Re: Health care live thread

1

Thanks, HG.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 1:52 PM
horizontal rule
2

No problem!

And the soccer game sentence is me marvelling at being from a different planet than my teammates, not saying it's not a good thread topic.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 1:53 PM
horizontal rule
3

I'm about to take a couple Sudafed.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 1:54 PM
horizontal rule
4

I'm about to take a Klonopin.


Posted by: pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 1:57 PM
horizontal rule
5

Clonazepam rules, pdf! I've heard that the brand-name stiff is much better than the generic, but I've never tried it.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 1:58 PM
horizontal rule
6

Wear this tonight, HG.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:02 PM
horizontal rule
7

While we're hanging out before or after, no one will mention the health care vote, and if I mention it, no one will really respond.

Yeah, that's been more or less how it's been in the last few days with everyone I've spent time with. Eyes glaze over. My poor housemate asks patient questions from time to time:

me: blah blah Bart Stupak blah blah reconcilation blah blah Tea Partiers

him: In the Senate?

me: No, in the House. The House of Representatives.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:02 PM
horizontal rule
8

the brand-name stiff

Is that one of the side effects?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:02 PM
horizontal rule
9

They should have scheduled the vote for before the basketball games end.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:06 PM
horizontal rule
10

Stupak's voting yes. The bill will pass (unless the Senate manages to fuck this up too).


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:07 PM
horizontal rule
11

You know that I meant "stuff," apo.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:07 PM
horizontal rule
12

I want to kill Stephen Lynch, though.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:09 PM
horizontal rule
13

Duuuudes. Stupak is a yes. I guess along with his posse. I think this means there are enough votes to pass. Unless DeGette, the pro-choice women's leader/spokesperson, can't stand the freaking executive order and refuses to vote yes now or something, along with her posse.

I cannot believe this has come down to Stupak et al's misreading of the language of the bill in the first place. Mind-boggling.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:10 PM
horizontal rule
14

10: Is that what his press conference now is about? I saw something about him denying the reports to that effect ("...until there is a deal, my vote is no" or some such).


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:10 PM
horizontal rule
15

14: Yeah. So TPM reports.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:12 PM
horizontal rule
16

13.2: Well, it's not a good-faith misreading, right? He, like much of Congress, has a boner for being the deciding vote.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:14 PM
horizontal rule
17

Now a brand-name boner. The Stiffpak.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:16 PM
horizontal rule
18

What is the "Gatorade" provision?


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:23 PM
horizontal rule
19

16: I don't know what his deal is. Having listened to him on CSPAN radio a few times, I suspect he may just be stupid, and that it is a good-faith misreading. And I hope you appreciate the self-control it takes not to riff impolitely on his name.

I checked into DKos for the first time in a long time earlier today, and I see there's a sidebar poll there: should we primary Stupak? Hm. I don't know what's involved there, so I wouldn't want to cast a premature vote.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:25 PM
horizontal rule
20

The Stiffpak.

"Stick one in your Yooper pooper today!"


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:25 PM
horizontal rule
21

And I hope you appreciate the self-control it takes not to riff impolitely on his name.

Apparently, I do not appreciate it.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:25 PM
horizontal rule
22

I cannot believe this has come down to Stupak et al's misreading of the language of the bill in the first place.

On the positive side, it gives a plausible pretext for guys like Rahall and Mollohan, and possibly Boucher and even Altmire, to cave gracefully and spin it as a victory ("I stared down the President and Nancy Pelosi to protect unborn life") instead of acknowledging that Rich Trumka squeezed their nuts until they cried.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:30 PM
horizontal rule
23

instead of acknowledging that Rich Trumka squeezed their nuts until they cried.

And you wonder why they seem unconcerned with lack of access to birth control.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:32 PM
horizontal rule
24

Squeezing one's nuts is awful for unborn life.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:32 PM
horizontal rule
25

19: ActBlue primary challenge.


Posted by: pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:32 PM
horizontal rule
26

should we primary Stupak?

He has already picked up a primary opponent for pulling this stunt. And hopefully the Leadership will punish him in some other memorable way, pour encourager les autres.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:34 PM
horizontal rule
27

22: I haven't been following the details of those members' rationales for their projected no votes. I thought Altmire was on about the deficit and uncontrolled spending rather than abortion. Perhaps not.

As long as there are enough votes to pass the damn thing, I can't manage to care about individual no votes, though it will be interesting to see which, if any, Dem no voters are unseated come November.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
28

I checked into DKos for the first time in a long time earlier today, and I see there's a sidebar poll there: should we primary Stupak? Hm. I don't know what's involved there, so I wouldn't want to cast a premature vote.

I've already given money to his primary opponent through Act Blue. Back to the U.P., Bart.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:37 PM
horizontal rule
29

ActBlue! I'd forgotten about that site for some reason. Silly me. Thanks.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:41 PM
horizontal rule
30

I'll be playing indoor soccer. While we're hanging out before or after, no one will mention the health care vote, and if I mention it, no one will really respond, which is one reason soccer is the greatest of sports, everyone plays.


Posted by: Tom | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
31

Maybe I'll see you there!


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 2:54 PM
horizontal rule
32

Wait, Stupak misread the bill?


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:07 PM
horizontal rule
33

I don't believe for an instant that Stupak genuinely misread the bill. He just had to some some excuse for caving after having his months-long hissyfit of principle.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:16 PM
horizontal rule
34

32: I'm pretty sure he was convinced that it would provide subsidies to people in insurance plans which cover elective abortion. Hence the framing that 'taxpayer dollars would pay for abortions.'

My understanding is that in fact, additional insurance coverage for a potential abortion would be cleaved off from the main insurance plan offered, and would have to be paid for with a separate check by the citizen to cover that added opt-in portion of the plan. So no, the subsidies don't cover the abortion part of the plan.

There was a rather funny exchange in the House Rules Committee meeting yesterday in which a few yes-vote Dems just kept saying flatly: Um, no, you're wrong. It doesn't cover that. It just doesn't. Where are you getting this from? This is absurd. It doesn't say that. &c.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:18 PM
horizontal rule
35

I don't believe for an instant that Stupak genuinely misread the bill. He just had to some some excuse for caving after having his months-long hissyfit of principle.

Mark Ark Leiman gets it exactly right here.

Bart Stupak had a bunch of imaginary objections to health care reform. Barack Obama just promised to keep them imaginary. The good guys win.

And also here.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:19 PM
horizontal rule
36

would have to be paid for with a separate check by the citizen to cover that added opt-in portion of the plan

I would be very surprised if it came to that. The executive order instructs HHS to undertake a rulemaking process to make sure that funds are properly segregated. But that could be done via methods well short of making the insured write a separate check. It could even be done without making abortion coverage an optional rider at extra expense, if the authors of the regulations are clever.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:22 PM
horizontal rule
37

33: I don't know. Maybe so. Does he want to overturn Roe v. Wade as well? I don't know what he gains, or gained, from this.

Either he's stupid, or he's craven. I don't really know what his local constituents think about all this.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:23 PM
horizontal rule
38


But in the meantime, everyone just play along with the political theater and pretend to be really upset about the consequences for choice, OK? Oooh, that bad Congressman Stupak. How dare he put extort the leadership for those extra onerous restrictions on abortion! He and his anti-abortion allies have foiled our devious plans to make taxpayer funded abortion available on demand! Booo, hissss!


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:24 PM
horizontal rule
39

I was listening to some of the debate and vote in the House earlier---it's been a while since I've listening in real time to congressional proceeding---and I was astounded anew by what pissant little bitches the Republicans manage to be at even the most boring, routine moments.

Here's an example: all of these backbenchers are taking their turns requesting unanimous consent to revise and extend their remarks in opposition to the bill. Fine. The leadership prepared a little formula that would get the point across without rousing the ire of the speaker, who's supposed to keep track of time: if too much editorializing gets into the request, the speaker is supposed to dock time from that side. The Republicans keep trying to play a little game with the Speaker (who just so happens to be Jesse Jackson Jr., so all of this has a weird racial angle, too). The standard version is "in opposition to this flawed health care bill." Bachmann's version is "in opposition to this dangerous health care bill." One that got dinged was "this flawed and I believe unconstitutional health care bill." But much more common was the just kind of smarmy: "this flawed health bill." Just like truncating Democratic to Democrat, it's not something you can successfully call them out on. It just grates that they're so ideologically correct that they'd make sure to elide the "care" from the "health care reform."

Petty, preening motherfuckers. They really are unbelievable.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
40

36: Ah. Yeah, I thought the separate check thing seemed a bit silly.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:28 PM
horizontal rule
41

Money is fungible, and Stupak is not dumb.

The better way to understand Stupak's intent, and the original language, is to reverse it:

"No woman may have an elective abortion while receiving federal medical funds, or covered under a policy that in whole or in part or in any way receives federal funds."

A lot of this contempt for Stupak directly implies an equal contempt for his outraged pro-choice opposition, as if the opposition to Stupak were fighting over a triviality, and is contemptible.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:34 PM
horizontal rule
42

38: For another audience, the useful bit of theater is: "The liberals kicked ass on that Stupak bullshit - they sure do know how to negotiate. We're No. 1! We're No. 1!"

With all the treachery and fecklessness throughout this process, you really have to hand it to Pelosi. Assuming no last-minute glitch, she got it done.



Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:37 PM
horizontal rule
43

41.--But at that rate you might as well make it illegal to get an abortion while on welfare or income assistance of any kind. There's only so much firewalling that's possible as long as abortion is still legal.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:38 PM
horizontal rule
44

But in the meantime, everyone just play along with the political theater and pretend to be really upset about the consequences for choice, OK? Oooh, that bad Congressman Stupak.

Motherfucker should still get primaried to Kingdom Come.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:39 PM
horizontal rule
45

Another way to look at the broad implications of the original Stupak language is that even if abortion was covered under a separate policy, Wellpoint would then be able to offer cheaper policies to women or some other demographic, and money being fungible, that would in a sense, be federally funding abortions.

And this is about insurance, where costs in one sector are financed by profits/savings in another sector. The fungibility of money is at the heart of insurance.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:41 PM
horizontal rule
46

The fungibility of money is at the heart of money.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:47 PM
horizontal rule
47

And according to what I know, since there are states with these restrictions, there are no separate abortion policies offered by any insurance company, although there are really only two anyway, anywhere in the US.

The Executive Order is unlikely to be a huge concession, but it is a concession, and small incremental steps is how the forced birthers have won.

Stupak will very likely pass in a future Congress, and I would not be shocked if the real deal was a secret Obama promise not to veto it when it does pass.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:51 PM
horizontal rule
48


Hey mcmanus, didn't you promise not to troll this thread? Go walk your dogs or cook up a batch of meth or something.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:52 PM
horizontal rule
49

45: But under that argument, food stamps count as funding for abortion, because you can use that ever so fungible money you save on food to have an abortion.

I have no doubt that Stupak would try to deny food stamps to women who have an abortion, but you can't count his argument as reasonable.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:53 PM
horizontal rule
50

48:Fuck off, knecht.

You would define my every word, if not my every breath, as trolling.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:55 PM
horizontal rule
51

I think you should deny food stamps to pregnant women as an attempt to incentivize not having an abortion.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:55 PM
horizontal rule
52

I oppose the federal funding of currency.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:56 PM
horizontal rule
53

Stupak will very likely pass in a future Congress, and I would not be shocked if the real deal was a secret Obama promise not to veto it when it does pass.

What I heard was that Obama made a side deal with Stupak to resign and appoint the pope President-for-life if Stupak votes yes. Sure, mock me if you want, but if you don't believe that inhuman monster Obama is capable of everything up to and including nuking the moon in the furtherance of the farthest right's theocratic agenda, then you have no right to call me crazy.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:57 PM
horizontal rule
54

You would define my every word, if not my every breath, as trolling.

A brevity and clarity sorely lacking in the OED.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 3:58 PM
horizontal rule
55

In Massachusetts (or so I hear) you can use food stamps to pay for an abortion if you promise to eat the fetus.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:00 PM
horizontal rule
56

If you're pregnant and you have sex and your baby gets pregnant, and then you abort your baby and eat it, could your baby's baby continue to live and develop in your stomach?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:02 PM
horizontal rule
57

55: it's also acceptable to toss them in Lake Populism (that's what we renamed Walden Pond when we filled it with gasoline and started using it to drown all the poor black people.)


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:05 PM
horizontal rule
58

The restrictions on Community Health Centers would not have been enough to flip Stupak so completely. I have not read the language of the Executive Order to see if there is more.

Obama has not exactly been a dependable defender of the liberal social agenda, and if Stupak passes both Houses with Democratic votes (which it would), it would be out of character and in contradiction to his rhetoric for him to veto it.

There were 54 Senate votes against Stupak in this Congress. Democrats will certainly lose five seats in November.There remains the filibuster to stop Stupak in the next or future Congresses. Right?


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:05 PM
horizontal rule
59

Infinite ectopics!


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:05 PM
horizontal rule
60

I have not read the language of the Executive Order to see if there is more.

Yeah, I mean, why would you?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:07 PM
horizontal rule
61

Infinite ectopics!

Jan Swammerdam thought that children were preformed in their parents, who were likewise preformed in their parents, "even original sin may stand on this principle as on a firm foundation, since all mankind have been laid up originally in the loins of their first parents."


Posted by: beamish | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:10 PM
horizontal rule
62

Are we not all Russian dolls?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:14 PM
horizontal rule
63

General debate enable level up!


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:15 PM
horizontal rule
64

60:Here you go, tweety

It's worse than I thought. It may be Stupak, administered by the States.

WH didn't show EO to ProChoice Caucus


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:19 PM
horizontal rule
65

56: How would your baby get pregnant in your stomach? Actually, feel free not to answer that.


Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:20 PM
horizontal rule
66

Neil: google "abdominal pregnancy" or "ectopic pregnancy".

Also, forgive me for not responding to your solicitation to email you about intentions. If you wanted to send me a draft of something, though, I would be happy to read it…


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:23 PM
horizontal rule
67

I can't remember where I heard about a woman with no vagina who became pregnant following, first, some kind of injury to her midriff and, second, swallowing sperm.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:24 PM
horizontal rule
68

64: I'm glad you can link to widely available text. That speaks well of you. I'm done for now, though. Feel free to boring-and-stupid up the thread free of my mockery.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:25 PM
horizontal rule
69

67: and she had no vagina.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:25 PM
horizontal rule
70

I can read.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:26 PM
horizontal rule
71

Anyhow, the sperm swallowing was first, which lead to her getting stabbed, which lead to the pregnancy.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
72

My "first" and "second" indicated logical, not chronological, priority.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:29 PM
horizontal rule
73

hopefully the Leadership will punish him in some other memorable way

Hahahahahaha! You are just adorable.


Posted by: inaccessible island rail | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:29 PM
horizontal rule
74

68:Sifu, I think you are dismissing bob's contributions too lightly. Upon review of the executive order I am forced to conclude that Obams is, in fact, history's greatest monster. I think some of us owe mcmanus an apology.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:32 PM
horizontal rule
75

The only exception to the no $ for abortions? Those performed by handguns.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:35 PM
horizontal rule
76

73: I liked you better when you were banned.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:40 PM
horizontal rule
77

Where has IIR been, anyway?


