Stupak voting yes on HCR

Health care reform is in the bag.  (Edited to change link.)

This was what sealed the deal.

UPDATE: And the teabaggers are not happy:

DEATH MERCHANT!!!!11!

UPDATE II: Really not happy.  (h/t balloon juice)

25 Responses to “Stupak voting yes on HCR”


  1. 1 Howie51 Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    Cracks me up …. you can go from ally to asshole in 10 seconds in the Christian camp. No other group devours it’s own faster than the fundies. Stupak gets a small taste of what logical folks put up with by these morons on a daily basis. TOUCHE’

  2. 2 Phatbiker Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    The bill just passed, it’s all over but the crying.

  3. 3 Brian Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    Now we’ll see who was right with respect to all the discussion I’ve been involved in on this site.  (I don’t mean that as “Now you’ll see!!!”, but really that the way this now plays out will be no longer in the realm of speculation, but in a realm that can be analyzed.)  My opinion is that it will be very bad, but now we’ll see.

    I do think Supak has been duped… There is a world of difference in scope, permanence and force between legislation and Executive Orders. President Obama has promised that he will not rescind this Exec. Ord.   But, of course, lying is the stock in trade of a vast majority of politicians, and the President has committed quite a bit more than his share of lies in just 1 year in office.  You would think Stupak would be aware of that…

  4. 4 dizzlski Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    Ahh, pro-life includes assassination, good to know.

    Brian: If we got a proper HCR bill people would benefit much more. The watered down bill will piss people off all over the place.

  5. 5 Phatbiker Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    I was a little premature, It was the debate part that passed, but at this point it looks like a sure thing HCR will be law by late tonight. It’s a shame they had to compromise womans rights (access to abortion) to help it pass. There still way to many religious kooks and red-neck assholes in possitions of power in the US gov’t.

  6. 6 Cornelius T.Zen Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    Good morrow, all!
    I find it most passing strange, even ironic. Perhaps Brian can enlighten me.
    Why is it PERFECTLY OKAY for the US government to spend BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars each year to go overseas and invade other countries and kill many thousands of other people…BUT!
    Why is it NOT OKAY AT ALL for the US government to spend a similar amount, RIGHT THERE AT HOME, to keep its own citizens alive and healthy?
    Why are tax dollars dedicated to weapons of mayhem and destruction much more acceptable than tax dollars dedicated to the health and welfare of American citizens?
    Why are insurance companies and HMO’s, whom we all know to be more benevolent than God when it comes to such things, to be trusted more regarding the medical welfare of US citizens than their own government?
    Now, we have been told, in the very pages of this blog, that the World Health Organization ranking of the US as 37th in the world is bullshit. Okay. So what exactly makes the US system better than it appears to be? And why does any attempt to improve it become the Mark Of The Beast?
    The new slogan for America: I Am Sam – CTZen

  7. 7 Cornelius T.Zen Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 5:49 pm

    Good morrow, again!
    Stupak is going to vote for the HCR bill, on the grounds that no federal funds will be made available in support of abortion services. He has Obama’s promise on this.
    Let me play Devil’s Advocate here, with your indulgence:
    Who do you suppose would take advantage of abortion services, if they were provided at taxpayer’s cost? Rich white socialites? Wealthy bankers’ wives? High profile lawyers? Not likely.
    You know who would take the most advantage of federally-funded abortion services? That’s right – poor brown women who can’t afford another hungry mouth in the household. Which means fewer poor brown mouths to feed, and less strain on the welfare system, and more money available for the Haliburtons and the Blackwaters and the Goldman Sachs of the world. Not to mention the Aetnas and the Blue Crosses and their friends.
    You know, if the Reptilians and their racist, homophobic, misogynist, xenophobic, teabagging friends saw things that way, they might just think twice about it.
    Well, considering that they have yet to think once about it, you’ll forgive me if I don’t hold my breath.
    Like Deep Throat said: Follow the money – CTZen

  8. 8 J. A. Baker Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    Interesting. The teabagger who tweeted that Obama should be assassinated is a conservative blogger who’s been driven quite around the bend with his ODS. Twitter says that the account has since been removed due to TOS violations (though apparently the account is still accessible. The Secret Service is investigating.

