I wrote a big goddamn thing about health care reform and then the post got eaten and I haven't anywhere near the energy to write the whole thing again at 1:12 AM.
online pharmacy propecia best drugstore for you
buy doxycycline online buy doxycycline online no prescription
Synopsis: Of course the Court is going to strike it down. That much was painfully apparent the moment the White House and congressional Democrats decided that it was less important to reform a broken system than it is to keep the insurance companies happy and rolling in our money. The idea was ridiculous from the beginning, especially given that it would not only inevitably end up in the courts but would end up before a conservative Supreme Court. So as his signature (only?) legislative accomplishment is undone in the next few weeks, Obama has no one but himself to blame. When he decided that universal coverage could or would be achieved by contracting things out to a broken, profit-driven health insurance industry, he might as well have pulled the plug then and there. The law isn't going to be killed – it was essentially stillborn.
online pharmacy desyrel best drugstore for you
duck-billed placelot says:
The only positive thing about it is that the 'once in a generation' health care reform clock is getting rolled back.
Unless Andrew Kennedy decides he's more of a corporatist than a Republican, in which case except more individual mandates ahead.
Middle Seaman says:
Correct, the "creation" of the health care reform took place in hell with the help of the health insurance companies. The process itself has demonstrated, above anything else, that Obama is a Rockefeller Republican, inept to the level of tooth ache and not fit to run a supermarket.
The behavior of the supreme court in the last three days is a huge embarrassment to all of us. Scalia moves around like a mafia don mocking anything he does like not even bothering to hide his long standing opposition for anything that Torquemada would not like.
Alito represent mad dogs, Thomas is dead and Kennedy desperately trying unsuccessfully to appear coherent which he is not. Roberts acts much better than Tom Hanks, but his vote is well known.
The big democracy doesn't have an impartial judicial system. Since congress works for Wall Street and the president is a dud, only god can help us.
c u n d gulag says:
Sorry folks, but "Single Payer" never had a chance.
Sure, part of it was calling it that, and not "Medicare For All" – but between a R party that was determined to oppose Obama from the day the election results came in, and the "Red Dog" D's (I call them that 'cause there ain't nothin' "Blue" 'bout 'em) in Congress, whatever you wanted to call it, never, NEVER, had a chance of passage. There wasn't enough of the public calling for it. They've been brainwashed over the decades, that is was "Sochulizm," or "Commonizm."
I'll grant you that it should have been the starting point.
Obama did the best he could with the Congress he had .
Before you cue the "Obamabot" accusations, let me first tell you that I have a lot of problems with Obama on A LOT of issues – Civil Liberties being most prominent among them, but I don't have one on ACA.
Neither SS, nor Medicare, nor Medicaid, was born fully formed. They all "evolved" over time.
And THAT'S what's going to be disappointing about ACA if this reactionary SC decides to play politics with it, and rule against it.
ACA was a starting point that could, or might, have eventually led to "Medicare For All."
What'll be interesting is to see what the reactionary SC decides to do about the millions of people already covered by ACA – people with pre-existing conditions, and young adults 26 and under.
They need to be careful, because THAT's what could rebound back to them and the R party.
I'm also having some computer problems, so I'll end it here. I may have some more comments later on, if anyone's interested. And if I do, and you're not – well, skip them! :-)
Xynzee says:
There was something one of my HS civics teachers said that has stuck with me nearly 30yrs later. Americans have this attitude that if they either don't want to do something no matter how good the change would be or if they can't compete, they will do it so badly and make such a failure of it that no one will ever consider it again.
The examples he used were GM's diesel motors in the late 70s early 80s. Realising that they could never make a diesel that could compete against VW and Mercedes, they made such a heap of crap of an engine that it effectively tanked the diesel market.
The other was the Susan B. Anthony $1 coin. But for minor differences they made something the same size weight and shape as a quarter. What could go wrong? On my last visit I'd heard they were trying it again. The banks weren't issuing them unless asked specifically for them, but as they weren't being promoted and no one knew they exisisted people weren't asking for them. And so it goes…
So as CU, pointed out, the best anyone could hope for was what you got for the reasons he mentioned. So once again, sadly it'll be years before anyone will be game enough to take a tilt at this windmill again.
Mike says:
What's the evidence that a more sweeping reform would have passed, with blue-dog Democrats determined to block them and every single Republican (including "moderates" Snowe and Collins) staunchly against even modest reform?
The only argument that I've heard is that if Obama were a "better negotiator," he would have — what? Made Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe see the error of their centrist ways?