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:41 PM
horizontal rule
78

Personally, I see nothing wrong at all with further barriers to obtaining an abortion, as I do not have a uterus.


Posted by: inaccessible island rail | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:42 PM
horizontal rule
79

77: Connecticut and Florida, mostly.


Posted by: inaccessible island rail | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:43 PM
horizontal rule
80

76: I liked you better when... oh wait, no, I never liked you.


Posted by: inaccessible island rail | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:44 PM
horizontal rule
81

Here yesterday as zombie commenter, no?


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 4:48 PM
horizontal rule
82

I cried because I had no vajazzle, until I met a woman who had no vagina.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 5:02 PM
horizontal rule
83

I realize I'm behind the times, but I just found out yesterday that Arizona has eliminated CHIP.

I don't know anything about the state budget, but it sounds appalling. Is there any rational excuse for this, or is it just plain we-got-ours hatefulness?


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 5:16 PM
horizontal rule
84

83: No, no excuse at all. CO tried to do this six years ago but failed, thank goodness. It's beyond appalling and all the evidence you need that the GOP is a death cult.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 5:21 PM
horizontal rule
85

. Is there any rational excuse for this, or is it just plain we-got-ours hatefulness?

Well out in the desert they life is hard and only a hardscrabble, god-damn independent, cowboy kind of libertarian can survive, thanks to as many undocumented immigrants as needed to run the economy, a bunch of large military installations, and a shit-ton of water pumped in from other parts of the country. So they don't need no leechers who can't fend for themselves.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:02 PM
horizontal rule
86

Whoah. Okay, I was a little, well, "meh" that this thread brought stras back, but Gonerill? Boss! Next up, read and Cala!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:05 PM
horizontal rule
87

Gonerill hasn't been completely gone.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:08 PM
horizontal rule
88

Maybe if Obama passes immigration reform we'll get ogged back.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:09 PM
horizontal rule
89

What was the offensive statement that was just stricken?

86: Cala's got a life now.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:09 PM
horizontal rule
90

86: Cala's got a life now.

Oh thank you very much.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:11 PM
horizontal rule
91

86: What? Is IIR -- and was zombie commenter -- stras? Is that the idea? Really? Wow, I totally haven't been following these things.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:12 PM
horizontal rule
92

I thought we were supposed to maintain the polite fiction that we don't try to guess at previous commenters identities.

Anyway, when is Isle of Toads coming back?


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:14 PM
horizontal rule
93

91: Yeah, zombie commenter is actually stras, and bob mcmanus is actually ari.


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:15 PM
horizontal rule
94

Well, thanks, ari and Gonerill. I guess.

While I'm asking -- is the state-revenues-decreased-due-to-high-gas-prices thing being floated by this commenter true? It sounds plausible, but I know so little about this stuff that I can't tell if it's 55% of the truth or .05%.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:15 PM
horizontal rule
95

I didn't mean it that way, Gonerill. I'm Becks-style light. Cala is too busy to comment. I figured that you were too busy. Your commenting probably reflects the fact that your life has slowed to a civilized pace.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:16 PM
horizontal rule
96

I thought we were supposed to maintain the polite fiction that we don't try to guess at previous commenters identities.

I bet you'd like it that way, OPINIONATED GRANDMA.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:17 PM
horizontal rule
97

YOU'LL HAVE TO SPEAK UP SONNY MY USB EAR TRUMPET ISN'T WORKING


Posted by: OPINIONATED GRANDMA | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:19 PM
horizontal rule
98

92, 93: Okay.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:20 PM
horizontal rule
99

OP: Had dinner tonight with a couple of doctors, they at least knew the general outline of the debate, but had no clue about the whole Senate bill vs. House bill vs. reconciliation, although they had heard the name Stupak. Confirms as fiction the idea that somehow the Dems would pay a price for using reconciliation for anything they legally could when


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:34 PM
horizontal rule
100

Kobe!


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:36 PM
horizontal rule
101

Friggin less than symbol.
Confirms as fiction the idea that somehow the Dems would pay a price for using reconciliation for anything they legally could when <1% of the country understands what's going on.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:36 PM
horizontal rule
102

So is anyone actually watching CSPAN?


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:37 PM
horizontal rule
103

102: I just remembered I could stream it, so I have it on in the background now.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:44 PM
horizontal rule
104

102: Me on the time delayed TV. Let me know if anyone swears. I love that the House managed to get the student loan stuff in too. Are they getting rid of Perkins loans too. Those should be added on to direct loans.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:47 PM
horizontal rule
105

99 + 101 are both depressing and reassuring. The Republican rhetoric -- taxpayer funding for abortions! shifting 1/6 of the economy to government takeover! -- will continue to have a foothold. On the other hand, not many worries about the whole "ramming it through" in a "totalitarian" manner business?

I looked at CSPAN for 10 minutes, agreed with some commenter somewhere that it was like watching paint dry, abandoned.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:50 PM
horizontal rule
106

Me. It looks like the chairmen each organize a handful of speakers, and I wish I knew how many committees were left to go.

Thank God for Thomas Reed. I can't imagine what all this would be like if a House minority had the power of a Senate minority.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 6:53 PM
horizontal rule
107

"America is the most pro-human idea ever designed by mankind" - that Ryan twat from WI.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:05 PM
horizontal rule
108

Paul Ryan (R-WI): "America is the most pro-human idea in the history of humankind."

Is he writing an undergraduate essay?


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:05 PM
horizontal rule
109

oudpwned, and apparently I misquoted.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:05 PM
horizontal rule
110

Ryan says even if this bill passes, the fight's not over. Sounds like they're losing hope.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:07 PM
horizontal rule
111

I was surprised that the white, mushmouthed South Carolinian was a pro-reform Democrat. Apparently because I am a racist.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:10 PM
horizontal rule
112

clerk.house.gov appears to be down, but I remember there being a running record of current floor proceedings there - "floor summary" or something like that. Also, the Majority Leader's site posts daily schedules. At this point, though, I think they've gone through everything but the health care reform, so watching C-SPAN is the only way to know when the vote will be.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:11 PM
horizontal rule
113

Nice job breaking history, Democrats.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:12 PM
horizontal rule
114

Awesome, Pence the idiot repeating his line about how you can't be saving money because you're spending money.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:13 PM
horizontal rule
115

Pence is quoting Reagan from 1964. No word on whether he'll go on to urge following that speech and abolishing Medicare.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:14 PM
horizontal rule
116

I think Pence just accidentally said, "Togay." Heh. Eleven-year-old me chuckles.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:14 PM
horizontal rule
117

Maybe if Obama passes immigration reform we'll get ogged back.

This is how religions start, isn't it?


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:14 PM
horizontal rule
118

For those not watching, which will soon include me: CSPAN estimates voting to begin at about 10 eastern.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:15 PM
horizontal rule
119

Whose house is this? Does anyone know?


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:16 PM
horizontal rule
120

119: Heh.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:16 PM
horizontal rule
121

Occasionally someone just stands up and asks unanimous consent for permission to insert remarks (as opposed to revise and extend remarks, which is more common). I assume that means they didn't get around to preparing a statement?


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:17 PM
horizontal rule
122

Just guessing, but inserted remarks may also be too long for the time allotted (maybe including extensive quotations from elsewhere) and they just want to get their words in the record.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:21 PM
horizontal rule
123

As a full fledged member of the American people, I would very much support a government takeover of healthcare in this country. I wish this bill did that.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:21 PM
horizontal rule
124

If we close the donut hole, what are we left with? A world of bialies?


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:21 PM
horizontal rule
125

If it were the right bill at the wrong time, or the wrong bill at the right time, would you support it?


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:22 PM
horizontal rule
126

They quote Ford now?


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:23 PM
horizontal rule
127

108: Is he writing an undergraduate essay?

That's the astounding, or astonishing, or confounding thing about so much of this: Guys. Some of us have figured out that you're making remarks to be recorded for the history books, and for sound bites, rather than debating, but from any other perspective, maybe even from that one, you sound like a complete idiot.

It's not unlike teaching to the test: this is legislating for the media echo chamber. Of course this is how most major legislation occurs, though: by this point all the persuasive work has been done.

Oh, and that was Paul Ryan. Mastermind behind the frightening Republican budget proposal.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:26 PM
horizontal rule
128

I prefer to think of it as a slanket.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:26 PM
horizontal rule
129

122: Maybe, but wouldn't they value possible TV face time more than getting the entirety of their remarks in the record?


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:26 PM
horizontal rule
130

129: I would assume it depends on what remarks they're inserting. And on the kind of publicity the rep wants. Representatives can be quite anonymous on a national level while quite successful on a local one. And there's also the possibility that they lost the battle within the party to get actual face time.

Strange things can go on with inserted remarks, too, but I doubt this is one of those situations.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:31 PM
horizontal rule
131

Paul Ryan (R-WI): "America is the most pro-human idea in the history of humankind."

Ryan is considered the most brainy / intellectual of the young House Republicans and a likely future leader.

McManus is right above about how pernicious the original Stupak language was...would have gotten the government involved in driving abortion out of private insurance plans. Terrible precedent. The Senate abortion language satisfies Hyde.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:32 PM
horizontal rule
132

"I've never operated on a Republican or a Democrat cancer in my life." True, sir, but I'd prefer a Republican heart transplanted into me than a Democratic one.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:34 PM
horizontal rule
133

Maybe someone with parliamentary knowledge will come along and explain the remarks procedures.

The clerk's site is back up, so here is the the floor summary for today. Apparently, someone had words, and then they were taken down.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:34 PM
horizontal rule
134

126: Must be the first time anyone was ever reminded of something Ford said.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:38 PM
horizontal rule
135

Damn, when people in the gallery get kicked out, it's like in a baseball game when someone runs on the field, they won't show what's actually happening, everything just stops for 30 seconds.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:38 PM
horizontal rule
136

Oh, sweet! Eric Cantor. What a cad.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:39 PM
horizontal rule
137

Part of the unanimous consent requests are to allow more editorializing, where they can say "in opposition to this piece of donkey shit" but if they go too far they can be docked time.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:39 PM
horizontal rule
138

Is Cantor drunk?


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:40 PM
horizontal rule
139

...as opposed to future generations already born.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:40 PM
horizontal rule
140

Has someone proposed a trillion dollar overhaul?


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:42 PM
horizontal rule
141

I fundamentally object to a lot of things, Eric. I say we all get to provide lists.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:42 PM
horizontal rule
142

They should stop spending money they don't have- and this bill will do the opposite. So it will start spending money the government does have?


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:42 PM
horizontal rule
143

I agree people opposed to abortion shouldn't have to pay to have abortions.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:42 PM
horizontal rule
144

I thought we were in the people's house, but it turns out that we're at a crossroads...


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
145

Does Cantor actually believe a word that he's saying? I'm not sure if it disturbs me more to think the answer might be "yes", or "no".


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
146

Both Whips have now spoken. Not sure if that means anything in particular.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:44 PM
horizontal rule
147

People who oppose abortions will get them for free? That's unconscionable.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:44 PM
horizontal rule
148

If we close the donut hole, what are we left with? A world of bialies?

If the hole gets closed, then the donut you started out with is just like a donut hole, from a bigger donut! Which means that we're actually just making the donut hole BIGGER!!


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:46 PM
horizontal rule
149

OH, IT'S PERSONAL NOW!


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:46 PM
horizontal rule
150

Sweet, final confrontation is Boehner vs. Pelosi smackdown.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:47 PM
horizontal rule
151

You can't vote on an executive order.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:48 PM
horizontal rule
152

The House is such a let down when they vote because they don't go to the roll call.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:48 PM
horizontal rule
153

Inquire all you want, motherfucker.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:48 PM
horizontal rule
154

Whenever someone says "with respect", you know they mean the opposite.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:48 PM
horizontal rule
155

I've wondered, are there deliberative bodies in other countries that go through this process, but actually with some intent to communicate with one another? You know, like actually debate the merits of proposed legislation, rather than just wasting a bunch of time? Or is it just silly talking points the world over?


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:50 PM
horizontal rule
156

I think most deliberative bodies use the convention of delivering remarks to the chair rather than to each other.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:51 PM
horizontal rule
157

Do we have to go through another one of these with the Senate, too? I confess I'm not sure how the reconciliation vote looks. (That is what we're doing, right? Or am I like super confused.)


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:51 PM
horizontal rule
158

But I now realize I have no evidence in support of that belief.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:51 PM
horizontal rule
159

Hey, Rep. Camp. You're supposed to say "colleagues on the other side of the aisle" not the party name. How uncouth.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
160

We're doing the Senate bill immediately (?) followed by the reconciliation bill.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:53 PM
horizontal rule
161

157: I don't know if reconciliation has other procedures, but for normal votes there's a some number of hour debate period before the votes.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:53 PM
horizontal rule
162

Ooh, looks like Grayson's coming. He's usually fun. In a good way.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:54 PM
horizontal rule
163

Wait, the Senate still needs to do the actual reconciliation vote, right?


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:54 PM
horizontal rule
164

155: like those parliaments where they get in fistfights! Those are awesome.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:54 PM
horizontal rule
165

156: But is it a meaningful exchange of ideas, or a waste of time?

Really, why do this? If everyone knows it's a waste of time (and barely pretends otherwise), why not do nothing in legislative session but vote? I know politicians like cameras, and speaking in front of them, but normal people don't pay attention to this stuff. They could say all this in the press, or directly to their constituents, etc., without wasting all this time.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:54 PM
horizontal rule
166

Phooey, Grayson was the only one I would probably have enjoyed watching.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:55 PM
horizontal rule
167

Yes, but if the Senate defeats it, the original Senate bill still becomes law.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:55 PM
horizontal rule
168

167 -> 163


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
169

The Senate reconciliation vote could easily be much tougher than the House. Reconciliation allows unlimited amendments; as I understand it the only way amendments can be stopped is for the parliamentarian to rule them "dilatory" which will be controversial. If the Rs really try to, say, do amendments for weeks on end then I presume that leadership can still step in with some kind of nuclear option.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
170

I suspect in small countries, genuine exchange of views sometimes goes on.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
171

165- The floor debate is almost a complete waste of time, especially because leadership on both sides doesn't let any surprise stuff happen. Committee markups are still pretty active in determining actual policy.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:57 PM
horizontal rule
172

169: He just asked for unanimous consent to revise and, etc.

Boehner's starting.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:57 PM
horizontal rule
173

I rise tonight with a sad and awful tan.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:57 PM
horizontal rule
174

I know politicians like cameras, and speaking in front of them

There's an argument that cameras are the reason there's no real debate.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:57 PM
horizontal rule
175

**Somehow, I still managed to be shocked by the disingenuous fuckery.**


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:58 PM
horizontal rule
176

Boehner actually sounds vaguely like Leonard Nimoy.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:58 PM
horizontal rule
177

But they way they've structured reconciliation makes it such that blocking it means the Republicans are protecting all the crappy deals they just spent 10 weeks criticizing. If they block the fix then the Nebraska deal becomes law.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:58 PM
horizontal rule
178

Oh, he is not going there!


