GOP Health Care Filibuster DefeatedFollow

There's nothing, no matter how stupid, that Varrus can say that will convince you that he is not trolling?

I though we already went through this. Those affected are either: By definition not a small business owner, so lucrative that taxes won't seriously burden them, or really suck at filling out their tax forms.

Why only certain activities? Are other activities which incite public violence okay?

It's a state thing. Even the FEHB program (fed. employees plan) is done by state.

The real answer is probably because insurance companies have lots of money and the Democrats wanted their support for this bill. I wouldn't be naive enough to pretend that this bill wasn't full of horse trading and concessions.

But if one were to warn of this, it would be a SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!!


Lol. You guys had to bribe folks, not just subtly, but blatantly in order to pass this bill. It's a disaster and a disgrace. Promising the last Senator that his state will never have to pay into medicare? Really?


I do love the attempts to paint this as Republicans refusing to be "bipartisan". Um... Bipartisan doesn't mean "agree to do something you completely oppose" and no amount of dressing this up as anything other than a purely partisan measure rammed down the throats of the American citizens will change that fact.

Your laughing is just a facade. You are really heart broken about the GOP abandoning you.

Honestly, bipartisanship needs to die. What the Dems really needed to say all along was this: WE'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG. The end. Thanks for playing, have a nice life.

The thing that really irks me about the reaction to the bill, more so than the content, is how unimpressed both the hard-liberal Democrats and the hard-conservative GOP appear to be. Both sides in the opinion business are spouting various interpretations of "it's a horrible monstrosity of a bill that doesn't bring any real reform."

The only difference is that the lefties add the caveat "... but it's better than nothing, and it's something to build on in the future." The righties, on the other hand, add the caveat "... so we should kill it and come back later (read: never) after we're done dealing with the economy, Afghanistan, financial industry oversight, taxes, cap n' trade, the NCAA football postseason format, and maybe those darned ****** getting hitched."

The lack of enthusiasm on either side is rather onimous.

(Forgive me if this has been discussed in more detail other than the original post, but I refuse to read through 60+ posts of Varrus' drool.)

I almost feel bad that I can't immediately help people turn on or use their spell-checkers because I've never had the need to use one myself.

For that matter, what 25 year olds are purchasing their own individual insurance plans?

"Insurance costs for a 40-year-old family with two kids living in Indianapolis will pay 106% more."

I don't think that even parses in English.

Anyway, yay for the WSJ for not liking the plan. Oh well for them. I don't even feel inspired to try to 'defend' it because... heh... I don't have to

Edit: I will note that the WellPoint analysis was from October, before the current Senate bill was even presented. Ignoring the questions about how the study was put togetherm, how seriously am I supposed to take an Op-Ed that says the "best" data on how much the plan will cost is an analysis done on a bill from mid-October, weeks before the House even voted on their bill and a month before the Senate bill was even unveiled?

Edited, Dec 21st 2009 5:29pm by Jophiel

Well it's a good thing we got a new one written up!