I quit. I give up. There won't be ANY health care reform.

[cliffordu]

I've been trying to stay abreast of the health care 'debate' in the Confederacy of Dunces we call the Congress, (thanks, Mr. Kennedy).

That clusterfuck couldn't decide which exit to use if the building was on fire.

I cannot blame the Prez for this; He just left them to their own devices,

Exposing them for the histrionic, narcissistic leeches they really are.

[gateley]

1. Agree. They just can't seem to keep the GOAL in mind -

good healthcare for all Americans. They have to play their fucking political games. :grr:

[timeforpeace]

Hey, HCR was Obama's idea, and a campaign promise. Keep letting him slide and he'll be a one termer.

[gateley]

58. Understood -- but I'm not 'letting him slide'. Regardless of what

he handed down to the Congress, they would engage in all the pettiness, covering for their big bucks donors, and partisan bickering.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Most of them have their own agendas, which are either ideological,

or (mostly) financial; many of them, as we know, are bought and paid for by the health insurance industries. And the Democrats for the most part are just as bad as the Republicans. I want them all to pay dearly for this bullshit the next time they're up for re-election. Let them experience unemployment for a change -- though they'll probably just get jobs as lobbyists.

[tosh]

3. I'll probably quit too after I let each and every one of them know

exactly how I feel about the whole CF.:evilfrown:

[Hamlette]

4. For the first time in a year, I have to agree

unless Reid agrees to go nuclear, we're get nothing. Unless they do what Harkin suggested years ago:

“Today, in the age of instant news and Internet and rapid travel—you can get from anywhere to here within a day or a few hours—the initial reasons for the filibuster kind of fall by the wayside, and now it’s got into an abusive situation,” Harkin said.

He and the constitutional scholars agree that the intention was never to hold up legislation entirely.

To keep the spirit of slowing down legislation, though, Harkin’s proposal back in 1995 would have kept the 60-vote rule for the first vote but lessening the number required in subsequent votes.

He said for instance if 60 senators could not agree to end debate, it would carry on for another week or so and then the number of votes required to end debate would drop by three. Harkin said it would carry on this way until it reached a simple majority of 51 votes.

http://www.thehawkeye.com/story/harkin-filibuster-121209

[Captain Hilts]

5. Kennedy was the author's middle name. nt

[cliffordu]

10. Whoops!!!!

Speaking of dunces.....


Let's try that again....thank you, Mr. Toole...

[Captain Hilts]

83. I keep thinking his last name is O'Toole, so, I screw it up too!

[lib2DaBone]

6. I agree.. it is pretty shameless....

I mean.. when you have the Wellpoint and Aetna represetatives sitting right there next to Baucus... feeding him the talking points and text to insert in the bill....

Worse yet...it's all broadcast on C-SPAN TV... right out in the open... and the Americian people STILL don't get it.... duh?

[gateley]

33. I'd love for Bernie Sanders to have this made into a poster board

and present it on the floor of the Senate. I'm sure that can't be done, but wouldn't it be nice?

[sandnsea]

7. Unless the House really sticks to its guns

I'd just as soon most of this gets scrapped. The Senate has made a mess of it and I agree with you, Obama just exposed the Senate for the clusterfuck that it is.

[Edweird]

8. I'm inclined to disagree. I think we will all WISH it didn't pass.

It's turning into TARP part 2. A windfall for the insurance companies and a screwjob for the rest of us. Except instead of it being a burden on our descendants, we get to pay for it right now, with the IRS as the enforcer. Not to mention what this will do for our popularity as a party. I'd much rather they write the insurance cos a check and leave us out of this. We should wait and try again when we have actual representation instead of corporate sponsored hatchet-men.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

70. Yeah, IRS-enforced mandates will go over REAL well with the American people...

not just teabaggers.

Not sure what chess move that would be considered...

[bvar22]

92. That would be considered....

...sacrificing the Pawns (The Working Class) to protect the Royalty (Health Insurance Cartel multi-millionaires).

Its done all the time in Chess.
Sucks when you're a pawn.

[Kansas Wyatt]

89. +1

The shit they are calling HCR is nothing, but pure bullshit and giveaways to the Insurance Industry.

You don't start out with what you could finally expect to get, and negotiate down to what they have now.

You start out with the best you could ever hope for, and then negotiate down from there to end up with what you expect to get.

