Ted Kennedy Is Spinning

[BryanS]

...so you work your whole professional life to advance a major goal, health care.

...finally, after 30 years, the political scene changes enough, to give promise.

...you're there for the first part, to vote and voice your compassion for the issue. ... things are looking good.

...then you get diagnosed with a health problem. An aggressive brain tumor.

...then you die.

...then... the other side runs for and wins your former seat - on the promise to BLOCK your life's work.

Can you feel sorry for this man?

Poetic justice? or Tragic irony?

http://www.msnbc.msn...s-capitol_hill/

Brown wins Mass. Senate race in epic upset

GOP victory leaves President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in doubt

[TheNiche]

Can you feel sorry for this man?

Nope. He was just a politician. You reap what you sow.

[RedScare]

Ted Kennedy sowed Republicans?

[TheNiche]

Ted Kennedy sowed Republicans?

Realpolitik.

[Marksmu]

...so you work your whole professional life to advance a major goal, health care.

...finally, after 30 years, the political scene changes enough, to give promise.

...you're there for the first part, to vote and voice your compassion for the issue. ... things are looking good.

...then you get diagnosed with a health problem. An aggressive brain tumor.

...then you die.

...then... the other side runs for and wins your former seat - on the promise to BLOCK your life's work.

Can you feel sorry for this man?

Poetic justice? or Tragic irony?

http://www.msnbc.msn...s-capitol_hill/

Brown wins Mass. Senate race in epic upset

GOP victory leaves President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in doubt

I dont feel sorry for Kennedy. A corrupt politician who murdered Mary Jo kopechne. Never worked a real day in his life, and never contributed anything to this country. The win for republicans last night was more than a senate seat. Whether the democrats want to admit it or not - the victory here symbolizes the average Americans dislike for Obama's policies. The absolute kicker is that even though when asked about policy decisions the majority of Americans dislike what Obama is doing, when asked about Obama himself - the people still seem to like him as a person.

In my short memory - he is the first president able to distance himself and his popularity from the policies of his administration. Though I believe, and the polls show that even the chosen one is losing his popularity with the American public.

The majority of Americans dont want what this administration is selling and last nights vote was the first of many in what is going to be a massive decline in Democrat power. The next election can not come fast enough. Almost every democrat who continues to support this policy is going to lose, so I am thinking there is going to be a massive fallout from this. Time will tell, but this may be a defining moment in Obama's presidency....he now has a choice to make. He can either admit he was wrong and that he is out of touch with Americans and change course, OR, he can continue trying to force changes that the majority of people do not want and destroy the rest of his party as he does it, and then get himself voted out office in 3 more years. I'm actually not sure which course I hope he takes...I would take great pleasure in telling all my liberal friends I told you so...but at the same time I want what is best for this country...the real question is can Obama stomach what needs to be done? I do not think that he can admit he was wrong, and change course. He is that arrogant.

[LTAWACS]

...so you work your whole professional life to advance a major goal, health care.

...finally, after 30 years, the political scene changes enough, to give promise.

...you're there for the first part, to vote and voice your compassion for the issue. ... things are looking good.

...then you get diagnosed with a health problem. An aggressive brain tumor.

...then you die.

...then... the other side runs for and wins your former seat - on the promise to BLOCK your life's work.

Can you feel sorry for this man?

Poetic justice? or Tragic irony?

http://www.msnbc.msn...s-capitol_hill/

Brown wins Mass. Senate race in epic upset

GOP victory leaves President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in doubt

Feel sorry for him? Not at all. He had tonnes of money. Why would I feel sorry for this man? He's done nothing for me. I never knew him... so.... No.

And what does he have to do with anything now that he's dead?

[AtticaFlinch]

Bryan, you're telling me Democrats still can't win healthcare reform with 58 (59 including Kermit) senators out of 100? BS.

Too many needless capitulations to intractable opponents of the cause have forced the bill to be a turd anyhow.