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
179

I turned off the TV. Can't watch or hear Boehner without feeling sick and angry.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
180

"Do you really believe that if you like the health plan that you have that you can keep it? No, you can't!"


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
181

Is this really the time to mock the president in a floor speech?


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
182

176 is hilarious.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:00 PM
horizontal rule
183

Republicans oppose cuts in Medicare, right?


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:00 PM
horizontal rule
184

YES, WE CAN!


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:00 PM
horizontal rule
185

If he's going to do the "No we can't!" mockery he really should have alerted the chorus to the line first.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:00 PM
horizontal rule
186

"Dignity of the House". Funniest line of the night.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:01 PM
horizontal rule
187

A real roll call? I hope so.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:01 PM
horizontal rule
188

That sort of failed. Have you read the bill? Yes! Have you read the manager's amendment? Yes! HELL NO YOU HAVEN'T! resulted in some confused teabaggers.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:01 PM
horizontal rule
189

186: You can't remember what is not.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:02 PM
horizontal rule
190

SP pwned!


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:02 PM
horizontal rule
191

Will you grant that request, Mr. Speaker?
"No, we can't."


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:03 PM
horizontal rule
192

"Do you really believe that if you like the health plan that you have that you can keep it? No, you can't!"

Let me know when the litany reaches "Do you really believe you can have different races can mix publicly without pollution?" or some equivalent thereof.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:03 PM
horizontal rule
193

I almost forgot whose House this was!


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:03 PM
horizontal rule
194

This is my favorite episode of House, M.D. *ever*.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:05 PM
horizontal rule
195

Boehner probably doesn't even know that teabaggers were for reading the bill for more than rhetorical reasons. They really did want to read it.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:05 PM
horizontal rule
196

How much more time does this guy have?


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:05 PM
horizontal rule
197

Bohner's got a nice smoker's cough, there.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:06 PM
horizontal rule
198

No turning back? So Republicans won't campaign for repeal?


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:06 PM
horizontal rule
199

Comity!


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:07 PM
horizontal rule
200

Comity!


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:07 PM
horizontal rule
201

Comity!


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:07 PM
horizontal rule
202

Commedy!


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:07 PM
horizontal rule
203

SPWNED!


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:07 PM
horizontal rule
204

Compwned.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
205

Quick, somebody ask me the secret to comity.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
206

Nancy gonna kick some ass now.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
207

Since we're all C-SPAN nerds, can I ask, why the standing ovation?


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
208

Wooooo Nancy!


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:09 PM
horizontal rule
209

With humility *and* pride?


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:09 PM
horizontal rule
210

Because these are the last two big speeches.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:10 PM
horizontal rule
211

You can't flub the declaration! Come on!


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:10 PM
horizontal rule
212

(By the way, if you're in the mood for 700+ comments worth of schadenfreude, you're welcome.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:10 PM
horizontal rule
213

Republicans oppose both Medicare and cuts in Medicare, fake accent.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
214

209- Ultima 4 says that's not possible.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
215

Yeah, "unalienable"?


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
216

I thought we were supposed to maintain the polite fiction that we don't try to guess at previous commenters identities.

That's just the kind of thing Ogged would say.


Posted by: inaccessible island rail | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
217

163,167:AFAIK, if Pelosi (and Byrd) signs this bill, this can go to the President's desk tonight.

Pelosi does have the option of holding the bill on her desk until the end of this Congress (January?) by not signing it, but (I think) at that point it goes to the President. She might plan or have promised to hold the bill through the reconciliation process.

The Senate has no further function as to this bill, with the possible exception of Byrd's signature.

But with a winning vote tonight, and Obama's signature, we have a law.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:11 PM
horizontal rule
218

111: Me too.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
219

Also, are you all actually watching Republicans screech away on the House floor? Why not just shove bamboo splinters under your fingernails?


Posted by: inaccessible island rail | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
220

Republican hate for Pelosi is something I don't really get. I have a cow-orker who loves hating her but can't begin to mount an argument over what bugs him. It's weird.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
221

There are two bills, bob. One will be done, the other goes to the Senate.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
222

"A child with diabetes who is bipolar" -- is that what she said?


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:13 PM
horizontal rule
223

But with a winning vote tonight, and Obama's signature, we have a law communist tyranny.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
224

Why not just shove bamboo splinters under your fingernails?

My insurance doesn't cover that. Yet.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
225

There are two bills, bob. Our will be done, on earth as it is in the Senate.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
226

219: Well, it's not the only thing I was doing.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
227

I think Republicans support government coverage for that procedure.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:15 PM
horizontal rule
228

Republican hate for Pelosi is something I don't really get.

1. She's a Democrat
2. She's powerful
3. She has a uterus


Posted by: inaccessible island rail | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:16 PM
horizontal rule
229

God, I hope she ends with, "God bless America- and Socialism!"


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:16 PM
horizontal rule
230

I read somewhere that the signature of Pelosi must happen in "open session" so she could sign and certify on TV tonight. I don't know if "open session' means on the floor or while the House is in session.

And no, I don't know what happens if January comes and the bill hasn't been signed by Byrd and Pelosi.

Obama will want a big ceremony at the White House when he signs of course.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:17 PM
horizontal rule
231

No, no -- all rise and sing: Debout, les damnés de la terre! Debout, les forcés de la faim!


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:17 PM
horizontal rule
232

I like how she sort of giggled at the line "being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition".


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:17 PM
horizontal rule
233

So even though Boehner and Pelosi were only yielded 1 minute I assume convention is that the party leaders aren't subject to the time limits?


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:17 PM
horizontal rule
234

being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition"

This bill covers sex-change operations??


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:17 PM
horizontal rule
235

Did Pelosi's "being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition" just get boos?


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:17 PM
horizontal rule
236

Goneril, is this good enough for you?


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:18 PM
horizontal rule
237

No, "écrasez l'infâme!"

"Proud and also humbled" once more.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:19 PM
horizontal rule
238

Pelosi has great hair. Much better than Boehner's.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:19 PM
horizontal rule
239

225:But the second is related to the first. The first is not in any way dependent on reconciliation.

The HCR bill can go to the President tonight.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:19 PM
horizontal rule
240

231: Oop -- forçats!


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:19 PM
horizontal rule
241

i wonder if it would be good or bad if we just got rid of the 'washington' thing and all congresspeople just lived in their actual district


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:20 PM
horizontal rule
242

I think they decided against deem-and-pass. Not sure if that means the passed Senate bill needs to be actually signed by the President before they can proceed with the second vote on reconciliation.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:20 PM
horizontal rule
243

173: I was thinking about his horrible orange brown hue the instant he rose.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:21 PM
horizontal rule
244

Turns out even Obama's commented on Boehner's hue.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:23 PM
horizontal rule
245

Actually, I rather like health care reform.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:23 PM
horizontal rule
246

oudemia, she said "or one who is bipolar."


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:23 PM
horizontal rule
247

Ok, I'm going to ask a dumb old person question- if people are arguing with each other on Twitter, is there any way to follow it, or is the purpose of responding just between the people arguing? When someone tags a tweet as a response, you have to scroll through the other person's entire feed to determine what it's responding to, right?


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:24 PM
horizontal rule
248

well if you took an antipsychotic for your bipolar, you'd have greatly increased chance of diabetes.


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:25 PM
horizontal rule
249

246: OK -- that makes more sense! She sort of stumbled over it.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:25 PM
horizontal rule
250

looking at the bill post-passage, GOP process complaints sound much more like losery-sourgrapes than they do pre passage.


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:26 PM
horizontal rule
251

Back when there was a fee on tanning salons as one of the pay-fors on the Senate bill (since removed), staff called it the "Boehner tax".

If you're at all progressive, Pelosi is one of the greatest House speakers ever.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:27 PM
horizontal rule
252

247: If they've used the "reply" function, then the timestamp is followed by "in reply to (user)" in gray, and that's a link to the tweet (ugh) being replied to.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:27 PM
horizontal rule
253

247: Sometimes the response says "in reply to" and you can click on that area of text and get to the tweet responded to. But it can depend on the kind of client the twitterer is tweeting on. Twitter seems to be a long way from providing access to old tweets in any easy to use way.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:28 PM
horizontal rule
254

Am I the only one freaked out by the fact that C-Span muted the sound, so this is all happening like a silent film?


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:28 PM
horizontal rule
255

236: Well played that newt.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:29 PM
horizontal rule
256

248: That's very true of the atypical antipsychotics.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:29 PM
horizontal rule
257

Shouldn't C-SPAN be playing classical music?


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:30 PM
horizontal rule
258

Ah, that does work in this case- I was trying to find out what Yggles was arguing about, turns out nothing HCR related.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:30 PM
horizontal rule
259

She's certainly the best I've ever seen.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:31 PM
horizontal rule
260

twitter is one of those things that is clearly inferior in every way to prior technology, but one of the inferiorities influenced the culture of use in a way that was useful (people not being so longwinded)


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:31 PM
horizontal rule
261

254: I suspect the floor microphones don't pick up much at all past the person speaking before them. Generally this afternoon it was completely silent when nobody was talking, including when the chair had just called for order; they might have changed this during the Pelosi and Boehner speeches for more atmosphere.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:32 PM
horizontal rule
262

254: I'm more bothered by how they have a countdown clock that updates every 9 seconds.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:32 PM
horizontal rule
263

They removed the Bohner tax? Man, this bill is weak...


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:32 PM
horizontal rule
264

The sound came back on, SEK.

Wish it were an hour or two earlier. For once I wish that I weren't on the east coast. 7:30 would seem too early. (end mcmanus style rambling)

Why can't they vote faster than this?


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:32 PM
horizontal rule
265

I'm too old to use twitter. I don't understand when the comments are ended, when people are replying and how you can find the person's next tweet. Facebook is so much simpler.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:33 PM
horizontal rule
266

261: Listening to the Senate a few years ago, when the mic wasn't muted it would pick up bits of conversations near the guy calling out the roll call.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:34 PM
horizontal rule
267

262: they have a countdown clock that updates every 9 seconds.

Hmm, 9 seconds is 1% of the allotted time, but it is out-of-sync if it is that.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:36 PM
horizontal rule
268

I await the final tally with bated breath and a heightened sense of anticipation: will Rush Limbaugh have to leave the country?


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:36 PM
horizontal rule
269

I too don't get the length of the voting- they had about 2/3 of the votes in the first 2 minutes. Are the remaining 20 people in the bathroom, not aware there's a vote going on?


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:37 PM
horizontal rule
270

216!


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:38 PM
horizontal rule
271

216!


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:38 PM
horizontal rule
272

And the American Experiment is officially over! (Or something.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:38 PM
horizontal rule
273

2 more to go.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:39 PM
horizontal rule
274

What was so special about comment 216?


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:39 PM
horizontal rule
275

Well, 7 if you include Republicans.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:39 PM
horizontal rule
276

216 to 272.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:40 PM
horizontal rule
277

Yay, Pelosi!


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:40 PM
horizontal rule
278

269: They were saying on MSNBC some of them were waiting for others to go first. Because they're pussies.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:40 PM
horizontal rule
279

Better than Tip O'Neill, apo? I can't really judge these things. I definitely think she's awesome. All day I've been saying how glad I am that she's in this job and not Dick Gephardt.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:41 PM
horizontal rule
280

Damn, I was hoping it would be 216 or 217 because then you know some Republican would claim the vote is invalid because when the House has no vacancies the required number is 218.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:41 PM
horizontal rule
281

219 .... somebody lied? or did they release some Stupakoids? I thought it was heading for low 220s.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
282

Time for the reconciliation bill.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:43 PM
horizontal rule
283

No more masturbating to Capitalism


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:43 PM
horizontal rule
284

219 I believe.

So, how is the Senate goign to handle the reconciliation portion? And when will they be doing it? Are they taking a break too?


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:43 PM
horizontal rule
285

281: I was guessing they'd released them, since CA said he thought the count was 224.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:44 PM
horizontal rule
286

First they have to defeat the motion to recommit.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:44 PM
horizontal rule
287

Oh, I guess first they have to vote down a motion to send the bill back to committee.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:44 PM
horizontal rule
288

Senate reconciliation should be this week, after the FAA bill is passed (tomorrow, most likely). Senate recess due to start on Friday, but doubt they will recess until the bill is passed.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:44 PM
horizontal rule
289

The roll call should be here in about an hour or so.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:45 PM
horizontal rule
290

The clock wasn't even an exact 9 second interval more like 8.94 seconds.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:45 PM
horizontal rule
291

288 to 284.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:45 PM
horizontal rule
292

Now this part is pure douchebaggery.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:46 PM
horizontal rule
293

I don't know what is going on anymore.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:47 PM
horizontal rule
294

Crapaud de Nazareth, it takes a lot of chutzpah to spend the whole day screaming socialist takeover, and then advocate a motion to recommit in order to "fix the bill's flaws"!


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:48 PM
horizontal rule
295

Roe v Wade was voted on by Congress? Everyone has gone mad.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:48 PM
horizontal rule
296

egregious pro-life concerns?


Posted by: md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:49 PM
horizontal rule
297

251:If you're at all progressive, Pelosi is one of the greatest House speakers ever.

Maybe the best. Did some reading, Rayburn may have not been the most progressive, but a lot was accomplished (90% taxes) and much was preserved, and Dem's kept the House for decades.

I also look up John MacCormack, Speaker of the 60s whose reputation has suffered. There were many young Congresspersons who thought JM too conservative in 1968. I'm shocked. But much was done. Mike Mansfield also deserves more credit than he is given.

160 (?) bills passed by the House, waiting in the Senate. Yes, disregarding any differences in substance, Pelosi is among the most impressive politicians I have ever seen. Historical. She makes me proud to live in her time.

Yglesias posted on this, but the thread decomposed. I even looked up Callan(?). ca 1905.

ari also posted on this, but had to, just had to, precede praise of Pelosi with calling Obama the bestest President evah a top 15 President. So much for ari.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:49 PM
horizontal rule
298

Grandstanding over abortion--an attempt to try to peel back the cover Stupakoids got from the Executive Order promise.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:49 PM
horizontal rule
299

293: Before just about any first vote on passage, I think, there's one last chance to make a motion to recommit the bill to committee. So that's what this is.

The other vote didn't have one of these because it was already done when they passed the bill the first time.

I think.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:50 PM
horizontal rule
300

I have no idea why all the discussion is abortion, though.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:51 PM
horizontal rule
301

293: They're just trying to spook the Stupakoids into going along with the motion to recommit. Futile, one assumes, since they can already theoretically be pilloried for voting for the bill.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:51 PM
horizontal rule
302

This whole "other side of the aisle" thing has me wondering. Do they rearrange the desks to move the aisle every time the balance of power shifts in the House? Is it just a vast enough room that the aisle stays in the same place, and one side has fewer people in it? Or is the aisle purely metaphorical?


