Way to go Pelosi!
Islander
Jim_Higgins
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:16:34 -0800, Islander <nos...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Health Care Bill passes House!
>
> who voted for the bill.
An honest Republican????????? Wonderful :-)
Islander
>
> who voted for the bill.
Yes, I was watching it on CSPAN and was surprised to see that one
Republican vote - evidently a junior Congressman from Louisiana. Good
for him!
It was a long and tortuous process with Republicans attempting every
step of the way to defeat or delay it.
sr
"Rita" <Ri...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:sphcf5d2mpmegd32t...@4ax.com...
>
> who voted for the bill.
===You just have no concept of the consequences, do you. Can't you think in
Depth of the unintentional consequences.
You really aren't a senior citizen, are you?===just one thing. you have to
wait into your 6 month for treatment of cancer. And, 500 billion is going
to be cut from medicare, and there is more regulations
Rita is also cheering for
Would I have to have health insurance?
Yes, or pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of your income. Hardship and religious
waivers would be available, and some very low-wage earners would be exempt.
The requirement would begin in 2013.
People who don't get insurance and don't pay the penalty face fines and
possibly jail time. Can you imagine our Govenment putting citizens in Jail
for not going along with the Government's Program? But, Rita is Cheering,
she likes this plan. She likes burdening future generation. She is selfish
person, indeed
=
Could my children get coverage under my policy?
Yes, until age 27. Well, Well, now we call adults children, good grief
====than the hidden cost to taxpayer (fees) are pointed out, and higher
State Taxes, etc
===I thought the most open Gov. under dear Nancy was going to be put on C
SPAN and on the web. bunch of LIERS
there I said it another bunch of LIARS Turn my stomach
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
>Health Care Bill passes House!
It's only a first step, but a great first step!
I just sent off a thanx and congrats to
Nancy's web site.
High Miles
> Harry Reid had some of her moxie in the Senate.
>>
He's a sad wimp.
Should take some lessons from the President.
Islander
> cave to a GOP threat of a filibuster ? Probably. But why ? Why
> not let them filibuster ? Then every night on the evening news,
> Katie Couric can show the important things the filibusterers are
> saying. Like prices in the Sears Roebuck catalog and the weather
> report for Mexico. Let the people see this every day for a week --
> and come next year they will puke up the rest of the Republicans.
>
> I say there should be no watering down the bill to avoid a filibuster.
I would add only one thing to your strategy. Add a vote for cloture
every day and make those who would oppose Health Care Reform vote
against it over and over again. Then, during the midterm elections the
Democrats could legitimately state that Republican Senator XYZ voted
against Health Care Reform X times!
Evelyn
> he replaced the convicted William Jefferson, the crook and sadly
> a Democrat. I read that President Obama had a talk with him
> and persuaded him to vote for the bill -- after the House passed
> the revision that does not allow abortions to be paid for with
> public funds.
>
> Unfortunately, 35 or 36 Democrats were too craven to vote for
> the bill.
>
> I noted that many areas where 20% or more are uninsured had
> Reps who voted no -- particularly in Southern states.
>
> It is not a perfect bill -- but I agree with the following I read:
>
> When FDR and LBJ were trying to pound Social Security and Medicare
> through Congress against fierce resistance from Republicans and
> conservative Democrats, Democrats to their left expressed pretty much
> identical sentiments about the inadequacies of both bills in their
> original form. They were so horribly flawed and compromised, it would
> be better to pass nothing than to pass bills that were far from
> perfect.
>
> Fortunately, though it was, and apparently still is, a little-known
> fact to such Democrats, it turns out bills don't have to be positively
> perfect in every way the first time because Congress actually has the
> power to add to, change and reshape laws after they're enacted. Thanks
> to this virtually unknown power of Congress, both Social Security and
> Medicare were expanded and improved in subsequent years and, in every
> case, it was vastly easier to make them better than it was to enact
> them in the first place. Because it also turned out that the hard part
> is getting Congress to accept the concept. Once they did that, the
> rest followed.
That is interesting to know, and I wasn't aware of that. Hopefully they
will tweak this bill and get it right once it is passed and in effect.
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
Islander
There is a good analysis of the 39 Democrats who voted against the House
bill in today's NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/08/us/politics/1108-health-care-vote.html
Most notably, 31 of the 39 � represent districts that were won by
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, in the 2008 presidential
election.
Nearly all of the fourteen freshmen Democrats who voted �no� represent
districts that were previously Republican and are considered vulnerable
in 2010.
Geographically, 22 lawmakers from southern states formed the largest
opposition bloc.
Curiously, Dennis J. Kucinich(Ohio 10) voted against it because he
thought that it should have been single payer. Artur Davis(Ala. 7)
voted against it because he favors the Senate Finance Committee Bill.
I hope that these last two waited until it was clear that the bill
passed before casting their votes. It would have been tragic if they
had been responsible in the event of its failure.
Islander
> where McCain got the most votes. So they are afraid they will lose
> their seats in 2010.
>
> I'd say there is good chance they will lose their seats for t heir
> No votes because the Republicans are going to run candidates
> against them and Democrats will most probably run candidates to
> challenge them in the primaries.
>
> I think that puts them in a far shakier position than if they voted
> yes.
You may be right. You would be right in a rational world. I suspect
that a far greater issue is a lack of confidence in young and minority
voters who turned out for Obama, but who are traditionally not reliable.
The Democrats need to be working hard to keep these groups involved.
