-
Your Blogger
Chris Mooney is host of the Point of Inquiry podcast and the author of three books, The Republican War on Science, Storm World, and Unscientific America. He was recently seen on MSNBC's "The Last Word" discussing "The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science," and recently wrote for The American Prospect magazine about how the reality-based community is moving to the left.
For more info see Chris's bio and events. You can friend Chris on Facebook, and follow him on Twitter. You can also stream Point of Inquiry, or subscribe via iTunes.
RSS feed for The IntersectionMy Books
Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.
Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us
March 21st, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Nancy Pelosi gets the job done.
March 21st, 2010 at 10:12 pm
WOOOHOOO, HISTORY HAS BEEN MADE!!!!
i want a t-shirt that says, march 21 2010, the day the change we were promised was made
March 21st, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Shouldn’t celebrate yet. Still have to work out issues in the Senate. IMHO the Democrats have just committed suicide.
March 21st, 2010 at 10:48 pm
WOO!!
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:00 am
All those who supported this will deserve the health care they end up getting. Unfortunately, I and my offspring & their offspring, as well, will end up getting the health care you deserve, too.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:22 am
I know by tomorrow there will be all sorts of reasons to feel unsatisfied about all the concessions that tainted the dream of a single payer plan but until then, I’m celebrating the fact that we got this far.
And Tom, even shitty health care is better than no health care for the countless number of people who either have no protection at all or do but don’t get the benefits because they have a “pre-existing condition.”
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:39 am
The principle of unintended consequences will surely be put to good use as this bill is implemented.
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:54 am
Skepcabra: “Countless” amounts to roughly 10% of the legal population of the US. A substantial proportion of those are young, healthy, and have chosen to spend their money on something other than medical insurance. The 10 % will get some benefit. The collateral damage will consist of the health care of the other 90%, as well as the financial stability of the US. If our rulers work the situation skillfully, they may be able to push the debt off on our children and grand children. Sucks to be them but, hey . . . .apres nous le deluge!
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:31 am
IMHO the Democrats have just committed suicide.
That’s because you don’t agree with the policy, but this is what Democrats ran on in 2008. They delivered on a campaign promise in the face of fierce opposition. Parties are given majorities in order to accomplish their agenda and, hopefully, make life better for people. Those majorities are always temporary, but in the end you have to look back and ask “What did they accomplish?”.
What did the Republicans accomplish with their majorities, during Bush’s term?
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:07 am
@TomInAlaska #8:
<“Countless” amounts to roughly 10% of the legal population of the US. A substantial proportion of those are young, healthy, and have chosen to spend their money on something other than medical insurance.>
Last night I heard the following conversation between the C-SPAN host and a caller, a 20-year-old male who was opposed to the bill:
C-SPAN: “Do you currently have health insurance?”
Caller: “No, I don’t.”
C-SPAN: “Why is that?”
Caller: “Well, I consider myself fairly healthy.”
Unfortunately, he hasn’t considered what is going to happen to him under our current system when one day he discovers that he’s not quite as healthy as thought. Or that the rest of us are going to have to pay for his health care when he can’t get any insurance.
Oh, to be young, selfish, & stupid.
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:52 am
Well, I opposed this, but I am a “little d” democrat, and I can only hope I was wrong. I don’t usually like to write cliches, but “time will tell.”
BTW, they covered the “young and healthy” not wanting coverage by tacking them on to their parents coverage. So now my employer has to pay for my children’s health care ’til they are 27. But I am sure this won’t raise costs in any way
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:56 am
The 16000 new jobs at the IRS will also prove a boon to the economy.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:15 am
The bill is not perfect but it’s a major, unprecedented development. My prediction is that it will make life easier for 32 million Americans and actually make them feel like waking up and going to work every morning. In my opinion it will again motivate the average American who was distracted by being worried to death about his or her insurance to actually set aside his or her worries and contribute to the well-being of this country.
I don’t know what effect it will have on the Congressional elections this year, but if it works as intended, it will lead to a generally happier and more motivated nation and will guarantee Obama’s election in 2012 (provided of course that there are no other hiccups related to other issues in the next two years). This was always a make-or-break issue for Obama. IMHO it will make his Presidency.
Of course it sucks that the number of Republicans voting for the bill were zero, zilch, nada. But so it goes in our times.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:28 am
I think this shows that the Democrats can get the job done even the face of fervent opposition. They put up with months of tea party loons shouting at them, every Republican opposing them and even some fellow democrats saying “no.” It is land mark reform that removes all doubt as to what this administration and congress can accomplish if it is persistent enough.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:41 am
I can’t believe you americans still resist. tisk tisk.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:54 am
If a desire to keep my money makes me selfish, then I guess the people who accept it are far worse.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:11 am
We’ll see how good this bill is in the coming years. The bill is a product of a lot of compromises and will probably need fixes. But clearly the status quo was unacceptable.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:12 am
Oops, one more time… the status quo was unacceptable.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:35 am
We do the best we can, considering that we live in a “one party democracy” where one party tries to solve problems while the other denies they exist (or at least drastically minimizes them).
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:47 am
@Guy #14
<I think this shows that the Democrats can get the job done even the face of fervent opposition. >
And here’s something else it appears to show: Republicans care about nothing other than getting re-elected. Out of 212 Republicans, not one, not a single one, thought that providing health insurance for everyone is not such a bad idea? Really? Not even one? It’s ludicrous.
Many Democrats, in contrast, showed guts. Some, knowing that they will surely pay the price in November, voted for the bill anyway. Others stood up to the party and voted against the bill on their own beliefs.
No such Republican can be found.
Conservatives are always talking about the liberal “sheeples”, but I can list the names of 212 real sheeple this morning.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:52 am
It’ll be great when the govt, which is broke now. (Warren Buffet can now borrow cheaper than the US govt), and which now has to borrow money to pay Social Security (a decade early, BTW) and which basically played three card monty with medicare money, pretending that it was going to be cut to bring down the price tag, when we all know that congress will vote to raise re-reimbursement again in a separate bill or face the wrath of seniors, who nearly all vote.
It is the dishonesty that bothers me. I guess it doesn’t bother you guys to be lied to. We will see in a couple years if anybody who is not very wealthy gets to “keep their plan” under these conditions.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:54 am
@ Jinchi -
The Democrats have rammed through the House a bill opposed strongly by more than half of all Americans according to recent polling data. A bill which will take away their freedom to determine their doctor-patient relationship. But that’s now. Come November, we will see the Republicans regaining control of Congress and Obama becoming a one-term lame duck President.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:55 am
Tuck away that 943 billion figure too. I am betting that that will prove to be a lie too, or at least a carefully contrived omission, since it makes no logical sense on the face of things.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:56 am
BTW, the fact that Buffet can borrow cheaper than the US Treasury means that the US is no longer AAA rated in the real world, no matter what it says on paper.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:39 am
One more thing, then I will go sulk in silence, and you can continue your party. I was a Democrat when I was young. I voted for Ted Kennedy in the primary against Jimmy Carter, and I was genuinely distressed when Reagan then beat Carter. Except I noted promises, analysis of future costs, consequences of policies as opposed to the always great sounding promises. That is why older people tend to become conservative, we have had time to see such things. But maybe you guys are right. So look at this moment, think about the promises of what the future holds for you, and compare your actual experiences. My bet is that your generation will turn out to be one of the most conservative ever after a little time in the school of hard knocks.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:40 am
PS: Except on social issues, where you are right.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:56 am
Rather than get involved in the same old argumentum ad nauseum on this, I will just say, Hurray!