    Stay KKKlassy, teabaggers!

  9. 9 Brian Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 6:19 pm

      I find it most passing strange, even ironic. Perhaps Brian can enlighten me.
      Why is it PERFECTLY OKAY for the US government to spend BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars each year to go overseas and invade other countries and kill many thousands of other people…BUT!
      Why is it NOT OKAY AT ALL for the US government to spend a similar amount, RIGHT THERE AT HOME, to keep its own citizens alive and healthy?

    That’s actually a pretty simple answer.   The federal government exists by virtue of a contract with those whom they govern, called the US Constitution.   For better or worse, that document spells out what they must do, what they can do, and what they cannot do.

    In that document, they are required to defend the United States.   There is a lot of disagreement about where the line lies between the proper actions to accomplish that, and improper actions.   But irrespective of where one person or another sees that line as lying, the category itself is enumerated in the Constitution.

    Further, the Constitution explicitly prohibits the US government (the federal government) from doing anything they are not explicitly tasked with by the Constitution.   Since nothing in the Constitution explicitly allows them to provide health care, there are—by that omission—prohibited from doing so.   The Constitution specifically says that this undertaking therefore falls to state and local governments.

    Now, to be sure, congress does myriad things it is not allowed to do (foreign aid, welfare, education, light-bulb prohibition and on and on), so this is not unprecedented for that.   But that is a reason.

     

     

      Why are insurance companies & HMO’s … to be trusted more regarding the medical welfare of US citizens than their own government?

    Well, they aren’t, necessarily.   But it is still significant that the US government is usurping when they do this, the insurers are not.   (This is not an observation of beneficence, but of legitimacy.)   It can interfere with trust if you break the rules which establish your legitimacy just by entering the field of endeavor.

     

     

      So what exactly makes the US system better than it appears to be?

    For one, these figures include average life expectancy.   US citizens, taken as a group, live far less healthy lives than citizens in other countries.   This lowers the life expectancy figure, but not as a health care issue.   Some countries consider a child dying in the first year as infant mortality, and so those children are not included in the life expectancy figures for that country, raising the number higher than it would be if those kids were included.   There is a measure of apples-to-oranges in the WHO figures.

    If you compare individuals in a similar state of health, at a similar age, with the same health challenge (arthritis, cancer, emphysema, etc.) entering a US health care facility, or a similar facility in a different country, the person in the US has a better chance of being cured, having his life extended, or however you want to put it.   But it is hard to line up particulars like this (you can’t go around making people sick just so you can run an experiment;  people talk…).

     

     

    And why does any attempt to improve it become the Mark Of The Beast?

    “666 reasons why I hate ObamaCare?”   I hadn’t heard anyone call it the Mark of the Beast…

    There is this irritating and pervasive thread, “Well, we have to do something!!!”   Often that is used to implement something that makes the situation worse.   Those like me, who oppose ObamaCare do so not because we think attempts to make things better are bad—or, to be more accurate, attempts which make things better are bad—but that we think that attempts to make things better but actually make them worse are bad.

    There are a lot of things in health care that I would like to see changed, but not by the federal government in defiance of substantial majority opposition, and not the things in the current bill.   (I am sure you believe the majority opposition to be fools who have been duped by clever propaganda.   But even if that is the case, duped majorities dislike being ignored every bit as much as informed majorities.   If your job is representing a group, it is a bad career move to ignore their desires, however they might have arrived at them.

    Though sometimes “Don’t just stand there:   DO something” is the right response, it is also true that sometimes “Don’t just do something;  STAND there!” is appropriate.

  10. 10 Brian Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 6:21 pm

    Ooops. That is:

    And why does any attempt to improve it become the Mark Of The Beast?

    “666 reasons why I hate ObamaCare?”   I hadn’t heard anyone call it the Mark of the Beast…

    There is this irritating and pervasive thread, “Well, we have to do something!!!”   Often that is used to implement something that makes the situation worse.   Those like me, who oppose ObamaCare do so not because we think attempts to make things better are bad—or, to be more accurate, attempts which make things better are bad—but that we think that attempts to make things better but actually make them worse are bad.

