By the way, all the talk I was saying about the Mittster last week or two weeks ago. I take it back. Mitt lost the Republican nomination tonight. It's unclear why I wasn't taking this into account already.

Did Mitt do something? I mean, other than basically be the guy who pretty much engineered the pilot program for this bill.

(And, in a rare occurrence, if JH is right, then I've been right all along about the more liberal than McCain former governor of Taxachussetts.)

heard one of the provisions is we all get free vibram five finger shoes

TenuredVulture wrote:Did Mitt do something? I mean, other than basically be the guy who pretty much engineered the pilot program for this bill.

(And, in a rare occurrence, if JH is right, then I've been right all along about the more liberal than McCain former governor of Taxachussetts.)

No just the thing he signed in MA. It's going to be a hurdle too high for him to clear in the primary.

I still think he would be the best president of folks on our side of the field, but he's really foooooked.

Also, he's not more liberal than McCain.

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Did Mitt do something? I mean, other than basically be the guy who pretty much engineered the pilot program for this bill.

(And, in a rare occurrence, if JH is right, then I've been right all along about the more liberal than McCain former governor of Taxachussetts.)

No just the thing he signed in MA. It's going to be a hurdle too high for him to clear in the primary.

I still think he would be the best president of folks on our side of the field, but he's really foooooked.

Also, he's not more liberal than McCain.

Well, that's what I said before.

And Romney's record, what with the baby killin and commie health care and the sodomites marrying and stuff--that makes him about as libral as Pelosi. WHich is more libral than McCain.

seriously my "christian" republican friends statuses all say something along the lines of what a horrible day for our country we are all going to die.

CalvinBall wrote:seriously my "christian" republican friends statuses all say something along the lines of what a horrible day for our country we are all going to die.

well, actually we're now not!

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Did Mitt do something? I mean, other than basically be the guy who pretty much engineered the pilot program for this bill.

(And, in a rare occurrence, if JH is right, then I've been right all along about the more liberal than McCain former governor of Taxachussetts.)

No just the thing he signed in MA. It's going to be a hurdle too high for him to clear in the primary.

I still think he would be the best president of folks on our side of the field, but he's really foooooked.

Also, he's not more liberal than McCain.

Well, that's what I said before.

And Romney's record, what with the baby killin and commie health care and the sodomites marrying and stuff--that makes him about as libral as Pelosi. WHich is more libral than McCain.

He's been very "good" on gay marriage. I think in 2008 the states' rights angle on health care was enough to deflect any blame, but in the aftermath of this bill, it won't hold water anymore. As for abortion, he's a flip flopper, but he's got the zeal of a convert, and on economic, immigration and speech issues, he's to the right of McCain. He's not more liberal than McCain. Not arguing whether that's good or bad...it's just a fact.

Wait so will small businesses who already pay for their employees health care only benefit from this bill? I was under the impression they were going to end up paying MORE because of this.

If I'm taking this all in right it is excellent, because maybe my parents can help me pay for college after all. Hoo Ray!!!!

As far as Obama's chances for 2012 I have to agree with JH. I think Obama is going to be running uphill assuming that the republicans dont nominate Palin or one of her retarded ilk.

per a link that pac sent me- businesses under 50 employees dont have to provide benefits for their employees. so it doesnt really change how most businesses operate.

Right, but do all small businesses who provide health benefits qualify for the tax credits?

As is usually the case, dajafi is much more articulate on my general point of view than I could ever be. ("Usually" because my general point of view sometimes differs. He's always more articulate).

While I think jersey's right that passage of the bill will have some negative political consequences, I think these will be dwarfed by the impact of not passing the bill, which would have possibly threatened crippling Obama's presidency. While seeming to contradict each other, both propositions can of course be right-members of Congress in contested districts can bear the brunt of dissatisfaction even while the Administration gets a net gain.

I think a lot of the anger will subside, though, as some of the worst fabrications about the bill prove to unfounded, and those who benefit from it actually start to receive some of these benefits. That's not to say it's a good bill or a bad bill-it's an incremental, not a revolutionary change, and while some or even many will continue to view it as a first step in the wrong direction for those of a less ideological bent I think it will just become part of the background of daily life. Let's face it, most people have to negotiate a complex interaction between their place of employment, HMOs and government in obtaining and paying for health care already.The fact that this matrix is shifted a little one way or the other is not going to have a huge effect. Many of the reasons it will not be such a dramatic upheaval are due to mitigating ideas by Republicans, as jersey noted. It's a shame they will never dare to take credit for them.

But the strongest point dajafi makes is that the economy will really determine the political success or failure of the Democratic party this November. Really, the health care bill is really too wonky for most to understand, much less identify its ill effects, whereas everyone knows when the economy is in the crapper. This is why health care works so well as a scare tactic, but less so when it becomes reality. Although I'll hold out the possibility that jersey, who's wonky enough to understand anything really has legitimate concerns.

pacino wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:seriously my "christian" republican friends statuses all say something along the lines of what a horrible day for our country we are all going to die.

well, actually we're now not!