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:58 am
Seeing that most first world countries have had affordable universal coverage with better health outcomes for years, a mandate to buy insurance with no measures to rein in costs is hardly “major” or “unprecedented”. It’s more shameful than anything, but at least it’s better than the current situation.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:23 am
Paul,
How can a mandate to participate in the “current situation” be better than the “current situation”?
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:29 am
So people will have medical insurance (no matter how expensive), but will they have medical care? You cannot put 30 million more people into a system already being taxed (no pun intended) by the aging boomer generation with no plan for more doctors and other providers. It’s simple supply and demand. Having medical insurance doesn’t guarantee good care in a timely fashion, no matter what the lawyers in Washington write into the bill.
There is nothing in the bill aimed at controlling costs, which is the real problem in this country (not lack of coverage). When has the goverment paying for anything (higher education, lower education, medicare, medicaid, etc.) ever led to lower costs? Most people who still can’t afford the coverage will simply pay the fines, which means there will still be a large number of uninsured people in this country.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:32 am
Wooho0! 32 million Americans may be finally able to sleep peacefully tonight. After a long time this country has lived up to the morality which it has proclaimed for itself for so long. Plus it’s not even as if insurance companies are going to go bankrupt; they and hospitals are going to get 32 million new customers. Win win I say.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:44 am
@ Sorbet -
Lose, lose I say. The bill doesn’t deal with either excessive “costs” passed by pharmaceutical firms to consumers nor, more importantly, tort reform. And those who have had long-term health insurance options will see their monthly premiums and taxes raized substantially to cover the “35 million Americans… finally able to sleep peacefully tonight”.
Anyway, Obama has become the Pied Piper of Hamelin leading the Democrats to a political debacle of as yet unseen proportions come November. I guarantee that the Tea Party Movement won’t forget last night as a night of infamy, where we lost to those who seek a much larger role for government oversight and a substantial diminution of our freedom to choose.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:47 am
Interesting that this site attracts so many conservative movement trolls…
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:01 am
@ Jon -
I’m such a good “conservative movement troll” that I recognize that I strongly recognize how robust the scientific evidence for biological evolution is and also recognize the scientific validity of anthropogenic global warming (even if the scientific evidence for it isn’t nearly as robust as biological evolution’s).
Instead of “hope and change” we got ourselves a classic case of “Chicago-style politics” replete with secret back room deals and ample bullying from Pelosi and Obama. Didn’t we elect Obama not to do that? But he can’t hide from his Chicago Democratic cronyism, can he?
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:25 am
Jon,
My definition of a troll is kind of traditional, one who asks questions that the denizens of a site can’t answer. I know you don’t like to hear it, and you would prefer to live in a country without free speech for people who disagree with you, but I have a suggestion for you, why not go over to Kos, where dissenters are banned, or RealClimate, where problematic posts never see the light of day?
I come here because, from time to time, I learn something from some of your better commenters.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:57 am
Kwok, are you saying that the average Wall Street banker, instead of making 2 million after taxes, will now make only 1.5 million? Shocking!
And of course, these bankers are the same ones who have no problem with “socialism” when it applies to socializing costs by bailing them out. The moment the rich asked the public to bail them out with tax payer dollars, they lost every bit of authority to complain about taxes. Now let them throw hissy fits all they want.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:57 am
This is landmark..
I think it will greatly benefit our society and is sorely needed.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Because the mandate isn’t the only part of the bill. Even if the bill simply forbidden dropping coverage on little/no pretenses whenever the insured party contracts a serious condition (huge problem right now), it would be better than the current situation. Even if it only prevented denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, it would be better than the current situation. And these are not the only positive parts of the bill. But don’t let actually informing oneself on what the bill entails get in the way of your agenda.
The traditional definition of troll is someone who comments/posts deliberately to inflame people. It has nothing to do with “asking questions people can’t answer”, it’s all about being an unmitigated jerk instead of trying to contribute to a meaningful dialogue.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:10 pm
The Democrats have rammed through the House a bill opposed strongly by more than half of all Americans according to recent polling data.
Polling has been all over the map on this issue, with support reflecting the tone of the debate more than the details of the bill. One thing that has remained steady for years is that most people agreed that something had to be done. The path of health care expenses along with a rapid increase in the number of uninsured was unsustainable.
Republicans could have offered a conservative solution to the problem. They didn’t. Democrats did. Some people will like it, some won’t. We won’t know what most people really think about this bill until it starts affecting their lives.
Put me down as someone who prefers that elected leaders try to fulfill the promises of the last election rather than obsess about what will win them the next one.
A bill which will take away their freedom to determine their doctor-patient relationship.
What country are living in? Right now, most of us in the US have an unnamed insurance industry bureaucrat between us and our doctor – someone who will look for any excuse to drop us if we get seriously sick or injured. If the government starts getting involved, at least I can raise hell with my Representatives.
Come November, we will see the Republicans regaining control of Congress and Obama becoming a one-term lame duck President.
Maybe. But the next election will have more to do with the state of the economy than it will with this bill. Like it or not, this was the smart move politically for Democrats. The set of people who would ever vote for a Democrat overwhelmingly supported passing the bill. The set of people who hated this bill were always going to vote for Republicans. The question is which group of voters come out in November. If Democrats had dropped the ball, their voters would have wondered what the point of giving them a majority had been and Republican voters would have rallied.
And I’m still waiting for an answer to the question of what Republicans accomplished during their years in power.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Here’s a terse, but quite reasonable, assessment of last night’s vote from Nile Gardiner, a British foreign affairs analyst currently residing in Washington, D. C. :
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100030793/a-dark-day-for-freedom-in-america/
He concludes:
“What we have just witnessed is a massive slap in the face for limited government and the principle of individual responsibility. Its net result will be the erosion of freedom in America, and a further undermining of the country’s economic competitiveness. This may be a political victory for the president and his supporters in Congress, but it is in reality a defeat for America as a great power, and another Obama-led step towards US decline.”
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:49 pm
What we have just witnessed is a massive slap in the face for limited government and the principle of individual responsibility.
It’s going to be a very long time before Republicans can claim to be the party of limited government and individual responsibility without being laughed out of the room.