At least overturning the ACA will pave the way for single-payer … somtime in 2030 or 2040.
Mike says:
Also … I'm definitely not a legal expert, but from what I've been reading, most constitutional law experts think that the mandate is clearly constitutional. And of course the mandate was originally a Republican idea.
So I'm not sure it was "obvious" when the ACA was being crafted that Republicans would go berzerk when their own idea was implemented, nor obvious that the SCOTUS would strike it down. (It's still not obvious, is it? It all comes down to Kennedy.)
Of course … it's quite obvious when you realize that Republicans have zero interest in governing and are driven almost entirely by their reflexive opposition to anything that Obama supports (cf, SALT).
But you need to have reached a very cynical mindset to realize that Congress is completely, utterly, and irreparably broken, corrupt, and useless. Obama's main character flaw, in my view, is his belief that our political system can still be salvaged.
Anonymouse says:
"Obama did the best he could with the Congress he had."
This. Exactly. Itstead of petulant temper tantrums about Obama failing, I think it's important to realize with an obstinant and childish opposition gleefully ready to slice of their own noses to spite their face, there's only so much anyone could do.
John says:
So ends one of the most poorly-conceived pieces of legislation in recent American history.
Such is the fate of all legislation that directs itself towards corporate gain while clothing itself in the rhetoric of the Public Good™.
Sphys says:
Generally a fan, but I agree with c u n d gulag and Anonymouse. When we get a Parliamentary system, or at least abolish the Senate, then let's go ahead and bitch, but with the failure of Hillarycare as the most recent attempt at a fix it wasn't that unreasonable for Obama to try this method. But let's wave away the lameness of Lieberman and co away with a magic wand. Do you think there wouldn't be screaming about single-payer if that had passed as we would've liked? Do you think Alito et al wouldn't be happy make something up to strike down single-payer?
Michael says:
Politics is not a sliding scale. There was (and is) a lot more public support for Medicare-with-no-age-limits, true universal healthcare, than for any sort of sleazy mandate scheme. It's entirely likely that Obama could have pushed through universal healthcare, because the public was (and is) massively in favor. It actually would have been easier to get that than to get the scheme that was passed. Because as a Republican or a worthless Democrat, who wants to go back to your constituents and tell them you just voted to keep them from having "free" healthcare?
But Obama didn't want that. He specifically wanted a scheme that is mainly subsidizing insurance companies.
Tim H. says:
I'm wondering if mandatory auto insurance, a darling of the GOP in the past, can survive if ACA is struck down? Or will the line be "Living in the United States is a privilege, not a right"?
negative 1 says:
I am an accountant one state over from Massachusetts who has routinely done state income tax returns for Massachusetts. In my current job I purchase healthcare for the organization I work for. As such, I have first hand real experience with this law, it's effect on the healthcare industry, and how it has worked (in Mass.) for a little under a decade.
It works. It's not perfect, it's not great, but it works. It hasn't done much to bring down costs in Mass., but they haven't gone up much either. The cost curve, per our actuary (who has to value the liability of our post-retirement healthcare benefit) was finally brought down by .5% annual growth. But more importantly… more people are covered. A LOT more. And costs didn't go up, which since everyone forgot, was the argument that the health insurers used to argue why they couldn't insure everyone.
Anecdotally, a person that works for us was in active treatment for cancer when his wife lost her insurance. He got onto ours, while in treatment, the same day. THAT COULDN'T HAPPEN WITHOUT THIS LAW.
That is what the supreme court (no I won't capitalize those words) is taking away from us today. So while we sit here fantasizing that Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman and Mary Landrieu would ever have voted for single payer, remember that people are going to die of the flu again. Is this argument the best use of our energy? Or maybe should we be arguing to limit terms for our the supremes, or start hounding republicans on how they intend to stop children from dying of diarrhea without making their families homeless? Because again, since we forgot, those optics weren't so great for them right before this law passed.
duck-billed placelot says:
For all the fighting that had to happen to get the ACA passed, it might as well have been single payer. But it wasn't, and sorry, without the public option, it's not a pathway to single payer. Personally, I don't think it's constitutional to create a mandate to purchase a product from a for-profit industry that's known for its egregious abuses of consumers. Not that the Angry Men of the Supreme Court really care about constitutionality per se…
Hawes says:
The Senate filibuster. How does it work?
Death Panel Truck says:
"It's entirely likely that Obama could have pushed through universal healthcare, because the public was (and is) massively in favor. It actually would have been easier to get that than to get the scheme that was passed."