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:52 PM
horizontal rule
303

And why the hell doesn't C-SPAN have chyrons to ID the chyrons?


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:52 PM
horizontal rule
304

Stupe!


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:53 PM
horizontal rule
305

Don't applaud that dick, he's the one that dragged the abortion issue into the whole HCR.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:53 PM
horizontal rule
306

Ok, at least he's being a team player now.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:54 PM
horizontal rule
307

A man having a bad hair day life.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:54 PM
horizontal rule
308

Not applauding. Just sayin'.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:54 PM
horizontal rule
309

a top 15 President

I said top ten, actually, at least as of tonight. And rather than saying I "had to", I think it would have been been more evocative if you had said that I "couldn't resist".


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:54 PM
horizontal rule
310

"Those who are shouting out are out of order!"

"NOOOOOO! WE'RE NOT! NOOOOOO!"


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:54 PM
horizontal rule
311

Do applaud the lime green blouse/orange cravatte combo behind him.


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:54 PM
horizontal rule
312

Is the corpse of Ted Kennedy propped up behind his left shoulder?


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
313

311: I think she's asleep.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
314

The shouting is fun! Why do we have to have such boring rules in our legislature?

Is Bart Stupak trying to ward off his primary challenger? Why is he getting all this time?


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
315

313: texting, maybe tweeting!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
316

302 - They rearrange the desks at the start of every session; there's a fun history of the Senate Chamber desks out there.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:56 PM
horizontal rule
317

NO!


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:56 PM
horizontal rule
318

Vote no to vote yes!


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:56 PM
horizontal rule
319

Hey, did CSPAN just put up phone numbers for us to vote too?


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:56 PM
horizontal rule
320

316, thank you. It appears that leg room is a spoil of defeat.


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:58 PM
horizontal rule
321

Okay, which Republican just voted (temporarily) against the motion to recommit?


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:59 PM
horizontal rule
322

What did they do when there were more that two viable parties? Was it run like a parliamentary system, if you voted for the speaker/leader who won you got less leg room?


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 8:59 PM
horizontal rule
323

SEK, I didn't stay for long (or read many of the comments), but I did enjoy the link in 212 more than a kind person would.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:00 PM
horizontal rule
324

316: I believe there are some Senate desks with bayonet marks left over from the time Union soldiers were quartered in the Capitol during the Civil War. Apparently they tried to carve up Jefferson Davis's old desk with all kinds of graffiti.

The original Senate desks from the revolutionary period were burned up when the Brits torched DC.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:00 PM
horizontal rule
325

I don't see why any TV show takes calls over the phone now that there's chatroulette.


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:00 PM
horizontal rule
326

326 made me crack up.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:01 PM
horizontal rule
327

I'm back from soccer! Anything important happen?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:01 PM
horizontal rule
328

Motion to recommit fails.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:01 PM
horizontal rule
329

"Excuse me, what does your penis this about H.R. 3590?"


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:01 PM
horizontal rule
330

Motion to recommit has failed.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:01 PM
horizontal rule
331

329: No thanks to heebie.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:02 PM
horizontal rule
332

'this' s/b 'think' in 331.

327 to 328.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:02 PM
horizontal rule
333

So America is now officially socialist? Or not until Obama signs on the dotted line?


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:03 PM
horizontal rule
334

Looks like there might be a primary challenger to Stephen Lynch. I hope that he loses over this. Plus the woman is pro-choice.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:04 PM
horizontal rule
335

Is Harvey Fierstein calling in to CSPAN?


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:04 PM
horizontal rule
336

335: I am already wearing my little cap!


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:05 PM
horizontal rule
337

Er, 337 to 334


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:05 PM
horizontal rule
338

Any sense on whether Harry Reid will be able to get the reconciliation bill through the Senate?


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:05 PM
horizontal rule
339

The roll call for the Senate bill is out.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:06 PM
horizontal rule
340

He has signatures from >50 Senators saying they'll support it, the only question is the procedural crap that might get thrown up.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:07 PM
horizontal rule
341

339: Huzzah, Perriello. I will volunteer for you.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:08 PM
horizontal rule
342

Amazingly, the "oppose-line" callers sound even stupider than the Republican politicians.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:09 PM
horizontal rule
343

340: I heard that, but it was my understanding that Senators could add an unlimited number of amendments in reconciliation, unlike in the House. So, could the Senate pass a completely different bill?


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:09 PM
horizontal rule
344

Presumably the 50 will also defeat any amendments. The question of unlimited amendments is whether Biden will have to rule them out of order, which will lead to another predicable poo-flinging session about tyranny and ramming objects down people's throats.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:11 PM
horizontal rule
345

342: I know, right? That nurse woman who said that everybody had coverage regardless of insurance status was ridiculous. Maybe she's never seen the billing department.

Is there a list of the signatories?


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:11 PM
horizontal rule
346

343: you (Republicans) can theoretically advance an unlimited number of amendments. Democrats will vote against them all.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:11 PM
horizontal rule
347

Does Cao think he's fooling anyone or does he just figure he might as well go with the party since he probably can't beat a non-indicted Democrat in his district?


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:12 PM
horizontal rule
348

345: They provide equally good care to the insured and to the incredibly rich uninsured. So what's the problem?


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:13 PM
horizontal rule
349

344: Surely that's not actually a "question". Maybe instead you mean "The annoyance of unlimited amendments is that Biden will have to..."


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:13 PM
horizontal rule
350

They cut off an opposed caller! Help, he's being oppressed!


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:14 PM
horizontal rule
351

AYE!


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:14 PM
horizontal rule
352

334: While a challenger is going to presumably have a little help from Rich Trumka and company, I don't immediately smell momentum behind Harmony Wu as Southie's next representative. But it's been a while since I was in the neighborhood.


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:17 PM
horizontal rule
353

Here are the Democratic no votes: Adler (NJ-3), Altmire (PA-4), Arcuri (NY-24), Barrow (GA-12), Berry (AR-1), Boren (OK-2), Boucher (VA-9), Bright (AL-2), Chandler (KY-6), Childers (MS-1), Davis (AL-7), Davis (TN-4), Edwards (TX-17), Herseth Sandlin (SD), Holden (PA-17), Kissell (NC-8), Kratovil (MD-1), Lipinski (IL-3), Lynch (MA-9), Marshall (GA-8), Matheson (UT-2), McIntyre (NC-7), McMahon (NY-13), Melancon (LA-3), Minnick (ID-1), Nye (VA-2), Peterson (MN-7), Ross (AR-4), Shuler (NC-11), Skelton (MO-4), Space (OH-18), Tanner (TN-8), Taylor (MS-4), Teague (NM-2).


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:17 PM
horizontal rule
354

Megan, it took all my strength not to comment for the joy of it, so I applaud your ability to read a few comments and leave.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:18 PM
horizontal rule
355

Somebody needs to give Colin Peterson a noogie.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:20 PM
horizontal rule
356

(Also, the shorter version of that thread is here.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:21 PM
horizontal rule
357

Republicans sure don't seem to be having any problem voting against the reconciliation bill. I was a little puzzled by the suggestions upthread (which I'd also heard elsewhere) that they would.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:23 PM
horizontal rule
358

Reconciliation has passed.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:24 PM
horizontal rule
359

357: ?


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:24 PM
horizontal rule
360

Apparently someone on the floor yelled out "baby-killer" while Stupak was speaking.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:24 PM
horizontal rule
361

341: The gentleman from Virginia and I were college contemporaries. I didn't know him, but we have several friends in common.


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:25 PM
horizontal rule
362

359: Since the reconciliation bill fixes all several problems with the Senate bill, Republican who vote against it are technically voting for the Cornhusker Compromise and other odious chunks of the sausage.


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:26 PM
horizontal rule
363

It was taking fucking forever. I had to get up here to complain, and then I heard a shout emanating from the other computer.

C-Span reports that Obama exchanged a hi-5 with Rahm Emanuel. That kind of brings down my mood just a bit.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:27 PM
horizontal rule
364

359: e.g., 157. (Which was explicitly referring to the Senate, I think, but what's the difference?)


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:27 PM
horizontal rule
365

357- Well, it opens them to (factually true) charges that they're voting in favor of all the "back room deals" they've spent weeks complaining about, and their response to explain what they were really voting on will be no less than 3 paragraphs. That's usually a situation where the roles of the parties are reversed.
They should now vote against recognizing Iwo Jima since we are now become the fascists.
I'm going to bed, but only because I got permission from Commissar Obama.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:28 PM
horizontal rule
366

341: Do it, Stanley. Perriello is totally fearless, a fantastic guy to have in a reddish district like his.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:29 PM
horizontal rule
367

They picked up an extra vote!


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:29 PM
horizontal rule
368

My ? was about suggestions that Republicans would have problems voting no on reconciliation. Did anyone think they'd vote yes?


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:30 PM
horizontal rule
369

I think politically it's stupid because they know it's going to pass anyway. They should try to block it procedurally but support it in the final vote, much like many of the judges they filibustered who ended up being confirmed 99-0.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:31 PM
horizontal rule
370

362: I'm not hyper optimistic about the Southie portion of his district, but there are other parts. Also, there are a lot of luxury condos going in there post Big Dig which have attracted yuppies, who are presumably pro choice.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:32 PM
horizontal rule
371

(364 was supposed to refer to 177, not 157.)


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:32 PM
horizontal rule
372

I get that the Republicans face charges of inconsistency, but that doesn't seem to stop them from doing lots of things, like talking about how horrible it would be to cut medicare.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:34 PM
horizontal rule
373

Do it, Stanley.

I plan to. It's a weird district. Draw a triangle to the southern NC border with Charlottesville at the top.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:37 PM
horizontal rule
374

The southern NC border?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:37 PM
horizontal rule
375

There are real advantages to representing the Know Nothing constituency.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:37 PM
horizontal rule
376

An awful lot of people, pro and con, really do seem to think we've just mandated the government takeover of the health care sector.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:38 PM
horizontal rule
377

376: There are pro people who think that? Where do they get their news?


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:40 PM
horizontal rule
378

To make sure I understand, the previous caller opposed this health care bill (as disastrous socialism), but thinks Medicare needs to be dramatically expanded, since its reimbursement rates are too low?


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:40 PM
horizontal rule
379

If only.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:40 PM
horizontal rule
380

The southern NC border?

The part where we Virginians get fishy about NCers. Do you blame us?


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:42 PM
horizontal rule
381

Has anyone ever polled people to see if they think Medicare is a private program?


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:42 PM
horizontal rule
382

BTW if you are still watching CSPAN--Obama talking now on the News channels.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:42 PM
horizontal rule
383

That's Anthony Weiner, right? He should be an auctioneer.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:43 PM
horizontal rule
384

An immediate resignation! Shouldn't he make it effective tomorrow or something?


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:43 PM
horizontal rule
385

Who should/will resign immediately? I turned off the CSPAN.


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:44 PM
horizontal rule
386

383: I was thinking the same thing.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:44 PM
horizontal rule
387

377: the pro people typically don't put it in those words, but they seem to think we're getting something far more ambitious than we are.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:44 PM
horizontal rule
388

384 to 382?


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:45 PM
horizontal rule
389

They're being covered by their own private medicare.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:45 PM
horizontal rule
390

Come on, Yahoo!, a headline like "Democratic-controlled Congress clears historic health bill" makes it sound like there's something wrong with the way it was passed. It's just Congress, even if only one party votes yes.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:45 PM
horizontal rule
391

385: As of 11:45 PM Nathan Deal is done, so he's not voting on the Guam resolution.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:45 PM
horizontal rule
392

I liked the caller on CSPAN earlier who was upset that the bill would cost $10 trillion. The host asked him where he got that number, but didn't push back against it, or compare it to the national debt ($12 trillion) or the federal budget ($3.5 trillion).


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:46 PM
horizontal rule
393

Deal is an ex-Democrat who was a chairman of teh Health something Committee and was until a few minutes ago teh ranking minority member of that committee.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:46 PM
horizontal rule
394

Tonight's vote is not a victory for any one party totally a win for us!


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:47 PM
horizontal rule
395

The host asked him where he got that number, but didn't push back against it

In context, that felt like push-back, at least to me.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:48 PM
horizontal rule
396

I watch C-SPAN, I can even watch the crazy Republicans, but I just can't watch the caller sections.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:52 PM
horizontal rule
397

395: That's follow-up. Push-back would at minimum be "I'd like to double-check that figure, it sounds large" and would reasonably be, "Since the entire national debt is only slightly larger than that, I think you are mistaken."


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:55 PM
horizontal rule
398

376, 377: It would appear that they get their news from my high school facebook friends. (I will not engage, I will not engage.)


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 9:57 PM
horizontal rule
399

I AM TAKING MY BALL, MADAME SPEAKER, AND I AM GOING HOME.


Posted by: OPINIONATED NATHAN DEAL | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 10:02 PM
horizontal rule
400

So do we have to go to work tomorrow and shit?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 10:02 PM
horizontal rule
401

On the collective farms, no less!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
402

AND RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA AS I ALREADY ANNOUNCED.


Posted by: OPINIONATED NATHAN DEAL CLARIFICATION | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 10:04 PM
horizontal rule
403

401: Yay! Ponies!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 10:05 PM
horizontal rule
404

It's hard not to get the idea that these horridly ill-informed and confused call-in people (or facebook friends) aren't exactly outliers.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 10:09 PM
horizontal rule
405

Well, of course, 404. It's almost impossible to be well-informed.

I certainly don't know what's in this particular bill, or whether it's actually going to become the law, or when. Ezra Klein told me that one thing had become law back in December and that didn't happen. After this issue is finally dealt with we can look at the actual details of what got passed and see what we think of it, if anyone cares.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 10:11 PM
horizontal rule
406

It just occurred to me that OPINIONATED GRANDMA can no longer sleep peacefully, now that the Democrats have put the elderly at the mercy of the panels-to-come.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 10:19 PM
horizontal rule
407

Yes, possibly, 405, but I hope you know that Medicare is a government program.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 10:19 PM
horizontal rule
408

SARAH PALIN'S NEW HAIRDO IS TOO RETROGRADE


Posted by: OPINIONATED GRANDMA | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 10:22 PM
horizontal rule
409

(I will not engage, I will not engage.)

Oh man, is this difficult. I've hidden several FBers I know from HS, not so much because I don't want to see their status updates, but because it's so tempting to comment on them.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 10:42 PM
horizontal rule
410

Re: Lynch, his district is not just Southie, but a lot of McMansion suburbs. I still don't give Harmony Wu much of a chance, given that the bill passed and the anger of the unions will be attenuated, but it's not as hopeless as it sounds, and it sends the right message.

The important point is that he will never, never get the union endorsement if he runs in the primary when Scott Brown's term is up.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 11:16 PM
horizontal rule
411

Yahoo!'s current headline: "Congress clears bill extending health care to tens of millions"

I guess they read this thread.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-21-10 11:54 PM
horizontal rule
412


212: "Schadenfreude ist die beste Freude."