Get back to us when Ron Paul wins the 2012 nomination.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:51 pm
“The traditional definition of troll is someone who comments/posts deliberately to inflame people. ”
I am not sure you really know what “traditional” means.
e.g. http://www.thinkriddles.com/trolls-riddle-2217.html
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:51 pm
@ Lurker -
No I am merely pointing out that this bill doesn’t correct the two main reasons why medical care is so expensive:
1) Pharmaceutical drug development costs, which tend to be maximized by the major pharmaceutical firms, so they can reap as much profit as possible
2) Cost of medical malpractice legal settlements which are really the primary reason why doctors and healthcare insurance premiums are increasing
(But can you imagine a US Congress composed almost exclusively of attorneys realistically dealing with this?).
You can’t pin the blame on Wall Street. There’s plenty to go around, and sadly, most of it isn’t addressed in the bill. But what is addressed is yet another substantial encroachment by the Federal Government on individual liberty, responsbility and the freedom to choose. The Federal Government threatens to coopt the patient-doctor relationship by dictating what medical procedures can – or can’t – be done via this “reform” bill.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Yer only problem here are the blue dogs who have been exposed as getting elected under false pretenses. You can only play that card once.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:55 pm
@ Jinchi -
Am hoping for Mitt Romney. Anyway, I predict that Obama will be a lame duck president as soon as the Republicans regain control of both houses of Congress. If the American people remember last night’s substantial erosion of personal liberty this November, then the Democrats will suffer from a poltiical landslide of a defeat, perhaps the greatest ever seen in our republic’s history.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:57 pm
@ Jinchi -
Republicans kept us safe when they controlled both the legislative and executive branches of government after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I strongly doubt whether the current administration is capable of preventing another terrorist attack of the size and scope of the 9/11 attacks.
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:04 pm
I’m amazed at the number of conservatives who are so earnestly concerned about the Democratic party committing suicide. It’s really touching.
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Republicans hate the idea of big government and spending, except when it applies to themselves. I agree with Jinchi, this was a pretty smart move for Democrats. A lot of their dedicated supporters who might have gotten a little disappointed with them will now vote for them in November. And as indicated, the people who were against them would not vote for them anyway. On the other hand, millions who might have been on the fence and who will benefit from the bill will most likely now vote for them. I see the Dems playing a very strong hand in November, compared to the party of no, intolerance and fear-mongering.
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:09 pm
That riddle is hardly a traditional formulation of ‘trol”l. If we’re talking folk tradition instead of internet tradition, a troll would be a creature that lurks under bridges and attacks people (or eats billy goats?). Either way, you look like a fool. You could at least save face by admitting you said something nonsensical in trying to romanticize your position as one of upholding tradition and being cleverer than those around you (asking unanswerable questions). The only reason I even bothered correcting you is that horribly self-absorbed, smug statement wrongly defining troll. I mean, I’m no fan of Jon, but your post was way off. Denialism isn’t discussion, and denialist trolls aren’t some romantic callback to traditional “trolls” (as if troll was ever anything but a pejorative, or a sign of wisdom) — they are generally people with a very thinly disguised agenda who actively distort or ignore facts to sell a false narrative that they prefer to reality.
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:35 pm
CNN just released the results of a poll conducted this past weekend showing that approximately six out of ten Americans oppose this healthcare “reform” bill. Those of you who think Americans will just “buckle up” and favor the bill, now that the House has passed it, are merely deluding themselves:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/22/rel5a.pdf
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:52 pm
The traditional definition of troll is someone who comments/posts deliberately to inflame people. It has nothing to do with “asking questions people can’t answer”, it’s all about being an unmitigated jerk instead of trying to contribute to a meaningful dialogue.
Bingo! moptop et al. post here when they think they’ve got some magical “aha!” moment that all of us stupid liberals are just too dumb to think of. Then they get all incredulous when they find out that, yes: we’ve thought about it, and we have rationed answers.
Then they just resort to deflection, smear tactics, circle-jerks, etc. etc. etc.
Take it from me. I troll here myself occasionally, and I know one of my own kind when I see one. And moptop is a troll more than he is not.
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:11 pm
@John Kwok:
Sure, because the Republican noise machine did its job very well (“Death panels! Government takeover! Stalin! Hitler! Dead babies! Dead grannies!”).
But if, instead of “Do you like this bill?”, you take the bill apart and ask about specific components, you get very different answers. You get, “Ooh, yes, I like that!” and “Sure, that sounds good to me!”
I wish I had your insurance, because I lost that freedom many years ago. For my healthy family of four, I pay nearly $15,000 a year for the privilege of listening to the insurance company say, “No, we won’t pay for that” and “No, you can’t go see Dr. X.” The more they deny me, the greater their profits. That is a very sick situation, in more ways than one.
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:46 pm
One can make a good case that the previous administration, with all its rhetoric, bombast and oh yes…habit of invading countries randomly for oil, massively antagonized the world against the United States. The present administration has sent out a much more reconciliatory message. If there is an attack at all, it would more likely than not have been motivated by the war rhetoric of the Bushies.
And of course, the irony inherent in supporters of George Bush and the Republicans talking loftily about the erosion of “individual liberties” by the health care bill is not lost on us. We can fully expect to see a truckload of the Hannity-type fake moral outrage induced hard ons in the next few months. What about the liberty the bill provides to millions of Americans to finally not be shackled by the vagaries and temper tantrums of insurance companies? It’s perpetually fresh to see how intolerant and freedom-restricting Republicans who are against abortions, gay marriage, the teaching of evolution and the right of millions including children to have access to affordable health insurance, are always the ones to spring on the “erosion of individual liberties” bandwagon. If you want to be hypocrites, at least do a better job of concealing your hypocrisies.
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:08 pm
@ Chris D. -
Maybe you should find another, better, health insurance provider (Oh, now that’s freedom of choice which John McCain had proposed, but Barack Obama had rejected flatly.). Can’t say I have had the best coverage myself either and there have been times when I had to rely on government-assisted healthcare coverage which provided only basic coverage.
Anyway, I wouldn’t just say that it was Republican or Conservative demagoguery which has fanned the “flames” of popular opposition to this bill. Really, if this bill is so good, how come most of the Representatives – including, I presume Pelosi herself – don’t know exactly what’s in it?
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:34 pm
CNN just released the results of a poll conducted this past weekend showing that approximately six out of ten Americans oppose this healthcare “reform” bill.
Okay, let’s read your poll:
1.) The question reads: Based on what you have read or heard about that legislation. Everyone agrees that there’s been a very strong, well coordinated and well-funded anti-reform message, just like there was in 1993. Advertising works.
2.) The next question reads: Do you oppose that legislation because you think its approach toward health care is too liberal, or because you think it is not liberal enough?
52% wanted either this bill or something more liberal passed.
3.) The next question reads: Who do you trust more to handle major changes in the country’s health care system
51 % chose Obama. Only 39% chose the Republicans.
4.) The next question reads: Who do you trust more to handle major changes in the country’s health care system — the Democrats in Congress or the Republicans in Congress?
Democrats beat Republicans 45% – 39%
Notice that 39% number that keeps cropping up. Those are Republicans. They don’t like the bill, they don’t like Obama and they don’t like Democrats. They were never going to vote for Democrats even if the Democrats had let the bill die. Political suicide is what happens when you convince your own voters to stay home (see Lincoln, Blanche).