This statement is naive to the point of absurdity. There were never more than 10 votes in the Senate for universal healthcare. Someone said it above: Obama did the best he could with the dysfunctional Congress he had.
Mike says:
People are comparing ACA to single-payer, but we don't have single-payer, so you're comparing it to something that doesn't exist.
What we do have is a system of crappy private insurance. ACA makes that system better, by probiting recission, by requiring insurance companies to take all comers (regardless of preexisting conditions), by banning lifetime caps on coverage, and by requiring insurance companies to spend 80% of fees on actual services.
In exchange, you have to pay what is essentially a tax if you don't carry insurance.
But, you know, better we suffer with the system we have for another generation.
c u n d gulag says:
DP Truck,
Thanks for that dose of reality for some of the other readers here.
If the Conservatives cried "Soshulizm" and "Commonizm" at their own plan – which is basically what Obama adopted in hopes of bipartisan passage, can you imagine if he'd gone for "Medicare For All?"
They'd have accused him of being an Alien Dictator and Witch Doctor from the planet Negron, determined to give Americans free health care to make them leaner, and more desirable, cuts of meat, in anticipation of the spaceships coming and herding Murkans off to the dreaded Negronian Slaughterhouses in the country of Kenyanistan, to be sold to the teenage Communist Black Lizard carnivores of that planet.
If Ronald "Minimus" Reagan, "Papa Doc" Bush, Dole (if he got elected), or "Baby Doc" Bush had passed this plan – Hell, even McCain – WITH the mandate, it's likely the SC vote would have been been for unanimous approval, or 8-1, or, at worst, 7-2 FOR – with a few Liberal SC Justices choosing to say "Nay" because it wasn't FAIR enough and too costly, and recommended that Congress and the President try for "Medicare For All" next time.
Instead, we've got Scalia, Alito, and Thomas (and Mrs. Thomas), who would do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to embarrass this President, so it's not likely to pass.
The best we can hope for, is that Kennedy (embarrassed by Bush v. Gore, and "Citizens") wants to leave a "Yes" vote for his legacy and posterity; and that Roberts, who never votes against corporations making more money than humanly possible, decides to also vote "Yes," because ACA will help fill corporate pockets, and HIS legacy as CJ, as making some amends for the "Citizens" decision which he is being lambasted for, even from the right.
The fault dear friends, lies not in Obama, or in the stars – but in oursleve – or, in enough of "ourselves" who keep voting against their own best interests. AGAIN! AND AGAIN!! AND AGAIN!!!
PWL says:
1. Well, the individual mandate was a Republican idea. So if the Court strikes it down, then it shows that the Repubs were either Constitutionally stupid in coming up with the idea in the first place, or are hypocrites for being A-OK with it when they thought it up (and when Romney implemented it), then howling "Unconstitutional! Unconstitutional!" when Obama borrowed their idea. This whole case is just disgusting partisanship carried to the extreme.
2. In some ways, if the law is struck down, Obama will deserve what he gets for his "bipartisanship" (read: sucking up to Republicans). He would have done much better if he had showed bold leadership, and stuck to his guns for single-payer or public-option, rather than giving up on them with hardly a fight. How ironic that the Justices, in certain comments they made, indicated that single payer would be OK with them….
Anonymouse says:
@ Michael: you claim, "It's entirely likely that Obama could have pushed through universal healthcare, because the public was (and is) massively in favor", but you're failing to take into account the Teabag Nation and Faux Warriors, who happily agitate against their own survival when told to do so by their favorite wingnut.
c u n d gulag says:
PWL,
"2. In some ways, if the law is struck down, Obama will deserve what he gets for his "bipartisanship" (read: sucking up to Republicans). He would have done much better if he had showed bold leadership, and stuck to his guns for single-payer or public-option, rather than giving up on them with hardly a fight."
Respectfully, whatever you're ingesting or inhaling, I want some.
Remember – 'Sharing is caring!'
Ah, yes, the "bold leadership" argument.
Obama's a President.
Sure, when he comes in front of Congress, or other official gatherings, they do play "Hail To the Chief." But they don't have to mean it.
He's not a Caesar/Dictator, where when he comes in, people stand, salute, and yell, "HAIL CAESAR!"
Because if they didn't, they'd be sitting, chained to the same bench as the Christians in the Coliseum, watching the lions warm-up. An' I ain't talking about Motown's Lions, either…
Leadership, bold or wimpy, still needs Congress to pass the laws. The President merely signs them.