[FormerDittoHead]

94. +2 n/t

[DURHAM D]

9. Why can't you blame the Prez?

He has provided no real leadership. He took the summer off and would not commit to anything other than a deal with big pharma.

Why did he want the job if he doesn't want to do the job?

[cliffordu]

15. Too easy. Congress is supposed to make the laws. Obama just refused to make it about him,

as happened to Clinton.

Easy peasy.

[spanone]

23. 'took the summer off' bwahahahahaaa

[SOS]

31. "He took the summer off"

Actually he took a one-week vacation in August.

You may be thinking of the previous President who took over 1,000 vacation days.

[DURHAM D]

48. Obama took the summer off in terms of health care reform.

We needed Presidential leadership in order to have the correct national dialogue. Instead the wingnuts had control of the mic for months.

As a result the good guys looked like a bunch of chickens flopping around with their heads cut off. Today's total lack of actual health care reform is the result of that lack of leadership.

Oh, I forget - he did work out that secret deal in August about no change in drug/prescription pricing.

[HughMoran]

75. MSM talking point repetition zombie post

Cut the crap and think for yourself.

[DURHAM D]

82. truth hurts doesn't it?

sorry for your loss

[jgraz]

11. "I cannot blame the Prez for this; He just left them to their own devices"

:wtf:

Obama showed absolutely ZERO leadership on this issue, which was supposed to be the cornerstone of his presidency. If (when) this bill fails, most of the blame will and should fall on him.

[yodoobo]

21. Its Obama leadership that we are debating this at all

If it weren't for Obama, there wouldn't even be a bill in the Senate to complain about.

When we get healthcare, it will only be because of the great leadership that Obama has demonstrated for the last several years (even before he became President)

[jgraz]

25. Pure revisionism.

If it weren't for the people demanding it, Hillary and Obama would have spent the primaries arguing over who wanted to nuke Iran more.

Obama embraced healthcare reform because he thought it would get him elected. He's slow-wallking it now because he (incorrectly) believes that it will insure the corporate support he thinks he needs for a second term.

[patrice]

30. Wrong about why he's slow walking it. Right about it won't earn him a damn thing in 2012.

He's slow walking it because he's waiting for us to grow up enough to do what we can, so that his efforts will be maximized.

His popular support makes him the greatest threat to corporations mainly on this issue. I hope he gets to play that card, because, though corporations will support him because of other issues, no matter WHAT he does on this issue, they won't be supporting him because of it.

[jgraz]

37. This is pure fantasy

Maybe *you* didn't do what you could to get this guy elected, but a helluva lot of us did. We busted our asses to put him in the White House, and I can't believe for a second that Obama would be part of your passive-aggressive dystopia.

If you're even 1 percent correct (you aren't), Obama should be impeached immediately for dereliction of duty. There are many things I don't like about Obama, but acting like a petulant two-year-old is not one of them.

[patrice]

42. Boiler-plate response.

I did plenty for candidate Obama and local candidates. Have been for years.

Is the situation too complex for you? If you don't recognize how it works that's just your own naivete.

Surely you don't suggest that issues succeed or not on the macro-scale solely on their moral clarity. Surely you don't suggest that there is no relationship, cause and effect and otherwise, between issues.

Who's acting like a petulant 2 year old? Someone who refuses to see the way things ARE and how things are done and projects blame for that blindness on a rather attractive scapegoat at a politically opportune moment?

[patrice]

28. We didn't deliver the Senate in '08; I think he's right not to enable our weakness. If WE aren't

going to step up and do the work necessary to get what we want, whatever the President puts into it costs him more than he is willing to give relative to ALL of the other issues on the table.

People who want to blame is all on Obama need to specify how much of which, what, and when they are willing to give for compliance on whatever they are bitching about, because I darn well f-ing-gaurantee you that, given the situation we are in, the President is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, so

It MUST come from Us! in 2010.

[jgraz]

36. Please tell me you aren't serious.

This goes beyond hero-worship to whipped-puppy obsequiousness.

*We* didn't deliver in 08? So *we* deserved to be PUNISHED by Dear Leader with no healthcare? Seriously??? 45,000 people deserve to DIE next year because we didn't give Blessed Barack the overwhelming majority that would relieve him of EVER having to show the barest molecule of decisive leadership?