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:10 pm
I guarantee that the Tea Party Movement won’t forget last night as a night of infamy
Of course they won’t. But they weren’t going to go home happy in the knowledge that they’d defeated socialism if the bill had gone down to defeat, either. Tea Partiers are going to work to oust Democrats no matter what happens. It’s who they are.
Where I find the Tea Party hard to take seriously is this constant cry of defending our civil liberties. These people were strangely silent while Bush was spying on every conversation in the country, Republicans were debating whether the 4th amendment made the constitution a “suicide pact”, protestors were corralled into “free-speech zones” and others were arrested for wearing the wrong t-shirt. Now they demand the right to carry assault rifles to town hall meetings along with barely concealed references to assassinations and civil war. Were they sleeping through the last 8 years?
I find it odd that they only seem to care about the constitution when a Democrat is elected president.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:21 pm
That poll doesn’t show what you think it does. Looking at that poll, 39% favor it and 13% are only against it because it’s not liberal enough. Put another way, scrap that bill and you piss off at least 52% of the populace (plus or minus 3%), not counting the 7% who answered “no opinion”.
The numbers are still close, and in fact could go either way based on the sampling error. But it’s not the 60% against you claim, and you’re being openly and actively deceptive by calling it “strong opposition” — the only options were “generally favor” or “generally oppose”, you disingenuous reactionary.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Trust the Republicans to intrude on every kind of freedom, oppose individual liberty when it comes to religion, gay marriage and abortion, evolution in schools, wiretaps on citizens and health care, and then wax eloquent about the “erosion of individual liberties”. Try a different kind of hypocrisy, this one’s old hat.
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:43 pm
@John Kwok
“Republicans kept us safe when they controlled both the legislative and executive branches of government after the 9/11 terrorist attack”
Bwah ha ha ha ha. Im surprised you didn’t say they kept us safe before 9/11 and after 9/11. They only failed to keep us safe on a single day.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Speaking of Republicans, attorney generals of twelve states, including Pennsylvania and Virginia will file law suits challenging the constitutionality of the ObamaCare health “reform” bill. Eleven of the states, including such “bastions” of conservatism like North Dakota and Pennsylvania will be filing jointly, while Virginia is expected to file an independent law suit at the Federal court house in Richmond, VA.
That “conservative” news service, Reuters, has posted a report on this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62L4GC20100322
Paul, there is an online poll at MSNBC where more than two hundred thousand people have expressed their anger at the bill, wishing that it should be repealed. Again, this is two hundred thousand people since the bill was passed in the House of Representatives last night. This may be anecdotal evidence, but it is anecdotal evidence which seems to support the result of that CNN poll.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:32 pm
“Either way, you look like a fool. You could at least save face by admitting you said something nonsensical ”
If I were you, I wouldn’t consider the fact that you can’t understand something as evidence that it is “nonsense.”
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Paul, there is an online poll at MSNBC where more than two hundred thousand people have expressed their anger at the bill
An online poll, John. Seriously?
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:40 pm
@ Jinchi -
The number of angry people at that online MSNBC poll is now more than four hundred thousand people.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:55 am
@Kwok
“The number of angry people at that online MSNBC poll is now more than four hundred thousand people.”
You havent learnt a thing about online polls from your time at Pharyngula, have you?
March 23rd, 2010 at 5:14 am
@ John Kwok #63:
<The number of angry people at that online MSNBC poll is now more than four hundred thousand people.>
You know that online polls are utterly and completely meaningless, right?
March 23rd, 2010 at 5:37 am
@John Kwok 54:
<Maybe you should find another, better, health insurance provider.>
You honestly think I haven’t tried, that the solution is just that simple?
March 23rd, 2010 at 6:53 am
The number of angry people at that online MSNBC poll is now more than four hundred thousand people.
Are you for real? How good a sample can this be?
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:38 am
The number of angry people at that online MSNBC poll is now more than four hundred thousand people.
You mean the poll that’s being linked to by RedState, Rapture Ready and other conservative blogs?
Sure.
Likewise Ron Paul is running 20 points ahead of all other Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination.
69% believe that the Los Angeles should be preparing for a visit from E.T.
And 89% (643,000 votes) think that George Bush should be impeached.
They don’t write the disclaimer “Not a scientific survey” on the polls because they’re just a little off target.
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:44 am
@ Jinchi -
You seem to ignore the really important fact here. That at least fourteen attorneys generals from fourteen different states will file suit in Federal Courts contending that the healthcare “reform” bill is unconstitutional. State of Virginia is due to file its own suit at Noon today at the Richmond, VA Federal Court. The other states are mounting a joint suit. Should be interesting to see how long it takes for this to go to the United States Supreme Court.
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:17 am
-there is an online poll at MSNBC where more than two hundred thousand people have expressed their anger at the bill, wishing that it should be repealed
Hey, you want to talk about polls? I know a poll. In it, 32 million Americans support the bill. Top that.
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:31 am
@ Sorbet -
Thirty two million out of three hundred million is not a mandate in support of this bill. Approximately one hundred eighty million are against it and are still against it.
The latest I have heard is that the United States Supreme Court may be interested in ruling soon as to whether this bill is constitutional.
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:41 am
@ John Kwok #69
And you seem to ignore the really important fact that just because some red state AGs are saying it’s unconstitutional doesn’t mean that it is.
I should be fun to watch them simultaneously justifying the auto insurance mandates they all have and whining that health insurance mandates are unconstitutional. (And where were all these guys, by the way, when the government decided it didn’t need no stinkin’ warrants to eavesdrop on American citizens and that habeas corpus was a quaint relic of the past?)
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:57 am
@ Sorbet and Jinchi -
Among the issues which many Americans find objectionable in the ObamaCare bill is the fact that they are required to buy health insurance, whether they wish to or not. The bill flies in the face of this advice written years ago by Margaret Thatcher:
“Our views on the way a government should run the economy can be described as ‘libertarian’: that is to say freedom to develop trade and industry within the framework of a strong and clear law. The most important part of the case for this economic freedom is not the way it produces greater prosperity but its consistency with certain fundamental moral principles of life itself. Each soul or person matters; man is imperfect; he is a responsible being; he has freedom to choose; he has obligations to his fellow man.”
“Morality is personal. There is no such thing as a collective conscience, collective kindness, collective gentleness, collective freedom. To talk of social justice, social responsibility, a new world order, may be easy and make us feel good, but it does not absolve each of us from personal responsibility. We don’t carry out our moral commitment by taking up a public stance on these things, but only by choosing to do something about them ourselves. You can’t delegate personal morality to your country. You are your country.”
These thoughts of hers are ones I believe in, and ones which I suspect many Americans agree with. That is why, in the end, ObamaCare will be defeated, the Democrats will lose their majorities in both houses of Congress, and why Barack Hussein Obama will find himself unemployed as of 12:01 PM, January 20, 2013.
