Healthcare reform

[lostfan]

I'm not sure if I've said this in this 3000+ post thread yet but people who keep saying "the vast majority of Americans do not want this bill" are either full of s*** or are taking cues from the anti-bill crowd (i.e. any Fox News talking head, Michelle Malkin, those kind of people) who basically make up data. I've been watching polls on it since the argument first started last winter - so in reality it's split almost right down the middle, roughly along party lines, usually something like 46% against 43% in favor, the remaining 11% undecided. The "in favor" numbers were in the 50s until a few months ago when the public option died, and a lot of liberals got disappointed or pissed off because the bill is too weak.

 

Polling data really doesn't matter anyway, when a party has a priority as clear as this one, and they get elected with big majorities like the Democrats have right now, they're going to try to pass it... I don't really have much sympathy for a politician who votes a certain way only because he/she is trying to get re-elected and I don't really think that many other people do either.

Edited March 21, 2010 by lostfan

[Rex Kickass]

Prediction:

 

It's going to be hard to view Health Care Reform act as a negative in six months. A lot of small benefits will have taken place immediately, anything viewed as a negative won't have taken place yet, and it'll all be about the economy in November, not health care.

 

And that's probably going to be better for the Democrats than most people realize right now.

[lostfan]

Well even right now, November looks so bad for the Democrats right now is because of the economy, not because of healthcare, like conservatives like to think right now. People's opinions on healthcare haven't really changed that much except for maybe some conservatives that were open to the idea a year ago aren't anymore and some liberals that wanted more don't like that the bill doesn't have a public option.

Edited March 21, 2010 by lostfan

[StrangeSox]

Polling data really doesn't matter anyway, when a party has a priority as clear as this one, and they get elected with big majorities like the Democrats have right now, they're going to try to pass it... I don't really have much sympathy for a politician who votes a certain way only because he/she is trying to get re-elected and I don't really think that many other people do either.

 

Exactly. How often do politicians get derided for "poll-watching"?

[kapkomet]

I'm not sure if I've said this in this 3000+ post thread yet but people who keep saying "the vast majority of Americans do not want this bill" are either full of s*** or are taking cues from the anti-bill crowd (i.e. any Fox News talking head, Michelle Malkin, those kind of people) who basically make up data. I've been watching polls on it since the argument first started last winter - so in reality it's split almost right down the middle, roughly along party lines, usually something like 46% against 43% in favor, the remaining 11% undecided. The "in favor" numbers were in the 50s until a few months ago when the public option died, and a lot of liberals got disappointed or pissed off because the bill is too weak.

 

Polling data really doesn't matter anyway, when a party has a priority as clear as this one, and they get elected with big majorities like the Democrats have right now, they're going to try to pass it... I don't really have much sympathy for a politician who votes a certain way only because he/she is trying to get re-elected and I don't really think that many other people do either.

 

Why don't you just say me, lf? And your whole post is bulls***.

[kapkomet]

Just for the point, not that it matters much, but they are still using reconciliation to pass this. Just for lost, the majority of people in this country still don't want this bill. So they use reconciliation to pass it, which at least is not unconstitutional. It's slimey because it's being used for something that is 20% of the American economy, but it's just as slimey as they other side so the side in power gets what they want.

[StrangeSox]

Kap, are you still conflating opposition to this specific bill to support for conservative opposition to the bill?

[lostfan]

Why don't you just say me, lf? And your whole post is bulls***.

I would have if I was calling you out directly and I've done that before, but why would I do that here? I'm talking about the hundreds of times I've seen that in the past year, not only from you. I mean, you happen to be basically parroting everything I read on conservative boards (when I have the patience to go there), but you want me to specify when I'm talking directly to you and when I'm not? I don't understand, but generally if I don't quote you I start with "kap..."

Edited March 21, 2010 by lostfan

[lostfan]

Kap, are you still conflating opposition to this specific bill to support for conservative opposition to the bill?

Yeah, really not the same thing at all.. what is funny to me is that the current bill is essentially the Republican plan until a couple of years ago until they got unpopular and made new priorities.

[KipWellsFan]

Just for the point, not that it matters much, but they are still using reconciliation to pass this. Just for lost, the majority of people in this country still don't want this bill. So they use reconciliation to pass it, which at least is not unconstitutional. It's slimey because it's being used for something that is 20% of the American economy, but it's just as slimey as they other side so the side in power gets what they want.

 

Yah, and if the Americans are really upset they can elect some other people at the end of the year. Simple.

[Rex Kickass]

Well even right now, November looks so bad for the Democrats right now is because of the economy, not because of healthcare, like conservatives like to think right now. People's opinions on healthcare haven't really changed that much except for maybe some conservatives that were open to the idea a year ago aren't anymore and some liberals that wanted more don't like that the bill doesn't have a public option.

 

It's not as bad as people think. It really isn't. I have a really hard time seeing how the Dems keep less than 54 seats in the Senate at the end of this year, and more than 20 seats in the House.

 

It may seem like a tidal wave, but thats not really any seismic shift. A 54 seat majority can do about the same in the Senate as a 59 seat majority.

[Texsox]

The American voter will always shift mid term.

[mr_genius]

what time is the vote?

[lostfan]

what time is the vote?

They meet at 1 and I think start voting about 2. There's 3 votes

[mr_genius]

They meet at 1 and I think start voting about 2. There's 3 votes

 

why 3 votes?

[lostfan]

why 3 votes?

Vote on the rule to proceed

Vote for the December Senate bill

Vote for changes/fixes to Senate bill

 

Then it goes back to the Senate to go through reconciliation

[NorthSideSox72]

Just for the point, not that it matters much, but they are still using reconciliation to pass this. Just for lost, the majority of people in this country still don't want this bill. So they use reconciliation to pass it, which at least is not unconstitutional. It's slimey because it's being used for something that is 20% of the American economy, but it's just as slimey as they other side so the side in power gets what they want.

You keep saying this... and still can't prove it. All the polls I've seen show something like 50/50 or slightly in favor. You seem to have some magic source of information that no one else here does. Care to share?

 

[StrangeSox]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ot..._plan-1130.html

 

Fox's poll seems like a strong outlier, pulling the average to +9.2 Oppose, but I don't see a single poll that shows a majority in favor of it.

 

But, more to the point, it doesn't matter. We don't run a true democracy where policy decisions are made by majority votes of citizens. We elect representatives who then vote and it may not always be exactly how the public currently views a particular bill.

 

I still find the repeated cries of "RAMMING IT DOWN OUR THROATS!" funny, though. It's about 14 months into his Presidency/ Dem strong majority, and about 12 months have been largely focused on HCR, but that's still somehow rushing through the issue.

[Cknolls]

Is BO going to implement an Executive Order on Abortion?..........If so, why? if there is no funding for abortion in the Senate Bill?...........

[lostfan]

Is BO going to implement an Executive Order on Abortion?..........If so, why? if there is no funding for abortion in the Senate Bill?...........

I really don't know why this would be necessary either. That's been settled law for decades and I haven't seen any current legislation that's going to change it.

[Balta1701]

I really don't know why this would be necessary either. That's been settled law for decades and I haven't seen any current legislation that's going to change it.

Because this is a real chance to make having private insurance pay for abortion illegal as well.

[Balta1701]

what time is the vote?

Here was the schedule as of last night (Things could always change I guess)

2 p.m.: The House will debate for one hour the rules of debate for the reconciliation bill and the Senate bill.

 

3 p.m.: The House will vote to end debate and vote on the rules of the debate.

 

3:15 p.m.: The House will debate the reconciliation package for two hours.

 

5:15 p.m.: The House will vote on the reconciliation package.

 

5:30 p.m.: The House will debate for 15 minutes on a Republican substitute and then vote on the substitute.

 

6 p.m.: The House will vote on the final reconciliation package.

 

6:15 p.m.: If the reconciliation bill passes, the House will immediately vote on the Senate bill, without debate.

 

Edit: Possible revised timeline:

The first vote could come between 5 and 6 p.m., the next vote a little after 8, and the last one around 9.

 

Again, that's all very rough and subject to change.

[Balta1701]

Speaker Pelosi brought in the same gavel used in 1965 to pass Medicare.

[Rex Kickass]

I really don't know why this would be necessary either. That's been settled law for decades and I haven't seen any current legislation that's going to change it.

 

To get Stupak and the four or five votes he has left in his bloc to flip to Yes, Obama promised an Executive Order that affirmed that federal funding for abortions in this act will not be possible due to the Hyde amendment. Stupak got nothing other than the President saying this won't change settled law on federally funded abortions.

[Balta1701]

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum on CNN:

Those of us who said there was a deal to be done, that there are a lot of parts of this bill that look familiar, that look like Mitt Romney’s plan, that look like plans Republicans proposed in 1993 and 1994, they look like things that were drafted at the Heritage foundation in 1990 and 1991, we can work with this, there are things we don’t like, [but] President Obama will pay a lot maybe for 20 or 30 Republican votes, let’s deal — that was shut down, we went the radical way, looking for Waterloo, and it looks like we arrived at Waterloo.

 

...Some of the Republican leadership like Jim DeMint, I think did play a very hard-line role. Some of our leaders were trapped. They were trapped by voices in the media that revved the Republican base into a frenzy that made dealing impossible. I mean, you can’t negotiate with Adolf Hitler, and if the President is Adolf Hitler, then obviously you can’t negotiate with him. So some of the blame has has got to go to those who said, who got the psychology of the party to a point where a lot of good people, reasonable people were trapped.

 

...We are encouraging a mood of radicalism in the party that is not just uncivil, that’s not the problem, the problem is it makes you stupid. It makes you make bad decisions, it leads you to think that President Obama with 53% of the vote is as beatable in 2009 as President Clinton with 42% of the vote in 1993, and that’s obviously not true.