The battle now moves to the Senate. MoveOn has raised over $3.5M to
oppose the candidacy of any Democratic Senator who votes against
cloture. It is a clear warning to anyone who might be tempted to side
with Lieberman.
Rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
>There is a good analysis of the 39 Democrats who voted against the House
>bill in today's NYT.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/08/us/politics/1108-health-care-vote.html
>
>Most notably, 31 of the 39 � represent districts that were won by
>Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, in the 2008 presidential
>election.
>
>Nearly all of the fourteen freshmen Democrats who voted �no� represent
>districts that were previously Republican and are considered vulnerable
>in 2010.
>
>Geographically, 22 lawmakers from southern states formed the largest
>opposition bloc.
>
>Curiously, Dennis J. Kucinich(Ohio 10) voted against it because he
>thought that it should have been single payer. Artur Davis(Ala. 7)
>voted against it because he favors the Senate Finance Committee Bill.
>
>I hope that these last two waited until it was clear that the bill
>passed before casting their votes. It would have been tragic if they
>had been responsible in the event of its failure.
I hope so too, and as long as the bill didn't need Kucinich's
vote, I'm glad he voted against it on the grounds he did.
"Single payer" IMV should be the end, because it's the only
way we will really all be able to breathe freely without being
constantly on the alert for tigers creeping up on us. As long as
private enterprise is involved in things we can't sanely do
without, such as health insurance, entrepreneurs involved
will always be trying to get vast quantities of money out of
us (as they do right now) by hook or by crook. They'll work
on it in every direction we're not looking. They'll work
on it even if we are looking if they can get away with
denying alternatives by de-facto cabal. That's the "nature
of the beast" of capitalism.
Capitalism is fine for things for which we can "just say no".
For things we "have to have", such as police and fire
protection, and the military, and basic (at least) schooling,
and care for the aged and infirm, and roads and bridges,
AND health care, "socialism" is the only way to go.
"Socialism" IS the way we do go, for all those things on
that list right now except health care. I think no sane
person would want to re-introduce capitalism into any of
the things on that list that have already been socialized,
None of them were "always" socialized. Entrepreneurs
were involved in all of them for a long time before they
were socialized. Life became better for almost
everybody after each of them was socialized.
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
>In article <cqWdnWwYzJqC22vX...@rockisland.com>,
>Islander <nos...@privacy.net> wrote:
>:Health Care Bill passes House!
>
>but only at the cost of heavy attacks on abortion rights. it is hoped that
>reconciliation will fix this.
Yep, but as you noted elsewhere (I think it was you), we
do at least have to get the camel's nose under the tent.
Rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
>I agree with the idea that capitalism is only good for things the
>consumer does not require to live a safe and healthy life. As you
>say -- police, military, education and health care.
>
>Capitalism is great when it comes to making a cheap pair of drawers or
>socks in China -- which Walmart can import and sell to us. The
>making and selling of knick-knacks and doo-dads is the life blood of
>capitalism. If you don't believe it, take a walk through your local
>mall and observe all the window displays. Try to imagine somebody
>actually needing all that junk.
I'm almost never in malls, for that very reason.
I was trying to locate a receiver with a mono-mode
switch on it yesterday, after looking at a receiver at
Best Buy and not seeing any indication that it had one.
There were all kinds of whizbangs on it that are
completely mysterious and even offensive to me, such
as Blue Tooth and 6.1 channel input and Dolby
pro-logic decoder. I don't know what they are and
don't care. Just having to read the words makes me
want to move back to the 18th century, the "Age of
Reason", when life made a bit more sense.
I phoned Best Buy, and after being transferred to a
supervisor, found that there is indeed no mono switch
for the receiver I was looking at (and probably not for
any of their receivers, I'd guess). As I told the person
I was speaking to, a mono switch is really the only
thing I care about, because stations that are
unlistenable in stereo because of all the interference
often come in fine in mono, and who needs stereo
anyway? It seems hard to find a receiver with a mono
switch these days, and god help you if you'd like the
receiver to include a CD player too, especially one
that will play MP3 files.
I did finally pull out the instruction book for the
receiver I have, and look at the antenna connections.
When I'd attached the antennas to that receiver,
which I only hauled out of storage because my other
one (which DID have a mono switch), finally passed
on to the pearly gates, I'd just connected up the
antennas to whatever connections in the back struck
my fancy and seemed to work when I touched the
wires to them. It turns out that I had the connections
wrong for both the FM and AM antennas though.
The AM didn't make any difference, but the classical
music station on FM, which was the reason I'd
wanted a new amplifier with a mono switch, is at
least listenable now that I've hooked up the antenna
correctly. It would sound a lot better still if I could
switch to mono, though, as I could do with my late
and much-lamented old receiver.
Jean Smith
"Evelyn" <evely...@gmail.com> wrote:
So you think it will be easy to go from boondoggle for the insurance industry to
Medicare Part E?
--
http://northalabamahealthcareforall.org http://healthcareforamericanow.org/
http://aarp.convio.net/site/PageNavigator/Myths_vs_Facts http://snopes.com
Check http://politifact.com http://healthcarefactcheck.com/
http://www.healthactionnow.org/?s_src=20090622_US_E_HAN_LaunchAT
Jerry Okamura
something to be proud of? Is creating another program that is not
sustainable something to be proud of?
"Islander" <nos...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:cqWdnWwYzJqC22vX...@rockisland.com...
Jerry Okamura
>
> who voted for the bill.
Obvously you do not care much for freedom and independence.