Unless they're fetuses. If that's the case, they're goners.

swishnicholson wrote:As is usually the case, dajafi is much more articulate on my general point of view than I could ever be. ("Usually" because my general point of view sometimes differs. He's always more articulate).

While I think jersey's right that passage of the bill will have some negative political consequences, I think these will be dwarfed by the impact of not passing the bill, which would have possibly threatened crippling Obama's presidency. While seeming to contradict each other, both propositions can of course be right-members of Congress in contested districts can bear the brunt of dissatisfaction even while the Administration gets a net gain.

I think a lot of the anger will subside, though, as some of the worst fabrications about the bill prove to unfounded, and those who benefit from it actually start to receive some of these benefits. That's not to say it's a good bill or a bad bill-it's an incremental, not a revolutionary change, and while some or even many will continue to view it as a first step in the wrong direction for those of a less ideological bent I think it will just become part of the background of daily life. Let's face it, most people have to negotiate a complex interaction between their place of employment, HMOs and government in obtaining and paying for health care already.The fact that this matrix is shifted a little one way or the other is not going to have a huge effect. Many of the reasons it will not be such a dramatic upheaval are due to mitigating ideas by Republicans, as jersey noted. It's a shame they will never dare to take credit for them.

But the strongest point dajafi makes is that the economy will really determine the political success or failure of the Democratic party this November. Really, the health care bill is really too wonky for most to understand, much less identify its ill effects, whereas everyone knows when the economy is in the crapper. This is why health care works so well as a scare tactic, but less so when it becomes reality. Although I'll hold out the possibility that jersey, who's wonky enough to understand anything really has legitimate concerns.

A few points to add to/partially rebut a well reasoned post: many of the provisions from the bill do not come into effect until 2014, so it gives the GOP two election cycles, including one presidential, to yell "MANDATE!" and "TAXES!" So "reality" of the bill is phased in slowly, and the scarier parts will be able to be hyped, while some of the benefits will be of the "well in three years you can..." variety.

I completely agree that the failure to pass this bill might have been more damaging to the Obama presidency and the Democratic majority in Congress than passage will end up being. But I think just by taking up the issue they cost themselves a bunch of seats. Obviously if you are of the mind that it is a big improvement for the country, those are seats well worth losing, but I think November will bear this out as a fact. I would be surprised at this point if the GOP doesn't pick up at least 25 seats, and if the majority isn't seriously in play in the fall. The individual Dems in tough districts that voted for it may bear the brunt of voter anger.

drsmooth wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:Nunes is a moron. He was on C-SPAN this morning talking about how the Catholic bishops have opposed the bill. When the moderator mentioned that Catholic hospitals and nuns support it, Nunes muttered something about there being a lot of radical, leftist nuns and that the bishops are in charge and should be obeyed.

Obeying the orders of bishops and cardinals has been working for the Catholic Church recently, hasn't it???

Fine, fine, fine

let the bishops have their way with Nunes

live on CSPAN would be good

You know, those croziers have concealed blades... like ninjas.

phdave wrote:I remember when rbm-de used to throw around "socialist" and "totalitarian" on pp.com I thought he was way out there. (He might still do this as far as I know.)

Whenever I saw his username, I used to pretend it said "run-dmc"... made it more entertaining.

After a weekend where the teabaggers threw homophobic slurs at one congressman and racial slurs at others, an unnamed GOP congressman who called Stupak a "baby-killer" on the floor. Stay classy, guys.

jerseyhoya wrote:Also I think tonight dramatically increases the possibility Obama is a one term president. Disagree strongly with that jeff2sf conclusion.

I simply don't understand how getting this bill through, as opposed to having it defeated today, could HURT Obama. I think you underestimate (which seems to be a popular phrase on here from supporters and protesteres) how much getting something done was compared to getting nothing done and being seen as having failed despite having majorities in both houses.

If the comparison is between Obama today vs. Obama last spring where maybe he says "We can't do health care yet, have to fix economy", I suppose I could buy that that process weakened him and he's worse off. But Obama today vs Obama last month when the process looked dead? Not even close.

Now I was probably being a bit glib there. Obama's not actually a lock, the economy has to go up and the unemployment rate has to go down. But given I don't view the down cycle as lasting another 2.5 years, I think he's in great shape.

CalvinBall wrote:

sweet...more taxes. wait, i better be careful of what i say before i'm called a racist.

a friends facebook status



what does that even mean?

If you read this thread for a little while, you'll discover that anyone who isn't for HCR or any other majority party agenda is a racist. Specifically if you decide to go stand on a street corner or attend a rally. For example, note the certainty that tea-baggers were shouting bigoted slurs, despite a lack of corroboration (the story ran on FNC, then was picked up by WaPo, and went from "alleged" to "not alleged" in translation). In the end, it's all name calling and race-baiting. I suspect that's is what your facebook buddy is referring to.

So every major news outlet(including the one that has been giving these imbeciles an unchallenged platform to speak on and has nothing to gain by reporting the story) is wrong and these Congressmen(who experienced the same treatment again on Sunday) are all liars?