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:04 am
-Approximately one hundred eighty million are against it and are still against it
Quoting polls is silly to begin with, but the CNN poll indicated that 52% are in favor. But sure, the Republicans can keep on screaming at the top of their voices about govt. takeovers and death panels, and then they will hit their butts hard when none of this pans out. The alarmism and socialist fear-mongering from the party of no is getting a little old even for supporters. The NYT had a piece about this today.
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:24 am
@ Sorbet -
Ultimately this issue may be settled by the United States Supreme Court. To have people forced to purchase health insurance whether they want to – or not – is an act of coercion and is, definitely, at face value, unconstitutional.
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:16 am
Government coercion is de facto unconstitutional? Pull the other one, clown shoe.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:02 pm
@ Paul -
In this instance, yes, government coercion IS unconstitutional. That is how the current United States Supreme Court would probably view it, since they have tended to rule in favor of individual rights, not in favor of government coercion.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:29 pm
“Forcing” people to buy insurance is of course much more serious than forcing wiretaps, bail outs, insurance-company chicanery, lack of rights for abortion and gay marriage and the erosion of civil liberties under the pretext of “homeland security” down their throats. Criminal, CRIMINAL, I tell you!
OF COURSE the Supreme Court is going to toss out the bill in a matter of months, if not weeks. Hang on in there buddy, help is on the way.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:36 pm
@ Sorbet -
Don’t joke. I fully expect to see this bill tied up in the courts for months. And it will be overturned eventually, if not in the United States Senate, then next year, after the Republicans regain control of both houses of Congress.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:40 pm
I never tired of hearing how conservatives who in the last twenty years have massively trampled individual liberties under their feet are always the first ones to pipe up about lofty principles of freedom and morality, and are foremost in quoting old white dead guys (and one gal).
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:20 pm
What makes you think that Republicans will gain control of both houses of Congress? Republican opposition to this bill has mainly been based on fear-mongering and alarmism (Death panels! Dead babies! Socialism! Everyone wearing Mao outfits in a few years!), not substantial and sound counter-proposals. If the bill works as intended, the Democrats would have been vindicated but the Republicans’ own base would lose steam when they fail to see the dire consequences that the Reps have predicted. It is by no means justified to say at this point that the Reps are going to take over both houses.
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:26 pm
In my opinion, it would have been a much better idea for the Reps to keep on highlighting economic arguments about cost and spending (although it would have still been a tall stretch, considering they they are themselves hypocrites when it comes to fiscal conservatism). But as it happened, instead they let tea-partying, ideological talking points and fear-mongering drown out constructive criticism. Even conservative commentators are now acknowledging that this was an awful strategy. The Reps gave the Dems a perfect reason to abandon bipartisanship.
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Bob Herbert puts it very well
“At some point, we have to decide as a country that we just can’t have this: We can’t allow ourselves to remain silent as foaming-at-the-mouth protesters scream the vilest of epithets at members of Congress — epithets that The Times will not allow me to repeat here (he is referring to the racist and homophobic epithets hurled at Congressmen).
It is 2010, which means it is way past time for decent Americans to rise up against this kind of garbage, to fight it aggressively wherever it appears. And it is time for every American of good will to hold the Republican Party accountable for its role in tolerating, shielding and encouraging foul, mean-spirited and bigoted behavior in its ranks and among its strongest supporters.
For decades the G.O.P. has been the party of fear, ignorance and divisiveness. All you have to do is look around to see what it has done to the country. The greatest economic inequality since the Gilded Age was followed by a near-total collapse of the overall economy. As a country, we have a monumental mess on our hands and still the Republicans have nothing to offer in the way of a remedy except more tax cuts for the rich.”
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:33 pm
@ Sorbet -
No, the Tea Party Movement was, and still is, a popular movement that arose out of the government bailouts of financial firms, especially banks and the auto industry. It is only recently that the Tea Party Movement has opted to join forces with the Republicans. I strongly suggest you review that history before stating some more comments replete in their breathtaking inanity.
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Sorbet,
Do you have a link to the video of that incident where that ugly racial epithet was shouted?
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:36 pm
@ Sorbet -
I have to rely on the political wisdom of pundits like Dick Morris and others. If the Republicans stay focused on condemning the legal and financial excesses of the ObamaCare bill, promise to roll back spending and Obama’s expansion of the Federal Government, then they will prevail and regain control of both houses of Congress.
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:37 pm
If the bill works as intended, the Democrats would have been vindicated but the Republicans’ own base would lose steam when they fail to see the dire consequences that the Reps have predicted.
The bill won’t be working as intended until 2014. I don’t share clown shoe’s certainty about a Republican uprising, and if anything the Dems might lose a couple seats (but I consider this less likely now that they actually passed health care, and much less likely once the Senate passes it). But it is unfortunate that many of the things that would give people a more positive outlook on the health care reforms will not be in place for four years.
Perhaps simply the lack of the fearmongerers’ “dire consequences” will cause righties to warm to the legislation. Time will tell.
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:41 pm
All I can find are claims by political operatives for the Democrats and progressive blogs
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/20/tea-party-spit/
Search for evidence isn’t turning up a lot.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/cnn-tea-party-protesters-hurl-epithets-at-barney-frank-and-john-lewis/
Not to mention that anybody can show up at a tea party demonstration and say anything they want, even if their aim is to discredit tea partiers.
You should really think about the way your emotions are being manipulated.
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:11 pm
-It is only recently that the Tea Party Movement has opted to join forces with the Republicans. I strongly suggest you review that history before stating some more comments replete in their breathtaking inanity.
Kwocker, you would know about breathtaking inanity, wouldn’t you? Especially since your moist dreams about Republicans taking both houses are full of it? So what if the Tea Partiers have recently joined the Republicans? That hardly excuses their despicable behavior, except perhaps in your world of warped morality.
-I have to rely on the political wisdom of pundits like Dick Morris and others
And I have to rely on Discovery Institute fellow Stephen Meyer for his deep knowledge of evolutionary biology.
@Moptop, even your fellow Republican House minority leader John Boehner called the slurs “reprehensible”. You really need to call him and let him know that his denunciation was so totally unwarranted.
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Among the issues which many Americans find objectionable in the ObamaCare bill is the fact that they are required to buy health insurance, whether they wish to or not.
I know why people find portions of the bill objectionable. Personally I’d be fine with the mandate out of the bill (I’m guessing that that isn’t your only objection, though). But just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional. It would obviously be constitutional if they replaced the mandate with a direct tax to fund the program, which would be single-payer.
I’m guessing you think that that would be worse, right?
And I really don’t understand why you’re “hoping for Mitt Romney”. This bill is virtually identical to RomneyCare, including the mandate in it. The mandate is a conservative solution to the problem, not a liberal one. It’s purpose is to keep the insurance industry alive. It was first proposed during the Clinton health care debate and co-sponsored by Orrin Hatch, and Chuck Grassley. Grassley insisted on it as recently as last May. He now insists that it’s unconstitutional.
