BS: Mass. Senatorial race

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~