Quote:

---

If his new position causes just a couple of votes to change, then this thing is dead.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
After 6 months of this endless debate and political posturing you're willing to just throw it all away? I almost fell off the couch last night when I heard Dean say it on MSNBC. Don't you know how bad Obama needs this to pass, politically speaking that is? Supporters of the House version say pass this watered-down Senate bill, and then add on later. I liked the Medicare at age 55 concept. I think the country could have accepted that because it's already in place. It's quite amazing to see Mr. Dean now on the same side as the "knuckle-dragging neaderthals". If his new position causes just a couple of votes to change, then this thing is dead.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

The "kunckle-draggers" were fighting health care reform. The peeps who don't want THIS bill are fighting FOR reform.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Mark my words, it will happen. At some point, when a group of people are pushed so far, there's nothing left for them to do BUT react violently.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"What about just setting some new laws to abolish the most objectionable practices of private insurers?"

Like astronomical rates ? Because that's the biggest issue of all, and the reason WHY so many people don't have insurance to start with. To people who can't afford insurance to start with, recission and denial of care are moot.

"Allowing co's to sell it across state lines would increase competition within the states and lower costs."

It hasn't worked for other items like - oh, gasoline. Market forces in the face of collusion ? They're nothing.


"Tort Reform capping lawsuits against doctors and hospitals..."

Texas did that - and it has an area with THE MOST EXPENSIVE health care in the country. Tort reform is a non-issue.

"Or just some type of Govt. credit so that poor people not on MedicAid can get some private insurance at a moderate cost."

And shovel tax dollars to private profit ? I would have thought that you would be against that.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Sand in the gears, folks, sand in the gears.

Doesn't matter WHY the Rethugs are opposing it and being obstructionist jackasses if the bill itself is such a horror that it needs to die, does it ?

And consider this:
Sometimes the best way to use a dangerous and unpredicatable, unwanted resource, is to use it up.

Call it a two fer one special.

-F

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Obama is almost a lame duck right now, especially after his Afghanistan speech. Reid & Pelosi, by virtue of their own ineptitude and stubborness, are just adding to Obama's problems. Obama's approval rating, while slipping, is still more than double that of Reid's and Pelosi's. He has to step in and hammer out a Bill with Congressional leaders of both parties that is shit simple, yet effective. I believe his personal power and charisma can pull it off.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Sand in the gears, folks, sand in the gears.

Doesn't matter WHY the Rethugs are opposing it and being obstructionist jackasses if the bill itself is such a horror that it needs to die, does it ?

And consider this:
Sometimes the best way to use a dangerous and unpredicatable, unwanted resource, is to use it up.

Call it a two fer one special.

-F

---

I'm intrigued by this plan in that it's something the Glenn Beck followers would WANT to do, and because it's actually for their benefit. These health care bills are seeming more and more like something that need to be shut down. Good for them, good for us. I like it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Heh, if only he'd displayed some spine when his own party threw him under the bus instead of crawling to them begging, I might not find the guy so - but yeah, he's gotta point, I just don't trust him to stand to it when things get rough, cause when it really counted he not only rolled over, he went sucking up to the very folk who rolled him.

So you cannot trust him.

-F

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Obama is almost a lame duck right now, especially after his Afghanistan speech. Reid & Pelosi, by virtue of their own ineptitude and stubborness, are just adding to Obama's problems. Obama's approval rating, while slipping, is still more than double that of Reid's and Pelosi's. He has to step in and hammer out a Bill with Congressional leaders of both parties that is shit simple, yet effective. I believe his personal power and charisma can pull it off.

---

One thing I think you're overlooking, Jongsie - The only approval numbers that matter for Reid and Pelosi are the numbers in their own state and district, respectively. I think you're looking at NATIONAL approval numbers on them, not the numbers within their own electorate, which is really all that matters come election time.

It's funny, because seemingly EVERYBODY hates Congress; polls routinely show their numbers at around 17-18%. But oddly enough, when you ask individual people about THEIR Representative or Senator, they tend to think they're doing a GREAT job, with ratings usually around 75% or better. So according to most Americans, ALL of Congress sucks, but MY guy (or gal) is doing great in spite of that. Yes, it's a paradox.

---

Quote:

---

The authors find that term limits altered—but did not revolutionize—the type of legislator who comes to Sacramento. Specifically, Proposition 140 accelerated trends of increasing female and minority representation that were already under way in California. Rather than representing a new breed of “citizen legislator,” however, new members after term limits behave a great deal like their precursors. Many have local government experience and run for another office—for an Assembly or a Senate seat—when their terms expire. Careerism remains a constant in California politics.

The effects on Sacramento’s policymaking processes have been more profound. In both houses, committees now screen out fewer bills assigned to them and are more likely to see their work rewritten at later stages. The practice of “hijacking” Assembly bills—gutting their contents and amending them thoroughly in the Senate—has increased sharply. As a body, the Legislature is less likely to alter the Governor’s Budget, and its own budget process neither encourages fiscal discipline nor links legislators’ requests to overall spending goals. In addition, legislative oversight of the executive branch has declined significantly. The authors’ interviews with members and their staff revealed a widespread sense in Sacramento that something needs to be done soon to provide more stability and expertise to the Legislature’s policymaking process. Yet there are continuities in the Legislature’s internal operations as well. For example, leaders remain central to the process, and term limits cannot be blamed for Sacramento’s intensifying partisan polarization.

Term limits have had a mixed effect on the Legislature’s policy products. The authors find no effect on the breadth and complexity of bills passed into law, although this continuity may be the result of the Senate’s increased propensity to amend Assembly bills. Using simple measures of legislative performance, they also find that recently instituted programs to train members and staff do not appear to improve a legislator’s “batting average”—that is, his or her chances of passing a bill or seeing it signed into law —although legislators who receive that training tend to write shorter bills that change more code sections...