    There are a lot of things in health care that I would like to see changed, but not by the federal government in defiance of substantial majority opposition, and not the things in the current bill.   (I am sure you believe the majority opposition to be fools who have been duped by clever propaganda.   But even if that is the case, duped majorities dislike being ignored every bit as much as informed majorities.   If your job is representing a group, it is a bad career move to ignore their desires, however they might have arrived at them.

    Though sometimes “Don’t just stand there:   DO something” is the right response, it is also true that sometimes “Don’t just do something;  STAND there!” is appropriate.

  11. 11 JJ Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 6:47 pm

    It’s done — 219 Yeas.
    Historic moment for USians.

  12. 12 Cornelius T.Zen Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    Good morrow, all!
    Brian: “…in defiance of substantial majority opposition…”
    Interesting. The Nazis claimed to be the voice of the majority of the German public. Turns out they were not. The Bolsheviks claimed to be the voice of the majority of the Russian people. Turns out they were not. They were loud, they were strident and they were persistent, but that did not make them the majority.
    The Reptilians and their teabagger supporters are doing much the same thing, in much the same way, for much the same reason.
    They’re not the majority, they just want you to think they are.
    You may. I don’t. Neither do most of JJ’s commenters. Sorry.
    Since when is life expectancy NOT a health care issue? Does it not follow that healthier people live longer? Oh, wait! It just hit me! If health reform means more poor people get to live longer, and have more healthy children, they might just breed to the point where THEY become the majority. OMFG! No wonder the baggers are scared!
    You know, some of those baggers look like they’re just two steps this side of a heart attack, stroke, or acute renal failure anyway. They could use some health care…oops! Did I just blaspheme or something?
    In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed by various prominent colonial politicians. The sky did not fall, the Rapture did not come, the world did not end.
    In 1863, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. The sky did not, yadda, yadda, yadda…
    in 1920, women GOT THE VOTE! You know the drill by now…
    In 1965, Civil Rights and Medicare. Still waiting…
    In 1973, Roe V Wade. Anybody hear Gabriel tuning up in the distance? Me neither.
    Now, we have HCR. Wait…is that thunder I hear? Nope, just some neighborhood yob and his boomcar blasting bangra rap at a bazillion decibels…
    The sky is not going to fall, the Rapture is not going to come, and the world is not going to end…as disappointing as that may be to some…but, maybe, just maybe, Rush Limbaugh will move to Costa Rica, where they have…OMFG! SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!
    God Is An Iron – CTZen

  13. 13 deBeauxOs Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 7:17 pm

    Easy for Tea Bagger Brian to say: Do nothing. Especially when do nothing means do harm.

    But then, it doesn’t sound as though Brian really gives a shit about his fellow US citizens in need, does it?

    All that bombast and bullshit boils down to one thing: Brian believes he doesn’t need help from the Feds and thus no one else does.

  14. 14 JJ Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 8:14 pm

    Brian

    Though sometimes “Don’t just stand there: DO something” is the right response, it is also true that sometimes “Don’t just do something; STAND there!” is appropriate.

    That’s what you guys have been doing for the last hundred years — how’s that working out?

    Besides, you’re one to talk: you’re on COBRA 😉 My understanding of COBRA is that it’s a government initiative that legislates insurance companies to continue honouring policies for a few months after people are laid off (at which point they’re allowed to stick it to you and cut you off). How is that so much different from this new reform? In principle, it doesn’t seem that different.

    Also — are you a teabagger?? 😯

  15. 15 JJ Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 8:19 pm

    dizzlski

    The watered down bill will piss people off all over the place.

    It’s far from perfect, but there are some good things about it (ie. no pre-existing conditions). Hopefully they’ll be able to make improvements to it as they go along, maybe adding a public option at some point.

    Ya have to start somewhere, and if this hadn’t passed, HCR would have been off the table for another 20 years.

  16. 16 JJ Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 8:50 pm

    JAB – Thanks for the links. Wow, what a sick freak! How many more like him are out there? (Just have a look at #tcot tonight — Explodingheadsville!)

