"Governance is the art of the possible."

[ProSense]

Thank you Senator Reid, Senate leadership, and Staff

by NoVa Boy

Thank you Senator Reid, hopefully not prematurely. What a Herculean task. Passing the Patient Protection and Affordability Act through the first of six scheduled votes, on a motion to invoke cloture, required corraling a Democratic caucus that is more fractious than disciplined in the face of unprincipled and disgusting opposition from the Party of No. Throughout the process you, Senator Reid, have been attacked from the right and the left. But as many have commented, the current state of health care in the United States is unjust and unsupportable, and while no one will likely hail the Senate compromise as a perfect solution, it is a worthy first step.

<...>

Governance is the art of the possible. Senator Reid, you proved wrong too many people who thought that reform of a broken system defended by entrenched and powerful interests was impossible. The task is unfinished, as all progress must always be, and we expect the Democrats to take this victory as only a beginning step. But as for whether it is a good first step, whether it is better than nothing, I leave it to the words of your peers to judge.

Senator Al Franken:

The plain simple truth is, because of this legislation crafted by Leader Reid and others in the Senate, 31 million more Americans will have affordable health insurance and the growth in health care costs for families will be dramatically diminished. For those reasons and the many I outlined here, today I am proud to announce my strong support for this historic step toward universal health care in America

Senator John Kerry:

I am a strong supporter of the public option and I've fought to see it included. But if it cannot be included, I'm not willing to walk away. I'm not willing to tell someone five years from now that when I had a chance to guarantee that insurance companies couldn't discriminate against pre-existing conditions - which will save lives - that I walked away. We need to step back here and see the forest not just the trees. In the totality of this bill, there are real reforms we've fought to win for decades that will make peoples' lives better -- that will lower costs and encourage the development and proliferation of nonprofit and consumer-oriented health insurance plans.

Senator Jay Rockefeller:

We continue to make extraordinary progress on health care reform and I commend my colleagues and Leader Reid for refusing to lose sight of what matters most – fixing our broken system so we can make people’s lives better. While no bill is ever completely perfect – I believe the health bill we are considering in the Senate today is a great step in the right direction and I know it will make a real difference in the health of American families and our economy. This bill gives health care coverage to a record 31 million Americans who are currently uninsured, it provides all Americans with the access to adequate and dependable coverage when they need it most, and it reins in spiraling health care costs – and that is a very great thing.

Thank you Senator Reid, and the Democratic Caucus, and especially the unsung heroes in the Senate Democratic Staff. But on behalf of all Americans please remember the course of this debate. Remember how shabbily the Party of No Health Care treated you and your fellow Democrats. Remember the lack of comity, the obstruction. Remember how Senator Sanders was treated. Remember how they prayed on the Senate floor that Senator Byrd would be too ill to attend the cloture vote. Remember the lies and the slurs. Remember 'death panels' and 'they want to kill grandma'. Remember 'health care is the President's Waterloo'. Remember how empty and unsatisfying words like 'bipartisanship' can be when one side has devolved into a cynical parody of a political party. Perhaps, finally, you might remember how they treated the American people in the debate on this life-and-death issue, and give up any pretense that the Democrat's current mandate to govern should be tempered by giving credibility to the ideas or motives of a party that rubber-stamped eight years of disaster from the Bush Administration.

[lapfog_1]

1. Well, it was always POSSIBLE to take the current system,

reform it, and make it WORSE.

So yeah, I guess that fits within the realm of "the art of the possible".

My rebuttal to Senator Franken:

Please point to the paragraph in this bill that controls costs? While you are at it, why do you believe that this will provide insurance coverage for 31 million Americans? Can you prove that? All reasonable estimates are much much lower, less than half of the number you say.

to Senator Kerry:

Where in this bill is there any language that will lower costs? All well and good about pre-existing conditions, but as a person with such a thing, I've ALWAYS had the option to buy insurance, but the premium was not within my financial means, and I won't qualify for subsidies. This bill does nothing to help me with this. The policies that will be offered to me will still be out of reach and I still won't qualify for subsidies. All that changes for me (and million like me) is that I now have to pay a fine.

to Senator Rockefeller:

See response to Kerry and Franken.


READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN BILL!!!

It does NOT do what you claim, it will not cover 30+ million Americans so quit saying that, it will NOT contain costs, so quit saying that, and it is a huge giveaway to the entrenched insurance industry.