PWL says:
CUND Gulag, I inhaled nothing. No need to be insulting.
Point is, Obama didn't push too hard on ACA. He dropped those thing way too early. I negotiate for a living, and from what I saw, Obama was not much of a negotiator. He cut a cheesy deal with Big Pharma. He had a majority in both Houses of Congress then. He could have urged use of the reconciliation procedure much earlier–which they had to do anyway, in order to get the thing passed.
It certainly never bothered the Bush Repubs to use the reconciliation procedure to steamroller the opposition and ram things through that they wanted. You think Dems are supposed to make nice when they're being smacked in the face?
And let's not forget, this temporizing bit has been S.O.P. for Obama. Let's not forget the way he caved in December 2010 on ending the Bush tax cuts–even though he (again) had both house of Congress, and even though the majority of the American public was for ending them. And let's not forget how, last summer, he was apparently quite ready to act as Republican-style deficit warrior, until polls suggested he take a different tack.
Look, the President is not a "pitiful, helpless giant." He's the de facto leader of his party..and Obama had the party majority. He had the bully pulpit, etc. There is a LOT a President can do to influence legislation–including excercising "bold leadership". FDR did it. LBJ did it. But I don't think Obama really put his heart into it on this one.
So if you want to be an Obama apologist, and say he was only a passive actor in all this, and is entirely blameless in sticking us with a flawed bill, fine. But I won't ask you what kind of daffy dust you've been snorting to come to that conclusion.
Jonathan says:
@cund, the Constitution won't even so much as slice your finger if you're found dishonoring it or acting outside its authority. Does a god exist if no one believes in it?
If the D party were serious about winning anything they'd stop playing fair in an unfair fight. It only worked for Gandhi because he had numbers and the home court advantage. How's it worked for most other colonies and their original inhabitants? About as you'd expect. How's it working in US politics? About as you'd expect.
If the D party fought for the left (not the center-right) like the R party fights for the far right, for just one Congress, they could very probably get a veto-proof majority in the next one.
But party politics is just a distraction. I vote for Occupy.
bb in GA says:
Please don't revise history. There was no suck up to the R's by our President.
All the politics was on the D side to get this sucker passed. Remember the reconciliation and let's "deem" it passed episodes?
From WP:
"PPACA passed the Senate on December 24, 2009, by a vote of 60–39 with all Democrats and two Independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against. It passed the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, by a vote of 219–212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against the bill."
Could we argue that the 212 votes against in the House were bi-partisan ? :-(
I f y'all remember the wheeling and dealing was all done on the D side with the Landrieu and Nelson buyoffs being the most egregious.
It amounts to slander against our President (whose policies in general I do not support) to maintain that he is a suck up to Rs on this one.
//bb
c u n d gulag says:
PWS,
I didn't mean to be insulting, but I can see that I was. Sorry. I was trying to be funny – humor fail. :-(
And, as far as him starting with "Medicare for all," I said as much in my earlier comment.
FDR took over under much more drastic circumstances.
Plus, after 1929, and 3+ years of failed R policy, he had a chastened R party and Congress. And he STILL had to fight to get votes from Congress after his first few months.
LBJ followed a martyred President.
Civil Rights, and the virtual continued enslavement of "Nigra's," was something that, in large part thanks to TV, was no longer something that people could ignore. And the Civil Rights Acts of '64 and '65 were truly bipartisan efforts between Northern R's and the D's outside of the South – where it was the D's who were the defacto party of the continued Confederacy.
2008 was not, as some believed, a transformative/transformational election.
It was a rejection election.
It was a complete rejection and refudiation of "Baby Doc" Bush's policies – people were tired of war, and there was a new Lesser Depression/Greater Recession.
People were SO sick of Bush, that an African American, with a "Muslim" name was elected.
But that didn't signal that the electorate was any more liberal than the were the year before. 30+ years of Republican propaganda had been very effective. "Government" was still a 4-letter word to too many people. If it had, Obama would have walked into a Congess that had enough D's to do what they wanted to do, despite intransigence from R's and "Red Dog" Democrats.
Now, to address health care:
Obama saw what happened to the Clinton proposal, which was done within the Executive branch. It began right after Bill took office and the gave the task to Hillary. He saw Congresses reaction to the proposals – DOA!
He decided to let Congress, which had to pass the laws anyway, take the lead.
Pelosi (whom I like) took the temperature of the House, and Reid (Who) I don't like) the Senate, and they knew there weren't close to enough votes for "Single-Payer," or "Medicare For All,) or whatever anyone wants to call it.
Was it a mistake to not start from there – just to plant the seed in people minds?
I think so.
And, in fact, that seed WAS indeed planted early on – to no great hue and cry for it from enough of the general public. Obama and Democratic Congressional leadership decided to start off with what was basically the R plan.
They got it through, and he signed it.
Obama is no great failure as President.
Obama, with Pelosi and Reid, did have a very effective first two years – ACA included. He got more liberal things done than either Carter or Clinton – and, possibly more than the two of them combined.
Give Obama enough D Congresspeople and Senators, and let him replace, hopefully, a few of the reactionary SC Justices, and we may see a different Obama.
I don't think you and I differ all that much.
And I'll say it again – I have a lot of problems with Obama. But ACA ain't one of them.
Morzer says:
Please, do explain how Obama was supposed to magically turn Blue Dogs into Democrats and Stupak and Nelson into marginally decent human beings. Our problem as a party is the whining know-it-alls who have a magic all singing all dancing unicorn for every problem – and who can't be bothered to craft a realistic plan for getting there – while knifing in the back any liberal politician who dares to make things just a little better for millions of Americans. Gin and Tacos needs to remove head from ass and start dealing with reality.
Xynzee says:
I'll be waiting for some anti-govt zealot to set off a bomb under MA's provision for a mandate thanks to this ruling. Once again, showing that by out sourcing their communications arm to the Bloated Corpse and F'd News, the Rs will lose control of their more extreme elements.
Scalia's comments have helped to clarify somethings about the conservative mindset. Particularly those about not "obligating" yourself to help someone who needs it. Effectively allowing emergency rooms to turn away someone who's having an allergic reaction to a bee sting — a far better example than a car accident as no one can claim contributing factors. The fact that we as a society can cheer, "let him die", shows how devolved we have become. Well Antonin, where is your brother? The answer you'll find is that you are his keeper.
Dookie says:
Tim H.:
Really?
I mean…I know everyone will jump on me for picking the lowest of the low hanging fruit from the comments above…but come on. Do you really not understand how that is different?
BobS says:
"Medicare For All" was and is the best way to approach health care reform. Unlike the ACA, it's an easy concept for anyone who isn't a health care economist to get their head around and to lobby their reps for. While the teabaggers would have certainly found something to complain about, the spectacle of a bunch of elderly Medicare recipients at townhall meetings complaining about letting others share in the Medicare program would have underscored the moral and intellectual poverty of their 'movement'. At the same time there would have been a sizable contingent of folks like myself who would have hit the streets with enthusiasm to support an easy to understand viable plan that has been demonstrated to work for the last 45 years rather than the incredibly complicated insurance company friendly ACA.
Brian says:
When a political party can rail against its own idea, and have millions of people vote for them, I have to whip out Kent Brockman: "Democracy just doesn't work."
c u n d gulag says:
Brian,
"Democracy just doesn't work."
There's a reason almost no one has recently copied our system of democracy via republican representation – "Our" system just plain doesn't work! Especially with a party that care about nothing b
Democracy Parliamentary systems around the world have a much better track record.
Now, try to get together a Constitutional Convention to reform the system in the near future, and then try to get it passed across the nation, while Conservatives, who LOVE this system because they can be a minority of Nihilistic reactionaries yell, "Soshulizm!," "Commonizm!"
n election
c u n d gulag says:
Laptop problems again!
Ah, it's ok – I've yapped too much already today.
I think most of you know where I was headed…
Good night – I'm off to watch Stewart and Colbert, and then go back to reading the book I'm enjoying.
Mike says:
Please do remember that we're talking about a Congress that can barely keep the Federal government running for a year at a time, and that considers not defaulting on the national debt to be a controversial issue.
And these are the people who will pass universal Medicare? Why, because it's popular?
BobS says:
Also remember that the political dynamics, especially among yet-to-be disillusioned Obama supporters, were a little different in 2009. If he and the Democrats had come out swinging with a (consistently high polling and easy to understand) "Medicare For All" proposal for health care reform, there likely would have been considerable pressure from below to support it. Instead, what our reps experienced was the ignorant but energized teabaggers raising hell at townhall meetings.