  17. 17 J. A. Baker Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 9:02 pm

    Just have a look at #tcot tonight

    Do I have to? I might pull a Mr. Creosote if I looked at #tcot right now.

  18. 18 JJ Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    😆 Seriously. I was just looking at it and it’s enough to make a sane person lose their lunch.

    But the schadenfreude makes up for it 😉

  19. 20 JJ Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 9:25 pm

    Oh, I just came back from TPM and saw it there! Wild! All class, those Rethugs.

    Rough day for poor old Stupak.

  20. 21 Brian Monday, March 22, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    Cornelius T.Zen

    “…in defiance of substantial majority opposition…”
    Interesting. The Nazis claimed to be the voice of the majority of the German public. Turns out they were not. The Bolsheviks claimed to be the voice of the majority of the Russian people. Turns out they were not. They were loud, they were strident and they were persistent, but that did not make them the majority.

    One of the philosophies of organizations that have names like “the people’s democratic…,” “the democratic front for…” and so on, is that they presume that they represent the majority, and then call all moves they make “democratic.”

    The Nazis were socialists.   The Bolsheviks were socialists (in large measure).   But really.   Come on!   The fact that there were groups claiming to represent the majority when they were not does not de-legitimize claiming to represent the majority.   You’re just “poisoning the wells” here, and that is an invalid strategy.   Poll after poll has shown that the American people oppose this—and polls from a wide variety of political corners.

     

     

    The Reptilians & their teabagger supporters are doing much the same thing, in much the same way, for much the same reason.

    “Reptilians”:   Dehumanizing your opponent is a time-tested method of propagandists.   This is what the Nazis did regarding Jews, what racists did to support slavery, etc.   nice…

    Individuals involved in the movement do not put their testes into the mouths of others.

    What I cited was not any group claiming a majority they lacked, but the findings of many different polls.   You mis-took what I said, and followed that with a falsehood.

     

     

    They’re not the majority, they just want you to think they are.

    I didn’t claim that those who participate in tea party rallies were claiming to be a majority (I have never been to one, have not looked the movement up on the net to see what they are up to, or any thing like that.   You are not engaged with a participant of the tea party movement when you are engaged in conversation with me).

     

     

    Since when is life expectancy NOT a health care issue?   Does it not follow that healthier people live longer?

    (Pardon the grammar:) It never wasn’t an issue—the point was their longevity, or lack thereof, was not a measure of health-care quality, but of life-style healthiness.   Of course healthier people live longer (barring violent events, including accidents)—that was the whole point!   Americans are not as healthy as the population in many other countries, so they die younger, but not as a ramification of the health care system not being as good as the health care systems elsewhere.

     

     

    …The sky did not fall, the Rapture did not come, the world did not end.
    In 1920, women GOT THE VOTE!  You know the drill by now…
    In 1965, Civil Rights and Medicare.
    In 1973, Roe V Wade.  Anybody hear Gabriel tuning up in the distance?  Me neither.
    Now, we have HCR.

    Women got the vote through legitimate legislative process.
    The civil rights legislation was enacted through legitimate legislative process.
    Medicare is not constitutional, as its reach is not granted to the federal government by the Constitution.   Medicare could have been assembled as an agreement among states, or on a state by state basis without violating the Constitution.   This is part of the march of events which have eroded the Constitution.   Irrespective of the benefit, eroding the Constitution is harmful.   Other means should be sought.
    Roe v Wade was in effect, legislation implemented by the Supreme Court, a form of tyranny.   If it is a good thing, enact it through legitimate legislation.   If that cannot be done, then to enact it in the courts is tyranny—irrespective what the “it” is.

    You’re right.   Now we have health-insurance reform, ;enacted against the will of a significant majority of the population.

    As I initially said, now we’ll see.

     

     

    The sky is not going to fall, the Rapture is not going to come, and the world is not going to end.

    The implication of this trio is that as long as the sky doesn’t fall, the Rapture doesn’t come and the world doesn’t end, then whatever is OK.

