Hoyer: If Brown wins, we'll rubber-stamp the Senate bill and have it on Obama's desk within days

[SMOKE 1,426]

Obstructionism is when you voted for a huge Medicare increase in 2004 while Bush (a Republican) was in office, but reject expanding or creating medical insurance for others because "it's not the government's job." Every excuse, "it costs too much money", "it's socialism" evaporates in the context of that Medicare vote back in 2004, or the ongoing support for rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. Principled my #######. That's obstructionism in it's purest form and the filibuster record is plain as day.

no name from the 60?

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

Irrational blame-game. The dims didn't need any republicans to get this passed. Its their own fault.

Do you know how the votes came down by party for other landmark legislation like Social Security and Medicare?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

t is widely predicted in Brown does win, tomorrow will be the biggest day the stock market has seen in years...400 points or more.

Reality check:

Firstrade 2010-20-01: DJIA Drops 122 Points, Most in Over a Month

• NYSE down 113.85 (1.5%) to 7,329.83.
  
• DJIA down 122 (1.1%) to 10,603.
  
• S&P 500 down 12 (1.1%) to 1,138.
  
• Nasdaq down 29 (1.3%) to 2,291.
  

[Pooky 3,791]

Obstructionism is when you voted for a huge Medicare increase in 2004 while Bush (a Republican) was in office, but reject expanding or creating medical insurance for others because "it's not the government's job." Every excuse, "it costs too much money", "it's socialism" evaporates in the context of that Medicare vote back in 2004, or the ongoing support for rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. Principled my #######. That's obstructionism in it's purest form and the filibuster record is plain as day.

no name from the 60?

Don't think for a second you'll get an answer to your question from Mr Haemorroid.

When faced with a simple question, such as who is to blame for the Dimocrats not passing healthcare reform with a super-majority, when the dumb-arsed Republican'ts could not mathematically muster a filibuster, he simply cannot bring himself to admit that the fault lies with the party he supports, without trying to redirect to a different time and measure to say that it's all the Republican'ts fault.

One day he will see that equivocation only weakens the message. Until then, he just needs to remember that denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

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

no name from the 60?

Don't think for a second you'll get an answer to your question from Mr Haemorroid.

When faced with a simple question, such as who is to blame for the Dimocrats not passing healthcare reform with a super-majority, when the dumb-arsed Republican'ts could not mathematically muster a filibuster, he simply cannot bring himself to admit that the fault lies with the party he supports, without trying to redirect to a different time and measure to say that it's all the Republican'ts fault.

One day he will see that equivocation only weakens the message. Until then, he just needs to remember that denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

The Democratic Party did fail, but not without the help of the Republican obstructionists who wanted to drag health care reform out, saying that it's because they want to work towards a bipartisan solution, really only wanted to kill it. Read what many prominent Republicans had said about it...they weren't even going to give it a chance for a vote. Landmark legislation like health care reform shouldn't be based on party politics, but on the interests of this country. And let's go round and round on this, "They oppose it because it costs too much money" BS. Their voting record on Medicare in 2004 says otherwise.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The Democratic Party did fail, but not without the help of the Republican obstructionists who wanted to drag health care reform out, saying that it's because they want to work towards a bipartisan solution, really only wanted to kill it. Read what many prominent Republicans had said about it...they weren't even going to give it a chance for a vote. Landmark legislation like health care reform shouldn't be based on party politics, but on the interests of this country. And let's go round and round on this, "They oppose it because it costs too much money" BS. Their voting record on Medicare in 2004 says otherwise.

You're such a piece of work, Steven. The Republicans couldn't even muster an obstruction. They were totally IRRELEVANT and the Dims shut them out arrogantly, even until last nite, claiming that they could pass their piece of ####### bill without them coz they had all the votes they needed without them. Even after bribery and unconstitutional manuvers, they STILL couldn't pass that lump of coal coz not even all the DIMS have sh!t for brains.

I'll bet everything I've got that there are plenty of Dimocrats in Congress who are privately praising Massachusetts for ending their torture about voting for Obamacare. Nancy's announcement that she can't get enough votes to pass it in the House is not anyone's fault but theirs for pissing off most of the country's population. Massachusetts voted for a Republican coz they didn't want more of the elitism that the Dims offered in Coakley, not because they think Dimocrats are so bipartisan. Much of the nation will soon be doing the same in November.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Reality check:

Firstrade 2010-20-01: DJIA Drops 122 Points, Most in Over a Month

• NYSE down 113.85 (1.5%) to 7,329.83.
  
• DJIA down 122 (1.1%) to 10,603.
  
• S&P 500 down 12 (1.1%) to 1,138.
  
• Nasdaq down 29 (1.3%) to 2,291.
  

This is very strange. Especially since gold has been going down, the dollar has been going up and oil has been going down, all a better indication of improved confidence in government that the stock market. I have to admit, I thought the market would go up but it sometimes does things in complete defiance of other indicators. Go figure.

However, why would you consider it "good news"? Strange. Anyway...Coakley lost, did you hear? And if the democrats cam lose Kennedy's seat in Mass....well, who knows what the future holds, eh? I am optomistic. You?

The Democratic Party did fail, but not without the help of the Republican obstructionists who wanted to drag health care reform out, saying that it's because they want to work towards a bipartisan solution, really only wanted to kill it. Read what many prominent Republicans had said about it...they weren't even going to give it a chance for a vote. Landmark legislation like health care reform shouldn't be based on party politics, but on the interests of this country. And let's go round and round on this, "They oppose it because it costs too much money" BS. Their voting record on Medicare in 2004 says otherwise.

Continued denial. It is a beautiful thing. Please continue until at least mid-November 2012.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It saddens me that Mass lost their Democratic Senator, but if it makes the House pass the Senate's healthcare version, that might be a good thing. The long drawn-out debate on the healthcare has gone on for far too long anyway.

Civics lesson. Each state has TWO Senators. Mass still has a democrat Senator John F. Kerry (he served in Vietnam, did I mention that?) So weep no more. Mass is now a purple state, not a red one. Alos ALL of their congressman are Democrats, NOW do you understand why it is so chilling that a Republican won?

The house will not pass the Senate version of health care. They BARELY passed the house version of healthcare (by two votes) and the Senate version is full of stuff they TOOK OUT before passing the house version. They all just watched Kennedy's seat taken by an unknown Republican with healthcare being the major issue of the election. It is like watching your friend getting his brains blown out playing Russian roulette, then being handed a fresh gun and being told... "your turn!"

You are going to see everything become more important than health care while the dems try to hold onto control of the house and senate.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So you object to any marginal reforms because it's not perfect? What country are you from originally again?

I object to 200 page insurance policies that require me to pay premiums for three years before getting any coverage and then requiring me to pay HIGHER premiums for less coverage than I already have. get real Steven, the bill was political vomit. "not perfect"

I would love to see ALL Americans not have to choose between medicine and food, really I would. But you have to remember that 85% of us are covered and perfectly happy with what we have. Whoever writes this up is going to have to find a way to cover the other 15% without penalizing 85% of us or we aren't going to like and we will say so. Deal with it.

If YOU are willing to "settle" for non perfect, marginal reforms then try this first...

1. Allow any insurance company to provide health coverage in any state

2. Detach health coverage from employment, require employers to pass through as wages the amount currently used to pay insurance premiums and allow people to chose their own policy and pay for it (I dream for the day we see health insurance ads on TV)

3. Tort reform for medical malpractice

Do this first and come back to me in 3 years. (we would wait that long for the government plan which would also include tort reform and detaching coverage from employment, so why not?)

[Pooky 3,791]

Landmark legislation like health care reform shouldn't be based on party politics, but on the interests of this country.

And there lies the crux of the matter.

The Healthcare Bill currently festering in Congress is not in the interests of the country as a whole, only certain parts of it (Louisiana, Nebraska, the Unions, etc.), yet the Dimocrats persisted in trying to cut deals, pay-off supporters, buy-off holdout Senate votes and other murky measures, just to get something passed, so they could say they had done it. That is plain wrong.

I have no doubt that if a workable single-payer system had come before Congress then the Republican'ts would have tried to block it. But the electorate may have been kinder with their opinions and their votes. As it is, they saw the self-serving Dimocrats fighting and bitching amongst themselves, trying to cut every deal they can get away with, and said f*** this for a game of soldiers and voted in Scott Brown, making Martha Coakley, President Obama and the ** Party as a whole look like a bunch of fools.

They got what they deserved.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

. . . Senator John F. Kerry (he served in Vietnam, did I mention that?)

Inside joke

[Peikko 1,575]

And there lies the crux of the matter.

The Healthcare Bill currently festering in Congress is not in the interests of the country as a whole, only certain parts of it (Louisiana, Nebraska, the Unions, etc.), yet the Dimocrats persisted in trying to cut deals, pay-off supporters, buy-off holdout Senate votes and other murky measures, just to get something passed, so they could say they had done it. That is plain wrong.

I have no doubt that if a workable single-payer system had come before Congress then the Republican'ts would have tried to block it. But the electorate may have been kinder with their opinions and their votes. As it is, they saw the self-serving Dimocrats fighting and bitching amongst themselves, trying to cut every deal they can get away with, and said f*** this for a game of soldiers and voted in Scott Brown, making Martha Coakley, President Obama and the ** Party as a whole look like a bunch of fools.

They got what they deserved.

I don't know if this is true, but it certainly appears that way.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

And there lies the crux of the matter.

The Healthcare Bill currently festering in Congress is not in the interests of the country as a whole, only certain parts of it (Louisiana, Nebraska, the Unions, etc.), yet the Dimocrats persisted in trying to cut deals, pay-off supporters, buy-off holdout Senate votes and other murky measures, just to get something passed, so they could say they had done it. That is plain wrong.

I have no doubt that if a workable single-payer system had come before Congress then the Republican'ts would have tried to block it. But the electorate may have been kinder with their opinions and their votes. As it is, they saw the self-serving Dimocrats fighting and bitching amongst themselves, trying to cut every deal they can get away with, and said f*** this for a game of soldiers and voted in Scott Brown, making Martha Coakley, President Obama and the ** Party as a whole look like a bunch of fools.

They got what they deserved.

The Dimocrats have shown their azzes big time since Obama's primary win. They have been openly boastful re their distain and disregard for the "common man" and for voters who didn't support their candidate or his policies. Their raw arrogance and dismissal of the Tea Party Movement and people who drive trucks, own guns, business owners, taxpayers, conservative congressmembers who represent voters all over the country has been breathtakingly dumb.

In Barry's own words, Dimocrats "acted stupidly", and, yes, they deserve every defeat they get. It's good for the country that they fail and fail big so we are spared their one-party rule idiocy for a long time, and it will be fun to watch them once again eat their young in desperation.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Sofiyya