The liberal solution was to short-circuit the insurance industry, entirely.
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:36 pm
@John Kwok and others:
For all of you who love to embrace the talking points and scream communism and socialism, were I the one crafting the bill, yes, I would put in an opt out provision. People like you who are young, healthy and feel immortal or have jobs and don’t think you will ever lose the healthcare you are so satisfied with that costs you so little out of pocket or don’t believe that you will ever come down with a costly disease or want hands off YOUR government healthcare aka medicare, would be allowed to opt out in return for accepting the consequence that after you opt out, for the rest of your life you will be required to purchase insurance whenever you feel you need it on the open “free market” at the mercy of the poor needlessly maligned insurance companies.
If, on your way from work, some drunk driver rear ends you and you are taken to the hospital, you must put up or shut up with regards to your chant about personal responsibility and “freedom”. Pay every dime of the emergency room bill out of your pocket and agree to a clause that you cannot discharge your debts in a bankruptcy court and shove the bill unto the hospital or taxpayers. Good luck grabbing your cell phone and trying to buy a policy from the beloved non-government regulated insurance company of your choice as you are being rushed via ambulance to the hospital. You won’t have a “pre-existing condition” but you might as well have. The whole point of insurance is that you buy it before you need it.
Otherwise pay as you go and don’t expect anyone else to feel sorry for you when you change your mind only after the shoe is on the other foot. There are millions of people living in Western Europe who are on average even more healthy than your typical tea partyer and I don’t see them rioting in the streets and screaming no to socialism. You shouldn’t have to first get sick and have your policy dropped or find your job outsourced to China or India before you accept that prevention is better than cure or doing nothing.
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:41 pm
@ Sorbet -
You should criticize Dick Morris and other pundits who think the Republicans have a very good chance of recapturing both houses of Congress. If the Republicans stay focused on the message that we can’t afford ObamaCare or Obama’s lurch towards Western European Socialist Democracy (which, ironically, many of the Western European countries are in the midst of repudiating, while Obama dashes onward to embrace it), then they will win, and win substantially. I just hope, however, that we don’t see a repeat of the same ignorance which Chris Mooney noted extensively in his “The Republican War on Science”.
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Why? He gets paid to tell people what they want to hear. They should be upset that they’re paying him for bad information, but that’s nothing for us to care about. The sad part is people accepting his talking points uncritically and without evidence, then parroting them without even getting paid for it. You know, like you’ve been doing.
March 23rd, 2010 at 4:13 pm
You should criticize Dick Morris and other pundits who think the Republicans have a very good chance of recapturing both houses of Congress.
Other great predictions by Dick Morris:
Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race (2005)
How Clinton Will Win the Nomination by Losing S.C. (1/23/2008)
Bad Economy May Hurt Obama (8/ 6/2008)
Undecideds Should Break for McCain (10/29/2008)
March 23rd, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Is Kwok still pretending the Healthcare bill is unconstitutional? When a conservative makes the unconstitutional claim what he really means is “this is something that might help people who aren’t me.” Conservatives like Kwok really hate having to pay for something that might benefit people who aren’t them and whine every time this might happen.
March 23rd, 2010 at 4:37 pm
And now from Gallup:
By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was “a good thing” rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill.
And 48% say it was a good “first step”. Sounds like the opposite of “Repeal the Bill”
March 23rd, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Sorbet,
So that is your evidence?
March 23rd, 2010 at 5:28 pm
So moptop, I am assuming you have a video of the signing of the Declaration of Independence? Seriously moptop, when the head of your own party condemns these slurs, you need to know which way the wind is blowing. But I don’t expect a climate change denialist to understand this.
March 23rd, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Is it just me, or is that gavel that Pelosi carrying, scary big? It’s like something out of Looney Tunes (Elmer Fudd, Bugs Bunny, Road Runner, along those lines).
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:42 pm
@Brian Too 97:
<Is it just me, or is that gavel that Pelosi carrying, scary big? It’s like something out of Looney Tunes (Elmer Fudd, Bugs Bunny, Road Runner, along those lines).>
It’s a particular one, not just a random giant gavel. It’s the gavel that was used when Medicare was passed in 1965.
I’ll grant you that it does make one think of speaking softly and carrying big sticks.
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:51 pm
@ Paul and Jinchi -
Have the utmost respect for Dick Morris, not the least because I’ve enjoyed his writing, value his thinking, and share something in common (We are both fellow alumni of the same high school, and I met him at an alumni event I had helped organize approximately eight years ago.). That doesn’t mean he is always right in his predictions, but I trust his judgement substantially more than that of another alumnus of our high school, White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod.
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:53 pm
@ Tis Himself -
Fourteen state attorneys general have filed suit claiming that the bill is unconstitutional. I’m not an attorney nor am I a legal expert. But I find it fascinating that these attorneys general come from such “conservative” states as WA, PA, and VA, for example.
March 24th, 2010 at 5:18 am
@ John Kwok #102
<Fourteen state attorneys general have filed suit claiming that the bill is unconstitutional. I’m not an attorney nor am I a legal expert. But I find it fascinating that these attorneys general come from such “conservative” states as WA, PA, and VA, for example.>
Yes, but all 14 are Republicans; I guess that’s just a coincidence. In two of the cases you mention, the governors have come out strongly in opposition to what the AG is doing. And in the third, Virginia, the AG and the new Republican governor have been busily reversing everything good that’s been done in the last few decades and returning the state to the previous century.
One of the AGs, by the way, has been quoted as saying, “This is about the law, not about politics.” Yeah, right. That explains the 14-0 Republican-Democrat split.
March 24th, 2010 at 5:45 am
Correction: The Republican-Democratic split on the healthcare bill lawsuits is 13-1, not 14-0. The Democratic AG of Louisiana joined the suit at the request of Republican Governor Bobby Jindal.
March 24th, 2010 at 6:42 am
” But I don’t expect a climate change denialist to understand this.”
Well, the funny thing is that there is a CNN video of when the event supposedly took place and there is no hint that it actually happened. It does boil down to the same thing though, if enough people accept the original story, then it is true, whether the evidence exists or not. Is that right? I don’t expect somebody who blindly believes every thing he wants to hear to understand this though.
And if this bill is so great, why did the very people who wrote it exempt themselves?
http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/03/leadership_aide.php
March 24th, 2010 at 7:34 am
I don’t believe someone who does not understand science to use commonsense and stay away from ideological talking points. There is also no CNN video of the Declaration of Independence, nor, I must add, of Lincoln’s assassination. But of course, your obsession with the “video” is another classic straw man commonly used by Reps. Even if nobody had uttered the slurs it does not erase the despicable behavior of the Partiers and their Rep enablers over the last year. So you can spend your life in search of the “video” while I know that not having a video does not make a rat’s posterior of a difference to the general conclusion.
