Lucky... 0 #26 January 23, 2010 QuoteIt would be much better to throw away the Senate version, and vote for House version. The Senate wouldn't pass it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #27 January 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteIt would be much better to throw away the Senate version, and vote for House version. Best to throw out BOTH pieces of crap and start over. Right, and pretend that Poor Joe Blow who can't afford HC in his state, allowing him to shop all states, if even 10% cheaper would be affordable. Your plan is another way of saying, "fuck those w/o HC." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #28 January 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteAnd once you start over, you'll end up pretty much with House version. Nope. Maybe you're not paying attention, but the last three big elections held in the past three months are indicators that folks aren't interested in Congressional solutions to health care. There are two very large pink elephants in the room, one is named "Economy" and the other is named "War". Glad you're keeping up with current events. Even if they did start over again, there's no way a "House" version would pass the Senate, and there are about 40 democrats in the House that weren't interested in the Senate version. Even under Clinton when he tried to urge congress to write HC reform, there was no war and the economy was recovering from a much more mild recession they gave him nothing. It's in the American fabric to say fuck others, that is what drives the HC mess, that's what drives us spending 8 times that of #2 on the military and ignoring important things. This has nothing to do with any one election in any year, hell, even if teh Dems had 60 represenatives in the senate as they did in the 60's, think they had 67, all they could get thru was Medicare, not HC for the masses. Listen: this is in the fabric of this toilet nation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #29 January 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteIt would be much better to throw away the Senate version, and vote for House version. Politically, it simply won't happen. For all intents and purposes, when the Senate cobbled together its version, thanks to Leiberman being the swing vote to axe the public option, the Senate was effectively rejecting the House version. The Senate's not about to go back on that; and plenty of members of the House are damned if they'll vote for a bill that guts the core principles of their version. Neither chamber will accept the other's bill, or is there any chance the two bills can be reconciled in a conference committee. End of story. 100% exactly. It's not that the House is disinterested in true reform, they just don't want garbage reform so they will reject the garbage the senate handed back. RWers think teh House is tired of the issue, fact is they don't want pseudo-reform. I agree, I hope they kill it, otherwise this will be considered successful reform for the next 50 years when in fact the senate version is a boost for American fascist corporations with the insuran ce mandate. No way in hell a mandate can be passed w/o a public option. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #30 January 23, 2010 QuoteIts just like when Hillary tried to fix health care.. a lot of hearings ad nausaum and in the end nada, zip butkus.. Right, and that was with a Dem congress. It's in teh fabric of the toilet we call the USA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #31 January 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote The Senate's not about to go back on that; Let's see what happens once ten or so more senators are voted out of office. There are always a few senators voted out of office. I doubt the number will be as high as 10 in 2010. But traditionally, Congressional elections don't go very well for a President's party in the sophomore year of his administration. If that holds true in 2010 - and my spidey sense tells me that may happen - then the net gain in the Senate will probably be Republican - and that means the Senate will not liberalize its health care bill after the elections. That would only be able to happen if the net electoral gain in the Senate is overwhelmingly Democratic; and I just don't think that's very likely. Agreed, but wouldn't that throw the R's on their ass if the Dems gained 3 or 4 seats and could fasttrack HC thru? Not counting on it, I think teh Dems lose a net 2 to 3 seats. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #32 January 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote The Senate's not about to go back on that; Let's see what happens once ten or so more senators are voted out of office. There are always a few senators voted out of office. I doubt the number will be as high as 10 in 2010. But traditionally, Congressional elections don't go very well for a President's party in the sophomore year of his administration. If that holds true in 2010 - and my spidey sense tells me that may happen - then the net gain in the Senate will probably be Republican - and that means the Senate will not liberalize its health care bill after the elections. That would only be able to happen if the net electoral gain in the Senate is overwhelmingly Democratic; and I just don't think that's very likely. Agreed but, the depth of the change will hinge more on the economy than HC I think Economy turns around, the damage to the Dem majority will be minimal. If it does not, well, it will look like Mass on a national scale If you dream that the R's will gain control of the senate, pass that joint this way. The biggest problem for the dems is that the Great Republican recession didn't happen 1 year earlier and things went to teh gutter sooner, lasted longer and went waaaay deeper. Obama jumped in with his stimulus and saved the day, so he took blame for spending rather than credit for saving. Either way, there are still idiots out there who think FDR trippled taxes and that he didn't do an amazing job saving the country. Of course there are also Holocaust deniers too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #33 January 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote So, you are saying Senators will get voted out of office for voting against the HC bill? No, for making their crappy version of the HC bill. Dude, they're going to get voted out of office for not tackling the obstacles in the economy and wasting a year on this bill to begin with. The market has turned around, the GDP is waaaay + and unemp is bottomed in 1 year; how long did fascist Ronnie take to flip the mess? 3-4 years? Hell, even Clinton spent his whole 1st term fixing fascist Ronny's mess. Obama laid too much hope out there which led to dreams of a 2-week fix. The reality is that Obama and his stimulus has done wonders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #34 January 23, 2010 QuoteI'd be more pissed off paying for "green energy", which I do not believe in. Wind, solar and other energies do exist, are you saying you don't agree with the expansion of these? Petro energy has to go or be limited. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #35 January 23, 2010 Quote Quote Quote It would be much better to throw away the Senate version, and vote for House version. Best to throw out BOTH pieces of crap and start over. Right, and pretend that Poor Joe Blow who can't afford HC in his state, allowing him to shop all states, if even 10% cheaper would be affordable. Your plan is another way of saying, "fuck those w/o HC." You have used this more than once Funny shit"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #36 January 23, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote It would be much better to throw away the Senate version, and vote for House version. Best to throw out BOTH pieces of crap and start over. Right, and pretend that Poor Joe Blow who can't afford HC in his state, allowing him to shop all states, if even 10% cheaper would be affordable. Your plan is another way of saying, "fuck those w/o HC." You have used this more than once Funny shit OK, so it isn't still true? Your response shows your inability to respond. Here, try again, this time, address the merits. Right, and pretend that Poor Joe Blow who can't afford HC in his state, allowing him to shop all states, if even 10% cheaper would be affordable. Your plan is another way of saying, "fuck those w/o HC." If Joe Blow can't afford HC in his state, will dropping state lines and possibly, maybe saving him 10% make it possible to now afford it? Why don't the connies just drop the BS and say how they feel: THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THISE W/O HC INSURANCE, EVEN IF IT'S THEMSELVES. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #37 January 23, 2010 Sig lines aren't supposed to be advertising or political check the rules ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 January 23, 2010 Tell me again about that 'mandatory INSURANCE' healthcare bill, Lucky, since you're going on about the evils of corporatism.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #39 January 23, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote It would be much better to throw away the Senate version, and vote for House version. Best to throw out BOTH pieces of crap and start over. Right, and pretend that Poor Joe Blow who can't afford HC in his state, allowing him to shop all states, if even 10% cheaper would be affordable. Your plan is another way of saying, "fuck those w/o HC." You have used this more than once Funny shit OK, so it isn't still true? Your response shows your inability to respond. Here, try again, this time, address the merits. Right, and pretend that Poor Joe Blow who can't afford HC in his state, allowing him to shop all states, if even 10% cheaper would be affordable. Your plan is another way of saying, "fuck those w/o HC." If Joe Blow can't afford HC in his state, will dropping state lines and possibly, maybe saving him 10% make it possible to now afford it? Why don't the connies just drop the BS and say how they feel: THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THISE W/O HC INSURANCE, EVEN IF IT'S THEMSELVES. Dude, it aint worth responding too. I thought you might get that by now"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 January 23, 2010 QuoteSig lines aren't supposed to be advertising or political check the rules It is, if he confines all his posts to SC.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #41 January 23, 2010 Quote Petro energy has to go or be limited. I like nuclear.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #42 January 23, 2010 QuoteQuote Petro energy has to go or be limited. I like nuclear. Too many "NIMBY"s.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #43 January 24, 2010 Quote Sig lines aren't supposed to be advertising or political check the rules I did http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=142088 - thx for being pro tem pseudo moderator Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #44 January 24, 2010 QuoteTell me again about that 'mandatory INSURANCE' healthcare bill, Lucky, since you're going on about the evils of corporatism. Yea, the House' bill was with a public option and mandatory ins, which is ok if they are both present. But the senate, thx to just a couple of the 60 dropped the public option and held the mandation. Yep, all 60 weren't great, only took 1 to undo virtually all of the other 59. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #45 January 24, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote It would be much better to throw away the Senate version, and vote for House version. Best to throw out BOTH pieces of crap and start over. Right, and pretend that Poor Joe Blow who can't afford HC in his state, allowing him to shop all states, if even 10% cheaper would be affordable. Your plan is another way of saying, "fuck those w/o HC." You have used this more than once Funny shit OK, so it isn't still true? Your response shows your inability to respond. Here, try again, this time, address the merits. Right, and pretend that Poor Joe Blow who can't afford HC in his state, allowing him to shop all states, if even 10% cheaper would be affordable. Your plan is another way of saying, "fuck those w/o HC." If Joe Blow can't afford HC in his state, will dropping state lines and possibly, maybe saving him 10% make it possible to now afford it? Why don't the connies just drop the BS and say how they feel: THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THISE W/O HC INSURANCE, EVEN IF IT'S THEMSELVES. Dude, it aint worth responding too. I thought you might get that by now This is called a nom-response. Do you ever look in the mirror and say, "I just can't refute that, therefore I have a postion that is unsupportable?" Of course not, but when you reply with a non-response everyone else gets it. Go back and respond if you can. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #46 January 24, 2010 QuoteQuote Petro energy has to go or be limited. I like nuclear. I do too, but why be linnear rather than diversify? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #47 January 24, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote It would be much better to throw away the Senate version, and vote for House version. Best to throw out BOTH pieces of crap and start over. Right, and pretend that Poor Joe Blow who can't afford HC in his state, allowing him to shop all states, if even 10% cheaper would be affordable. Your plan is another way of saying, "fuck those w/o HC." You have used this more than once Funny shit OK, so it isn't still true? Your response shows your inability to respond. Here, try again, this time, address the merits. Right, and pretend that Poor Joe Blow who can't afford HC in his state, allowing him to shop all states, if even 10% cheaper would be affordable. Your plan is another way of saying, "fuck those w/o HC." If Joe Blow can't afford HC in his state, will dropping state lines and possibly, maybe saving him 10% make it possible to now afford it? Why don't the connies just drop the BS and say how they feel: THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THISE W/O HC INSURANCE, EVEN IF IT'S THEMSELVES. Dude, it aint worth responding too. I thought you might get that by now This is called a nom-response. Do you ever look in the mirror and say, "I just can't refute that, therefore I have a postion that is unsupportable?" Of course not, but when you reply with a non-response everyone else gets it. Go back and respond if you can. As I said but will modify Your post is so absurd there is no reason to respond"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #48 January 24, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote It would be much better to throw away the Senate version, and vote for House version. Best to throw out BOTH pieces of crap and start over. Right, and pretend that Poor Joe Blow who can't afford HC in his state, allowing him to shop all states, if even 10% cheaper would be affordable. Your plan is another way of saying, "fuck those w/o HC." You have used this more than once Funny shit OK, so it isn't still true? Your response shows your inability to respond. Here, try again, this time, address the merits. Right, and pretend that Poor Joe Blow who can't afford HC in his state, allowing him to shop all states, if even 10% cheaper would be affordable. Your plan is another way of saying, "fuck those w/o HC." If Joe Blow can't afford HC in his state, will dropping state lines and possibly, maybe saving him 10% make it possible to now afford it? Why don't the connies just drop the BS and say how they feel: THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THISE W/O HC INSURANCE, EVEN IF IT'S THEMSELVES. Dude, it aint worth responding too. I thought you might get that by now This is called a nom-response. Do you ever look in the mirror and say, "I just can't refute that, therefore I have a postion that is unsupportable?" Of course not, but when you reply with a non-response everyone else gets it. Go back and respond if you can. As I said but will modify Your post is so absurd there is no reason to respond As I said, you are unable to defend your position; we get it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #49 January 24, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ8mlC3mWW4"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #50 January 24, 2010 Quotehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ8mlC3mWW4 Still didn't address the issue, you've posted that tired one many times. Here's a new one for laughs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTyEQdO25Us Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