This is not a case of letting good become the enemy of the perfect. This is nowhere near "good" and "perfect" is located in another galaxy somewhere. This bill is altogether evil. And don't tell me "we'll improve it later"... when is later?.. the major provisions of this bill don't take place until 2014. It will be a few years after that before we discover what a lie and sham this thing was. So we will have to trash it and start from scratch in 2016 or 2018. A few of us are going to DIE from a lack of health care in the meantime. Besides, when do you think you are going to have a 60-40 margin in the Senate, a large margin in the House, and the Presidency again so you can pass a "fix"? Not after 2010. That's a guarantee.

[snagglepuss]

2. Hear. Hear. nt

:applause:

[ProSense]

4. Yeah, a fact-free opinion is a great rebuttal.

It does NOT do what you claim, it will not cover 30+ million Americans so quit saying that, it will NOT contain costs, so quit saying that, and it is a huge giveaway to the entrenched insurance industry.

[lapfog_1]

11. Point to me where in the bill it limits profits.

Point to ONE place.

You can't because it does not exist.

Margins are not profits. Margins are margins.

Where is the cost containment?

In fact, in turning the industry into Cost plus Award fee procurement contractors, there is every incentive to increase costs (because that way, you can increase profits).

[karynnj]

7. Here is one answer

Even Dean credited Kerry's provision with being something that cuts costs - and it is in the bill. In MA, it reduced premiums 6%. In addition, the exchange will regulate to insure that 80 to 85% of premiums go to providing health care - not to stockholders, executives or administration. (That's 2 without looking very hard)

[lapfog_1]

10. The MLA that limit profit margins does not limit PROFITS.

"Requiring insurance companies to spend 85% of premiums on actual health services -- not administrative costs, TV ads, or gargantuan CEO bonuses -- is a big victory. Senator Rockefeller and I worked hard to get that provision included because it holds insurance companies accountable and will put an end to exploding premiums and obscene profits – a huge win for progressives." Al Franken.

It does nothing of the sort.

They just converted insurance companies into COST PLUS AWARD FEE CONTRACTORS.

They have now established a "profit MARGIN", not a profit amount. The margin is 15% (which is very generous).

What is the financial model of current insurance companies???

Premiums (from everyone) - costs (providers, claims processing, etc) = Profits.

There is huge incentive here to control costs and increase premiums. Everyone can see that. That is what they've been doing. And since they are an unregulated monopoly, there really isn't anything to stop them (unlike almost all other businesses in America).

What's the new model?

Premiums X .15 = profits and Premiums X .85 = costs. Seems simple. Big change.

They still want more profits (greedy bastards that they are), now how to do it? Well, again, premiums need to rise. But premiums are now part of two simple equations, and the Premiums are the same in both. Premiums X .85 = costs. Nothing says that costs are fixed. If I increase costs... then Premiums go up and, therefore, Profits rise. Presto.

They now have incentive to INCREASE COSTS (whereas before, they had incentive to DECREASE COSTS, usually by denying claims or dropping patients that were TOO COSTLY.

Government contracts are often COST PLUS AWARD FEE contracts. Very common in the military industrial complex. The reason you have $150 hammers and $1000 toilets. Because if you tell me "you make 10% on everything you buy for me and every service you procure for me", I'll make damn sure that I purchase the most expensive items I can find. And if they don't exist, I'LL GET SOMEONE TO CREATE THEM.

In the health insurance racket, what I would do is hold conferences where I tell doctors and hospital administrators that patients NEED more tests, you can never be TOO careful, and that I will be paying top dollar for those services. And why would the doctors revolt? They are getting more money too. And when that happens, the insurance companies will go to the OPM or any other oversight board and tell them "ohh, last year, for this type of disease, our costs increased by 12%, therefore we will need an overall premium increase of 5% to offset our increased cost." And they have the numbers to PROVE IT... they aren't cheating, just gaming the system. The system this legislation sets up. Let's say they take in $50 B in premiums right now... under this rule that Al is so proud of, they make a maximum of $7.5 Billion. Which is a lot of profit to begin with, but that's the 15% rule. Now, with their game they just played, premiums go up an average of 5 % for the year. Now they make $52.5 Billion in premiums. With the 15% rule, they make $7.875 Billion in profits, or $375 MILLION more dollars. And where did that extra money come from? Us. either in what we pay them directly, what our employers pay them (which is really out of the workers pockets), or from our taxes (in the form of subsidies). Only it won't be 5% per year, count on 8% or 9%... or MORE.

