saw a bar-chart the other night showin' how many time the fillibuster has been used going back to the early 90's and it was very tellin'... It stayed purdy much level until after the 2006 elections and then spiked like a shuttle launch... I didn't have enough time to read all the numbers but it appeared like the Repubs have done more fillibustering in the last 2 years than had been done in total before then... Maybe someone has the numbers??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Jan 10 - 11:14 AM The House Democrats are leaving Obama hung out to dry. If he doesn't get something passed, he's going to look very ineffective. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 22 Jan 10 - 11:18 AM I don't think the House Democrats have given up on health care reform altogether. They can't do that and expect to get re-elected. And since they want stronger health care reform than what Obama has said he is willing to settle for, I expect they intend to continue to fight for what they want. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 22 Jan 10 - 11:56 AM Rig: GOING to look very ineffective? I would think that anyone of sound mind would look how effective Obama was keeping Virginia and New Jersey in the Demo fold after making several pleading trips to each state on behalf of Democrat gubernatorial candidates and his pleading trip to Mass. to "help" the Democrat candidate "save" the Kennedy seat in the senate would be pretty good evidence that he IS ineffective. Obama done shot his wad and is on a down hill spiral! Kendall: And George Soros loses. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bill D Date: 22 Jan 10 - 12:35 PM Richard Bridge asked: "Is there no way that the majority in the senate can change its procedures so as to reduce the impact of the malicious (and undemocratic) filibuster?" Yes, but changing the basic operating rules of the Senate requires a 2/3 majority vote. This is unlikely to happen when one party knows exactly why the other party wants the change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: kendall Date: 22 Jan 10 - 12:39 PM Doug, George Soros is only one person. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Jan 10 - 01:11 PM And I doubt if he lost anything. Soros probably made a bundle in all the Wall Street bailouts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 22 Jan 10 - 01:59 PM Kendall:Last time I heard, Rupert Murdoch is only one person too. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:42 PM Yeah, it's just that he's only one person that controls the lion's share of the communications media (ex interweb) in this country. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bill D Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:51 PM and Gandhi and Pol Pot were also only individuals..... each had some influence. A word most of us know, but is seldom seen these days is 'altruism'. Do you think Rupert Murdoch or George Soros comes closer to exemplifying that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:05 PM Both of them are about as far from altruism as you can get. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Donuel Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:20 PM Soros backed Bank of America to the tune of half a billion dollars right before they bought the failed Merill Lynch for 12 times too much. opps but the fix was in with all TARP $. George was betting that BOA would buy most of the 300 banks that have failed since and corner the market. But the Merill Lynch deal sucked so bad that BOA was the the clear winner. All hail Goldman he who has the goldman rules. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:38 PM Thank you Bill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: GUEST,heric Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:55 PM Here's the chart of which you speak. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:02 PM It is still about foolish liberals, in fact--who insist on perfection right from the start. They are the ones who have put pressure on their Representatives not to accept anything which doesn't have a "public option" built in--and who won't even accept the "trigger mechanism" supported by Olympia Snowe--which very likely will result in the public option. They evidently will not settle for a half-loaf---so may wind up with no bread at all. And now the latest brainstorm is that a health-care bill can be broken into pieces and parts can be passed that way. Uh, has it ever occurred to the advocates of this course of action that Congress has already been working on the health care issue since at least July 2009? The Senate passed its version 24 Dec 2009. Just now long should the Democrats spend in labor to bring forth the series of mice now planned? And is it not possible that other issues need tackling---if any Democrats expect to be re-elected in the fall? Just pass the Senate bill as is. It's there--and should be acceptable--for anybody living in the real world. And move on. Liberals who care about Democratic chances in the fall should be telling their Representatives to do just this. Or--be ready for this Congress to be labelled "do-nothing" Congress. See 1948, for what happened to the last "do-nothing Congress"--in both Senate and House. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:35 PM And would the "block anything Obama does" Republicans have gone along with a half-way bill? Well unless they were lying when they said they were going to block anything, then no, they would not. The Dems should have hollered every time the Republicans stalled. They used the filibuster over 100 times in 2009, a wholly unprecedented record of obstructionism. But does the voting public know about this? The Democrats needed to have spun this as "We worked very hard, overcame our own internal bickering, and couldn't get any cooperation from the Republicans, just as they said would be the case, no matter WHAT we would have tried. It's a bit rich to work to prevent your opponents from doing anything, then blame them for it. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:40 PM The Senate bill is a done deal. In the House--if the Democrats were united--they wouldn't need Republican support. Concern about filibustering is a red herring. It's not possible in the House--as I think you know. As I said, it's up to the House liberals to be ready to compromise. So far, no sign of it--because their liberal supporters refuse to do so. And the consequences in the fall will not be pretty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:45 PM And the "41 Senators" the Republicans claim now is also a red herring--if Olympia Snowe's idea is accepted she has said she will support the Democrats' health bill. But insisting on a guaranteed "public option" is a deal-breaker. It's time--past time--for compromise. Bill D's theory of "don't bother" is all too true--that seems to be the stance of far too many liberals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:49 PM Yes making the perfect the enemy of the good has always been a foolishness in US politics, although I'm not sure it's more representative of the Dems than the GOP overall. Although in this case it is definitely the Dems who have made this mistake. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Neil D Date: 23 Jan 10 - 01:16 AM The public option isn't really the main deal breaker any longer. Lately it's been more about the taxing of so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans and the abortion language. The reason that the "Cadillac plan tax is now such a sticking point is this. The Senate Healthcare bill was passed on December 24 with it's primary funding a tax on high-price insurance plans, which would have included not only CEO type plans but also insurance plans that Labor unions had negotiated for, often ceding wage increases in return for the security of comprehensive healthcare for their families. This funding mechanism was already a compromise by Senate liberals who preferred to raise funding by a tax increase on wages over $250,000. It was a deal breaker for organized labor so President Obama subsequently met with union leaders and brokered a deal that would: increase the minimum qualifier for family plans but not single plans; increase by five years the grace period before the tax would kick in for union members and excempt add-ons like dental and optometric care. There was no mention of how to redeem the 40% shortfall in funding. These changes would have been ammended to the Senate bill by the House before sending it back to the Senate. Now, because of the loss of the of their filibuster-proof majority, the only way the bill could be passed would be for the House to pass the Senate bill unammended, in fact word-for-word as it came out of the Senate on Christmas Eve. This would not even have to be rushed through before Brown is seated because it would never have to go back to the Senate before Obama signed it into law. So the deal Obama netotiated with labor would be negated and labor betrayed. If you don't know why this matters, it's for the same reason Republicans and many conservatise Dems as well, won't go against their corporate sponsors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: kendall Date: 23 Jan 10 - 07:38 AM Doug, what mousethief said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Greg F. Date: 23 Jan 10 - 11:12 AM I'm having quite a lot of difficulty understanding why anyone would brag about this. Because, Carol, old LandMine is, was and always willo be an asshole, as is amply demonstrated by his posting history. How soon folks forget! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Donuel Date: 23 Jan 10 - 11:17 AM be nice we all have 1 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Jan 10 - 01:38 PM Exactly, Neil. That's what I stated earlier--the bill has to be accepted by the House exactly as is. If labor feels ""betrayed", they will have to make the choice in the fall to support Democrats or not. Their decision will show how self-destructive they are--since if they don't support Democrats they may well get Republicans. And liberals have to not only realize they cannot get a public option on a silver platter--maybe through the "trigger"--but they have to urge their Representatives to accept the Senate bill with no changes--since as you note that will obviate the need for the bill to return to the Senate. So no filibustering. Point is: after all this time the Democratic Congress has to be able to show something accomplished. They are well on the way to earning the status of "do-nothing Congress." And as I said, see 1948. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Neil D Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:51 PM It's not simply a matter of supporting Dems over Repubs, they nearly always will. But they could back more progressive Dems over current Congress members in the primaries. Just as the right wing of the GOP has been trying to dump Rinos(Republicans in name only) the liberal base could turn on the Blue Dogs. You make a good argument for party unity but Progressives are feeling like they have given in over and over again on the way to a Senate bill, that compromise has been a one-way route toward the right. Many feel that this bill in its current form, with a private mandate and no public option or any other cost control, has become a gift to the insurance industry. The rise of insurance stocks to record highs since December 24 speaks more loudly than anything they say publicly. I'm not saying there aren't some good in the Senate bill but it's not real reform and progressives are smart enough to know that that yellow stuff ain't lemonade. Bottom line is that the house is NOT going to pass the Senate bill verbatum. As Pelosi says the votes just aren't there. I know what your saying about a do-nothing Congress, which is why I have thought all along that Dems should have called the bluff of Repubs and Leiberman, Nelson and Lincoln, forcing them to actually filibuster. Most polls show that people are fed up with Congress as a body and not one party over the other. It might be a roll of the dice but I believe that this approach would have been a public relations win for Dems. The latest strategy I'm hearing about is breaking up the bill and passing one increment at a time. I'm afraid I'm not learned enough in Senatorial procedure to know why this method would be immune to filibuster when a comprehensive bill wouldn't. Perhaps someone Mudct wonk could expand on that in a future post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 23 Jan 10 - 07:21 PM I think that breaking the bill up is the best way to achieve anything... Take the stuff that the public most favors and *understands* and work up from there... This will also put the Repubs on the defensive... The 2010 elections will be lost by the party who is caught on defense... The Dems can kill two birds with one stone here... I mean, if you just take something such as what used to be called "Patients Bill of Rights", meaning no cancellations for getting sick, no descrimination for pre-existing conditions, etc. and push that by itself there will be Repubs who will cross the isle because these are populist policies... Right now populist is in so whomever seems the most in tune with this do just fine... Yeah, sure... In a perfect world we'd love to have single payer universal health insurance... The US is far froma perfect world right now... The Dems have to beat the corporation to the populist message or the corporations will run the Dems over... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 23 Jan 10 - 07:45 PM Neil, the GOP has filibustered over 100 times in 2009. The hoi polloi apparently don't care. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Richard Bridge Date: 23 Jan 10 - 08:06 PM Hoi Polloi. No "The". The "H" is a transliteration of a rough breathing on the classical Greek definite article. So "The Hoi Polloi" really means "The the [populace]". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 23 Jan 10 - 11:09 PM Nope. "Hoi polloi" is an English word and takes an article. If I were speaking Greek I wouldn't use an English article because, well, I'd be speaking Greek. When I'm speaking English I treat a word the way the English language treats it. Don't confuse meaning with etymology. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 24 Jan 10 - 07:30 AM The real reason Coakley lost the Senate seat: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/23/mass_immigration_reforms_in_peril_after_brown_win/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 24 Jan 10 - 10:39 AM Sorry, mouse. Richard is correct. People who say "the hoi polloi" show not only their ignorance of another language, but the fact that they don't care they are ignorant. That sort of attitude, especially by Americans, is part of the reason why Americans abroad are so popular. Hence "ugly American." And it makes Americans easy marks for comedy by those who do know more than just English. It doesn't take much to do a bit of research on a word--or just don't use it. Shades of Mrs. Malaprop. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 24 Jan 10 - 10:48 AM And Rig, you still haven't learned that just because all you have is a hammer, every problem is stlll not a nail. I in fact just yesterday learned a much more plausible contributor to the MA debacle for Democrats. In MA virtually the entire government, it seems, is Democrats. There is now in MA a lot of generalized disgust with their own state government. They found a way to take it out on somebody--and break the Democratic monopoly. So, despite the current overreaction--especially the extrapolation to the rest of the US--it seems she may well have lost for reasons specific to MA---in addition, of course to running a classically stupid campaign. As for breaking up the health care bill: this is a wretched idea, since it will take a lot more time but produce very little--so not avoid the Democratic Congress' likely fate of being tagged as a "do-nothing Congress". 1948, here we come. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Jan 10 - 01:34 PM Ah. Goose, gander. Ron, you mean "not every problem is a nail". If every problem were "not a nail", a hammer would never solve a problem. And before anyone corrects "were"' it is a residual subjunctive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 24 Jan 10 - 04:13 PM "1948, here we come." No, I don't think so. The Democratic candidate won that election. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 24 Jan 10 - 05:24 PM Sorry, mouse. Richard is correct. People who say "the hoi polloi" show not only their ignorance of another language, but the fact that they don't care they are ignorant. If it makes you feel better to denigrate others for such things, go ahead. Doesn't make you right. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 24 Jan 10 - 05:32 PM You so don't deserve me. American Heritage Dictionary: Since the Greek phrase includes an article, some critics have argued that the phrase the hoi polloi is redundant. But phrases borrowed from other languages are often reanalyzed in English as single words. For example, a number of Arabic noun phrases were borrowed into English as simple nouns. The Arabic element al- means "the," and appears in English nouns such as alcohol and alchemy. Thus, since no one would consider a phrase such as "the alcohol" to be redundant, criticizing the hoi polloi on similar grounds seems pedantic. Common Errors in English Usage (Paul Brians): Some urge that since "hoi" is the article "the hoi polloi" is redundant; but the general rule is that articles such as "the" and "a" in foreign language phrases cease to function as such in place names, brands, and catch phrases except for some of the most familiar ones in French and Spanish, where everyone recognizes "la"—for instance—as meaning "the." "The El Nino" is redundant, but "the hoi polloi" is standard English. The Oxford English Dictionary: In English use normally preceded by the definite article even though hoi means 'the'. Bite me. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Greg F. Date: 24 Jan 10 - 06:15 PM Mousethief: How DARE you take issue with the Simple Seeker After Truth and Fount of All Knowledge???? Know ye not his omniscient nature??? And his awful vengeance?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 24 Jan 10 - 06:19 PM Nyah nyah pbbbth. Truth, Right, Justice, and the Oxford English Dictionary shall conquer! Us Ugly Americans and our dictionary. Gotta love it. "Simple" maybe. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Jan 10 - 06:33 PM About as convincing as the assertion that you can have more than two alternatives. See Fowler who advises avoiding the phrase "hoi polloi" altogether. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bill D Date: 24 Jan 10 - 06:52 PM mercy! I think I'll refrain from comment, and go fix myself a roast beef sandwich with au jus sauce! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 24 Jan 10 - 07:04 PM Richard, read what I said a bit more carefully. It makes perfect sense--sorry to disappoint you in your compulsive pedantry. Even--or even especially-- pedants have to read carefully. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Jan 10 - 07:10 PM You CAN have more than 2 alternatives! Consider the problem of a Dachshund faced with an opportunity to chase a squirrel, grab a fallen hotdog, or drive off a trespassing cat! What does he do first? I count at least three likely alternatives there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 24 Jan 10 - 07:10 PM Since it seems to be beyond your comprehension Richard, I'll split it up, so you can understand it. Just because all you have is a hammer, every problem is still not a nail. That means that not every problem is a nail. Rig, you haven't learned this. And Richard, you haven't learned to read carefully. But you certainly have mastered the art of winning and keeping friends. Do you still believe President Obama is an "oreo"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 24 Jan 10 - 07:15 PM An oreo with or without au jus sauce? O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 24 Jan 10 - 07:19 PM That's "...your comprehension, Richard,..." for those competing in the pedantry finals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Jan 10 - 07:20 PM You thought about that, didn't you? ;-) Now...just consider the mental turmoil of a Dachshund confronted with 10 or 20 possible alternative courses of action! Or worse yet, 50! Now imagine Obama trying to bring the conflict in Afghanistan and the "War on Terror" to a successful conclusion... ;-) Have you ever watched the Three Stooges attempt to do dental work? I have. Kind of like that... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 24 Jan 10 - 07:26 PM And Rig, you maintain a virtually perfect record of missing the point. Congratulations. Since you seem to need a bit of assistance in understanding, the point had to do with the party against whom the accusation of "do-nothing Congress" was leveled. For extra credit, Rig, in 1948 was that the Democrats or Republicans? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Jan 10 - 07:29 PM Gad! I hadn't realized the pedantry finals were coming up so soon. I must sharpen my quill pen and ensure that there is a large supply of red ink handy. I intend to win this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 24 Jan 10 - 07:33 PM "...criticizing 'the hoi polloi' seems pedantic...." Welcome to Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: GUEST,999 Date: 24 Jan 10 - 07:35 PM If ya really want to win, LH, use invisible ink. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 24 Jan 10 - 07:38 PM Now, since the pedantry finals will not in fact be held tonight--though certainly not for lack of interest-- does anybody have another thought on something actually related to the topic----either the MA Senate race, or even the health care reform debacle? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Jan 10 - 07:42 PM I fear that if I were to add any further comments or observations of my own to either one of those weighty subjects on top of the massive pile of verbiage that has already been expended on them on this forum by various people here, that the crust of the Earth itself might collapse under the accumulated weight, and we would all be killed. Therefore, I decline. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 25 Jan 10 - 10:17 AM There's another thread open to discuss health care reform. This one was to be for the Mass. Senatorial race, which was about a number of other things. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Dave the Gnome Date: 25 Jan 10 - 11:20 AM Being a UKer and not instantly recognising Mass as the abbreviation for a state I kept wondering why there was a mass senatorial race and just how many people were involved! I understand now but tell me this - Did they have a Mass debate before the senatorial race? :D (eG) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 25 Jan 10 - 12:37 PM I'm confident they had many, David. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 25 Jan 10 - 02:57 PM Now imagine Obama trying to bring the conflict in Afghanistan and the "War on Terror" to a successful conclusion... Nobody can bring a war on an abstract noun to a successful conclusion. And I'm not being pedantic. One of the design flaws -- or genius design features -- of the fatuously named "war on terror" is that TERROR DOESN'T END. So we either have to admit defeat, or continue to fight the war on terror indefinitely. Which is just what the Repuglicans want -- channels money to the military-industrial complex, and keeps it from being spent for ridiculous things like schools or health care or infrastructure. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Jan 10 - 05:00 PM Okay, I won't decline... ;-) You are so right, Mousethief, and it isn't just the Republicans. It's the entire military-industrial complex that is absolutely delighted to wage war on an abstract noun...a war that has no geographically identifiable enemy (so it can be fought anywhere they like) and no possible or forseeable end, so it can go on forever. That's perfect for their purposes. George Orwell predicted this very type of situation of an endless war waged in distant places by Oceania (An Anglo-American alliance) in his great novel 1984. It came a little later than he had scheduled it, that's all. Big Brother is not a man...Big Brother is a financial $ySStem composed of giant banks, giant corporations, a giant military that is their mailed fist, and a large number of men in suits at the top who control it all (and who no doubt fight amongst themselves for the best perks while they're doing it). Presidents? Ha! Presidents and Prime Ministers are just their temporary and disposable errand boys. I figure that's what Obama is right now, but what if he decides to buck the $ySStem and fight the controllers? I really doubt he will do that...but if he did? Then things could get very interesting, but I wouldn't rate his survival chances as very good, because those people do not tolerate non-cooperation with Big Brother's greater world agenda. No sir. The War on Terror is political doublespeak of the most outrageous sort, because it is itself the direct agent of terror on a huge scale, terror inflicted upon hundreds of millions of people in many different nations. It is what it pretends to be fighting against. It is the monster it pretends to be protecting us against. Just as in 1984. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 25 Jan 10 - 05:17 PM Well, it's been nice knowing you Little Hawk. We can expect to be disappeared within a week, maybe two, for truthspeaking. President Eisenhower, why didn't we listen to you?! O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 25 Jan 10 - 05:20 PM Speaking of Orwell and 1984, someone posted this in all seriousness on the Code Pink Facebook group page yesterday... "Love is War and War is Peace thats how life is. if you dont like it move to some Peace country." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Jan 10 - 05:40 PM LOL! Boy, I feel like moving right now... How about: "WAR - LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT" and "KILL FOR PEACE" By the way, how does "Shock and Awe" differ from "Terror"? And what do "Daisy Cutters" really do, cut flowers? And how does "collateral damage" differ from "war crimes"? And why do all the latest American military airplanes look just like something Darth Vader would pilot? And does a pilotless cruise missile feel regret or the weight of moral responsiblity when it blows up a house full of civilians or wipes out a wedding party? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 10 - 06:15 PM Exactly, LH... The so-called war on terror is being waged by folks who are all but powerless against the largest purveyor of international terror since Hitler: The US of A.... Makes all the tin-horn dictators of the world look like Boy Scouts... And yeah, step outta line as a president or influential leader and "the man come and take you away"... Ask Bobby Kennedy... Or Martin Luther King... They both were standing up to the military-industrialists and had to be taken care of... And yeah, Obama ain't immune from the same... I ain't scared about one of my Obama-hatin' neighbors doin' he deed but the military industrialists... BTW, I find it interesting and disturbing that Hitler also understood this and the quess what group he snuggled up to??? Yep, the military-industrialists... And the beat goes on... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 25 Jan 10 - 07:26 PM I ain't scared about one of my Obama-hatin' neighbors doin' he deed but the military industrialists... The one buys the services of the other. Teabaggers aren't being bankrolled by Lipton. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 10 - 07:42 PM My neighbors are dumb as creek rocks... Not exactly the kinda folks the CIA is gonna spend much time recruitin'... Half of them would prolly shoot themselves by accident... A quarter of them would get arrested before they made it too far outta the county fir bald tires and loud exhausts and the rest are just too danged lazy to do much of anything at all... But yer right, mouse-t... Seems that the CIA has had a purdy solid history in recruitin' folks who are fully capable of assassinatin' other folks... And I hate to say it but with all the stuff that is goin' on with this populist movement aginst the industrialists I fear that if Congress blocks the Roberts/industrialists little plan then we may very well be lookin' at another round or assasinations like we had in the 60's... Now I ain't advocatin' killin' anyone but I can't help but wonder how things would play out if it were conservatives, rather than progressives, who lost 3 or 4 of their top dogs??? Again, I am not advocatin' anything like that... Just curious... We saw what it did to the "movement" in the 60's... Killed it with the killing of the movements most promising voices.... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 25 Jan 10 - 07:54 PM Now I ain't advocatin' killin' anyone but I can't help but wonder how things would play out if it were conservatives, rather than progressives, who lost 3 or 4 of their top dogs??? Then wholesale blood would flow. But when, since 1968, have progressives had the upper hand? O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 25 Jan 10 - 08:20 PM So, Rig, do you finally understand the parallel between 2010 and 1948? In case you are still a bit slow--based on past history, not a bad bet----, point is that the party which had the label "Do-Nothing Congress" attached to it lost bigtime in the fall--and we're just talking about the Senate and House. The parallel is, amazingly enough, not exact----in case anybody is dying to point that out. 1948, of course, was a presidential election year; 2010 is not. However, the point remains that "Do-Nothing Congress" is not really a distinction you want to have attached to you. And that's the direction this Congress is headed--fast. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 10 - 08:56 PM So, mouse... Ya' think that if someone offed Rush Limbaugh or the Beck feller then the right would off Nancy Pelosi or Keith Olberman??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 25 Jan 10 - 09:34 PM Ron, where your analogy seems to break down is, the 1948 Congress was a Republican Congress. The Congress now is the same party as the president. Obama can't gain any traction by trying to blame Congress. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 25 Jan 10 - 09:35 PM Bobert, Well that's not apples and apples as Pelosi is in congress, whereas the other three actually have power. But leaving that aside, I don't think they'd off somebody necessarily (directly) but they would turn up the ugly, perhaps hoping that one of their minions -- the teabaggers -- would do something rash. I think we're very fortunate we didn't have something very bad happen during the town meetings, when the teabaggers and their ilk were taking loaded weapons to angry public meetings. Tanyrate if Rush and Glenn and Ann continue to whip people up, and nobody puts the brakes on, who can say what will ensue? These aren't exactly Harvard top-of-classers we're talking about. And their followers are even less so. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 25 Jan 10 - 10:05 PM Actually, it seems to me like "Harvard-top-of-classeers" are the folks that need to be tuned out. You have to prove yourself to be a real sheep to become one, and following one will leave you drowing in the rain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 25 Jan 10 - 10:14 PM We had 8 years of rule by the mediocre. I'm not sure it's a model I can recommend anymore. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 25 Jan 10 - 10:58 PM Rig, you've done it again. Missed the point one more time. The point is not that Obama can or should blame Congress. It's that since this Democratic Congress is headed for similar result the Republican Congress had in 1948--and for the same reason: "Do-Nothing Congress". In some respects this is even worse than 1948: now we have House, Senate, and Presidency all controlled by the same party--and it's still a "Do-Nothing Congress." And a Congress which you would think would not want to make the president's job harder--but that's what's happening. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 25 Jan 10 - 11:28 PM Actually, Ron, the whole thing is adrift without a helmsman. Obama was elected to lead, and he's proven himself incapable. The worse it gets the more incoherent he becomes. Today he walked the plank with doubling the tax exemption for people with children, whithout demonstrating the good sense to put a limit on the number of children. This guy's out in space. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 10 - 09:11 AM Why do Dems have to complicate everything??? I mean, politics ain't rocket surgery... I see all over the news that thr Dems are gonna get creamed in the Novemebr elections... Unfortunately, that may be true because they just can't bring themselves to think in simplistic tea-baggin' ways... All they need to do is carry one simple-ass message to the voters that the Repubs left them one friggin'ass mess, have offered nothin' since other than hotair and that Repubs should not be rewarded for failure and a year of AWOL... What is so hard about that message??? Nothin', at all... But, no... The Dems will wonk it to death and give the Repubs more targets for their blowhardedness... Makes ya' wonder what the collective IQ is of the Dems??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 26 Jan 10 - 10:08 AM Instead of flailing around, they should pass the Senate version of the health care bill and go on to other issues--IMHO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Richard Bridge Date: 26 Jan 10 - 10:22 AM "Better dead than red. You choose." "Government of the people, by the people, FOR THE PEOPLE". "On the 7th day, God rested. But we still have work to do". "If living was a thing that money could buy, then the rich would live and the poor would die". How short does a bumper sticker need to be? "Guns not butter: Adolf Hitler". "I just want my job back mister". "Rich folks call it paradise mountain, but we call it poverty hill". "Supreme Court: Ministry of Propaganda". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mg Date: 26 Jan 10 - 04:48 PM I don't understand why the Democrats are not just saying we have two weeks, three days..however long until Brown gets sworn in..let's pass something. Instead they are saying the people have spoken etc. The people of one state have spoken and someone is still their senator legally. Pass whatever you can now and fix it later. Otherwise spend more years doing this. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 26 Jan 10 - 04:56 PM They already passed a bill with the Senate they have. If they try to introduce anything now the Republicans will just stall it until the new senator is seated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 26 Jan 10 - 05:52 PM It appears that they could even pass some fixes for the Senate bill and then pass the bill afterwards, and that they only need 51 votes to pass the fixes (not sure exactly how this works, but apparently it's something that can be done). I don't know what's keeping them from doing that. Maybe they just want to allow Brown to be seated first for propriety's sake. It doesn't really matter if they wait until after he's seated, because that won't change anything with regard to the Senate bill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 10 - 06:15 PM On health care??? If I were a Dem. senator I'd say "Bring the fillibuster on"... What the Repubs have done is threaten these things and that has worked... I'd say, 'Bring yer friggin' cots 'cause we're holding a real fillibuster poarty an y6a'll is invited" and then make the Repubs stand up and read the phone book for hours and hours at a time... That would send more of a message to the American people than all this mealy-mouthed crap... In the words of Goerge Bush, "Bring it on, Bubba!!!" B |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Richard Bridge Date: 26 Jan 10 - 06:50 PM Well, now that corporate and union spending on propaganda is unfettered, you do have cameras in the Senate don't you? An edited podcast showing nothing but republican filibustering, the closer to reading the phone book the better (run it in on loops if necessary) and then astroturfing the message "This is how much Republicans care for democracy" with a link. In propaganda terms it would be cheap too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 26 Jan 10 - 07:16 PM Unfortunately, it would be too easy for the Republicans to use the heroic imagery in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and Jimmy Stewart's character's fillibuster, and compare themselves to that. Using that kind of imagery could backfire on the Democrats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 10 - 07:35 PM Well, Carol, it would be better than folding every time the Repubs so much as wisper "fillibuster"... Heck, what the Dems are doing now ain't workin' fir them... I think it's worth the risk... Yeah, I reckon the first couple of days the polls would show that it was a bad idea but if the dems stuck to their guns and kept sayin' that they were in the fight to help the American people until Hell freezes over then they would come out of this with the respect that they ceratinly don't have now... The Repubs have allready shown just how obstinate they can be so seein' more of their obstruction won't really help them that much... It's all in how the dems frame what why they are doing it... I say, "Bring it on!!!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 26 Jan 10 - 09:12 PM RE: A filibuster, they won't bring it on. They threaten to bring it on and hold out for concessions, and delay the passage. But they've already figured out that delay works for them and against the Democrats. The longer this goes on, the bigger the Republican majority will be in the 2010 mid-term. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 27 Jan 10 - 12:57 AM A filibuster no longer requires standing up and speaking. Since 1975 the minority party need only say "we filibuster" -- no need to stand up and palaver. They can all run off for a burger, and the filibuster is still on. Further filibuster no longer means bringing the senate to a standstill. You can filibuster on one bill and still do business on another. It really isn't the same beast that Jimmie Stewart acted out all those years ago. It's just a supermajority now. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Richard Bridge Date: 27 Jan 10 - 07:51 AM If they trot off for a burger, how about a motion to suspend standing orders, followed by a guillotine, followed by a vote? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 27 Jan 10 - 08:20 AM Actually, mouse, the Dems can force a fillibuster where at least one member of each party be in the Senate chamber 24/7 and speakin'... That rule has not been changed... But, yes, the Senate can have hearings in hearing rooms on other matters... So if the Dems wanted to they could certainly take a page outta ther Repub playbook and expand it... I think that would be purdy cool... I mean, the Dems could concievable control the Senate chamber itself and if I understand the rules correctly prevent the chanmber from voting on otgher matters... Then when the Repubs complain and try to make a stink about it the Dems could say, "Hey, guys, we thought you liked fillibusterin'... Come on in an join the party..." Like I said, what the Dems are doing ain't workin' so why not use every parlimentary option out there to push thru health care reform and grab the heck outta the conversation??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 27 Jan 10 - 04:59 PM Agree. Is that the so-called "nuclear option"? I say time to go nuclear. O..O =o= |