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 1:01 AM
horizontal rule
413

Happy days! This is a good thing. Not a very good thing, but a good thing nonetheless. Kieran puts it best.


Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 2:30 AM
horizontal rule
414

Somehow this seemed like it should be brought to the attention of unfogged: a little-known provision of the health care reform statute.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 2:32 AM
horizontal rule
415

Job's a good 'un.

Meanwhile, in schadenfreude, fremdscham, and probably quite a few other German adjectives: I have trouble getting to sleep and always prepare some little sheep-counting style exercise to help.

Tonight, I am going to imagine an endless line of Dems receiving their worldly punishment and alternating between long drops and short drops. First a long drop, then a short drop.

Reminds me of watching the troll freakout in 2006.


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 2:48 AM
horizontal rule
416

Both Herseth-Sandlin and Chandler got a lot of netroots support, since they were 2004 special election pick ups. Arcuri sucks for doing that.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 3:58 AM
horizontal rule
417

Forgive my ignorance, OFE. What happened in the UK in 1911 vis a vis health?


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 3:59 AM
horizontal rule
418

Would like to know more about the National Insurance Act. Frankly, for the people who were covered by it, it sounds more advanced than our new U.S. system.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 4:01 AM
horizontal rule
419

417: Death panels.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 4:13 AM
horizontal rule
420

417. Ninepence for fourpence. The Wikipedia article is short but accurate.


Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 4:23 AM
horizontal rule
421

The National Insurance Act, 1911. Read it here. Interestingly, it was largely designed by William Beveridge, who also designed the NHS 3o years later.


Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 4:28 AM
horizontal rule
422

I hope that the Parliamentarian doesn't rule against any of the reconciliation bits, because then we'd need 60 votes to override him.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 4:30 AM
horizontal rule
423

And that took two general elections, the intervention of the king, a threat to create hundreds of new members of the Lords, and substantial change to the constitution before it passed. Change is difficult.


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 4:34 AM
horizontal rule
424

422: No, Biden in his role as presiding officer can override the Parliamentarian.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 4:39 AM
horizontal rule
425

359: Since the reconciliation bill fixes ... problems with the Senate bill, Republican who vote against it are technically voting for the Cornhusker Compromise and other odious chunks of the sausage.

It'll still all be Obama's fault. Hinderaker explains:

The health care battle is just beginning. Next, the Senate will try to enact the House's "fixes" to the original Senate bill. Some Senators say that won't happen. If not, then President Obama has the option of signing the original Senate bill--now passed by the House--Cornhusker Kickback and all. I assume he would do that, but the resulting blowback from House Democrats, not to mention the American people, would be something to behold.

Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 6:19 AM
horizontal rule
426

If there's anything better than Schadenfreude at the expense of The Corner gang, it's Schadenfreude at the expense of McMegan. Go read her wailing and gnashing of teeth. And feel free to prolong the pleasure by taunting her in the comments.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 6:31 AM
horizontal rule
427

426: Christ, what a jackass.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 6:34 AM
horizontal rule
428

Further to 426, here's my favorite part:

If you don't find that terrifying, let me suggest that you are a Democrat who has not yet contemplated what Republicans might do under similar circumstances. Farewell, social security! Au revoir, Medicare! The reason entitlements are hard to repeal is that the Republicans care about getting re-elected. If they didn't--if they were willing to undertake this sort of suicide mission--then the legislative lock-in you're counting on wouldn't exist.

Oh that would be just TERRIBLE if the Republicans tried to repeal Medicare and Social Security. Unthinkably terrible, I tell you! I beg you, Republicans, PLEASE don't throw me in that briar patch!


Posted by: KR | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 6:38 AM
horizontal rule
429

426: The comments to that post are even funnier than the post.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 6:41 AM
horizontal rule
430

Is there no recourse to the tyranny of the majority?

Jesus wept, that's incredibly stupid. Clearly, McMegan has a very different understanding of the word majority to everyone else.


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 6:53 AM
horizontal rule
431

That's right, Obama's a big lying liar for running on healthcare and then passing it, when people make campaign promises they're supposed to break them!
As far as Rs voting against reconciliation- the ads write themselves. "Representative X claimed he was against the back-room health care deals, but then he voted FOR those deals twice (footnote: H. reconciliation res # & motion to recommit.) He also voted for billions more in bank handouts at the same time (footnote: H. reconciliation student loan amendment number.) Representative X- he claims to be on your side, but he's just another Washington politician."


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 6:55 AM
horizontal rule
432


The internetz disappoint me. Here Bart Stupak has been in the limelight all this time and no one has photoshopped his face onto this?


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 6:57 AM
horizontal rule
433

I demand the tyranny of the majority prevent the party with the most votes imposing its will on the minority!


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 6:58 AM
horizontal rule
434

Although, is it too late to include a special exemption for libertarian economists?


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:00 AM
horizontal rule
435

As some commenter at Pandagon remarked, Stupak should be a political action committee for stupid.


Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:07 AM
horizontal rule
436

I was WRONG in 251. The Boehner tax is still in the bill! Take that, John!

It's the cosmetic surgery tax that was taken out.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:43 AM
horizontal rule
437

McMegan is a dog that thinks she's people. Alternately, she's a mark that thinks she's a smart, which means she's always going to be puzzled by the fact that she keeps going home broke. It still blows my mind that The Atlantic hired her.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:44 AM
horizontal rule
438

If you don't find that terrifying, let me suggest that you are a Democrat who has not yet contemplated what Republicans might do under similar circumstances.

you mean like passing big capital gains tax cuts on a 51-50 vote using reconciliation? Oh, wait...


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:46 AM
horizontal rule
439

they persuaded the country that they didn't want this bill

Good god. She's the poster child for truthiness.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:47 AM
horizontal rule
440

437: The Atlantic's a mark, too.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:48 AM
horizontal rule
441

What's really telling is how bad the comments thread is. Remember, this isn't Malkin or Breitbart or Nut-ional Review Online - this is the bleedin' Atlantic Monthly, and they're babbling about StrengthThroughJoyCare. Stupidity loves company.


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:48 AM
horizontal rule
442

432: The internetz disappoint me.

I'm disappointed in *myself*. I had actually commissioned some blogging-related Stupak hair photoshopping a while back and yet only ended up with this (Stuputin).

I've put in a request with my peeps for your idea, but they're claiming classwork or some bullshit like that.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:48 AM
horizontal rule
443

I found this bit of gloating from Kathryn Jean Lopez to be revealing:

Congratulations, Democrats. Beginning now, you own the health-care system in America. Every hiccup. Every complaint. Every long line. All yours.

It's true, too. The liberals' key disadvantage is that they take responsibility for outcomes. That's also the liberals' key advantage, though.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:51 AM
horizontal rule
444

It still blows my mind that The Atlantic hired her.

And made her an editor for business and economics.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:52 AM
horizontal rule
445

438 - As her commenters note, this was nothing compared to Medicare Part D, which is possibly the most egregious procedural strong-arming in my lifetime. But hey, who can remember the dim history of six and a half years ago? Damn this tyranny! Damn Obama and his unpaid for tax cuts and wars!


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:54 AM
horizontal rule
446

439: Come on Kraab, take a minute and contemplate the horror of living in a country where zombie lies amplified by the Media Freak Show did not win the day. Will no one think of the pundits?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:55 AM
horizontal rule
447

426: What I found just jaw-dropping about that is that she thinks that "After what Democrats did, Republicans won't play nice anymore," is a plausible threat. When have they played nice in the last couple of decades.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:59 AM
horizontal rule
448

445: Right, including the 3-hour vote extension in the House (at 3:00 AM), the order to turn off the C-SPAN cameras, the false cost estimate and on and on. Imagine any *one* of those items happening in this climate.

Q: What's the difference between the national political media and a beshat bed?

A: Nothing.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:02 AM
horizontal rule
449

443: what worries me is that almost none of the major provisions in this bill go into effect until 2014 (!). Expect the Reps to try to stick all the problems of fucked-up existing system in the intervening years on Democrats too.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:05 AM
horizontal rule
450

446: My selfishness sickens me.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:06 AM
horizontal rule
451

As far as Rs voting against reconciliation- the ads write themselves. "Representative X claimed he was against the back-room health care deals, but then he voted FOR those deals twice (footnote: H. reconciliation res # & motion to recommit.) He also voted for billions more in bank handouts at the same time (footnote: H. reconciliation student loan amendment number.) Representative X- he claims to be on your side, but he's just another Washington politician."

That sounds like a pretty weak attack ad, coming from someone who also voted for all those things. Or are you thinking of primary challenges?


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:06 AM
horizontal rule
452

A: Nothing.

You can clean a bedshat bed, though.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:07 AM
horizontal rule
453

452: My first answer was, "You can burn the sheets." But that would have been mean.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:09 AM
horizontal rule
454

That sounds like a pretty weak attack ad, coming from someone who also voted for all those things.

House Democrats voted against both of those things.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:13 AM
horizontal rule
455

454: Oh, right. I misread that comment.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:15 AM
horizontal rule
456

In my defense, my coffee maker is broken.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:15 AM
horizontal rule
457

(By which I mean my wife is not home to make coffee for me.)


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:16 AM
horizontal rule
458

D'oh, I'm sure there is a plastic cup and a microwave there.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:18 AM
horizontal rule
459


The best attack ads will be the simplest ones: "The insurance companies told Rep. X to vote against patient protections, and he did."

Better yet, the GOP base is going to make support for repeal a litmus test, and the GOP establishment seems determined to go along. It's like a double or nothing bet!

They could have made pinpoint attacks on particularly unpopular provisoins of HRC as a way of appealing to middle of the road voters while whipping up the base under the radar. But no, they're convinced that full repeal is a winning message.

With that, the attack message is not just "Rep X. voted against [popular provision]", but "Rep. X has pledged to take [popular provision] away from you."

Maybe they're right, maybe they can swing the media narrative in their favor, but I'm optimistic that repeal is going to have a much narrower appeal than the GOP thinks.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:28 AM
horizontal rule
460

I'm going to take off my capitulationist hat for a second and put on my anarchist balaclava to say that I am very dubious about this entire enterprise. I want working class people to be healthy, but frankly, I have to doubt that this law will accomplish that. The rot in our healthcare system is deep and systemic. Bad care for free or cheap is still bad care. The inputs into our system that cause people to be miserable -- bad air, water and food, long hours in unsafe jobs, violence (both state-sponsored and not), and the lack of an ability to change things -- aren't and can't be addressed by a bill like this one, or even a unicorns and pie public option/single-payer/totally nationalized system. I'm glad that, for a lot of people I know, this will keep the wolf from the door for awhile, and I sure hope that the worst aspects of the compromise can be ameliorated to some extent. As much as I have been continuing to make common cause with liberals, I still feel, very strongly, that anything imposed by the government will be deeply, deeply flawed at best.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:34 AM
horizontal rule
461

I'm now hopelessly confused about when different provisions in the bill go into effect. Does anyone know a good guide?


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:34 AM
horizontal rule
462

I second 461.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:36 AM
horizontal rule
463

461: I think everything is in effect by 2014, but I'm not sure on what kicks in before then.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:37 AM
horizontal rule
464

I want to know which things kick in in time for people to enjoy them before the 2012 election.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:41 AM
horizontal rule
465

hey, in case you read any posts about 'Obama's Waterloo', http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J3gX47rHGg


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:42 AM
horizontal rule
466

But what goes in effect before the November elections?

This thread at Ezra's is touching, because 98% of the comments are simple fact-based questions about the bill and how it will effect people. No death panels in sight.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:42 AM
horizontal rule
467

This is a short list of what kicks in instantly, though there are more things in 2011 and 2012: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-b-larson/he-top-ten-immediate-bene_b_501748.html


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:42 AM
horizontal rule
468

463: The anti-rescission measures go into effect right away, which is pretty important to me personally. I have a sufficiently complicated medical history that a big bill from the hospital would almost certainly lead my insurance company to dig up some pitiful excuse to avoid paying and I'd end up in court trying to get them to honor their obligations.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:44 AM
horizontal rule
469

Per 467, the big things that immediately go into effect are:

* No preexisting condition discrimination for children's insurance
* Donut hole closure (keep the government away from my Medicare!)
* An end to lifetime and annual payment caps
* Rescission illegal except in cases of fraud


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:45 AM
horizontal rule
470

469: those apply to employer-provided plans as well, not just in the individual markets, right?


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:46 AM
horizontal rule
471

No death panels in sight.

Not even in 2014? I've got a little list ...


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:46 AM
horizontal rule
472

The only real drawback of trolling around places like The Corner today is that you might accidentally read something like this and then you suddenly feel ill.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:48 AM
horizontal rule
473

The major provisions (exchanges and subsidies, mandate, Medicaid expansions, ban on preexisting conditions and medical underwriting) go into effect in 2014. A whole grab bag of provisions go into effect before then, but most are comparatively minor:

--$5 billion for high-risk pools. Tiny compared to scope of problem.

--tax credits for small businesses to afford care -- these are actually fairly substantial.

--ban on preexisting conditions for kids. But no controls on prices they can be charged.

--80/85 percent minimum medical loss ratio requirement.

--no copays for preventive care.

--dependents can stay on parents insurance till 26 years old.

--controls on lifetime and annual benefit limits.

--$10 billion more for community health centers.

--insurer appeals process for denial of care; this is less important than it looks as internal appeals processes are already in place in most cases.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:48 AM
horizontal rule
474

471: They'd surely not be missed...


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:49 AM
horizontal rule
475

pwned, you have to get up early around here. Missed the donut hole.

The anti-rescission measures go into effect right away

rescissions are already illegal and have been for years, this is one of the more Potemkin parts of the bill. The problem is enforcement.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:50 AM
horizontal rule
476

The Times has a handy little interactive whoosiwatzit of the provisions and timing.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:50 AM
horizontal rule
477

Does the donut hole closure go into effect as soon as Obama signs the bill, or sometime later in the year? If it happens soon enough, that might be enough to swing the midterms right there.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:50 AM
horizontal rule
478

Via Jon Chait, here's McMegan 19 days ago:

I have never seen conservatives and liberals so divided ... in beliefs, not values. On the one hand, there are people like the TNR crew, and Jonathan Bernstein, Andrew's guest-blogger, who seem to think that this it's the next best thing to a done deal. Meanwhile, all the conservatives and libertarians I know think that it's pretty much hopeless, because Pelosi can't get it through an increasingly rebellious House. To our jaded eyes it looks as if everyone who can is looking for an excuse not to vote for a bill that is unpopular with their constituents.

The opinions on both sides seem so confident, and so incompatible, that one group of people is clearly borderline delusional.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:50 AM
horizontal rule
479

467: Related-ish: why does Huffington Post always load so slowly? Is there something in the code or something that's slowing up my internetical gears? It's annoying, and I'd read it more if I could make that not the case.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:51 AM
horizontal rule
480

475 - I thought the key was that rescission is now illegal unless the insurer can demonstrate fraud, putting the burden of proof on the insurer to show intent? I tried to follow the lawyerly argument about this but, I confess, couldn't.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:53 AM
horizontal rule
481

472: That's an important reminder - for those of us who are disappointed with Obama - that the non-attack on Iran is a huge accomplishment that followed pretty directly from his election. He'll never get credit for it, the same way that Gore would have never gotten credit for the non-attack on Iraq, but it's still a huge consideration.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:56 AM
horizontal rule
482

--tax credits for small businesses to afford care -- these are actually fairly substantial.