This is one of the WORST PROVISIONS in the bill.

Think it through. Don't accept things on face value. Think like a greedy corporate bastard.

[ProSense]

12. "This is one of the WORST PROVISIONS in the bill." Yet Howard Dean

says it one of the most important thing in the bill.

[lapfog_1]

14. IF there was any cost containment, then yes, he'd be right.

Although I could argue that 15% profit is a huge waste. Medicare works on a 2 or 3 percent overhead.

But there isn't any cost containment. None. Therefore the MLA does nothing.

[ProSense]

16. "But there isn't any cost containment. None." Dean:

DR. DEAN: Well, let's start with the positive things. Over the last week there were some things that were improved. David mentioned the so-called medical loss ratio, the limits on what insurance companies make, and that was true. That was added to the bill. It was, it was in a form that the, the CBO wouldn't have allowed, and now it was allowed. It's not all that strong, but it's strong. We can expect some, some gaming by the insurance companies, but it's there. There were some cost control mechanisms that were gutted; they got restored...

[lapfog_1]

17. MLR's do nothing to contain costs

they limit profit margins.

If everything else remains constant (doctors fees, hospital stays, medicine, medical devices, etc), then yeah, they constrain the premiums. IF.

But the problem is that those costs will not stay the same.

And, in fact, the insurance industry has NO incentive to contain those costs. They make 15% no matter what. In fact, the more those costs increase, the MORE PROFIT the insurance companies make.

So why would they pressure doctors, hospitals, Big Pharma to contain costs?

They won't.

They just might (and, I submit, WILL) encourage the providers to INCREASE COSTS. Because they can pass those costs along to the "customer" (who is now a captured audience) and they make more profits.

[ProSense]

19. Who said they did?

Stop trying to spin long enough to comprehend what you're reading.


"MLR's do nothing to contain costs they limit profit margins."

Yet you claimed previously that this was the worst provisions in the bill.

[lapfog_1]

26. You are intentionally not understanding me

Limiting profit MARGINS do not limit PROFITS.

The way they increase profits is to increase premiums. The way to increase premiums is to increase COSTS.

This bill creates incentive for insurance companies to now increase costs.

This is the worst provision of the bill.

[ProSense]

27. "This bill creates incentive for insurance companies to now increase costs."

No it doesn't. A lower profit margin affects profits, and the level of savings that will be realized by the majority of Americans makes your speculative claim absurd.

[lapfog_1]

33. Yes, it does.

Your statement "A lower profit margin affects profits" is simply NOT TRUE. There are many situations where lowering ones profit margin increases profits. Have you ever taken a basic econ course? Price elasticity?

Quick example:

I sell hamburgers. I sell them for $5 each. They cost me $3 dollars to make. My profit is $2. My profit MARGIN is 40%. I sell 100 hamburgers a day, so I make $200. But, I can lower my price to $4. This decreases my profit to $1, and my margin to 20%. With me so far? BUT, by lowering my price to $4, I now sell 300 hamburgers a day. I make $300 of profit. A 50% increase in profit. But with a lower margin.

But that's not what we are going to do to the insurance industry. Just an illustration of how lower margins can increase profits.

Here is what this legislation does to the insurance industry.

They make 15% on their "hamburgers" no matter how many they sell nor how much they cost. Note I didn't specify how much they sell the hamburgers for... because that is now entirely fixed on the cost to make a hamburger. So, the hamburger still costs $3 dollars to make today, and today, I make $3 profit, for a whopping 50% profit margin. You come along and tell me it's now illegal for me to make 50% profit margin, that I can now only make 15% margin. You EXPECT that my cost of $3, plus my margin of 15% (now mandated by law) that the hamburger will sell for $3.45, which is a great savings over the previous $6. But wait, my hamburger doesn't cost me $3 anymore, it now costs me $8 to make, because I had to give the cook a raise, and because I had to buy a very expensive stove on which to cook it. So, $8 plus my fixed margin of 15%, the hamburger is now %9.20 to sell to you and I make $1.20 instead the old $.45. I have the same margin of 15%, but I am making a 50% increase in profits.