Many veteran legislators and staff members regret Proposition 140’s effects, which include a decline in the Legislature’s research capacity. (The Legislative Analyst’s Office, for example, lost a large portion of its staff, with the sharpest drop coming immediately in the wake of Proposition 140.) Even the measure’s major proponent, former Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, recently voiced his discontent with the results

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JKiddo:
Jong, you hard-bitten realist, you... you're prolly right about the bill.

I'd like to add a "however" tho, about term limits: IMHO they've do more harm than good. Look at California- we've had Legislator term limits since 1990... that's a LONG time to see changes (if any). From my humble citizen's standpoint, California is an even bigger clusterf*ck than before. But it was interesting to see tis written about it:

Quote:

---

The authors find that term limits altered—but did not revolutionize—the type of legislator who comes to Sacramento. Specifically, Proposition 140 accelerated trends of increasing female and minority representation that were already under way in California. Rather than representing a new breed of “citizen legislator,” however, new members after term limits behave a great deal like their precursors. Many have local government experience and run for another office—for an Assembly or a Senate seat—when their terms expire. Careerism remains a constant in California politics.

The effects on Sacramento’s policymaking processes have been more profound. In both houses, committees now screen out fewer bills assigned to them and are more likely to see their work rewritten at later stages. The practice of “hijacking” Assembly bills—gutting their contents and amending them thoroughly in the Senate—has increased sharply. As a body, the Legislature is less likely to alter the Governor’s Budget, and its own budget process neither encourages fiscal discipline nor links legislators’ requests to overall spending goals. In addition, legislative oversight of the executive branch has declined significantly. The authors’ interviews with members and their staff revealed a widespread sense in Sacramento that something needs to be done soon to provide more stability and expertise to the Legislature’s policymaking process. Yet there are continuities in the Legislature’s internal operations as well. For example, leaders remain central to the process, and term limits cannot be blamed for Sacramento’s intensifying partisan polarization.

Term limits have had a mixed effect on the Legislature’s policy products. The authors find no effect on the breadth and complexity of bills passed into law, although this continuity may be the result of the Senate’s increased propensity to amend Assembly bills. Using simple measures of legislative performance, they also find that recently instituted programs to train members and staff do not appear to improve a legislator’s “batting average”—that is, his or her chances of passing a bill or seeing it signed into law —although legislators who receive that training tend to write shorter bills that change more code sections...

Many veteran legislators and staff members regret Proposition 140’s effects, which include a decline in the Legislature’s research capacity. (The Legislative Analyst’s Office, for example, lost a large portion of its staff, with the sharpest drop coming immediately in the wake of Proposition 140.) Even the measure’s major proponent, former Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, recently voiced his discontent with the results

---

With less research capacity, Legislators are more likely to simply take a lobbyist's proposal and write it into law.

Term limits SOUND great, but it doesn't do what supporters hope it will do. IMHO the only way to get legislators to represent the will of the people is to remove MONEY from the equation of running for office, because MONEY is the sieve through which candidates must pass. That includes barring legislators (termed-out ones) from taking jobs with companies they "represented" during their term. (Example, Lieberman getting a cushy job with a big insurance company.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
This so-called hard-bitten realist has never been more messed up than on this subject of Govt healthcare. I've been on both sides of the issue, flip-flopping from week to week like Sunday pancakes.

---

Quote:

---

No one's argument gains any credibility with this talk of Obama being a "lame duck." Hello, the guy's barely been in office a year. He still has 3, no matter what. "Lame duck" is reserved for the guy's last month after an election he loses. If all the fight goes out of Obama after his first difficult year, then he's in the wrong line o' work.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

This so-called hard-bitten realist has never been more messed up than on this subject of Govt healthcare. I've been on both sides of the issue, flip-flopping from week to week like Sunday pancakes. At this current moment in time I guess I feel that either the Govt Option, or Medicare Option, or doing nothing at all would be infinitely better than this terrible Senate Bill.

On term limits...based on what you posted it seems I need to do some research on the subject.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:


So maybe someone else has said what I feel...INDIVIDUAL MANDATE BUT NO PUBLIC OPTION, NO BILL! It's what I wrote to my representatives. The fuss about the public option, while nobody has been talking about the individual mandate, has sickened me no end. Without SOME form of control, the individual mandate is an incredible gimme to the insurance companies/pharma. I'm hearing it more now that the public option/Medicare buy-in is a dead duck, and I want to hear MORE of it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

No one's argument gains any credibility with this talk of Obama being a "lame duck." Hello, the guy's barely been in office a year. He still has 3, no matter what. "Lame duck" is reserved for the guy's last month after an election he loses. If all the fight goes out of Obama after his first difficult year, then he's in the wrong line o' work.

---

I thought you could ALSO be a lame duck President if you have a hostile Congress? But granted, neither is the case here. It's just government, ineffective as usual.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
As for what they do AFTER they leave public office, I'd say have something akin to a "no-compete" clause. It's not uncommon for people to have to sign a 2-, 3-, or 5-year no-compete clause when leaving an employer in the private sector (especially if they just sold their company to another business); let's expand that to representatives and senators, on a no-conflict-of-interest basis. That doesn't mean someone like Tom Coburn can't go back to being and OB/GYN when he leaves the Senate - it just means he can't take millions in campaign donations from Aetna, then leave the Senate to walk straight into a job with Aetna.

---

Quote:

---

ON NO ! I LIKE beer ! (baaadumshhhh)

---

Quote:

---

I don't see that getting much traction except perhaps on a local level if there is a local problem that is really grinding on a lot of people.

---