    If tomorrow, slavery were re-instated, abortion was prohibited without caveat, and Stephen Harper were declared King of Canada the sky would not fall, the Rapture (probably) would not come, and the world would not end.   So anyone opposed to any of these things would be being ridiculous or wrong?   I know you don’t think that, so why do you intimate that those three things are the test of whether those who oppose these HCR antics in Congress don’t have a leg upon which to stand?

  21. 22 Brian Monday, March 22, 2010 at 2:54 pm

    deBeauxOs

    Easy for Tea Bagger Brian<…

    I don’t participate in that particular sexual activity.   Inasmuch as some say that Italians could not talk if you tied their hands up, is it the case that liberals cannot engage in a discussion of politics without incorporating sexual slurs and innuendos?   Seems kind of infantile to me…

    Additionally, I don’t participate in the Tea Party movement.   I’m simply too busy trying to find work, and trying to hold my rock band together.

     

     

    …to say: Do nothing. Especially when do nothing means do harm.

    If doing nothing does harm, then that is a rationale for doing something that does more harm than doing nothing?   Sorry, I reject the conclusion.

    But then, it doesn’t sound as though Brian really gives a shit about his fellow US citizens in need, does it?

    I know it doesn’t sound like it to you, because you think that the only course that would benefit US citizens is the bill that passed last night.   If I thought that, since I care both about the citizens in my country, and the country itself (I see the two as inextricably joined), I would be arguing vociferously for the bill in congress.   I am not automatically heartless by virtue of disagreeing with you, no matter how perfect you believe your position to be.

     

     

    All that bombast and bullshit boils down to one thing: Brian believes he doesn’t need help from the Feds and thus no one else does.

    1) The feds are prohibited from this action by the document that gives them legitimacy.

    2) I don’t believe this bill helps anyone, but is instead a catastrophe.

    3) Just because you don’t agree with me, does not relegate my opinion to any animal’s feces.   I can see how, if you don’t understand what I am saying, you would assess it as bombast.   But the reality is that I am making sound constitutional points.

  22. 23 Brian Monday, March 22, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    JJ, if you could repair the block quoting tags & remove this post asking you to do so, I’d be delighted… There’s just a missing / near the top.

  23. 24 Brian Monday, March 22, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    JJ,

    That’s what you guys have been doing for the last 100 years — how’s that working out?

    That’s not actually true— a lot has been done over the last 100 years.

    But I think it is working pretty good, given that we have the best health care system on the planet, and generate more new cures than any other nation.

    Please recall though, that I have said repeatedly that I would like to see some reforms, just not the ones that passed last night.   So I am not saying “the best that can be” when I say “the best.”

    Besides, you’re one to talk: you’re on COBRA 😉 My understanding of COBRA is that it’s a government initiative that legislates insurance companies to continue honouring policies for a few months after people are laid off (at which point they’re allowed to stick it to you and cut you off). How is that so much different from this new reform? In principle, it doesn’t seem that different.

    It is as you understand, except it is more like 18 months.

    It is radically different. I am paying the premiums, not tax payers, and I have a choice to not do so if I care to.

    The way it works, is that I am still part of the pool of employees with whom I used to work, except now I pay 100% of the premiums, rather than the company paying them (having lowered what they would otherwise pay me for my services by the amount of the premiums).

    If the government had not made it so that employers were the primary marketplace for individuals to obtain insurance, and had not prohibited citizens from shopping across state lines for insurance, then the government would not have had to rectify the disaster that leaving your job meant under their “helpful hand.”

    But still, COBRA is very different from the HCR bill.   The only similarity really is that they both involve the individual having insurance they otherwise would not have.   The insurance is different, the means of obtaining it are different, and so on.

  24. 25 Brian Monday, March 22, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    JAB,

    I realize that all over the web it is stated that Solly Forell is a “conservative blogger,” but I am skeptical.   I am a conservative (no, really!), and I find that enticement to assassination hateful.

    I looked for about 5 minutes, but couldn’t find anything specific about this guy.   I will be keeping alert to see whether his name comes up in the next few days.   (I myself called the Secret Service about it, BTW.)


Wait. What?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 631,346
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives


%d bloggers like this: