-
Website
http://themoderatevoice.com/ -
Original page
http://themoderatevoice.com/52075/will-there-be-a-vote-on-health-care-tomorrow/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
superdestroyer
1866 comments · 63 points
-
kathykattenburg
2029 comments · 1197 points
-
runasim
1626 comments · 143 points
-
GeorgeSorwell
1853 comments · 660 points
-
Father_Time
1401 comments · 450 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
Health Care Debate: Were Medicare Savings Counted Twice?
4 hours ago · 10 comments
-
Naivete in Surprising Places
8 hours ago · 13 comments
-
Is ‘Wimp’ the New ‘Sissy’?
6 hours ago · 6 comments
-
Mexico City Legalizes Same Sex Marriage
1 day ago · 60 comments
-
When A Bad Prayer Goes Good
8 hours ago · 6 comments
-
Health Care Debate: Were Medicare Savings Counted Twice?
Committee Confirms: Comply With Pelosi-Care Or Go To Jail
Now this is a knee slapper if there was one. 72 hours to read, digest, and completely understand a 2,000 page doorstop?
The republicans intentionally waited until after any possibility of a 72 hour period after a final bill was online before they submitted their version which they insisted be considered before a vote.
Jazz Shaw pays attention to what is happening in politics and knows what's going on and has no excuse for intentional spreading misinformation BUT still he presents this story as if the Democrats are to blame.
Some wonder why the right is out in the cold... Here's a hint: It's because they don't realize that BS freezes, too.
"The republicans intentionally waited until after any possibility of a 72 hour period after a final bill was online before they submitted their version which they insisted be considered before a vote."
So the world ends on Saturday? Pelosi schedules the votes for all intents and purposes. If the Republican proposal came on Friday she could schedule it for Tuesday and the GOP couldn't stop her. Nice try,though. Very amusing.
Your response... "I will at least give you credit for being hilarious, Steve." speaks volumes.
The Democrats could have surprised us with a small, readable bill that repealed McCarran-Ferguson and eliminated the tax penalty for buying individual plans, then watched the Republicans desperately defend the monopolies and laws that got into this mess. We don't even have time to write letters and get them delivered on time.
Pelosi has shown her hand, and she's got one finger raised.
Two years ago Jazz and his ilk were constantly berating the Democrats that didn't cooperate with the Republican Speaker but now they're playing stupid and just can't understand why the current Speaker should have any say matters at all.
Apparently they don't see the hypocrisy in their change in attitude but... Most people do.
No, they just wonder why she lies through her teeth all the time, and why people like you defend her lies.
The apparent problem: Democrats have yet to resolve intraparty disputes over abortion funding and illegal immigrants' access to health care.
Intraparty disputes...If the Dems were truly interested in getting something done, as they have repeatedly said they were, they would tell the Repubs to go to hell and wallow away in the sand for awhile. With people like Bachman leading the opposition, it shouldn't be that hard to get your own party on board.
Assuming this vote is affirmative, it clears the House and throws the issue on the Senate. Much is wrong with what these people are doing, but given how much they've been bungling in their overreach, I'm actually relieved and have even a perverse sense of enjoyment that they're getting out of HUA mode now.
Meanwhile, the Senate is in what mode, not only with health care "reform," but with "climate" legislation?
HUA.
More follies to come from these clowns! (Though it's not funny that the joke's on America and Americans.)
Well, some among the public have to, even though they're derided for protesting after they learn what's in it, given that Congress and even their staffers are neglecting to read what they're voting on.
[guffaw -- snort, snort]
"as it's currently used (living document, meaning the supreme court will read it as they want) "
Meaning liberals and "progressives" want the courts to read it as liberals and "progressives" want, rather than what it really says and _means_...
And new mental health benefits included in any federal health care "reform" (takeover) won't cure this problem.
This never was about reform, which would be easy and simple to implement and doesn't involve the public option. But, of course, the public option is the essence of what is being sought here, for what is being sought here is federal takeover of health care. The public would recoil at prompt federalization of everything ("Medicare for All"), and even extremist stunts like a Medicare buy-in or a throwback to obsolescent 1960s expectations of ever-diminishing retirement age (reversal of reality), with a new age 55 Medicare threshold (or other things like folding Medicaid into Medicare or creating a new Medicare entitlement for children, examples I've long provided as other incrementalist alternatives). Hence the indirect incrementalist "option" approach (rigged "competition" openly intended to displace and, in the future, replace the private insurers and related parties like HMOs).
The problem is that this not only has amounted to overreach, but, like so much sought this year by the lib Dems, is far left of the mainstream and is overreach that is now causing the party to founder and to fracture.
If Pelosi gets this vote done today, it's a public example that she's trying to get at least the House lib Dems to get going and resume making "progress" again. (It also puts pressure on Harry Reid and others in the Senate, obviously.)