These seem to me like they'll be pretty huge -- as in, likely to provide a not-inconsiderable number of people with healthcare, and likely to make the fabled small businessman pretty happy with the democrats -- in effects both electoral and non-.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:57 AM
horizontal rule
483

How come Native Americans are excluded from the mandate? Not that this is crazy, just that there must be more to the story than I know.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:01 AM
horizontal rule
484

483: They had reservations?

</rimshot>


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:02 AM
horizontal rule
485

IHS.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:03 AM
horizontal rule
486

Sorry, IHS.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:05 AM
horizontal rule
487

Ooh, I hadn't seen 484! Racist.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:06 AM
horizontal rule
488

rescissions are already illegal and have been for years, this is one of the more Potemkin parts of the bill. The problem is enforcement.

Wasn't there a whole troop of insurance execs being questioned by Congress last year, saying things like "Yes, we call that rescission." "Yes, rescission is a priority of ours, in order to avoid fraud." "Yes, of course we intend to continue using rescission as long as our competitors are."


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:06 AM
horizontal rule
489

McMegan's blog needs a Death Panel, the sooner the better.


Posted by: Tiny Hermaphrodite, Esq. | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:07 AM
horizontal rule
490

Thanks, ari.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:13 AM
horizontal rule
491

Healthcare stocks are up this morning, whatever the hell that means.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:16 AM
horizontal rule
492

491: Let me introduce you to the idea of a "random walk"...


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:19 AM
horizontal rule
493

So, a guy with whom I was good friends when we were frosh (nearly 20 years ago at this point) is now a conservative country lawyer with impressive jowls and a lot of Baptist social connections, that kind of thing, and he's been wringing his hands and clutching his pearls all morning on the Facebooks. I am loving it. At one point he directly and literally equated the passage of insurance reform with 9/11. My only reaction to that is to laugh. I can't think of any other honest response. I guess a part of me should be pissed off at that comparison but fucking A, I'm laughing too hard to make a fist.


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:19 AM
horizontal rule
494

Healthcare stocks are up this morning, whatever the hell that means.

I'm sure mcmanus will be along shortly to explain it to us.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:20 AM
horizontal rule
495

Plain old piracy, DeLong style, from Reuters.

---
WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR OF ENACTMENT

*Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.

*Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

*Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.

*Uninsured adults with a pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.

*A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.

*Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the "doughnut hole" coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.

*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.

*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2011

*Medicare provides 10 percent bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.

*Medicare beneficiaries will be able to get a free annual wellness visit and personalized prevention plan service. New health plans will be required to cover preventive services with little or no cost to patients.

*A new program under the Medicaid plan for the poor goes into effect in October that allows states to offer home and community based care for the disabled that might otherwise require institutional care.

*Payments to insurers offering Medicare Advantage services are frozen at 2010 levels. These payments are to be gradually reduced to bring them more in line with traditional Medicare.

*Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on employees' W-2 tax forms.

*An annual fee is imposed on pharmaceutical companies according to market share. The fee does not apply to companies with sales of $5 million or less.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2012

*Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form "accountable care organizations" to improve quality and efficiency of care.

*An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes.

*The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2013

*A national pilot program is established for Medicare on payment bundling to encourage doctors, hospitals and other care providers to better coordinate patient care.

*The threshold for claiming medical expenses on itemized tax returns is raised to 10 percent from 7.5 percent of income. The threshold remains at 7.5 percent for the elderly through 2016.

*The Medicare payroll tax is raised to 2.35 percent from 1.45 percent for individuals earning more than $200,000 and married couples with incomes over $250,000. The tax is imposed on some investment income for that income group.

*A 2.9 percent excise tax in imposed on the sale of medical devices. Anything generally purchased at the retail level by the public is excluded from the tax.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2014

*State health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals open.

*Most people will be required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fine if they don't. Healthcare tax credits become available to help people with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty purchase coverage on the exchange.

*Health plans no longer can exclude people from coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

*Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren't counted for the fine.

*Health insurance companies begin paying a fee based on their market share.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2015

*Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2018

*An excise tax on high cost employer-provided plans is imposed. The first $27,500 of a family plan and $10,200 for individual coverage is exempt from the tax. Higher levels are set for plans covering retirees and people in high risk professions.
---


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:21 AM
horizontal rule
496

493: I've been resisting all day querying how on Earth some of my conservative colleagues made it past the death panels on the way to work today.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:23 AM
horizontal rule
497

475: The Senate bill makes rescission illegal except in case of fraud or intentional material misrepresentation. Is that the case currently, or will any misrepresentation do?


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:23 AM
horizontal rule
498

493: Troll his facebook comment threads, you know you want to. Give in to the dark side.


Posted by: dob | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:24 AM
horizontal rule
499

I confess to a minor trolling. I commented:

*FWEEEET* Overuse of mindless national tragedy as a metaphor or allusion, five yard penalty, still first down.


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:31 AM
horizontal rule
500

497- From the most egregious anecdotes, any misrepresentation will do, even if not on the part of the insured (e.g., a nurse accidentally wrote "2001" instead of "2002" on a chart so they considered the condition to be preexisting and denied subsequent coverage.)


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:32 AM
horizontal rule
501

that "except in case of fraud" seems like a giant loophole. just put on the insurance application 'please list all medications you have ever been prescribed and taken.' get a date wrong on one, FRAUD!


Posted by: yoyo' | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:33 AM
horizontal rule
502

493: Yeah, my fundie FB friend is decrying the death of democracy today and lamenting how the cost of this bill will lead to higher taxes will lead to stay-at-home mom's being forced back to work, violates the right to at-home parenting, steals our money to give others health insurance which is not their right...

It bugs the hell out of me that this is the response of an adamant "Christian." To the extent I can even claim to understand the bill, I can totally see having problems with it. But really? The objection from an outspoken person of faith is "It's taking my money to help poor people!" Sigh. Camels, eyes of needles, etc.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:36 AM
horizontal rule
503

497: I thought (maybe wrongly) that this has all been a matter of state law until now, and the rules vary some from state to state. Typical standard something like "material misrepresentation", which is a lower threshold than fraud (no need to establish intent). Of course, that standard appears to have been regularly abused.


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:36 AM
horizontal rule
504

I'm - perhaps naively - pretty sure that the culture around recission will change as a result of this legislation, so that the disgusting technicalities and bad faith set-ups, ie 501 and others, will be discontinued.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:37 AM
horizontal rule
505

get a date wrong on one, FRAUD!

That's the significance of the phrase "material misrepresentation"; it's a much higher burden to clear than "any plausible pretext and insurer can find".

There's volumes of caselaw on material misrepresentation. The materiality test is key (e.g. leaving out one drug you prescribed years ago for an unrelated condition is not material), as is "misrepresentation", which is not the same as innocent error or even careless error.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:37 AM
horizontal rule
506

Obviously there are more important things at issue, but I was pleased to discover that someone is called "Zack Space", even if they voted the wrong way.


Posted by: tierce de lollardie | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:39 AM
horizontal rule
507

491, 494:Well, it isn't so much about profits.

It is about the mandates, and lack of price/cost controls.

Contemporary FIRE derives much of its...value...from expected secure future flows of funds. Think of a mortgage, and mortgage derivatives. Think of a credit card, where they almost prefer you don't pay down the principal. An income stream may be (?) as valuable, or more valuable than cash. You can't leverage cash.

The expectation of the mandates, and likely further privatication* of American healthcare, will open the window for the Insurance Cos to borrow billions at high leverage ratios to expand. Who knows what Wellpoint will be buying, since I think they already own half the insurance industry. Providers? Hospitals and drug companies?

*If the exchanges work, whatever "work" means, there isn't that great a difference between a lower-middle class family getting subsidies to buy insurance and a lower class family getting gov't paid healthcare. I guess everyone is expecting future changes to go in the direction of Medicaid & Medicare, but Obama's neo-liberalism might to gradually move Medicare and Medicaid into the insurance exchanges.

We will learn a little more from the commission. I don't know how this will all shake out.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:39 AM
horizontal rule
508

502. Christians like 'charity', where the needy publically humiliate themselves and the more holy very generously give them scraps. socialism, where the poor steal money, is not the same thing.


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:41 AM
horizontal rule
509

Sigh. Camels, eyes of needles, etc.

You liberals and your biblical literalism ...


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:41 AM
horizontal rule
510

502: I roughed up some friend of a friend on FB who insisted that the only reason that "Americans" fair so badly in various CDC and WHO outcomes statistics was only because of "the minorities," so basically Americans were doing really well. The real ones, anyway.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:42 AM
horizontal rule
511

507 - if insurance cos owned providers, that woudl be the best thing. you could squeeze providers under the pretext of squeezing insurance companies.


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:43 AM
horizontal rule
512

so basically Americans were doing really well. The real ones, anyway.

That's basically how I interpreted all the griping about how we already have the "best! healthcare system! in the WORLD!" Nice to know someone's putting it explictly.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:44 AM
horizontal rule
513

I'm not sure I get the "fraud" exception. The standard now is generally fraud or material misrepresentation, the difference between the two being intent. And from the insurance company's perspective, under the current system you can see why this would be a concern: if they knew you had condition [x], they'd have been charging you a higher premium all this time. (And, conversely, in order to obtain a lower premium, or to obtain coverage at all, individuals under the current system might have a strong incentive to misrepresent their health history.) But now we're going to have community rating, and a ban on denials for pre-existing conditions. Given those rules, I'm not sure I understand what incentive anyone would have to misrepresent their medical history.

So, on the one hand, I don't see why anyone would try to do that, and it's hard to see how an insurance company could build a case of fraud. (Which again, differs from material misrepresentation in that it requires proof of intent. What's the alleged motive?) So it seems like the carve-out shouldn't be a big deal.

But, on the other hand, given all that, I'm not sure why there's a carve-out for fraud at all. I can't see any legitimate reason for it, which makes me worry that it's only purpose is to allow continued abuse by the insurance industry.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:46 AM
horizontal rule
514

... and his dad is called SOCRATES SPACE ..


Posted by: tierce de lollardie | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:46 AM
horizontal rule
515

I'm getting pissed off in a thread on a technical blog written by a conservatarian chemist. Not sure why it bothers me so much that he's so wrong- e.g., claims the whole bill passed through reconciliation so they hid all the costs, if they had stated the real costs it never would have been allowed. I mean, Someone is Wrong on the Internets! But I guess it's because there are normally discussions of technical topics and data analysis and scientific literature, and they he comes out and spouts demonstrable BS without a care.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:47 AM
horizontal rule
516

The Dangeral Professor makes a funny.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:49 AM
horizontal rule
517

I'm not sure why there's a carve-out for fraud at all. I can't see any legitimate reason for it,

Oh, lying about your kid being under 26, or being your kid at all, etc.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:49 AM
horizontal rule
518

But, on the other hand, given all that, I'm not sure why there's a carve-out for fraud at all.

Because the pre-existing condition provisions don't kick in right away, perhaps.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:49 AM
horizontal rule
519

I'm coming to realize that 516 should not be read to the tune of "The Day the Music Died".


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:51 AM
horizontal rule
520

493: literally equated the passage of insurance reform with 9/11.

I look for Sarah Palin to have a bullhorn moment at the entrance to someplace like the Mayo Clinic (or the HQ of UnitedHealthcare):

ex-half term Governor Palin: I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!

Teabaggers: [Chanting] Kill the Bill! Kill the Bill! Kill the Bill! Kill the Bill!

ex-half term Governor Palin: The real Americans -- The real Americans send their love and compassion --

Teabagger: Down with Socialism!

ex-half term Governor Palin: -- to everybody who is here. Thank you for your hard work. Thank you for makin' the nation proud, and may God bless America.

Teabaggerss: [Chanting] Kill the Bill! Kill the Bill! Kill the Bill! Kill the Bill!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:51 AM
horizontal rule
521

517: oh, that makes sense--I wasn't thinking of "rescission" in that context. (Still no coffee.)


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:51 AM
horizontal rule
522

Would you like me to start a thread called Help Brock Get Coffee? We could contribute tips.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:53 AM
horizontal rule
523

And coffee-making videos.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:55 AM
horizontal rule
524

It's important for your coffee to be so light, so delicious, and green. That's what's so fun about coffee.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:57 AM
horizontal rule
525

507: You can leverage cash. Your bank is probably doing it right now.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:57 AM
horizontal rule
526

508 is only true for one particular subset of Christians. I know a lot of Christians who are gentle and humble and all that hippy crap. A fair number of them dedicate their lives to making other people more secure, healthier, and better. Close friends who are Christians are currently working in various third world countries making concrete positive improvements in the lives of people who are in literal danger of starvation.

My father was one of these Christians, as is my mother (my Mom could go on a substantial killing spree and still end up in the Karmic black). My Uncle, his family, and the in-laws are of the sanctimonious hypocrite variety. Rich and comfortable, always looking for a reason that the less fortunate deserve their suffering. Charitable giving goes entirely to the church, and some tiny fraction of that is used as 508 suggests, with the rest paying hangar fees on the pastor's private jet.

Despite being a bit of a militant atheist I cannot bring myself to dislike Christians or Christianity as a faith. It's complicated and messy, and some people find ways to make it all about themselves, but a lot of others do actually try to make the world a better place and do so because of their faith.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:57 AM
horizontal rule
527

No, I'm just bitching. There are several coffee shops within close walking distance--I'm waiting for a repairperson to show up at my house, and after that I'll be able to get myself to one if I really wanted.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:58 AM
horizontal rule
528

527: We admire your pose of a stiff upper lip, but we can tell that you're already too enervated to get up from the couch.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:00 AM
horizontal rule
529

515: is that the guy who does the "Things I Won't Work With" posts? Dammit! I like those! I totally see your point!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:00 AM
horizontal rule
530

Despite being a bit of a militant atheist I cannot bring myself to dislike Christians or Christianity as a faith.

In theory, I'm completely indifferent to Christianity, and believe that it's just a rorschach blot for the Christian to map their own personality onto.

In practice, obnoxious people map their obnoxiousness onto Christianity around me all the time and I use the religion as shorthand for the people.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:01 AM
horizontal rule
531

527: where on earth did you find a coffee machine repairperson?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:01 AM
horizontal rule
532

515: I have a technical blog that I keep all politics off for that very reason. I know from referrer links that a significant number of wackjobs link to me. I'm also on the blogroll of a guy who hated my guts from various comment threads on politics blogs.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:06 AM
horizontal rule
533

The wingnuts infecting my FB space are saying 1. "It's a sad day in U.S. history. Welcome to the Socialist States Of America!" To which I say, "Don't I wish!" And, 2. my current fave, " My Christian neighbor who is a pediatric oncologist is now learning Hebrew just in case she has to relocate to Israel to get paid. Very sad....." You mean Israel, where they have government-run healthcare?


