It's OVER!!!

[road kill]

Nancy can not deliver.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/..._care_overhaul




rk

[huntinman]

Nancy can not deliver.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/..._care_overhaul




rk

I hope you are right, but don't put anything past these snakes...

[Franco]

Here is a quote from the Yahoo article;

..."We're not in a big rush" on health care, Pelosi said...

This woman couldn't tell the truth if her life depended on it!

[K G]

"The mega bills are dead," said Rep. Michael Arcuri, D-N.Y. "If we didn't see what happened Tuesday night, we have blinders on."

Well there you go.... At least somebody is paying attention...

k g

[YardleyLabs]

I suspect that substantive health care reform of any kind is dead for at least a decade unless the Democrats are prepared to follow the strategies used by Republicans during the first GWB term to overcome the 50 senate seats still held by Democrats.

Personally I think the whole thing should have been done through budget reconciliation from the beginning just as Bush did with his tax proposals with even greater financial implications. If the requirement for a 60 vote majority to accomplish change is our standard, neither party will accomplish anything. It was different when filibusters were seldom seen and required the opposition to go throug the physical challenge of actually talking non-tstop without losing control of the floor. Now it is simply accepted that anyone with 41 votes can defeat anything.

Democrats need to be as prepared to challenge the ability of 41 Senators to dictate the agenda as the Republicans were to challenge the ability of 50 Democrats to dictate the agenda during the first two years of GWB's first term. Republicans needed to use Cheney as a tie breaker vote to pass legislation costing even more than health care. And when they were upset at their inability to obtain approval of a very small number of judicial appointments, they threatened to use the so-called nuclear option which would have involved simply ruling that a simple majority was needed and then using the majority to prevent any procedural challenge from being successful. At that time, the rallying cry was "The people deserve and up or down vote." Maybe they do.....

[huntinman]

I suspect that substantive health care reform of any kind is dead for at least a decade unless the Democrats are prepared to follow the strategies used by Republicans during the first GWB term to overcome the 50 senate seats still held by Democrats.

Personally I think the whole thing should have been done through budget reconciliation from the beginning just as Bush did with his tax proposals with even greater financial implications. If the requirement for a 60 vote majority to accomplish change is our standard, neither party will accomplish anything. It was different when filibusters were seldom seen and required the opposition to go throug the physical challenge of actually talking non-tstop without losing control of the floor. Now it is simply accepted that anyone with 41 votes can defeat anything.

Democrats need to be as prepared to challenge the ability of 41 Senators to dictate the agenda as the Republicans were to challenge the ability of 50 Democrats to dictate the agenda during the first two years of GWB's first term. Republicans needed to use Cheney as a tie breaker vote to pass legislation costing even more than health care. And when they were upset at their inability to obtain approval of a very small number of judicial appointments, they threatened to use the so-called nuclear option which would have involved simply ruling that a simple majority was needed and then using the majority to prevent any procedural challenge from being successful. At that time, the rallying cry was "The people deserve and up or down vote." Maybe they do.....

You guys had the votes to get it done...too many of the libs were scared to vote for it. If you couldn't get it done with 60, I doubt if you can get it done with 51. Time for you guys to realize the gig is up, the magic is gone.

[precisionlabradors]

good....now the medical industry can get back to price gouging and insurance lobbyists can take a break. it was looking like they might lose their golden goose there for a minute. and i'm glad i get to hear from my company about how my merit increase as well as the entire company's will be withheld once again to compensate for the rise in in my insurance plan...once again.

it feels magical paying for price gouging, bill.
________
Mexico city hotels

[Franco]

good....now the medical industry can get back to price gouging and insurance lobbyists can take a break. it was looking like they might lose their golden goose there for a minute. and i'm glad i get to hear from my company about how my merit increase as well as the entire company's will be withheld once again to compensate for the rise in in my insurance plan...once again.

it feels magical paying for price gouging, bill.

Not a realistic assumption.

Insurance companies barter with hospital ownership on how much they are willing to pay for a medical procedure. Hospital are always wanting them to pay a high percentage.

What we need is Insurance Reform not government takeover of our healthcare. Big government is too clumsy with both service and savings to run our healthcare. Tort Reform would be a part of insurance reform as well as Pre-exsisting Conditions etc.

[precisionlabradors]

Not a realistic assumption.

Insurance companies barter with hospital ownership on how much they are willing to pay for a medical procedure. Hospital are always wanting them to pay a high percentage.

What we need is Insurance Reform not government takeover of our healthcare. Big government is too clumsy with both service and savings to run our healthcare. Tort Reform would be a part of insurance reform as well as Pre-exsisting Conditions etc.

i wonder who will be the catalyst for reform if not the govt. i guess i'm as much to blame as anyone as i'm not willing to boycott healthcare to try to expidite the invisible hand.
________
Nevada Medical Marijuana Dispensary

[M&K's Retrievers]

I suspect that substantive health care reform of any kind is dead for at least a decade unless the Democrats are prepared to follow the strategies used by Republicans during the first GWB term to overcome the 50 senate seats still held by Democrats.

Personally I think the whole thing should have been done through budget reconciliation from the beginning just as Bush did with his tax proposals with even greater financial implications. If the requirement for a 60 vote majority to accomplish change is our standard, neither party will accomplish anything. It was different when filibusters were seldom seen and required the opposition to go throug the physical challenge of actually talking non-tstop without losing control of the floor. Now it is simply accepted that anyone with 41 votes can defeat anything.

Democrats need to be as prepared to challenge the ability of 41 Senators to dictate the agenda as the Republicans were to challenge the ability of 50 Democrats to dictate the agenda during the first two years of GWB's first term. Republicans needed to use Cheney as a tie breaker vote to pass legislation costing even more than health care. And when they were upset at their inability to obtain approval of a very small number of judicial appointments, they threatened to use the so-called nuclear option which would have involved simply ruling that a simple majority was needed and then using the majority to prevent any procedural challenge from being successful. At that time, the rallying cry was "The people deserve and up or down vote." Maybe they do.....

It's my understanding that well over 50% of the country is against the health care bill.