big chief
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 4:33:00 PM
I think they are screwed here.

If they pass some form of health care legislation, 1/2 the voters are going to be pissed (as well as many independents, simply because the bill is so partisan);

If they don't pass any sort of health care legislation, the whole country will be wondering why they wasted over a year on health care when we are in the midst of a long-running overseas conflict AND in the midst of a terrible recession.

This is lose-lose for the Dems

wtjvj
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 4:37:00 PM
maybe they should have tried to pass a bill that didn't suck.
FuzzNJ
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 4:49:00 PM
2: If they didn't try to appease the Republicans, maybe it wouldn't have.
wheelrite
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 4:51:00 PM
^ That's a joke right ?

How have the dems appeased the Repubs ?

They have a super majority .They don't need one Repub vote to pass this abortion of a bill...

wheel,

HockeyDad
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 4:54:00 PM
If this doesn't pass the insurance companies and pharmaceuticals will need to lower their profit forecasts. This will mean less money for buying Democrats in the future and poor payback for the current crop of Democrats they bought.

I've always said that you get better return on your investment by buying Republicans.

wtjvj
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 5:02:00 PM
Fuzz, the bill sucked, you can't blame that on nobody but the people that wrote it.

No way can you make it look better than it is.

twisted
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 5:21:00 PM
Does anybody really think this is about health costs for the regular Joe? This is a "bought and paid for" administration, voted in by the naive and union sheep for one purpose only, to get the American taxpayer to take over the mis-managed union pension funds that are broke or going that way at light speed.

Promises were made and the Dem's are going have to push something through, hell or high water.

Failure to do so will push the pensions funds over the brink, ie., the union faithful, the Democratic voting base, will defect away from the Dem party.

If they don't get a bill passed, you can bet your ass Obama will be bailing out the pension funds within the year.

My only question is what will be the tipping point that causes the poop to hit the propeller.

wtjvj
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 5:32:00 PM
If they took out all the fat and just worked on health care it may have settled with the public better.

I expect another trick to push this piece of crap home.

Trickery may prevail.

donutboy2000
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 6:42:00 PM
By November 3/4 of the electorate will have forgotten the health bill.
pacman357
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 7:09:00 PM
Depends on how you define a loss, I suppose. Every time they look like they are imploding, someone like Bunning steps up and makes the Republicans look like the party of mean people.

All of that could change 20 times between now and November, too. Remember, the American attention span is about...about...

WTF were we talking about again?

big chief
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 7:13:00 PM
WT, 8,

Yep, had they simply addressed some of the pressing issues and kept it at that they would have enjoyed more popular support because I think that fewer and fewer folk are blind or immune to the need for some kind of 'fix'.

But, no. They went and created a 2000 page monstrosity that was packed with earmarks and pork. But hey, we're only in the midst of a giant recession so why not go out with a bang?

(aside: What were they thinking?)

In the process, the Democrats made public--for all to see--the Broken Congress. Only (and this is the good part, lol) because this was a partisan bill, all the deal making/tit-for-tat/Louisana Purchase crap was done by Democrats, and the 'Broken Congress' has now been laid in the Democrats laps and they will need to take responsibility for it. It will be good to see how this gets spun.

I'm sure that a Supermajority is wet-dream time for both parties, but you gotta be careful what you wish for....

jpotts
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 7:47:00 PM
Appeasing Republicans? That's rich!
jpotts
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 7:52:00 PM
I think what has screwed the Democrats are three key factors:

1) They tried to implement a government-run program.

2) Every government-run health care system is a virtual disaster either financially or on the care end of things.

3) After 40 years of Keynesean-style government intervention, everything the government touches becomes dominated by a tangled, inept bureaucracy, and produces little more than crushing debt and most Americans have figured this out.

pacman357
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 8:18:00 PM
#13 Doesn't matter. Something big could happen tomorrow, next month, four months from now, etc., that could make a huge impact one way or another. Shoot, it's almost arbitrary now...whether someone gets re-elected almost tends to be more of a function of when the election (which is on a set date) happens in relation to a big event (which isn't planned).
jpotts
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 8:42:00 PM
I respectfully disagree.

Democrats hammered away for 8 years of the "Bush is bad" and "Republicans are corrupt" theme. It was totally planned, and it worked.

It is unfortunate that the people put into power were probably more corrupt than the people that they replaced. And unless Republicans actually define a cost-cutting agenda and STICK to it (big conditional there), they'll probably be just as bad as the people they replace.

I actually have hope for the future, though. The Bush years, and now this, have shown that when the American voter flexes their collective muscles, they can stop stuff dead in its tracks. It was done with amnesty, the Harriet Meiers (sp:?) nomination, the Democrat takeover, and now with Scott Brown and the halting of the health care takeover (or at least the slowing thereof).

The problem isn't electing these people. It's making sure that once they get to Washington DC, they do what they promised to do. Politicians are like kids who claim that their doing their homework in their room. They only time they actually DO their homework is when they know their being monitored. When they're not being monitored, they're rubbing one out to their Playboy stash under the bed.

I can't count how many times I see Democrats here in Michigan tout all of their tax cut proposals, and how much they cut taxes in the past. They get elected, go to Washington, and POOF: my taxes go up.

jackconrad
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 9:58:00 PM
The Country DOES NOT WANT National Heathcare !

Just a couple of regulations..

big chief
Wednesday, March 17, 2010 6:00:00 AM
This from Associated Press, this morning.

LOL...reform is going to raise costs

WASHINGTON – Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print.

Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care bill passes, experts say. If cost controls work as advertised, annual increases would level off with time. But don't look for a rollback. Instead, the main reason premiums would be more affordable is that new government tax credits would help cover the cost for millions of people.

Listening to Obama pitch his plan, you might not realize that's how it works.

Visiting a Cleveland suburb this week, the president described how individuals and small businesses will be able to buy coverage in a new kind of health insurance marketplace, gaining the same strength in numbers that federal employees have.

"You'll be able to buy in, or a small business will be able to buy into this pool," Obama said. "And that will lower rates, it's estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you're currently getting. That's money out of pocket."

And that's not all.

Obama asked his audience for a show of hands from people with employer-provided coverage, what most Americans have.

"Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent," said the president, "which means they could give you a raise."

A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000.

It could be a long wait.

"There's no question premiums are still going to keep going up," said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a research clearinghouse on the health care system. "There are pieces of reform that will hopefully keep them from going up as fast. But it would be miraculous if premiums actually went down relative to where they are today."

The statistics Obama based his claims on come from two sources. In both cases, the caveats got left out.

A report for the Business Roundtable, an association of big company CEOs, was the source for the claim that employers could save $3,000 per worker on health care costs, the White House said.

Issued in November, the report looked generally at proposals that Democrats were considering to curb health care costs, concluding they had the potential to significantly reduce future increases.

But the analysis didn't consider specific legislation, much less the final language being tweaked this week. It's unclear to what degree the bill that the House is expected to vote on within days would reduce costs for employers.

An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of earlier Senate legislation suggested savings could be fairly modest.

It found that large employers would see premium savings of at most 3 percent compared with what their costs would have been without the legislation. That would be more like a few hundred dollars instead of several thousand.

The claim that people buying coverage individually would save 14 percent to 20 percent comes from the same budget office report, prepared in November for Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. But the presidential sound bite fails to convey the full picture.

The budget office concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they'd reach without the legislation. That's mainly because policies in the individual insurance market would provide more comprehensive benefits than they do today.

For most households, those added costs would be more than offset by the tax credits provided under the bill, and they would pay significantly less than they have to now.

The premium reduction of 14 percent to 20 percent that Obama cites would apply only to a portion of the people buying coverage on their own — those who decide they want to keep the skimpier kinds of policies available today.

Their costs would go down because more young people would be joining the risk pool and because insurance company overhead costs would be lower in the more efficient system Obama wants to create.

The president usually alludes to that distinction in his health care stump speech, saying the savings would accrue to those people who continue to buy "comparable" coverage to what they have today.

But many of his listeners may not pick up on it.

"People are likely to not buy the same low-value policies they are buying now," said health economist Len Nichols of George Mason University. "If they did buy the same value plans ... the premium would be lower than it is now. This makes the White House statement true. But is it possibly misleading for some people? Sure."

twisted
Wednesday, March 17, 2010 8:35:00 AM
I'm telling ya folks, it's all about the the unions dumping their legacy costs on the taxpayer. They could care less what it costs and who has to pay for it.
Stinkdyr
Wednesday, March 17, 2010 9:17:00 AM
#15

that is why i vote Libertarian.

Republicrats = Demicans.