To which you say "stuff that, I'll go next door and buy hamburgers there for $4." Fine, except that there is no competition to the insurance companies to allow that. That's what the Public Option was going to do. Insurance companies are an unregulated monopoly. The only industry in America, other than professional sports, to enjoy that status. You CAN'T go next door because there isn't anyplace else in the world to buy a hamburger. Worse, the government is telling ALL CONSUMERS that they HAVE to buy hamburgers or face a fine.


The lower profit MARGIN is FIXED to be 15%. no matter what the costs. That means that they are now Cost plus award fee contractors. I was a federal contracting officer for many year. These are the worst contracts for taxpayers. The worst.
They are the reason behind those $100 hammers.

You are making the assumption that insurance company costs remain constant, and therefore, by fixing their margins, you have limited their profits. Your assumption is wrong.

There is no incentive for them to constrain costs. None. And every incentive for them to increase costs.

They will go to every Doctor's convention and hospital board meeting and discuss why it is that more tests are needed, the longer stays lead to better outcomes. Those increase costs to them. Yup. And they will increase premiums to cover these increased costs. Because THAT is the way they can increase profits. Not margins. Profits.

[ProSense]

37. What?

Quick example:

I sell hamburgers. I sell them for $5 each. They cost me $3 dollars to make. My profit is $2. My profit MARGIN is 40%. I sell 100 hamburgers a day, so I make $200. But, I can lower my price to $4. This decreases my profit to $1, and my margin to 20%. With me so far? BUT, by lowering my price to $4, I now sell 300 hamburgers a day. I make $300 of profit. A 50% increase in profit. But with a lower margin.

Actually to make this analogy work you'd have to reduce your price to $3.50. But let's stick with your $4. The margin is not 20% because the the margin has also been decreased, iow, it's also costing you more to make the hamburgers, $3.40. Your margin is more like 15% now. So you're selling 300 hamburgers to make a profit of $180 when you used to make $200 servicing fewer people.


Are you with me?


Ludicrous.





Edited to correct percentage and typos.

[lapfog_1]

39. My math was entirely correct.

"Actually to make this analogy work you'd have to reduce your price to $3.50. But let's stick with your $4. The margin is not 20% because the the margin has also been decreased, iow, it's also costing you more to make the hamburgers, $3.40. Your margin is more like 15% now. So you're selling 300 hamburgers to make a profit of $180 when you used to make $200 servicing fewer people."

This statement is nonsense. what is "iow". And I stated that the margin dropped from 40% to 20%. I never said that the cost increased. Why would you introduce that to my example? My example purely demonstrates, with no uncertainty, that by lower profit margin and increasing volume, one can increase profit.

I then went on to demonstrate that the Cost plus award fee status that this bill awards to the insurance industry, and that there is a simple way for them to also increase their profits, while keep there margin to 15%.

You are either math challenged or trying to intentionally confuse the issue so as to not to agree that you are wrong and are making foolish statements like "decreasing profit margins will contain costs and reduce profits to the industry".

[ProSense]

41. No, your math was totally flawed

"This statement is nonsense. what is "iow". And I stated that the margin dropped from 40% to 20%."

Iow = in other words. You stated premiums dropped becaused they lowered their price, which will happen, but you did not show that it is also costing them more to make burgers.

Also, you are not considering the significant increase in overhead that will be required to make three times as many burgers each day.

[lapfog_1]

43. The cost PER BURGER remains the same.

Why would the cost increase just because I sell more? Generally, the more you make of item X, the LESS it costs. But for purposes of demonstrating that decreased profit margins CAN lead to increased profits, I left the cost constant PER BURGER.

So why would costs HAVE TO INCREASE? Explain in detail.

And my math is correct. I have a BS in Math, a BS in Computer Science. And I studied economics. I didn't go on to graduate school in economics because I found it to be not rigorous in the application of math to theory. And it was too easy. But the economics department at my University did beg me to do it.

[ProSense]

44. "Why would the cost increase just because I sell more?" No

because your costs also increased. Your lower price has nothing to do with the increase in what you have to spend to make burgers.

[Mithreal]

49. like cost plus contracting? ordering more unnecessary tests and procedures?

Easily defending those practices by arguing that government is getting between the patient and doctor and denying care.

DU'ers have explained how easy it is for insurers and AMA to game this part of the system.

[girl gone mad]

32. That's a common tactic she uses.

She'll make you talk in circles and pretend she doesn't understand, or simply change the subject.

She also always has to get the last word. I guess she/he/they think that's the way you "win" discussions.

[lapfog_1]

34. Yes, I've been down this path with that poster before,

And it doesn't matter what logic or reasoning you use, they always come back to trying to make it sound like you are contradicting yourself by either misstating what you said or misunderstanding it.

And I'm not trying to win them over, I am laying out the case for my point to anyone else that might have even the slightest open mind on the subject.

But, like most topics that are discussed here. There really isn't any reasoned debate. Just personal attacks and predetermined positions.

I know this bill is going to pass as is. The conference with the House won't mean make a whit's worth of difference, and that this bill is worse than doing nothing. I'm not saying it won't help some people, it will, but the cost will be too high.

Someone asked me what I think the costs are, and here is my response:

The social and political cost of all the compromises needed to get here.

The cost, in terms of power to corporations, of turning the entire system (minus Medicare, the VA, and Medicaid) over to corporations and handing them another 15,000,000 customers by mandate.

And, finally, the cost in dollars.

The base cost of a 21 to 30 years old person is likely to be a premium in the $6,000 to $9,000 a year range. For older Americans, over 50, it could be as much as 3 to 4 times higher (per the bill) or $20,000. Average per individual is going to be over $15,000 per year (higher than the math average because the 50 to 65 age group is larger than the over 21 but under 30 age group.

There are maybe 200,000,000 adults in the US. Times $15,000 each and you have $3 Trillion dollars a year spent on health care, likely to be much higher by 2014 when most of the provisions kick in. That's an enormous sum. 15 to 20 percent of which is going to corporations that do absolutely nothing (anymore) other than act as a conduit of the money. $450 Billion a year in profits (at the group MLR rate of 15%). Read that again, we just agreed to give this small collection of corporations $450 BILLION a year for handling the money. This doesn't include their costs of claims processing. This is the amount that goes out in dividends, bonuses, and CEO salary. Not only that, but these companies have 0 incentive to contain the underlying costs of medical care. None, because we just guaranteed them a profit margin of at least 15 percent AND NO MORE than 15%. If I was a claims adjuster for Aetna right now, I'd be dusting off my resume and looking around for something else to do.


Edit to add: Is it any wonder why the stock value of these companies is UP an average of 10% over the last 6 weeks? The stock market KNOWS who has won this fight, and it wasn't the Democratic Party (or at least the one I joined).

[treestar]

47. Because maybe you are contradicting yourself?

It's rude to talk about another poster on the board. Stick to the debate.

[ProSense]

36. "She'll make you talk in circles and pretend she doesn't understand"

This sound more like someone blaming someone else for losing an argument, or admitting to being not that bright.

[girl gone mad]

23. Not only is there no cost containment,

the government just took away the single best market price control by forcing everyone to purchase the insurers product. Businesses only lower prices when they want to increase demand. If a business is selling a product that everyone is required to purchase, and it is exempt from ant-trust laws, there is absolutely no motivation for that business to lower prices.

[ProSense]

25. Right

"the government just took away the single best market price control by forcing everyone to purchase the insurers product"

Becuase there are so many people scrambling to get out of having coverage now and the people being dropped really appreciate not having coverage.

[girl gone mad]

31. Yes, there are millions of people who CHOOSE not to buy health insurance.

This is not a difficult concept to grok.

I CHOSE not to purchase any health insurance in my 20s. The policies available to me were unaffordable.

During that entire decade, I spent less than $3000 on health care.

Health insurance premiums would have set me back over $75,000. I have no idea ho much I would have spent with copays and deductibles included.

I've got an uncle who dropped his insurance because he discovered it was far, far more affordable to get treatment in Mexico. This bill could really hurt him. He has some savings, so he probably won't qualify for subsidies, but he's also supporting other non-dependent family members and is stuck paying a mortgage on a house he needs to sell.

I just gave you two stories, dear. There are millions more just like us, who CHOOSE not to purchase a crappy, ineffective product. Get lost with your NoSense. Shovel bullshit to someone else.

[karynnj]

35. Good point

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

50. I think you're located in another galaxy somewhere. (nt)

[GreenArrow]

3. Governance

is the art of gaining, wielding and holding power. It's easy to see who has the power in this country.

[ProSense]

5. "is the art of gaining, wielding and holding power."

Yikes!

[silverweb]

6. Too much sense.

Too much for some to reconcile with ideology, apparently.

Thanks for keeping your feet on the ground and expressing some of the realities so well.