March 24th, 2010 at 7:47 am
Oh, yes, the lamented Western European Socialist Democracies, the ones which are floundering in misery, poverty and totalitarianism. Maybe that’s why they consistently rank at the very top in the Human Development Index in just about every significant indicator including life expectancy, income equality, standard of living, GDP, infant mortality, overall health and of course, the “happiness index” (which I fully expect to increase in the US now). Yes, let us weep again for these sad socialist states and their oppressed people. Anyway, I am probably not going to stick around here while the Kwocker and moppy (you called your party head Boehner yet? You should be furious with him for condemning non-existent slurs), who are so impervious to reason and dense that light bends around them, can carry on with the (tea) partying. Enjoy!
March 24th, 2010 at 9:24 am
@moptop 105:
<And if this bill is so great, why did the very people who wrote it exempt themselves?>
This is way overstated. Congresscritters and their staffs can only be offered insurance plans created by the act or offered through the exchange.
Due to the way “staff” is defined in the act, it’s possible that this may not apply to committee staff (as opposed to congressional staff). But for this to actually happen, the Federal government would have to offer to committee staff something different than what it offers to congressional staff and to Congresscritters. Why would it do that, exactly?
March 24th, 2010 at 10:19 am
“I don’t believe someone who does not understand science to use commonsense and stay away from ideological talking points. There is also no CNN video of the Declaration of Independence, ”
Well, since you obviously misunderstood, let me try to put it in terms you may understand:
If, hypothetically, there were CNN cameras in the room at the time that the signing of the Declaration of Independence took place, pointed at the table, and they did not show the signing, then it would be fair to come to the conclusion that something is “fishy”? Because that is the situation here. At the time that the incident supposedly took place, there was a camera rolling, and it didn’t show anything like what was claimed by political operatives who have a vested interest in discrediting the Tea Partiers.
You guys are the champions of denial though.
March 24th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Why was the issue of “staff” even brought up? They are Americans, it should apply to them. It shouldn’t even be a point of discussion. Why was there any confusing language at all?
I am suggesting that the Republicans present an amendment clarifying the issue.
March 24th, 2010 at 10:57 am
You guys are the champions of missing the real issue.
Let me repeat; even if those slurs were not uttered, it does not do one freaking bit to change the big picture and the overall behavior in the last year. You can nitpick away to hell about it and it does not change a thing. By the way, not that I really care as I mentioned, but have you checked seconds 43-44 of the video? Some people are of the opinion that the epithet was uttered then.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:11 am
“Some people are of the opinion”– Whatever
Either you are consciously spreading baseless agitprop or you are a true believer who doesn’t care about facts or logic. This seems to be the same level of evidence that satisfies you on climate too.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:25 am
@ moptop 110:
<Why was the issue of “staff” even brought up? They are Americans, it should apply to them. It shouldn’t even be a point of discussion. Why was there any confusing language at all?>
I hear the sounds of goalposts being moved. This is a completely different issue from your original complaint.
But, since you did bring it up, the fact is that this language was added by Sen. Tom Coburn–Republican of Oklahoma. You should ask him.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:54 am
And if this bill is so great, why did the very people who wrote it exempt themselves?
They didn’t exempt themselves from the bill. Everyone in the country is subject to the law. The quote you cite is:
“The federal government can only make available to members and their official staffs health plans created by the bill or offered through an exchange.”
In other words, the legislature and their official staffs can won’t be offered a special “legislators only” insurance policy through the federal government. The will only be offered plans that are available to others who take part in the exchange system.
That’s more restrictive than the law as it applies to you, not less so.
March 24th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
-Either you are consciously spreading baseless agitprop or you are a true believer who doesn’t care about facts or logic. This seems to be the same level of evidence that satisfies you on climate too.
I am actually quite certain of what you are doing. Obsessing about a little detail in an attempt to discredit the entire enterprise. Now where I have seen similar behavior before…
-You are a true believer who doesn’t care about facts or logic
Irony was just reborn today
March 24th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
@Jinchi 114:
Exactly. It’s the Eat Your Own Dog Food amendment.
The big irony is that moptop wants a Republican amendment to clarify a Republican amendment.
March 24th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
“I am actually quite certain of what you are doing. Obsessing about a little detail in an attempt to discredit the entire enterprise. … Irony was just reborn today” – Sorbet
Bwa ha ha ha ha! Read your posts above about a purported individual who purportedly shouted a racial slur, which some people are of the opinion that they can hear in a video, discrediting and branding as racist a movement of millions of law abiding, respectful, Americans.
We could do this all day Sorbet, but you are just not that interesting.
As far as the amendment being put in by a Republican. Whatever, good. I guess this is what Pelosi meant when she said we would have to “pass the bill to find out what’s in it.” Turns out that children can be denied for pre-existing conditions too BTW.
Jinchi, you should write to the Politico and National Journal, among others to straighten them out on this simple point. How could they ever get so confused?
March 24th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
“The big irony is that moptop wants a Republican amendment to clarify a Republican amendment.”
I want an amendment to fix a Republican amendment because that would be a “policy” change, and force Reid to get 60 votes in the Senate to fix it. I know that is probably hard for you to understand, but if that happens, in my eyes, Coburn is a hero.
March 24th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Whatever Moptop, you can continue to live in your delusional world and keep screaming about petty non-things while the rest of us can actually do something productive. That’s why you are normal.
March 24th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
-”millions of respectful Americans” (referring to the tea partiers)
Irony just barfed and blew its brains out.
March 24th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
@ Sorbet and Jinchi -
I forgot to mention yesterday that I admire Morris as a shrewd political “puppeteer”, whose own politics are moderate and fall within the mainstream. As for Axelrod, I see him as an ideologue and personal Svengali to Obama.
Anyway, I have just read this intriguing post which is worth noting here:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/23/obamacare-politics-united-states-reform-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html
March 24th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
I want an amendment to fix a Republican amendment because that would be a “policy” change, and force Reid to get 60 votes in the Senate to fix it.
Wait, you want the Democratic majority leader, Harry Reid, to spend time an political capital making a policy change that Republicans are now demanding, whose purpose is to correct an amendment that a Republican originally added, because it will take 60 votes to pass?
It would only take 60 votes to pass if the Republicans filibuster it. If the Republicans filibuster it, why wouldn’t the Democrats simply drop it? They don’t see a problem. You do.
March 24th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Tricky Dick:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/03/18/morris/
March 24th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
@ Sorbet -
Consistently, Dick Morris has more often been proven right than wrong. His “triangulation” strategy made Clinton’s first term a successful one after the healthcare reform debacle and Congressional elections of 1994. Conason is merely deceiving himself.
Anyway I am looking forward to the Axelrod – Obama regime becoming quite impotent once the Republicans win back control of Congress this fall (Again I would choose the fellow high school alumnus who is more pragmatic and has a much better understanding of statistics and isn’t an ideologue. Unfortunately for Axelrod, none of these attributes fit him at all.).
March 24th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Morris incurred The Fall after serving Clinton. I would choose the predictions of the late Terence Tolbert, fellow alumnus of my cousin’s famous high school. I think everything would be fine once the Dems retain control of Congress this fall.
March 24th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Alarmist Dick again. Bill O’Reilly emerges as the voice of reason.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003030044
Conason’s facts cannot be refuted. They are true facts.
March 25th, 2010 at 7:40 am
Jinchi,
As is often the case, you are right. The Dems will simply vote against all amendments, even if they genuinely fix defects in the bill which, it is becoming increasingly obvious, nobody read.
Obama made loudly and often two specific promises. One having to do with pre-existing conditions for children, the other with prescription drugs for seniors. Both are not in the bill as he claimed. Obviously, the Democrats will not fix the bill because that would force a new 60 vote majority, which the Democrats lost in MASSACHUSETTS when Scott Brown ran specifically against this monstrosity. He autographed everything “Scottt Brown – 41″, if you think that means something other than he ran against this bill in one of the most liberal states in the Union, which has no other Republican in their congressional delegation, then you are delusional.
March 25th, 2010 at 10:17 am
@ Sorbet -
I used to dismiss as ridiculous, calls by some conservative zealots clamoring for Obama’s impeachment and conviction by the Senate should the Republicans regain control of Congress this fall (which I believe is a likely possibility, especially with such a strong groundswell of popular opinion against ObamaCare and the facts that many states are in the midst of enacting legislation, including amendments to their constitutions, which would nullify all or some of the provisions of ObamaCare). Maybe they’re not ridiculous at all.
One way or another, the Axelrod – Obama regime will end peacefully, but decisively, via some popular revolt that is occurring even now as I write this.
March 25th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Here’s the latest from CBS News polling data:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001117-503544.html
Approximately 62% of those surveyed want the Republicans to continue challenging all or parts of the ObamaCare bill.
March 25th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Obviously, the Democrats will not fix the bill because that would force a new 60 vote majority
I think you misread me. There would be no 60 vote threshhold except that Republicans will vote to filibuster the bill. Republicans can’t complain that Democrats are unwilling to fix problems when they are the reason that the fixes won’t pass. Any single Republican Senator could break with the party strategy if they wanted fixes in the bill. They don’t.
March 25th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Of course the public will be skeptical. As many wise men (and especially a few who are famous alumni of my cousin’s prestigious high school) have said, any big change should rightfully evince skepticism. But the skepticism will go away once the progressive effects of the bill start showing. The Obama regime will end peacefully indeed, after 8 years of progress. Support for Obama vs Reps is now 45-35.
March 25th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Jinchi,
Who are you arguing with? The only reason to force a filibuster is to kill the bill. I don’t thing the Dems, having gone this far, are going to take the bait. However, they will be forced into some uncomfortable votes which will only serve to remind voters in the fall that they NEVER READ THE BILL.
March 25th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
“Support for Obama vs Reps is now 45-35.”
Yeah, and presidential preference polls show that the only well known R that Obama beats is Palin, and that includes Huck the Bible thumper.
March 25th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Presidential preference polls also show that Sam Brownback has demonstrated a willingness to host the next Global Atheist Convention in his backyard, an action widely believed to boost his chances for the Presidency.
March 25th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
moptop -
The only “Hope and Change” I’ll believe in is in the peaceful removal of the Axelrod – Obama regime by voters. Step one will be removing Democrats from office in Congress and ensuring Republican majorities in both houses. Step one will be ensuring that Obama is either a lame duck president or is impeached and convicted by the Senate.
Once both steps are implemented successfully, then that will be “Hope and Change” I can believe in.
March 25th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
Step one will be realizing that health care reform actually fixed this country. Step two will be recognizing the doomsdayers for what they are, namely, mendacious non-intellectual pornographers.
March 26th, 2010 at 6:56 am
“Step one will be realizing that health care reform actually fixed this country”
Sorbet, I know you are an anti-intellectual, so let me see if I can clear this up for you, not that you will listen.
Step one for you guys is to show us that health reform has “actually fixed this country” instead of telling us, since, as the polls show, your side simply does not have the credibility. We are all waiting.
As for my charge of anti-intellectualism? I offer this as supporting evidence:
“Step two will be recognizing the doomsdayers for what they are, namely, mendacious non-intellectual pornographers.” – Sorbet
A person interested in an actual intellectual discussion would have done more than name call, or tell somebody they are wrong. An actual intellectual shows that person how they are wrong, with facts and logic.
March 26th, 2010 at 9:20 am
Moppytoppy, I know you are anti thinking and anti-brain so let me make sincere efforts to clear this up for *you*, not that you will listen.
Step one is for you guys to show us that we are all doomed and that we will all be wearing Mao suits in a few years. Step one is for you guys to show us the bodies of the dead babies and dead grannies which you promised.
Step two is for you to learn the meaning of the word “hypocrisy” ( I recommend Webster) when you accuse others of name-calling, lies and anti-intellectualism. As a person consistently denying climate change without evidence on this blog, you have been the poster boy for anti-intellectualism around here. A person interested in an actual intellectual discussion would have done more than get obsessed with a video and lie about health care and climate change.
March 26th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Hell, I want them to continue challenging it. Obama challenged them to challenge it. It’s clear that any challenges will fail, and they’re basically cutting their own throats. Note that 42% approve of the health care bill, while 33% think it should not be challenged. There’s obviously overlap between “approve of the bill” and “think Republicans should continue challenging”. I wonder why.
Oh, and I find it funny that you didn’t note that the pie chart says of the people that want them to continue challenging health care reform, 89% are Republican, 41% are Democrats, and 66% are independents. Something doesn’t seem right there…
March 26th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
A recent poll also indicated that 25% of Republicans think Obama is the Antichrist. 38% also think he is doing many of the things that Hitler did. Can we really reason with such people?
March 27th, 2010 at 9:08 am
@ Sorbet -
Not that I want to pour more fuel onto the ridiculous accusations you noted (@ 140), it should be noted that a House Committee has issued a report noting that up to 16,500 more IRS personnel will be need to audit and to enforce compliance of those hesitant to acquire ObamaCare healthcare insurance:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/16500-more-IRS-agents-needed-to-enforce-Obamacare-88458137.html
@ Paul -
Don’t be so dismissive of these challenges. There are currently two law suits filed in Federal District Courts by fourteen state attorneys general. Other states have legislatures that are seriously considering potential amendments to their state constitutions or other legislation that would nullify all or part of ObamaCare. As of several days ago, at least thirty three states are mounting some kind of challenge to this bill.
Finally there are substantially more Independents than there are combined, registered Republicans and Democrats. Therefore it is quite noteworthy to realize that most Americans are opposed to ObamaCare and wish for the Republicans to act against this bill.
March 28th, 2010 at 9:46 am
@Kwok,
And what does your ridiculous statement indicate? It’s not like past Reps were known for cutting down personnel and resources. You want to talk about spending? Say “G.W.B.” At least this spending is a necessary spending for an important cause, unlike…oh, I don’t know, a certain war started on the basis of “slam dunk” assumptions.