Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Username   Need to register?
Password:   Forgot password?
Subject: (optional)
Icon: [*]
Formatting Mode:
Normal
Advanced
Help

Insert Bold text Insert Italicised text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert E-mail Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text Insert List
Message:
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
:) :( :D ;)
:cool: :o shocked_yellow :P
confused2 smokin: waveysmiley waggyfinger
brshteeth nananana lips_sealed kewl_glasses
Show All Smilies

Disable Smilies?
Use signature?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email on reply?
The file size of the attachment must be under 200K.
Do not preview if you have attached an image.
Attachment:
    

Topic Review
scholar

[*] posted on 22-1-2010 at 06:29
I thought the finality of the end of the behemoth health care bill deserved a separate treatment, since it depended on the reaction of the Democrats. (Regardless of Brown's victory, it could have been enacted if it were a good bill, and didn't have the offensive bribes in it.)

2010 is a year in which the House campaigns for re-election of its entire membership. They are unlikely to get any behemoth health bill done. Since the first, well-known versions were so unpopular (about 65% of the public was against it, if for no other reason than it was much too expensive), the Republicans still won't want to support it, and the Democrats won't want to vote for it and so be identified with an issue where most of their voters disagree and disapprove. in particular, some Republicans may wish to wait until after the election, at which time they can expect to have more seats in the House.

The two consistent Republican ideas--let people buy the health insurance which best suits them, from among all the companies in the US (not just in their own state); and cut the cost of defensive medicine and inflated malpractice suits--will pass after the election, if the Democrats will allow them. This would greatly bring down the cost of health care.:)
Daz

[*] posted on 22-1-2010 at 01:45
Why couldn't you just post this with the other Sen' Brown thread...?
scholar

[*] posted on 21-1-2010 at 23:43
With the election of Senator Brown, the Democrats cannot force Government Tyranny Health Care through the Senate. President Obama, among others, has declared nothing should be pushed through before Senator Brown is sworn in.

This means no compromise between the House and Senate versions will pass. (Remember, Republicans were locked out of the discussions. Even the number two man in the Senate, Democrat Senator Dick Dirban, was not told in advance what Senator Reid was cooking up.)

The only legal alternative would be for the House to pass the Senate bills exactly as it is--including the bribes Reid had to include to buy the votes he needed. Speaker Pelosi says there are not enough Democrat votes in the House to do this.
:banana):banana):banana):banana)

Unless the Democrats succeed in buying off some of the Republicans, IT'S DEAD!

For a bill to pass, it is going to have to attract Republican votes by actually doing some good. The same people who backrupted Medicare, underfunded Medicaid, and do a horrible job with Indian health care services will not be allowed to destroy the American health care system or its financing. They drove two American car companies into the ground, and screwed up our banking system. They've done more than enough harm.

The high health insurance costs which businesses were supposed to bear, scared them off from hiring anyone they could possibly do without. Now they will be able to hire with confidence.