I'll tell you what's going to come from US in 2010: a whole lot of not-giving-a-fuck. And THAT you can blame on your HOPEANDCHANGEANDYESWECAN president. It's almost like he planned it that way...

[patrice]

38. Your mischaracterization of my position relative to Obama is proof of your bias.

Truly free persons CAN be for and against someone/thing at the same time.

From your current post, I gather you don't have those kinds of options available to you to help increase the possibility of getting what you claim you want.

You need to ask yourself if power is more important to you than getting this thing done right.

[jgraz]

40. Then explain it to me

What the hell did you mean by "I think he's right not to enable our weakness"?? Please, give me another interpretation that doesn't sound like you're longing to be the Bottom in Mistress Barack's House of Pain.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

43. ...

[patrice]

44. Too many Democrats act like the party is somekind of social club. Too many other people

are ignorant, ir-responsible, and in-active. THAT'S weakness. What's the point of sacrificing strength to weakness, especially when the end result is nearly gauranteed to be so far off base.

I won't even honor your disgusting sexual references with a response. Too bad you don't seem capable of thinking outside of that frame, but do keep it up and I will alert on you.

[jgraz]

49. And you, apparently, want it to be a different sort of club

I get ya. Just don't forget the safe word.

:rofl:

[patrice]

50. No, people who make knee-JERK decisions to abandon the President want it to be THEIR club and

the password is No-Change.

[jgraz]

52. Good luck with that approach.

40% of Democrats say they aren't likely to vote in 2010. Are you planning on calling all of them to scold them for their weakness?

You can play all the little mindgames you want. It won't mean a damn thing when people decide what to do in 2010. If Obama and the Democrats continue on their corporocratic path, it's going to get ugly for them.

[patrice]

55. You know you need a link for that don't you?

[jgraz]

62. Sorry, forgot who I was talking to

Most of us were paying attention last week. But, just for you: http://tinyurl.com/ydw7vr3

Have fun catching up.

[patrice]

64. And of course, the way things are is the way they will always be.

Like I said No-Change.

[jgraz]

68. No, really. Good luck with that.

Call all 40% of Democrats and tell them how weak they're being. I'm sure that will be a spectacular success.

[patrice]

71. We don't disagree about your last sentence, but you engage in self-fulfilling prophecy.

You are making the perfect the enemy of the good and then you will blame Obama when we don't even get the good.

[patrice]

53. P.S. You are aware that this post makes no sense whatsoever? . . . probably not.

[jgraz]

54. Actually it makes a lot of sense.

Which, I suspect, is why you're having trouble comprehending it.

Please, tell me some more about how Big Bad Barack is going to punish us for only giving him 60 Democratic senators to work with. :rofl:

[patrice]

57. It won't be he. We'll do it to ourselves by listening to the likes of you.

[jgraz]

65. But wait... I though "he (was) right to not enable our weakness".

Now you're saying that *we* will not enable our weakness? Or we won't enable his weakness?

Whatever it is, I know "weakness" is going to play a big part in your response.

[patrice]

72. You don't get how not enabling and us doing it to ourselves are the same thing?

Go ahead, tell me that there are plenty enough active Democrats out there whenever we need them knocking on doors, making phone calls, lobbying year round and that inspite of all of these active and diligent Democrats, the party belongs to the corporatists anyway.

At least part of the reason that the party belongs to corporatist is BECAUSE PEOPLE LET IT BELONG TO CORPORATISTS and you are trying to be selective about what kind of Democrats should show up. None of those corporatist-Obama supporters doing any of the stuff that needs to be done. They're the enemy.

[jgraz]

80. You have it exactly backwards

If Obama and the Democrats hadn't sold out to corporations, we'd have much less need for door-knockers to convince people to vote against their self interest.

It's really simple: if we need to CONVINCE a politician to not be a corporate sellout, we've already lost.

[patrice]

81. No, you have it backwards any people who lets others do it for them has sold themselves out.

And they can't learn the right things to do without making their own mistakes and accepting the responsibility for change.

Your authoritarian streak is showing: everything you have said is top->down cop-out.

Your only problem is the guy at the top isn't your guy.

[jgraz]

87. Newsflash: the guy at the top isn't your guy either

Unless you're a defense contractor or a Wall Street pirate.

[patrice]

88. I know that. You and I have decided to do different things about it.

You're going to throw the baby out with the bath-water and then blame it on him.

Pardon what is known in literature as a conceit, but I'm for teaching "the baby to bathe itself and throw out its own water".

[jgraz]

90. Without tortuous metaphors, exactly *what* are you doing?

Besides posting here, that is...?

[dionysus]

93. nice tantrum. did you miss your nap today?

MESSIAH... POM POM.... cultist overload.... *BOOOOM*
:rofl:

[nashville_brook]

41. if 60 votes isn't "delivering" the senate in 08, then what is? 80? 100? (this is some weakass shit)

[patrice]

47. Rrrrroooiiiight! The proportion of Corporate OWNED Blue Dogs makes no difference whatsoever!

:crazy:

[jgraz]

56. Well, the Corporate OWNED Blue Dog in the White House certainly does.

:crazy:

[patrice]

60. Why don't you just step right up here and put your expendable issues on the table?

Tell us what you're willing to damage or lose entirely in order to get whatever it is that you think should happen, in order of priority from most expendable to least expendable. Let everyone see whether they ARE with you or not.

[patrice]

76. Issues? Issues? Almost no one ever answers this question. I wonder why.

[patrice]

61. So, you're against people who support Obama showing up at the local party and demanding Progressive

candidates.

[jgraz]

67. I'm also against puppies, snowflakes and brown paper packages tied up with string

:eyes:

[patrice]

74. I knew it.

Will the real jgraz please step forward? Can we get a good hearty

Bah!! Humbug!!!

, please?

[jgraz]

77. BTW, are you talking about Corporate Owned Blue Dogs like Joe Lieberman?

You know, the guy whom candidate Obama actively campaigned for? :shrug:

[patrice]

79. He owes us for that one and I, for one, intend to do what I can to try to collect.

You can write it off and try to do better with whomever you want to replace the Democratic party with. Let me know how that works out for you.

[rwheeler31]

12. I won't give up too many are suffering, we have to do something.

[butterfly77]

13. I also think that by the President pushing for ..

everything,he did us a favor by letting us know who the fake Dems were and there are more to come I think. I do believe though that we should pass something now because there will be nothing if something doesn't happen now.

[patrice]

14. Recently, we have had un-precedented broad opportunities to see who is really running this country

in re HCR, Wall Street Reform, & War.

Now, what to do about it and when . . .

[cliffordu]

16. EXACTLY. Well done.

[Davis_X_Machina]

17. That's a *good* thing.

If Obama crashes and burns, we can nominate a real Democrat in 2012.

The good news: Because the Democratic party is such a big tent, we have a veritable plethora of real Democrats to pick from.

Real Democrat checklist:

• Former mayor of Cleveland
  
• Bad toupee
  
• Equivocal position on abortion
  
• Equivocal position on running for president at all
  
• Erratic voting record on key House votes
  

[cliffordu]

20. I just gave up on Congress, not the President......

[patrice]

18. Time to put Medicare for Everyone advocates in office in 2010.

[cliffordu]

22. Yep, exactly.

[patrice]

24. Time to get out to local party stuff and let them know what's going to happen if

they don't run candidates who will step up and speak out exactly and precisely in favor of Medicare for Everyone and Single Payer initiatives in the States.

[Neecy]

19. It's a total mess

And you get the feeling that these new 'proposals' are just desperation moves, something simply pulled out of someone's ass, in order to trade and swap for votes. Something this important needs serious policy analysis done, yet it's like balls being tossed up in the air and whatever falls goes into the bill. Very bad law making and the result will be a very bad bill from a policy perspective. Reid is hopeless and Obama hasn't produced anything, either. A failure all around, with citizens being on the losing end.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

26. I blame Obama for leaving them to their own devices.

Rather odd since he said he's staking his entire presidency on health care reform.

The Blue Dogs are the obstructionists -- wasn't Emanuel, as head of the DCCC, instrumental in helping many of them get elected? It's quite a circle jerk.

[bigtree]

29. word

[patrice]

32. Pardon me for asking, what does that mean? Don't people dogwhistle in public anymore?

Correct me, please, if I'm wrong.

:eyes:

[patrice]

45. * * * crickets * * * . . . that's what I thought.

[sendero]

51. There's this thing called leadership..

...and it is pretty much the polar opposite of "leave them to their own devices".

I'm pretty sure this bill is worse than nothing. Now, it's just a game of "we passed health care reform", regardless if there really is any reform or if it benefits anyone other than the industries involved.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

66. I'm pretty much to that point myself.

IRS-enforced mandates are a big reason why.

[NYC_SKP]

27. I get it.

People who think he "he should have been a leader" on this are kidding themselves.

Had it been all up in their faces, they'd still vote the same and he'd look like a fail.

This way, he's articulated a vision and left them with all the rope they need to fail.

The big question is, what are the next steps, what's he got cooking over the coming months?

:P

[cliffordu]

34. I don't know what the next move is.

I don't have a clue.

[patrice]

35. Right on! We wouldn't know what we now KNOW for sure, if he'd been in the middle of it.

[Mithreal]

91. Leaders give you ropes to prevent you from falling, climb out of trouble and guide you.

The leader of the party gave them the rope they need to fail? Nice meme.

Leaders don't give you ropes to fail.

Leaders give you ropes to climb out of trouble and guide you.

I like your idea of what are the next steps, but please admit that this rope to hang the Congress meme is destructive to the President as well.

If this is the kind of leader of the party that you are advocating let us know now.

[Goldstein1984]

39. It isn't Obama, and it isn't Congress, it's...

Both. I don't know how to allocate the percentages of blame, although I know Congress deserves the bulk of it.

But they are really just puppets of their corporate masters--junior partners, at most. Toadies to Big Business.

In the case of the health care package, the cure is beginning to sound worse than the disease.

[patrice]

46. We don't want that fucking twisted piece of shit they just delivered and that's the way it should be

[Libertas1776]

59. I gave up when...

they took single payer off the table.

[jtrockville]

73. That certainly was a clear indication that they never intended

to reform health care. Maybe, at one time, they intended to reform the health insurance industry, but all hope of even that is gone.

It's crystal clear that Congress only intends to protect health insurance industry profits. Nothing more.

[NorthCarolina]

63. The Democratic Party is no longer the advocate of the people

save for a few remaining traditional Dems. It has not been an advocate of the people since Clinton helped to usher in the DLC, successfully moving the party to the corporatist side of the equation. We now have two parties competing for the attention of the big dollar corporate donors, and neither party advocating for the people. Today's Democratic Party would never have voted to enact Social Security, Medicare, or Civil Rights legislation.

[patrice]

78. Agreed. So what are "we" going to do about that?

[NorthCarolina]

85. Part of the answer is supporting Progressive candidates in the Primaries

by getting out and voting for them. Another part of the answer is to stop giving credence to candidates deemed as "viable" by our *fair and balanced media*, and instead listening to the candidates themselves and making an informed decision sans corporate media spin. We should also push for term limits and campaign finance reform. These would be good starts as I see it.

[patrice]

86. I'm not going to stand back around candidates. When I go to state

candidate events, I'm going to ask them something like, "Given the possibility that federal legislation could enable state Single Payer initiatives, if our state were to consider such an initiative, how do you view your role as a citizen in that process?" We have to be willing to put them on the spot about health care, because whatever happens at the federal level, important things will happen in the states too.

Media is so profoundly powerful, but I think there is one simple thing we can do about it: be willing to speak to others about the issues, in a friendly manner, briefly, with actual information, and, if possible, a touch of humor at any and every opportunity. We have to overcome the idea that it is impolite to talk about important things. Done the right way, there is little that is more powerful than face to face, significant interaction.

I have not made my mind up about term limits yet. I think I would feel more certain about it if everyone started out together, with the same limitation and I would probably want to be sure that the limit, given the difficulty of getting policies developed and implemented, would be long enough to let those making constructive contributions have enough time to do so.

I am for public financing of campaigns, but someone on here recently made a case to me that it would further institutionalize the political parties. I'm not certain how that would work, but I guess I do need to think about it some more.

[TwilightGardener]

69. The entire sticking point behind any kind of health reform is this: someone is going to

have to eat the shit sandwich in order to cover everyone and bring down costs. Is it going to be insurance companies, is it going to be the medical community, or is it going to be us? Well, it won't be the insurance companies, their interests and profits are protected by Congress. And it won't be the medical community--we're not going to start paying doctors and pharmacists and medical professionals less for their services, drugs and equipment and facilities aren't going to suddenly cost less to buy or operate. So, who's left to eat the shit sandwich?

[backwoodsbob]

84. 5,000 earmarks in a spending bill is more important

we can't have change you know