And, if the voters of Massachusetts didn't want to vote for a personality-devoid, Asperger's case who didn't know Schilling from Shinola, instead voting for a former male model with an affable air and a toothy grin, then that speaks nothing of Obama nor his policies. However, it does speak to the lunacy of our political system where we treat life or death decisions with the same amount of respect as the vote for a high school class president.

Don't read into this election too much, Marksmu. I realize Fox News beats the war drum and calls for Obama's scalp every time a democrat loses a race now, but it really isn't a mandate of any kind. These are individual races separate of the presidential race. If the populace is upset with Obama, he'll lose in 2012, not before. Ask yourself if Annise Parker's election as Houston's mayor had anything to do with Obama, or for that matter if the fact that the top 3 positions in the intial race were all Democrats had anything to do with Obama. It's about that relevant. Don't believe the Fox hype. It's all so much bluster to get higher ratings (to command more advertising dollars - that's what it's really all about).

[Highway6]

I realize Fox News beats the war drum and calls for Obama's scalp every time a democrat loses a race now, but it really isn't a mandate of any kind. These are individual races separate of the presidential race. If the populace is upset with Obama, he'll lose in 2012, not before. Ask yourself if Annise Parker's election as Houston's mayor had anything to do with Obama, or for that matter if the fact that the top 3 positions in the intial race were all Democrats had anything to do with Obama. It's about that relevant. Don't believe the Fox hype. It's all so much bluster to get higher ratings (to command more advertising dollars - that's what it's really all about).

Scott Brown ran on a 1 item platform - Stopping Obamacare.

He, unlike Mayor Parker, has the ability to do that... and he was elected to do that.

Stop this FOX denial crap. If someone says something contrary to a liberal's beliefs, it just must be because that person listens only to Fox, right?

It's not just Fox by a long shot.

I haven't tuned into FoxNews or visited their website in years. I get the majority of my news from Cnn.com, Drudge, and RCP.. and 80-90% of the linked articles, including to Boston Globe, SF Chron, NYT, Politico, all agree that this should be a wake-up call for Obama and the Dems that their election was certainly not a mandate to pass every liberal's wet dream policy of the last half century, and that while we may need health-care reform, what currently is being offered as a solution is not what most Americans want.

I'm sorry, but you'd have to be in a coma to not see this election, this result, in this state, with the history of this seat as a wake-up call that Obama and Congress has gone too far left and that the people are mad that the inherited problems are only being made worse.

[LTAWACS]

I'm sorry, but you'd have to be in a coma to not see this election, this result, in this state, with the history of this seat as a wake-up call that Obama and Congress has gone too far left and that the people are mad that the inherited problems are only being made worse.

What is so historic about a seat?

[TheNiche]

Don't read into this election too much, Marksmu. I realize Fox News beats the war drum and calls for Obama's scalp every time a democrat loses a race now, but it really isn't a mandate of any kind.

I wouldn't call it a mandate either, but it certainly should be viewed as a shot across the bow of the Democrat Party. They're going to need to speed up the legislative process now, even if that means further watering down their policy to get the votes they need. And November is going to be quite an effort. It should be painfully clear at this point that the midterm elections are going to suck for them--as is pretty much always the case for a party that has a sitting president--but particularly in this situation since there isn't a charismatic national figurehead on the ticket.

These are individual races separate of the presidential race. If the populace is upset with Obama, he'll lose in 2012, not before. Ask yourself if Annise Parker's election as Houston's mayor had anything to do with Obama, or for that matter if the fact that the top 3 positions in the intial race were all Democrats had anything to do with Obama. It's about that relevant. Don't believe the Fox hype. It's all so much bluster to get higher ratings (to command more advertising dollars - that's what it's really all about).