Bernard says:
yes it was interesting to watch the ACA fight, with Obama quietly watching from the sidelines. not even spending an ounce of political capital. ACA written by Sen Max Baucus' now wife from Wellpoint INs Agency.
hey, to expect Democrats not to sell out to Republicans is a little too much. Pelosi said "impeachment was off the table" upon her election to House Leader. and Reid,well, backbone has never been his concern.
the difference between the Right and the Not so Right/Democrats is so WIDE/snark, snark. i can see why Obama just stood back and watched the shit hitting the fan. why spend capital when Obama knew Joe Wilson, and Landrieu, Lieberman and Ben Nelson were all so supportive of his efforts.
after first selling out Health Insurance reform to Pharma, aka Billy Tauzin, from Chackberry, Louisiana, another local Good Ole Boy. i am not surprised any disagreements in ACA has gone to the Supreme Court.
A Romney/R. program that with a Democratic label is Socialism, and Communism, well,… that is all the proof i need to see how the ACA/Health Insurance Giveaway would go and did go. Dare anyone bring up Single Payer or Medicare for all which actually would be "cheaper" than any Private plan? NO, of course not, Private stealing of American taxpayers' money is just how American Business and Government works since St. Ronnie Reagan sold us down the proverbial river. Denial is a wonderful river exclusive to Americans.
you don't need Teabaggers either. they do add color, though, to the Kabuki used to keep Americans occupied with "bread and circuses."
The Glories of the American "WAY."
Surly Duff says:
John: "So ends one of the most poorly-conceived pieces of legislation in recent American history."
You don't read much legislation do you, or do you just like to immediately resort to hyperbole to get shots in on the administration? You may not like the bill; fine. However, it is far from the most poorly-conceived piece of legislation in recent history.
Off the top of my head I can think of numerous bills that are by far more ill-conceived and have had significant negative ramifications: Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, Medicare Part D, Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. And that is without even trying.
BobS says:
I'm not a fan of the ACA, but it does contain several positive aspects, for instance regulations pertaining to rescissions and preexisting conditions. Hard to find much good in the several pieces of legislation you listed, as well as the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the CFMA, & the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Anonymous says:
Mike Says:
March 29th, 2012 at 7:35 am
What's the evidence that a more sweeping reform would have passed, with blue-dog Democrats determined to block them…
Where's any evidence Obama wanted anything different that what was passed?
It was the Administration that first decided that the big corporate players (insurance, pharma, and for-profit hospital corporations) would call the shots.
As long as you folks continue to deny these basic facts, you deserve to be called "Opologists".
Furthermore, tell me who is left in his Administration that isn't a Blue Dog? (Besides the Republicans.)
Read here for more.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2012/02/08/talking-with-obama-supporters/
~
Deuce says:
I hope it does get overturned. I hope they turn around and throw all the people that finally have insurance off the rolls. I hope they cheer and clap and cry as they do it.
And I hope everyone sees them do it. Maybe for once people will get pissed off enough to turn off the TV and get up off the couch and go down to their local representatives office and put a brick through the window. I don't much care what party they self-identify with. It doesn't much matter.
There's a time for rational arguments and logic, and now isn't the time. We're not going to take our country back from these selfish "Hooray for me, but Fuck you!" types with rational arguments. IT DOES NOT COMPUTE. They know they're hypocrites, pointing it out to them is like telling a Randian idiot that they're selfish. THEY ALREADY KNOW AND LOVE IT. Why? Because hooray for me, but fuck you. That's why.
jon says:
Here's a challenge: name the fifty Senators who would have gone for the House plan (or any one with the single-payer system) who were there and able to vote during that short time the Democrats had their sixty Senators.
I think ten is too short a list, but I can't come close to fifty. It's not as if Kennedy and Franken were just not showing up for spite, but where's even that slim majority that could have had Biden vote it in? Also, would the Democratic House have voted for that if they had thought it had a real chance? I guess they were already on record as being for it, but I figure at least some expected some Senatorial cover for their vote.
Chris says:
That just happened to me the other day….hate that!!! I did finally try again, but don't know how it turned out….LOL!!
I'm a single payer/universal healthcare girl….whichever we can get….we all need to keep up the blogging and FBing to keep the option out there….when things start looking really bad, people will have something to fall back on….they'll remember they heard it from us!!
Reda Boyde says:
Toothaches are really nasty,i really hate it that is why i always take some flouride varnish every 3 months to prevent tooth decays. ..,:.
Most recently released content article on our own online site
http://www.prettygoddess.com
Karie Tricoche says:
Toothache can be nasty in the sense that it can cause secondary infections. "
<a href="Newest short article on our blog site
http://www.healthmedicinelab.com/sunspots-on-skin/