[Laelth]

8. Carry on, good soldier. I salute you. n/t

:patriot:

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[TheKentuckian]

9. Still no talking points on why we can't even have market based reforms

Even right-center/right kinds of reform is OFF THE TABLE.

The real truth is we started from a perspective that insurance profits and the employer system must not be endangered by the whims and desires of the people and its been down hill from there.

This isn't incremental, this isn't moderate, this isn't "common sense", this isn't even conservative, this is CORPORATIST REFORM. Reform based around protecting corporate interests, control, and profits.

[lapfog_1]

13. Bingo.

An unregulated Monopoly (the only industry in the United States, other than some professional sports) that enjoys an exemption to anti-monopoly laws and regulations), which is now going to be Cost plus Award fee (15% guaranteed profit margin) procurement contractors.

The worst kind of government contract.

[ProSense]

15. Reform based on the proposal Obama outlined during the campaign and througout the debate

shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

You claim this isn't reform, and a lot of people, including progressives, disagree with you.

You want to use distortions to question why he advocated a certain path during the campaign, fine.

[TheKentuckian]

18. Bullshit, he swore he would sign no bill without a system to counterbalance

private insurance and that competition would have to be there and that my friend has turned out to be a fucking lie because he will sign just such a bill.

He didn't say it had to be a public option (though he cited that as the best method) but he said SOME mechanism HAD to be there that it was absolutely essential but that has turned out to be a pig in a poke and I see no dispute to that essential piece of this debate. He also bullshitted about the mandates which I'm willing to accept IF there are price controls and choice, which there will not be.

[ProSense]

21. "He didn't say it had to be a public option"

And the bill does exactly what he wants it to.

[girl gone mad]

20. What happened to 'hope' and 'change'?

'Yes we can!'?

I guess they've been replaced by 'don't hope for anything', 'incremental changes' and 'if we can'.

[ProSense]

22. It's not realistic to expect that who never believed it possible

to see it happen before their very eyes.

[Armstead]

24. It would be possible to pass a bill saying the sky is blue

Doesn't mean much though

[GeorgeGist]

28. Thanks cowards ...

Sincerely,

The Health Insurance Industry.

[ClarkUSA]

29. And a 10% increase in support from Democrats in the past two weeks... looks like the Failers failed.

Thanks for the timely reminder. K&R

[democrat2thecore]

30. Yeah, let's hear it for an expensive bill that just TINKERS

We had a chance for comprehensive National Health Insurance and we get a bill that removes pre-existing conditions and a few other good things that could have been in a bill a few pages long. Never, have we seen an industry buy off so many senators, while the president stood by and just wanted something he could call Health Care Reform. Well, you got it Mr. President. Complete with your backroom deals with Big Pharma and God only knows what else we don't even know about.

A primary challenge won't work as the African-American vote would swamp any challenger. But, Mr. President, I hope you'll see the writing on the wall of a 40-45 state landslide against you and step aside soon enough (as a candidate for re-election) that other candidates can raise money, etc. I am betting ONE of those candidate will be a real progressive and promising more than words.

[TwilightGardener]

40. "The African American vote would swamp any challenger" to Obama?

How exactly do you know three years in advance how African Americans will vote? Do you know how whites will vote? Jews?

[democrat2thecore]

45. Don't be ridiculous. Do you know the history of racial politics?

I'm stating what everybody knows. And YES...that's o k a y. Just calm down. That doesn't harm anybody's sensitivities. Sheesh.

[TwilightGardener]

46. I'm not being ridiculous. I'm legitimately wondering how you can know

what blacks will be thinking, and how they'll be voting, three years from now. What exactly are you saying about "racial politics"? What is it that we all "know", according to you?

[freddie mertz]

38. But this is very far from the sort of "Change" we were promised.

It is weak, lame, and corrupt.

It is business as usual, or worse.

Sorry... but congrats are hardly in order, especially in the Senate and the WH.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

[CreekDog]

42. but with the filibuster, not much is really possible

nevermind that it applies to a Senate which is not democratically composed (half the senators are from states totaling 45 million in population and the other half of senators are from states totaling about 250 million in total population).

and this is an issue that NEEDS to be dealt with.

[treestar]

48. IMO it may be time to do away with it if possible

The Senate was designed to slow things down, and the filibuster, the way the Repukes use it, grinds things to a halt.

My reservation is of course, when they are in the majority, the horrors for Supreme Court Justices we would get.