Separate, yes. Unrelated or irrelevant, no. Obama's ability to fulfill his promises is in large part dependent upon a friendly legislature, and the voting public frankly doesn't understand or doesn't care if there are mitigating circumstances hindering his performance. George H.W. Bush is a case in point; he preached of "no new taxes" but had to compromise with an unfriendly legislature to the effect of that he was viewed as having raised taxes. That probably cost him his reelection.

[AtticaFlinch]

Scott Brown ran on a 1 item platform - Stopping Obamacare.

He, unlike Mayor Parker, has the ability to do that... and he was elected to do that.

Stop this FOX denial crap. If someone says something contrary to a liberal's beliefs, it just must be because that person listens only to Fox, right?

It's not just Fox by a long shot.

I haven't tuned into FoxNews or visited their website in years. I get the majority of my news from Cnn.com, Drudge, and RCP.. and 80-90% of the linked articles, including to Boston Globe, SF Chron, NYT, Politico, all agree that this should be a wake-up call for Obama and the Dems that their election was certainly not a mandate to pass every liberal's wet dream policy of the last half century, and that while we may need health-care reform, what currently is being offered as a solution is not what most Americans want.

I'm sorry, but you'd have to be in a coma to not see this election, this result, in this state, with the history of this seat as a wake-up call that Obama and Congress has gone too far left and that the people are mad that the inherited problems are only being made worse.

Clarify for me then, are all election results from here on out now to define the "will" of the people? Or, just seats with history? What about that congressional seat in upstate New York that went to a Democrat for the first time in decades? Surely, considering the history of the seat, that must mean Obama's mandate had be reaffirmed. B-b-b-b-b-but wait! What about New Jersey's governor election? Man, that says the exact opposite thing that New York's congressional seat said... Damn, I'm getting conflicting stories here... All the news sources (ok, not just Fox) are beating me over the head with just how damned important every single election is, and they're all telling me how every single damned election speaks to my approval of the job the President is doing. Guess what? The intelligent people are the ones inciting these insipid debates, not participating in them. While you and I argue over how this local election is important in national terms, they're sitting back watching the advertising dollars roll in.

Maybe, just maybe (work with me here, as I know this is difficult to grasp), the history of the seat means nothing to the present, except in giving us perspective on that seat as we all know it didn't spring forth out of a vacuum. The Kennedy clan held that seat for half a century. Maybe, just maybe, it was time for a change period. Maybe, just maybe, the Democratic candidate was a loser who lacked the capacity to relate to the people who needed to like her in order to vote for her. Do you really think the average Joe Boston gives two rats @$$es about healthcare? What do you think Joe Boston even knows about the bill? No, Highway6, they voted for the photogenic guy who knew who the hell Kurt Schilling was, because... you know... it's much more important to know how many RBIs Schilling had than to understand the future of their healthcare system. You insult a New Englander's Red Sox and you've committed the equivalent of pistol whipping him after stealing his wallet.

[TheNiche]

Do you really think the average Joe Boston gives two rats @$$es about healthcare? What do you think Joe Boston even knows about the bill?

Do you really think that the average Joe Boston votes in a special election?

[Highway6]

If Obamacare and the state of our economy weren't in the picture, then even a Democratic campaign twice as inept as Coakleys would have beat Brown.

But hey... way to paint a picture of incompetent baseball fans as being the only reason Brown won.

[AtticaFlinch]

Do you really think that the average Joe Boston votes in a special election?

Good point. So... do you think it may be safe to assume this election then speaks more to the Republicans' ability to ignite their base given a viable candidate and the Democrats' inability to do the same with a lackluster candidate?

If Obamacare and the state of our economy weren't in the picture, then even a Democratic campaign twice as inept as Coakleys would have beat Brown.

Maybe, but considering we'll never be granted an opportunity to find that out, perhaps we should dispense with such wild speculation.

But hey... way to paint a picture of incompetent baseball fans as being the only reason Brown won.

Maybe it's just me, but I tend to consider anyone not from Texas especially prone to the pitfalls of vituperative campaign rhetoric. We're just smarter down here, aren't we? Plus, rare is the day, even during the height of most campaign seasons where we may find ourselves with so much political advertising as Massachusetts faced for such a few short months.

Anyhow, 6, one thing you and I may both agree on is that this healthcare bill is a turd. It's a golem that can eventually destroy the Democrats if they don't reign it in and fix it properly. It may be that the Republican won because he was against the healthcare bill. Still, I don't see how a vote against a crappy bill is a vote against Obama, especially if that vote against the crappy bill is also a vote against a crappy candidate.

[LTAWACS]

Do you really think that the average Joe Boston votes in a special election?

Of course not. I am curious to see what the voter turnout percentage was.

[TheNiche]

Good point. So... do you think it may be safe to assume this election then speaks more to the Republicans' ability to ignite their base given a viable candidate and the Democrats' inability to do the same with a lackluster candidate?

It's more than just the candidates' image that was at play. In a special election, POLICY MATTERS. The triumphant candidate successfully articulated his position as opposed to one (1) extremely unpopular set of legislation. People tended to vote for him if they thought that the health care bill went too far, and tended to be indifferent to him if (like you) they thought that the health care bill was rife with pork and insufficiently decisive. Those so motivated felt like they could make a difference and turned out. Those that were indifferent didn't feel like they could make any appreciable difference and didn't turn out in such high numbers.

[Marksmu]

Of course not. I am curious to see what the voter turnout percentage was.

I read this on another site too, but could only find it at this link - link removed because I posted the wrong one!

Voter turnout was higher for this special election than it was for the Presidential election! To deny that it was not because of healthcare - the only debate going on in this country right now and the only issue throughout the campaign - is just putting blinders on. Every news organization, even local news, all said that this was a big wake up call. I do not watch cable news, so I find it hilarious when the left leaning folks turn around and say that everything I am saying is because I watch fox. I dont watch FOX NEWS national...I watch Fox26 Local news, and I read Drudge, and CNN.com. Furthermore Attica ALL of your defenses that this is not a mandate were said earlier by Robert Gibss, MSNBC, and other left leaning organizations. Just because the left leaners say it, does not make it so.

Also to say the average person does not care about the healthcare bill or even know about it, I think(dont know) but THINK thats untrue. I dont know a single person who is not keenly aware of it, and for that matter harboring an opinion about it. I went into our manufacturing facility this morning to talk to a few machinists about it to see where they stood, and these folks are far from rich (average about 31K/yr). Could not find a single person out of about 6 or 7 that I spoke to, who did not know about this bill and have an opinion.

Do you the average Joe Boston voted yesterday? I think that he did. To have more people show up to vote in a special election than a presidential election is a HUGE deal. People watch local news, its a HUGE draw for the stations (See the Leno/Conan issue for numbers), and the local news is reporting health care EVERY SINGLE DAY. The average American knows alot about this bill, and the average American is against it. They hear the specifics, they see the sweetheart deals, and their tax dollars getting spent like its nothing, while they also see their stagnant pay checks, and rising unemployment, and continuing Obama lies....it does not take a genius to realize that the bill will end up raising everyone higher taxes. The health care debate is a well informed debate on all sides. More Americans do not want the bill that Obama is selling and that was clearly reflected in yesterdays vote.

[TheNiche]

I read this on another site too, but could only find it at this link: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/11/massachusetts_s_3.html

Voter turnout was higher for this special election than it was for the Presidential election! To deny that it was not because of healthcare - the only debate going on in this country right now and the only issue throughout the campaign - is just putting blinders on.

The article is dated: November 5, 2008 03:07 PM. Take off your blinders.

[AtticaFlinch]

It's more than just the candidates' image that was at play. In a special election, POLICY MATTERS. The triumphant candidate successfully articulated his position as opposed to one (1) extremely unpopular set of legislation. People tended to vote for him if they thought that the health care bill went too far, and tended to be indifferent to him if (like you) they thought that the health care bill was rife with pork and insufficiently decisive. Those so motivated felt like they could make a difference and turned out. Those that were indifferent didn't feel like they could make any appreciable difference and didn't turn out in such high numbers.

I don't disagree with you. Though in this case still, as you even said previously (below), this isn't a mandate against Obama. It's a mandate against shoddy statesmanship at the legislative level. Perhaps those Massholes are keener than I initially gave them credit for. Perhaps they have the ability to discern the complexity of policy-making decisions and actually vote for a candidate based on issues and not party affiliation. If that's the case, then all I can say is, "Wow, so nice to have a point of view based on logic and reason." Besides, it's not as if they've given a Republican unlimited reign on their behalf. He's only been elected to fill this seat till 2012. If he proves not to be a devisive butthole like Rove and his ilk have presupposed he will be, then he'll probably be reelected for another term. However, if he plays ball for the Republicans on every issue, then he'll be gone with the midnight train in 2012, regardless of Obama's showing then.

Also, it is not without precendent that the people of Massachusetts (Seriously, what are they called? I know them only as Massholes. Massachusettsians?), a decidedly liberal cohort, have elected Republicans. Remember Mitt Romney?

I wouldn't call it a mandate either, but it certainly should be viewed as a shot across the bow of the Democrat Party.

[AtticaFlinch]

The article is dated: November 5, 2008 03:07 PM. Take off your blinders.

First graph:

Massachusetts set a new record for voter turnout Tuesday. More than 3 million residents went to the polls as voters overwhelmingly chose Democrat Barack Obama as the country's next president.

C'mon, Marksmu!

And Marksmu, I'm not sure I can continue to carry on this conversation with you if you consider the Leno/Conan "debate" to be on par with the healthcare debate. As it is though, I'm fairly masochistic, so I guess I'll act on my impulse to ask you a question anyhow. Marksmu, of all those $31k/year people you know who hold opinions about the (two) healthcare bills, what percentage of them do you think can actually give you any specifics about it? In other words, how many of them can describe the nuances of the proposals without once using the word socialism?

I bet not one.

[Marksmu]

The article is dated: November 5, 2008 03:07 PM. Take off your blinders.

My mistake on the link - I read something similar to it on drudge this morning and the link is now gone, so I googled, and didnt check dates. That was my fault. I will find the one I read from Drudges archives.

Also, I was not comparing the Leno/Conan debate to politics, I was saying that the average Joe watches the Local news, and in big numbers. The reason they canned Conan was b/c they had declining audiences for their LOCAL news, which from what I read on the subject was because after Leno, people were changing the channel and not sticking around for Conan and the Local news. The point was that the local news was very important for ratings and advertising because almost everyone watches the local news, and the local news was covering the Health Care Debate every single night.

I think the average Joe does know a little bit about the debate. They hear mostly about the buy offs, and the republicans complaints, but they also hear what the President and Queen Pelosi have to say. I cant tell you how many specifics about the bill the hourly folks know, but I think they know more than you give them credit for. Its easy for me to do a small scale study, Ill just go ask a few. This has been a near impossible topic to be unaware of. It does affect everyone, and I think most employed people have healthcare, and of those that have it most are happy with it.

I have bluecross, as does Every single person who works for us, (its free as a benefit) and I can tell you, aside from some elite doctors not accepting new Bluecross patients, I am very happy with my healthcare. I buy our plan healthcare for the company I work for (appx 700 lives) and its actually quite affordable when bought in large numbers ($248/empl/month). Our employees hear that they will either lose it, or be taxed on it, and they are currently happy, so most are against it, and would show up to vote against it based only on what they see on the local news.

[Fringe]

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=c4aQCiRjvZY 

[brian0123]

I have bluecross, as does Every single person who works for us, (its free as a benefit) and I can tell you, aside from some elite doctors not accepting new Bluecross patients, I am very happy with my healthcare. I buy our plan healthcare for the company I work for (appx 700 lives) and its actually quite affordable when bought in large numbers ($248/empl/month). Our employees hear that they will either lose it, or be taxed on it, and they are currently happy, so most are against it, and would show up to vote against it based only on what they see on the local news.

The problem is not with people like you and me who have so so plans, but it's with the millions of uninsured (and the burden they place on our system), pre-existing conditions, and the rising costs our system will continue to produce on its own. People fail to realize that in all this freaking out... in-action will have far worse consequences.

[TheNiche]

I don't disagree with you. Though in this case still, as you even said previously (below), this isn't a mandate against Obama.

It's not about Obama...yet. But it will be. Obama promised CHANGE in terms of both policy and the level of discourse to a general electorate that doesn't understand concepts of checks and balances. If the labor market can't pull out of the crapper and Obama can't get a congress to work towards the major policy overhauls that he promised, then he's going to have to deal with a base with waning enthusiasm. Add to that that that minority turnout in 2012 probably won't be so impressive as it was when Obama was a 'colorful' novelty in 2008.

I'd speculate that coming up on November, congress (and particularly the House) will lack the political willpower to pass additional stimulus bills or other huge spending bills because they don't want to alienate the fickle populists that swept them into office. Now consider that Republican obstructionism has been remarkably successful to date considering that they've been so completely marginalized. Consider what happens if they take back the House or even get within striking distance. They'll block stimulus and potentially bring about a 1933 scenario, dashing hopes of recovery. Obama will try to deflect criticism in their direction, but without highly visible programs akin to the CCC or TVA to convey an image that he is a man of action, Obama may instead be characterized by his rivals as something more like Jimmy Carter than FDR.

So yes, the strategic outcome of this special election is relevant to national politics and to Obama's political future.

[Marksmu]

The problem is not with people like you and me who have so so plans, but it's with the millions of uninsured (and the burden they place on our system), pre-existing conditions, and the rising costs our system will continue to produce on its own. People fail to realize that in all this freaking out... in-action will have far worse consequences.

I completely understand that. But the answer is not universal care for all, at the expense of those who are not represented by a good lobbyist (or in the alternative be a Senator). There are far better options, and ones that should be tackled a piece at a time over time so we can decipher what actually works. Start by allowing insurance to be sold over state lines, so you have truly competitive plans. Then incrementally make changes as they are needed. If we can save millions or billions by eliminating medicare fraud, by all means do that now. Dont wait another second. But the current plan only helps a few at the expense of the many...it raises taxes for 3 years before it offers a single service to anyone. Its terrible.

These stats are off the top of my head, but if I recall there are 43 million Americans without health insurance and 176 million with it, most with it are happy with their plans That means that 15% of the people getting insurance at a cost to all while the services offered are not going to change overnight. There will be shortages, and people who were happy with their care we will be unhappy. We are helping the minority at the expense of the majority. Its more of the drag the top down, so were all equal, instead of lifting the bottom up.

There is no magic answer that everyone will like, but it absolutely should not be crammed down everyone's throats take it or leave it.

[AtticaFlinch]

My mistake on the link - I read something similar to it on drudge this morning and the link is now gone, so I googled, and didnt check dates. That was my fault. I will find the one I read from Drudges archives.

Honest mistake. Still though, the presidential election drew 3 million voters in a state with a total population of seven million. Considering a full 1/4 of that population is under 18 and unable to vote, that would mean at least 60% of all possible eligible voters would have had to come out and vote. That's not impossible, though it's very, very unlikely. And, it would seem to fly in the face of Niche's contention that people indifferent to the bill wouldn't turn out in high numbers - or it would suggest that there are zero segments of society that holds no opinion, or no strong opinion, about the healthcare bill. I just don't buy that. For every one person who has a valid opinion about healthcare reform, there are ten who don't care at all.

Also, I was not comparing the Leno/Conan debate to politics, I was saying that the average Joe watches the Local news, and in big numbers. The reason they canned Conan was b/c they had declining audiences for their LOCAL news, which from what I read on the subject was because after Leno, people were changing the channel and not sticking around for Conan and the Local news. The point was that the local news was very important for ratings and advertising because almost everyone watches the local news, and the local news was covering the Health Care Debate every single night.

What was the point of that point? I don't follow.

I think the average Joe does know a little bit about the debate. They hear mostly about the buy offs, and the republicans complaints, but they also hear what the President and Queen Pelosi have to say. I cant tell you how many specifics about the bill the hourly folks know, but I think they know more than you give them credit for. Its easy for me to do a small scale study, Ill just go ask a few. This has been a near impossible topic to be unaware of. It does affect everyone, and I think most employed people have healthcare, and of those that have it most are happy with it.

Most, not all. And what about those folks who've lost their jobs due to the weakening of the economy? We don't all have a guaranteed job working for our parents, so some of the benefits you take for granted aren't extended to the population at large. But, this isn't a debate about the necessity of healthcare reform, now is it? In fact, I don't deny that the outcome of this debate may have been affected by the actual health bill debate. My point is that this isn't a reflection of the common wisdom regarding the efficacy of the Obama presidency. You're so quick to jump on the Republican victory as if it's the sounding of the deathknell to Obama's whitehouse. You're jumping the gun, Mother Superior. You're contriving causations that don't exist. That's all I'm saying.

I have bluecross, as does Every single person who works for us, (its free as a benefit) and I can tell you, aside from some elite doctors not accepting new Bluecross patients, I am very happy with my healthcare. I buy our plan healthcare for the company I work for (appx 700 lives) and its actually quite affordable when bought in large numbers ($248/empl/month). Our employees hear that they will either lose it, or be taxed on it, and they are currently happy, so most are against it, and would show up to vote against it based only on what they see on the local news.

Good for you and good for them, and excellent job (per your examples of what the bills entail) of showing that you yourself don't understand the bills. To clarify for you, and perhaps you can go out and make a big announcement to all your dad's employees, you will neither lose nor be taxed on your private healthcare. In fact, the bills bolster private healthcare companies. It makes them stronger. Really, if you aren't picking this up from Fox, where are you getting this from?

[AtticaFlinch]

These stats are off the top of my head, but if I recall there are 43 million Americans, of those 43 million, 30 million are insured and happy with their plans. That leaves 13 million people getting insurance at a cost to all 43 million, while the services offered are not going to change overnight. There will be shortages, and people who were happy with their care we will be unhappy. We are helping the minority at the expense of the majority. Its more of the drag the top down, so were all equal, instead of lifting the bottom up.

Wow, I hope that contains typos.

I agree the current bills suck. They're all about further enriching the insurance cabal's coffers at the expense of the government and the poor. It's horrifically unfair and amounts to little more than the fed subsidizing insurance companies. I think it's intentionally designed for failure, either now or in the future when the public realizes what a load of garbage the Democrats foisted on an ignorant public in the hopes they could pretend to do something positive for "change" while simultaneously appeasing Republicans.

There is no magic answer that everyone will like, but it absolutely should not be crammed down everyone's throats take it or leave it.

Why not? For every positive advancement made in the past, there has always been a segment of society who had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future. Yours is that segment now. Look Marksmu, you may enjoy the conservative resurgence the Republicans are currently enjoying, but in another 20 or so years, when the last of the greatest generation and the first of the baby boomers have died off, the playing field will further equalize towards a true middle ground.

[Marksmu]

Honest mistake. Still though, the presidential election drew 3 million voters in a state with a total population of seven million. Considering a full 1/4 of that population is under 18 and unable to vote, that would mean at least 60% of all possible eligible voters would have had to come out and vote. That's not impossible, though it's very, very unlikely. And, it would seem to fly in the face of Niche's contention that people indifferent to the bill wouldn't turn out in high numbers - or it would suggest that there are zero segments of society that holds no opinion, or no strong opinion, about the healthcare bill. I just don't buy that. For every one person who has a valid opinion about healthcare reform, there are ten who don't care at all.

I think the number is closer to 5, and of those 5 people who dont know or care....the majority are either not registered to vote, or were registered by acorn, and I would venture to guess 4 out of those 5 vote Democrat.

What was the point of that point? I don't follow.

The point is that most people do watch the nightly news, and the nightly news has been reporting on the Health Care bill. That is where the majority of Americans are getting their information. From LOCAL nightly news organizations. Channel 11, Channel 13, Fox 26, etc....not CNN, not FOX NEWS, not MSNBC. The point was that a person would have to have their hear so far up their rear end to not know a little about the current health care bill.

Most, not all. And what about those folks who've lost their jobs due to the weakening of the economy? We don't all have a guaranteed job working for our parents, so some of the benefits you take for granted aren't extended to the population at large. But, this isn't a debate about the necessity of healthcare reform, now is it? In fact, I don't deny that the outcome of this debate may have been affected by the actual health bill debate. My point is that this isn't a reflection of the common wisdom regarding the efficacy of the Obama presidency. You're so quick to jump on the Republican victory as if it's the sounding of the deathknell to Obama's whitehouse. You're jumping the gun, Mother Superior. You're contriving causations that don't exist. That's all I'm saying.

If you had a healthcare plan and lost your job, you qualify for Cobra for 18 months....not just any Cobra, but government subsidized Cobra. The good ole US of A will pay 60% of your health care costs for 18 months. If you cant find a job your willing to do in 18 months, there is a problem with what you think your worthy of. Some people have been forced to take jobs that are less than what they think they are worth, but there are jobs available if your willing to work for them. Just now, you have to be more qualified, have more experience, and appear more healthy to an employer. Many employers now refuse to hire smokers.

Good for you and good for them, and excellent job (per your examples of what the bills entail) of showing that you yourself don't understand the bills. To clarify for you, and perhaps you can go out and make a big announcement to all your dad's employees, you will neither lose nor be taxed on your private healthcare. In fact, the bills bolster private healthcare companies. It makes them stronger. Really, if you aren't picking this up from Fox, where are you getting this from?

The bill DID tax what they call Cadillac health care plans. Unions exempted themselves from it, we are not so lucky. What we offer, and what many companies offer fell under the definition of a Cadillac health care plan b/c the government got to value the plan, and determine whether the benefit exceeded what they would consider $8,000 worth of benefit.

I get my news from Local News, and Independent news sources, many of them linked off Drudge, and then of course from Googles news page, and CNN.

And it is common sense, that you can not add millions of covered individuals, and NOT have a shortage of doctors or other items. Its just not possible the law of supply and demand is there to be seen....the system can handle small fluctuations, it cannot handle a 1/3 increase at the flip of a switch. We dont have the doctors available for that kind of increase.

[TheNiche]

Why not? For every positive advancement made in the past, there has always been a segment of society who had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.

He wouldn't say that if the roles were reversed.

Look Marksmu, you may enjoy the conservative resurgence the Republicans are currently enjoying, but in another 20 or so years, when the last of the greatest generation and the first of the baby boomers have died off, the playing field will further equalize towards a true middle ground.

Nah, the definition of what is middle ground may change but polarized 'us versus them' politics will still reign supreme.

[kylejack]

I read this on another site too, but could only find it at this link: http://www.boston.co...usetts_s_3.html

Voter turnout was higher for this special election than it was for the Presidential election!

My mistake on the link - I read something similar to it on drudge this morning and the link is now gone, so I googled, and didnt check dates. That was my fault. I will find the one I read from Drudges archives.

Nah, I doubt you read anything like that since its not true. 3,048,438 voted in the Presidential election and 2,249,026 voted in this election.