RASMUSSEN POLL: Support for Health Care Plan Falls to New Low; 41% Favor 56% Oppose...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Is there a point to your post? How does that show the Republicans are not participating in the process?

You're angry at Obama for working with the Republicans.

I am?

Sounds like it to me. You said you would preferred that the President ram through a single payer bill from the beginning. That's not very bipartisan now, is it?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Is there a point to your post? How does that show the Republicans are not participating in the process?

You're angry at Obama for working with the Republicans.

I am?

Sounds like it to me. You said you would preferred that the President ram through a single payer bill from the beginning. That's not very bipartisan now, is it?

That would have been the smart move, and one I could have supported.

However, your statement that the Republicans have done nothing but hamper progress to bipartisan healthcare reform is disingenuous at least. For one, there has been a scored Repulbican alternative ready to go in the House since July. Republicans, as have Democrats, have been submitting mostly substantive amemdments all along, although a few "frivilous" amemdments have been submitted by both sides, mostly for political theater.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Is there a point to your post? How does that show the Republicans are not participating in the process?

You're angry at Obama for working with the Republicans.

I am?

Sounds like it to me. You said you would preferred that the President ram through a single payer bill from the beginning. That's not very bipartisan now, is it?

That would have been the smart move, and one I could have supported.

However, your statement that the Republicans have done nothing but hamper progress to bipartisan healthcare reform is disingenuous at least. For one, there has been a scored Repulbican alternative ready to go in the House since July. Republicans, as have Democrats, have been submitting mostly substantive amemdments all along, although a few "frivilous" amemdments have been submitted by both sides, mostly for political theater.

We'll see when the final bill is voted on....just how many Republicans will show bipartisan support for it.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Bipartisan Support = Republicans caving

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Is there a point to your post? How does that show the Republicans are not participating in the process?

You're angry at Obama for working with the Republicans.

I am?

Sounds like it to me. You said you would preferred that the President ram through a single payer bill from the beginning. That's not very bipartisan now, is it?

That would have been the smart move, and one I could have supported.

However, your statement that the Republicans have done nothing but hamper progress to bipartisan healthcare reform is disingenuous at least. For one, there has been a scored Repulbican alternative ready to go in the House since July. Republicans, as have Democrats, have been submitting mostly substantive amemdments all along, although a few "frivilous" amemdments have been submitted by both sides, mostly for political theater.

We'll see when the final bill is voted on....just how many Republicans will show bipartisan support for it.

That's all theater, and you know it. The real work is done in committtee, and on the House floor, depending on whether or not, Pelosi brings healthcare under martial law, or an open rule. Then, it depends who gets to participate in the final bill, when it is rewritten (in secret), during conference.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Is there a point to your post? How does that show the Republicans are not participating in the process?

You're angry at Obama for working with the Republicans.

I am?

Sounds like it to me. You said you would preferred that the President ram through a single payer bill from the beginning. That's not very bipartisan now, is it?

That would have been the smart move, and one I could have supported.

However, your statement that the Republicans have done nothing but hamper progress to bipartisan healthcare reform is disingenuous at least. For one, there has been a scored Repulbican alternative ready to go in the House since July. Republicans, as have Democrats, have been submitting mostly substantive amemdments all along, although a few "frivilous" amemdments have been submitted by both sides, mostly for political theater.

We'll see when the final bill is voted on....just how many Republicans will show bipartisan support for it.

That's all theater, and you know it. The real work is done in committtee, and on the House floor, depending on whether or not, Pelosi brings healthcare under martial law, or an open rule. Then, it depends who gets to participate in the final bill, when it is rewritten (in secret), during conference.

We've had this conversation before, Bill - it is a bipartisan effort. That doesn't mean that both sides get equal input.

What do you mean by Martial Law?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Is there a point to your post? How does that show the Republicans are not participating in the process?

You're angry at Obama for working with the Republicans.

I am?

Sounds like it to me. You said you would preferred that the President ram through a single payer bill from the beginning. That's not very bipartisan now, is it?

That would have been the smart move, and one I could have supported.

However, your statement that the Republicans have done nothing but hamper progress to bipartisan healthcare reform is disingenuous at least. For one, there has been a scored Repulbican alternative ready to go in the House since July. Republicans, as have Democrats, have been submitting mostly substantive amemdments all along, although a few "frivilous" amemdments have been submitted by both sides, mostly for political theater.

We'll see when the final bill is voted on....just how many Republicans will show bipartisan support for it.

That's all theater, and you know it. The real work is done in committtee, and on the House floor, depending on whether or not, Pelosi brings healthcare under martial law, or an open rule. Then, it depends who gets to participate in the final bill, when it is rewritten (in secret), during conference.

We've had this conversation before, Bill - it is a bipartisan effort. That doesn't mean that both sides get equal input.

What do you mean by Martial Law?

Bill is brought to the House floor for limitted debate only, no admendments, no motion to recommit, and needs only a simple majority for passage. Generally bills brought under suspension of the rules require two-thirds vote for passage. However, when the rules committee crafts such a rule to suspend all rules, and permit the bill to be passed by a simple majority, that is often referred to as "Martial Law".

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Is there a point to your post? How does that show the Republicans are not participating in the process?

You're angry at Obama for working with the Republicans.

I am?

Sounds like it to me. You said you would preferred that the President ram through a single payer bill from the beginning. That's not very bipartisan now, is it?

That would have been the smart move, and one I could have supported.

However, your statement that the Republicans have done nothing but hamper progress to bipartisan healthcare reform is disingenuous at least. For one, there has been a scored Repulbican alternative ready to go in the House since July. Republicans, as have Democrats, have been submitting mostly substantive amemdments all along, although a few "frivilous" amemdments have been submitted by both sides, mostly for political theater.

We'll see when the final bill is voted on....just how many Republicans will show bipartisan support for it.

That's all theater, and you know it. The real work is done in committtee, and on the House floor, depending on whether or not, Pelosi brings healthcare under martial law, or an open rule. Then, it depends who gets to participate in the final bill, when it is rewritten (in secret), during conference.

We've had this conversation before, Bill - it is a bipartisan effort. That doesn't mean that both sides get equal input.

What do you mean by Martial Law?

Bill is brought to the House floor for limitted debate only, no admendments, no motion to recommit, and needs only a simple majority for passage. Generally bills brought under suspension of the rules require two-thirds vote for passage. However, when the rules committee crafts such a rule to suspend all rules, and permit the bill to be passed by a simple majority, that is often referred to as "Martial Law".

LOL...except when Republicans use it, then they affectionately call it the Nuclear Option. Sounds more Capitalist...Martial Law sounds more Communist Dictatorshippy.

[Ling Ling 22]

Most if not all politicians have government managed healthcare that's considered world class. If it's good enough for them, why isn't it good enough for the people that pay for it?

http://public-healthcare-issues.suite101.c...the_us_congress

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program

As soon as members of Congress are sworn in, they may participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The program offers an assortment of health plans from which to choose, including fee-for-service, point-of-service, and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). In addition, Congress members can also insure their spouses and their dependents.

Not only does Congress get to choose from a wide range of plans, but there’s no waiting period. Unlike many Americans who must struggle against precondition clauses or are even denied coverage because of those preconditions, Senators and Representatives are covered no matter what - effective immediately.

And here’s the best part. The government pays up to 75 percent of the premium. That government, of course, is funded by taxpayers, the same taxpayers who often cannot afford health care themselves.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/a...are-secret.aspx

Military beneficiaries like Wilson─who, as a retiree, is eligible for lifetime coverage─never have to worry about an eye exam, a CT scan, a prolonged labor, or an open-heart surgery. They have access not only to the military's 133,500 uniformed health professionals, but cooperating private doctors as well─whose fees are paid by the Department of Defense. It's high-quality care, too: surveys from 2007 and 2008 list TRICARE among "the best health insurer(s) in the nation" by customer satisfaction. Yet Wilson insists government-run health care is a problem.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Is there a point to your post? How does that show the Republicans are not participating in the process?

You're angry at Obama for working with the Republicans.

I am?

Sounds like it to me. You said you would preferred that the President ram through a single payer bill from the beginning. That's not very bipartisan now, is it?

That would have been the smart move, and one I could have supported.

However, your statement that the Republicans have done nothing but hamper progress to bipartisan healthcare reform is disingenuous at least. For one, there has been a scored Repulbican alternative ready to go in the House since July. Republicans, as have Democrats, have been submitting mostly substantive amemdments all along, although a few "frivilous" amemdments have been submitted by both sides, mostly for political theater.

We'll see when the final bill is voted on....just how many Republicans will show bipartisan support for it.

That's all theater, and you know it. The real work is done in committtee, and on the House floor, depending on whether or not, Pelosi brings healthcare under martial law, or an open rule. Then, it depends who gets to participate in the final bill, when it is rewritten (in secret), during conference.

We've had this conversation before, Bill - it is a bipartisan effort. That doesn't mean that both sides get equal input.

What do you mean by Martial Law?

Bill is brought to the House floor for limitted debate only, no admendments, no motion to recommit, and needs only a simple majority for passage. Generally bills brought under suspension of the rules require two-thirds vote for passage. However, when the rules committee crafts such a rule to suspend all rules, and permit the bill to be passed by a simple majority, that is often referred to as "Martial Law".

LOL...except when Republicans use it, then they affectionately call it the Nuclear Option. Sounds more Capitalist...Martial Law sounds more Communist Dictatorshippy.

That's a Senate thing, where they purposely violate the rules of the Senate, then when the acting President of the Senate Pro Temporare (chair) rules against the breach, they appeal the ruling of the chair, and with a simple majority, effectively change the rules of the Senate, a measure that usually takes a two-thirds vote to do so.

Similar, but it takes a lot more parliamentry theater to do it in the Senate, because the right of the senators for unlimitted debate. (Threatened, but hasn't been utilized since 1964).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

[zqt3344 21]

If Obama had to run today he would be beaten badly! He is going to be a one term Charlie or Jimmy for that matter!

RASMUSSEN POLL: Support for Health Care Plan Falls to New Low; 41% Favor 56% Oppose...

[AlHayatZween 2]

Intellectually, whether or not you agree with what the President is trying to do, don't you agree he probably missed an chance of passing comprehensive healthcare reform by being too timid from the onset?

YES!

[Danno 1,228]

Most if not all politicians have government managed healthcare that's considered world class. If it's good enough for them, why isn't it good enough for the people that pay for it?

Now this is sweet!

When you say Gov Managed....... what exactly do you mean?

And are you suggesting that "leader... Politicians" don't universally get better care than the average Shlub on a Gov run system?

Why I bet even the Leaders of N. Korea, Cuba, (name your fav) have better healthcare than the average guy on the street.

Pretending We would all be wheeled into Bethesda's waiting team of doctors is... silly.