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:07 AM
horizontal rule
534

515, 529: He's always been a dick when it comes to political issues.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:07 AM
horizontal rule
535

British conservatives plagiarise teabagger Web campaign, invite people to use a Twitter hashtag that they're scraping and displaying on the front page, don't moderate the tweets....or even check they don't contain arbitrary JavaScript. FAYLE.


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:07 AM
horizontal rule
536

526 is exactly right -- and part of why the "egads! my tax money will help the poor" attitude among professed Christians bugs me. I count myself Christian (albeit perhaps a bit eccentric/unorthodox about it), and that kind of thing just makes me was to scream YOU ARE MISSING THE FUCKING POINT!!


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:08 AM
horizontal rule
537

534: a fact I had happily avoided knowing until now.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:09 AM
horizontal rule
538

530: That was one of the eye-opening things about moving to the South. In the Northeast, "avowed Christian" means the little old ladies who check names at the polling sites on Election Day. In the South, "white + avowed Christian = asshole".


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:10 AM
horizontal rule
539

I am kind of disappointed that my FB world is entirely immune from wingnuttery. A relative of my writing partner wrote on her "Go Pelosi, wield that gavel" status update that "this is it for America, once the illegal immigrants all get on the rolls." I thought long and hard about whether to engage before going with "one of the reconciliation provisions allows Pelosi to hit Eric Cantor in the fruit basket with the gavel. Just once, but at any time in the remainder of the session."

She deleted her comment this morning. Sigh. Why won't anybody play with me?


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:13 AM
horizontal rule
540

My FB feed is also largely wignuttery-free, except for a couple of libertarians who have been entirely incomprehensible:

An old farmer who had worked his crops for many years had his horse ran away one day. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors said "Such bad luck". "We'll see," the farmer replied. Then the government passed healthcare. The Democrates rejoiced. The Republicans wept. "We'll see" said the farmer who knew the theatrics of bo...th sides were simply to distract to the people away from the truth.

I... what?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:16 AM
horizontal rule
541

541: I hope I never find out what he meant by that, because I'm pretty sure if I contemplate it for long enough, I will achieve a state of satori.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:21 AM
horizontal rule
542

The hide button is my friend. Somewhere out there my BIL is undoubtedly howling with impotent rage, but not on my facebook page.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:21 AM
horizontal rule
543

541: I've heard that story before, but it was in the context of " 'Quit whining about how cold/hungry/injured you are,' said the crusty old guide, launching into another of his salt-of-the-earth parables," not partisan politics.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:23 AM
horizontal rule
544

"Today I've woken up in a whole new world where passion has died and the fire doesn't burn. Where risks can't be taken and dreams aren't fulfilled because Big Brother is there and Freedom has been killed. Lose your job or just want to be lazy? Don't worry! Get in line and you'll be paid in a hurry! Want to spend like crazy and never repay? Just call Geraci*, your problem is solved in a day. No more sweat, no more tears, no more hardship, no more fear. Sit back, rest awhile, the easy way is here. And while you close your eyes, you'll never see, that Freedom has died almost silently."

* Obnoxious attorney with annoying commercials about filing for bankruptcy.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:23 AM
horizontal rule
545

541: The cosmic circularity of 541 gave me a vision of the Great Nothingness and now I'm ascending into it. Goodbye!


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:23 AM
horizontal rule
546

Despite having a decent number of GOP dead-enders and glibertarians in my feeds, I'm seeing almost nothing at all from any of them about the bill.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:25 AM
horizontal rule
547

545: Hah, hah, motherfucker. I completely beat you to enlightenment on that one.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:27 AM
horizontal rule
548

I'm always amazed more of you don't combust, or go around twatting people. That kind of level of stupidity must take Olympian self-control to get over.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:28 AM
horizontal rule
549

544:"Sit back, rest awhile, the easy way is here [...] Freedom has died"

These two statements seem to be in direct contradiction with one another. You don't have to work! You can get money for free! YOU'RE BEING OPPRESSED!


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:28 AM
horizontal rule
550

I know a lot of Christians who are gentle and humble and all that hippy crap.

Tell them they're making the rest of us look bad.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:29 AM
horizontal rule
551

go around twatting people

I believe that's your specialty.


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:34 AM
horizontal rule
552

re: 551

I think you're misunderstanding the verb, "to twat".


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:37 AM
horizontal rule
553

I'm always amazed more of you don't combust, or go around twatting people. That kind of level of stupidity must take Olympian self-control to get over

Sigh. If only I had that kind of self-control. I do need to hit the hide button.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:38 AM
horizontal rule
554


I'm feeling optimistic enough at the moment to stake the following claim: the great outpouring of teabagger rage and anguish is, on balance, a good thing for progressives. With appropriate caveats about my spotty record as a political prognosticator, here's my reasoning.

1. None or next to none of these people were ever in play for the Democrats anyway.
2. It smokes out the true radical nature of their worldview
3. The dominant media narrative, even as it continues to take certain cues from Fox News and give the 'baggers disproportionate attention, will no longer treat them quite as credulously. At minimum, it will be harder to make facile equations of teabaggers = real Americans. (Evidence for this: the treatment of Perot voters after Perot came to be viewed as a loser, compared to when he was on the rise.)
4. It freezes the GOP in a stance of unyielding, categorical opposition, which limits the scope for cross-aisle deals that sell out the progressive caucus.

If Obama had Nixonian instincts (which I don't for a moment believe), he would be subtley needling the 'baggers and provoking them into ever more outrageous displays of fanaticism, much as Nixon hung the student radicals around the necks of liberals.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:42 AM
horizontal rule
555

From my one nutter-butter FB friend (an acquaintance from HS):

Make no mistake. This bill will fund abortions and abortion clinics. It will raise your taxes. It will lower profits not JUST for insurance companies, but for ALL companies who provide health coverage to employees. It will create lower standards of care. This will be done at the expense of the hard working American, as usual. Bills like this eventually will weaken America to the point where she is no longer a superpower, and then what? You don't want to know. Trust me. Don't say I didn't tell you so. You heard it here.

She! Who still refers to countries as ladies…laydeez?


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:56 AM
horizontal rule
556

If Obama had Nixonian instincts (which I don't for a moment believe), he would be subtley needling the 'baggers and provoking them into ever more outrageous displays of fanaticism, much as Nixon hung the student radicals around the necks of liberals.

Obama doesn't need to do anything subtle. Every moment he remains President they get a little battier.



Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:06 AM
horizontal rule
557

* Obnoxious attorney with annoying commercials about filing for bankruptcy.

Awesome! Debt collectors are sad too!


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:08 AM
horizontal rule
558

I found this bit of gloating from Kathryn Jean Lopez to be revealing:

Congratulations, Democrats. Beginning now, you own the health-care system in America. Every hiccup. Every complaint. Every long line. All yours.
It strikes me that people on left-leaning blogs have said almost the same thing, at various points of time, about George Bush and the Iraq war, and it never quite worked out that way.

Yes, that's a potential analogy ban, but I think the public at large doesn't spend that much time keeping score of what each party does. It's frustrating at times, but there's something good to that as well. A practical effect something like, "however this was enacted, at some point everybody owns it (see Medicare part D)" which is probably fair.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:10 AM
horizontal rule
559

Email just now from my Irish Catholic mother in NJ: "Great. Now I have to get rid of the Pope and the Governor."


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:13 AM
horizontal rule
560

554: That's my read, but there's an alternative, darker version, too, that Yglesias correctly warns about. Basically, if the economy sucks in 2012, then whatever lunatic the Republicans vomit up stands a solid chance of changing the narrative and winning the election.

Godwin prohibits me from supposing that there might be some historical precedent for that sort of pessimism, but we're in a very dangerous time where the worst elements are ascendant in the Republican Party, and those elements are well-served by the general breakdown of society. There's a feedback loop - failure feeding more failure - that was working really well with the Bush administration for awhile.

But in general, I think the odds favor your optimistic scenario. Obama isn't going to need Nixonian instincts. The Republicans are eager to immerse themselves into this cesspool.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:15 AM
horizontal rule
561

It strikes me that people on left-leaning blogs have said almost the same thing, at various points of time, about George Bush and the Iraq war, and it never quite worked out that way.

I'm not quite sure that's right... Iraq was significant in 2006 and 2008.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:15 AM
horizontal rule
562

Mitt Romney--your crazy relative on Facebook:

Rather, it is an historic usurpation of the legislative process -- he unleashed the nuclear option, enlisted not a single Republican vote in either chamber, bribed reluctant members of his own party, paid-off his union backers, scapegoated insurers, and justified his act with patently fraudulent accounting.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:18 AM
horizontal rule
563

Iraq was significant in 2006 and 2008.

I wasn't trying to say that ownership was ever split 50:50, just that it never works that one party owns every bump or every jot and tittle.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:19 AM
horizontal rule
564

558: I certainly hope so. Inadequate as this bill is, it's still a big step in the right direction and Democrats should be proud of pushing it through.

The Democrats should run on this thing as hard as they can, and remind people at every opportunity that the opposition was a bunch of lunatics raving about imaginary bollocks. Sadly I think they lack the balls to do that, but a boy can dream...


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:20 AM
horizontal rule
565

527: where on earth did you find a coffee machine repairperson?

I'm sure I've told this before, but when I worked for AT&T one of my tasks involved routine conference calls with a specific set of people from other groups, one of whom worked from home and made absolute buckets of money. One morning he mentioned that he hadn't had his coffee yet because the machine was broken and that the repairperson might show up during the call so he would have to step away. We had much the same reaction as you, and questioning led to him telling us all about his coffee machine which was installed in the wall of his kitchen, for which there was a four-hour repair SLA. If it broke, the manufacturers sent two repairpersons, in a van, to his house, with a coffee machine in their van, and when they rang the doorbell one of them would be holding a cup of coffee at the ready for immediate consumption by the poor, blighted owner of the broken machine.

I am pretty sure that planted the seeds of the dissatisfaction that made me quit.

539 and 540 made me laugh aloud.


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
566

562: What else can Mitt say? He has to feign outrage at the process, because he has to be outraged to be in the cool kids club, and he can't be outraged at legislation that only experts can distinguish from his Mass. plan.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:22 AM
horizontal rule
567

Ok, maybe I was wrong: The DCCC is inviting people to sign a farewell card to Rush Limbaugh.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:24 AM
horizontal rule
568

On rescission: current standard, under existing HIPAA law, is that rescission is already banned except in cases of fraud or deliberate material misrepresentation. See e.g. here .

I favor passage of this bill, but no one should be fooled -- this is a sellout in many, many areas, perhaps none greater than regulation of health insurers between the bill passage and the institution of the Exchanges in 2014. Even in 2014, regulation could have been significantly tougher.

And by sellout I mean there were numerous cases where the bill could have been tougher and still passed, but changes were blocked or not insisted on.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:24 AM
horizontal rule
569

sites that require a birthdate to enter? i always answer 1/1/1900 or whatever. i wonder what the stats are on those.


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:24 AM
horizontal rule
570

It strikes me that people on left-leaning blogs have said almost the same thing, at various points of time, about George Bush and the Iraq war, and it never quite worked out that way.

When we lost in 2004 and I heard/read people saying something along the lines of 'well, hey, at least we don't have to clean up the messes,' my reaction was largely that (a) yes we will, sooner or later, and (b) wouldn't it be better to be the party that does something than to be the party that is never able to do anything?


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:27 AM
horizontal rule
571

I always answer 12/25/0001. Many sites won't accept it. And someday they'll pay for it...


Posted by: Jesus | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:29 AM
horizontal rule
572

I think that in the long run Nick is right. Do the Republicans still get credit/blame for Medicare Part D?


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:30 AM
horizontal rule
573

I'd like to state for the record that after reading Roy Edroso's column about how Congress made the baby Jesus cry last night, I now miss Jon Swift more acutely than ever.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:31 AM
horizontal rule
574

Some of you people are gluttons for punishment, what with your reading McMegan and Mitt and all. If you haven't had enough, you can tune in to that annoying BBC international talk show, which is featuring last night's vote at this very moment. I turned off the radio, but I can pretty much guarantee that they're framing their questions in the most inflammatory fashion, that they've asked luminaries of the right-wing blogosphere to appear as guests, and that none of the callers has anything original, informed or entertaining to say. Sounds like fun!


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
575

Shit, I'm going to Costa Rice next month, he better not ruin it before I get there.
Evolution of the "nuclear option":
2005- Ruling judicial filibusters out of order, using 50 votes to overcome a supermajority requirement
2009- Using reconciliation as it was intended
2010- Getting more votes than the other side
2012- Not voting for Mitt Romney


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:35 AM
horizontal rule
576

"This tyrannical act-I can't even dignify it with the term "legislation", since it's grossly unconstitutional-has been sold to the American public as a "reform" of our health care system under the guise of a complete government takeover. But that's a lie. It doesn't "reform" anything. People who have actually READ THE BILL (which includes NOT ONE SINGLE DEMOCRATIC MEMBER OF CONGRESS--they just took their orders from "Dear Leader", and voted exactly as they were commanded) can tell you this bill does one thing and only one thing: it spends over 10 trillion dollars of taxpayer money to fund an additional one million abortions every single year. Mostly poor and minority abortions, i.e. genocide. This morning, Bart Stupak knows exactly what Judas felt like after he betrayed Jesus and realized he'd sold his soul to Satan. Enjoy your 30 silver shekels, Bart."

I can't bring myself to respond to this, but there's that $10 trillion number again--does anyone know the original source?

Is anyone listening to Rush today? Has he bought his plane tickets yet?


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
577

572 - The thing is that Medicare Part D was always going to be popular. It gave up a huge bargaining chip to the pharmaceutical companies and it helped torpedo the budget, but why should senior citizens be upset about getting more cash shoveled their way? And regardless of whether it's true in general, certainly there's no way on earth that Democrats, who watched haplessly while budget reconciliation got branded "the nuclear option" and David Broder chided them for playing rough, can make people angry about process matters six years later.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
578

OT Facebook Question: When you hide your wall and comments from people, do they still get notices in their feed that say "X wrote on Y's wall"?


Posted by: Criminally Bulgur | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
579

Damn it, SP!


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:37 AM
horizontal rule
580

Democrats can't even get people interested in the junior Senator from Nevada breaking the law in an attempt to silence his mistress's husband, and that's practically a Law and Order plot.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:38 AM
horizontal rule
581

579- I often cause that reaction.
580- Only if the husband ended up in a Dumpster instead of being given a cushy job.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:43 AM
horizontal rule
582

565 is fantastic, by the way.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:44 AM
horizontal rule
583

576: where did that crazy quote come from? THat's crazy even by the standards of this crazy "debate".


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:46 AM
horizontal rule
584

it spends over 10 trillion dollars of taxpayer money to fund an additional one million abortions every single year

Those are some expensive abortions.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:46 AM
horizontal rule
585

They're providing French champagne and limo service to and from the clinics.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:50 AM
horizontal rule
586

584: Each abortion will be performed with an especially-desecrated dagger, or athame, which ensures each unborn soul goes straight to hell. It's worth the extra expense.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:50 AM
horizontal rule
587

Oops, sorry, I was misinformed. They're completely overhauling the public transportation system in the U.S., so that people can get to the clinics more easily. Socialism FTW!!!


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:51 AM
horizontal rule
588

there's that $10 trillion number again--does anyone know the original source?

I bet it's as simple as $1 trillion x the ten year period that the cost estimate covers.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:51 AM
horizontal rule
589

That includes Amtrak, since, you know, lots of people would have to travel quite a distance to get to an abortion provider.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:52 AM
horizontal rule
590

Like the first robin of spring, a predictable and unmistakeable sign heralds the arrival of a new season. Marc Ambinder:

Republicans in disarray.



Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:52 AM
horizontal rule
591

580. Wow. What? How? When?


Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:53 AM
horizontal rule
592

591: Google "John Ensign".


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:55 AM
horizontal rule
593

585, 586: You're thinking small. SDI technology will be used to laser-abort babies from low Earth orbit.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:58 AM
horizontal rule
594

That includes Amtrak, since, you know, lots of people would have to travel quite a distance to get to an abortion provider

Not anymore! All the churches are being converted to abortion clinics! It's right there in the bill!


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:59 AM
horizontal rule
595

"it spends over 10 trillion dollars of taxpayer money to fund an additional one million abortions every single year."
Is that 10T/year to fund 1M/year (cost of 10M/abortion?) Or is it 10T/10 years to fund 1M/year (for the bargain price of only 1M/abortion)? Maybe it has to do with all those requirements for multiple 3D ultrasounds and composition of a poem written about the unborn child's hopes and dreams before they allow an abortion (professional poets ain't cheap.)


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 11:59 AM
horizontal rule
596

an especially-desecrated dagger, or athame, which ensures each unborn soul goes straight to hell

I thought the added cost was for the spaceship that would take each aborted embryo/fetus to heaven, a concession demanded by the Stupak crowd.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:00 PM
horizontal rule
597

professional poets ain't cheap

As an underemployed humanities PhD, I was quite gratified to receive my call to service first thing this morning. I'll try my best to live up to the great honor. (And hope they don't notice if I gank some lines from Eichendorff.)


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:04 PM
horizontal rule
598

583: FB. A "friend" of mine.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:05 PM
horizontal rule
599

593 is a keeper.

My country lawyer friend says that he "mourns" this as deeply as he did 9/11 because it's "another $2.5 trillion entitlement" which is as nonsensical as I could ever ask. I think at this point it's safe to assume that numbers are simply being made up and spat out by talking heads in conservative media. I am reminded by them - not for the first time - of early on in DragonBall Z when various Saiyans would say of another and absent context, "He's at power level one million!"


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:05 PM
horizontal rule
600

593: Shit, that's funny.

596: Really? That makes me hate Stupak even more.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:05 PM
horizontal rule
601

professional poets ain't cheap

Maybe the market is different in SPville, but most professional poets around here would be willing to work for food.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
602

Creatures of a day! What is a man?
What is he not? A dream of a shadow
Is our mortal being.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
603

Let's not forget the abortion providers, who will live in mansions of pure gold atop mountains of precious gemstones.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:08 PM
horizontal rule
604

I think at this point it's safe to assume that numbers are simply being made up and spat out by talking heads in conservative media

My mind was run amok when, on a daily show episode, a clip of Glenn Beck was shown in which he asked offhandedly, "why do you think there are so many Maoists hanging around the White House?".

You know what I think it is? I think the former writers of the Weekly World News have turned to evil.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
605

602: A miserable little pile of secrets.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
606

his coffee machine which was installed in the wall of his kitchen, for which there was a four-hour repair SLA. If it broke, the manufacturers sent two repairpersons, in a van, to his house, with a coffee machine in their van, and when they rang the doorbell one of them would be holding a cup of coffee at the ready for immediate consumption by the poor, blighted owner of the broken machine.

Wowie.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
607

601: Food? Around here all you have do is pretend to pay attention to them, and they'll write you an ode.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
608

599: I knew a guy in college who was a leftist, but in arguments would make up facts whole-cloth. It took me a while to catch on, and I had to spend some time remembering which things I "learned" from him so that I could forget them. Now he's a low-level Republican party operative. This helped reinforce my understanding of how the world works.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
609

Nosflow will just give poems away.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
610

Also the year of non-maternity leave women who get abortions will be granted, at 10x their salary.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:10 PM
horizontal rule
611

But with this new federal mandate, there will be a drastic shortage of poets and long wait times. So much for your cost control, Nobama!


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:10 PM
horizontal rule
612

Some of the more sinister provisions haven't yet come to light. For instance, did you know that ACORN will be allowed to come to your house and feed your dog genetically modifed arugula—which makes your dog into a gaylord? FACT.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:10 PM
horizontal rule
613

hope they don't notice if I gank some lines from Eichendorff

Like this?

Hast du einen Freund hienieden / Trau ihm nicht zu dieser Stunde / Freundlich wohl mit Aug und Munde / Sinnt er Krieg im tückschen Frieden / Was heut müde gehet unter / Hebt sich morgen neugeboren / Manches bleibt in Nacht verloren / Hüte dich, bleib wach und munter!

Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:10 PM
horizontal rule
614

602: "Our mortal being" for ἄνθρωπος? Ew.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:10 PM
horizontal rule
615

610 doesn't even rhyme, nosflow. You haven't earned this sandwich.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:13 PM
horizontal rule
616

614: take it up with wikipedia.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:13 PM
horizontal rule
617

616: We can't. HCR has banned Wikipedia.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:16 PM
horizontal rule
618

Fucking Maoists.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:18 PM
horizontal rule
619

618: For fun, profit and free hip replacements.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:22 PM
horizontal rule
620

You know what I think it is? I think the former writers of the Weekly World News have turned to evil.

Tangentially, I am sad to report that the comic book reincarnation of WWN is dreadfully bad.


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:23 PM
horizontal rule
621

Actually, I quite like Mao.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:23 PM
horizontal rule
622

613: This one seems more appropriate for aborting the child you desperately want, but are being forced by HCR to give up.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:25 PM
horizontal rule
623

You can't help but love the jackets, anyhow.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:25 PM
horizontal rule
624

616: I expected more from you, in this, The Dictatorship of the Underemployed Humanities PhDs.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:29 PM
horizontal rule
625

623: Certainly the gun stuck in my back by my local ACORN rep encourages me to say so.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:32 PM
horizontal rule
626

So what's actually going to happen with the exchanges, does anyone know? State or Federal?


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:32 PM
horizontal rule
627

Maybe the market is different in SPville, but most professional poets around here would be willing to work for food.

"Will rhapsodize for simple grains and preserves."


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:34 PM
horizontal rule
628

Σταράκι μου καθαριστὸ κι ἀγουροθερισμένο, ποὺ σ' ἀγουροθερίσανε τοῦ Χάρου οἰ θεριστάδες.

"My little ear of wheat, winnowed and reaped unripe by the Death Panels of Obama."


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:36 PM
horizontal rule
629

(And hope they don't notice if I gank some lines from Eichendorff.)

For that money, they could fly in Ian Bostridge and Mitsuko Uchida to perform a program of Schubert's Eichendorff lieder at your side while you're in the stirrups.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:39 PM
horizontal rule
630

You're only allowed to request Thomas Quasthoff if you're aborting for reasons of fetal anomaly.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:46 PM
horizontal rule
631

628: OMG, clitoridectomies too!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:46 PM
horizontal rule
632

Here's a nice tidbit from conservative intellectual VD Hanson.

Apparently, Obama figures that people now may not like the present partisanship, but they didn't like FDR at the time either.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:47 PM
horizontal rule
633

Lugete, o Veneres Cupidinesque,
et quantum est hominum venustiorum:
infans mortuus est meae puellae,
infans, deliciae meae puellae,
quem plus illa oculis suis amabat.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:50 PM
horizontal rule
634

630 is hilarious.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:50 PM
horizontal rule
635

So is 633. I think we should print the whole thread out and mail it to VDH.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:51 PM
horizontal rule
636

I think I know a couple of people who know VDH.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:54 PM
horizontal rule
637

630 is indeed awesome.

632: Holy shit, did you see the ad on that page urging people to give Pelosi a birthday present she'd never forget? Oh, of course "Birthday Bomb!" means early retirement. I couldn't imagine anyone thinking it might suggest something else.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:55 PM
horizontal rule
638

I don't know why I stopped there. "nec sese a gremio illius movebat" takes on a new poignancy in this context.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 12:58 PM
horizontal rule
639

One of VDH's commenters joins the rhyming fun:

Now Obama is hot on taking over health care
He's made it his personal affair
Lab rats and body parts you will all be
As he goose-stepped all over the Constitution, said he
'Cause you see, anything that brings more glory and power to me, you must all just grin and bare


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 1:07 PM
horizontal rule
640

The quality is staggering.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 1:08 PM
horizontal rule
641

639 doesn't scan.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 1:08 PM
horizontal rule
642

639: Bad poetry is a human right, but some people take unreasonable advantage.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 1:09 PM
horizontal rule
643

||

This is interesting news. Why would the Chamber of Commerce support American workers over low-priced foreign workers? What's in it for them?

This seems like a surprise.

|>


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 1:12 PM
horizontal rule
644

519: Try "The Night Chicago Died."


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 1:13 PM
horizontal rule
645

Oh, of course "Birthday Bomb!" means early retirement. I couldn't imagine anyone thinking it might suggest something else.

It couldn't mean a real bomb, because then how would she remember the gift?

Anyway, FDR was, of course, the least popular president in history. Without the nuclear option, he would never have been elected.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 1:15 PM
horizontal rule
646

Without the nuclear option, he would never have been elected.

You liberals always get your history mixed up. It was Truman who exercised the nuclear option.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 1:17 PM
horizontal rule
647

494 => 643.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 1:18 PM
horizontal rule
648

Apparently "Baby Killer!" dude was Texas Rep. Randy Neugebauer. Represents Lubbock and other parts of west Texas. Say he was talking about the *bill*, not Stupak.

When benighted congressmen collide!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 1:22 PM
horizontal rule
649

I'm always amazed more of you don't combust, or go around twatting people. That kind of level of stupidity must take Olympian self-control to get over.

I think ttaM finally understands what it means to be an American.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 1:33 PM
horizontal rule
650

649: Yeah, I found that disturbing. You mean that if you are British, you're not surrounded by self-confident, yet misinformed idiots? How is that possible?


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 1:41 PM
horizontal rule
651

639 doesn't scan.

Thank goodness. Whenever we have one of those limerick threads, I think in limericks for the rest of the day.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 1:47 PM
horizontal rule
652

If six thirty-nine doesn't scan,
And fixing it's not in the plan,
Megan will sigh,
And say to you "I
Always end up thinking in limericks for the rest of the day when we have one of those limerick threads; really, I think they, not analogies, should be the subject of a blanket ban."


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 1:52 PM
horizontal rule
653

neB, why?


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 1:57 PM
horizontal rule
654

I just love innocent mischief.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 1:58 PM
horizontal rule
655

You're such the pixie.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 2:04 PM
horizontal rule
656

ACORN Folds As National Organization

I can only hope that James O'Keefe someday reaps the karma he sows.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 2:07 PM
horizontal rule
657

McCain: Don't expect GOP cooperation on legislation for the rest of this year

Did someone link to this already? I can't remember. Regardless, it's making me laugh.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 2:07 PM
horizontal rule
658

Come on, we all know they're just disguising themselves as census workers.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 2:09 PM
horizontal rule
659

http://www.aticketforrush.com/


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 2:13 PM
horizontal rule
660

My yoga teacher just got hired to work for the census. She's not only into that hippie shit (being a yoga teacher and all), she's also black. Connect the dots, people.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 2:14 PM
horizontal rule
661

660: Official clipboard-wielding counters do yoga? Mircea Eliade must be spinning in his grave.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 2:19 PM
horizontal rule
662

I learned some interesting (nerdy interesting, not ha ha interesting) things about the census on the Daily Show.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 2:30 PM
horizontal rule
663

Mircea Eliade sucks. Not on topic, and I don't even remember why I think that, but I expect this will be the very last time I get to share my opinion on the subject, until I die, go to hell, and end up in the same cell as the fucker.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 2:31 PM
horizontal rule
664

Thank goodness. Whenever we have one of those limerick threads, I think in limericks for the rest of the day.

A tea partier stood by by my side
At the DWR, and applied
For a water removal
"Does it meet your approval?"
but I stamped his petition "Denied"


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 2:31 PM
horizontal rule
665

Mircea Eliade sucks. Not on topic, and I don't even remember why I think that, but I expect this will be the very last time I get to share my opinion on the subject, until I die, go to hell, and end up in the same cell as the fucker.

And then you'll find out if he really does suck.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 2:34 PM
horizontal rule
666

Now you just have to wait for death to overtake you, Walt.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 2:34 PM
horizontal rule
667

The first thing I think of now when I think of Eliade is Culianu and the Div School bathroom of death.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 2:41 PM
horizontal rule
668

637 is pretty deeply bothersome.

660 cracked me up.

657 reminds me that last night, after the vote, I turned to a friend of ours who had come over to watch and said, "If I were Nancy Pelosi, I'd walk right up to Boehner and say, 'When you folks want in on something, let me know. Until then your attendance is no longer mandatory.'"


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
669

The comment linked in 666 belongs in the Mineshaft Hall of Fame.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 2:44 PM
horizontal rule
670

669: Indeed!


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
671

There was a young comment'r named Megan
Who hated limericks as much as she did Reagan
She'd fret on evaporative loss
But then burning couches she'd toss
Oh, that unpredictable young comment'r named Megan


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 3:03 PM
horizontal rule
672

Really? Y'all feel like today is the day you want to start a limerick fight with me? What, you have health care now, so you don't care how messed up you get?


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 3:15 PM
horizontal rule
673

637: 632: Holy shit, did you see the ad on that page urging people to give Pelosi a birthday present she'd never forget?

Not so different than the current front page gop.com fundraising appeal for fuck's sake--"FIRE PELOSI" showing her against a backdrop of flame.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 3:19 PM
horizontal rule
674


There once was a sassy young lass
Whose math scores were top of her class
When asked, "Will you date me?"
Said "Yes, that elates me,"
"...but not before kicking your ass."


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 3:20 PM
horizontal rule
675

Hee.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 3:21 PM
horizontal rule
676

656: I can only hope that James O'Keefe someday reaps the karma he sows.

You might say that happened in his arrest in Landrieux's office. But I'm almost more pissed at the NY Times and other "serious" folks (including Congress of course) for letting themselves be so easily gulled.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 3:31 PM
horizontal rule
677

540: That's based on a Chinese proverb, related here.

at this point it's safe to assume that numbers are simply being made up

One of the newer talking points a-net (and in the floor debate yesterday) is that the bill would create 16,500 new IRS agents to enforce it. This seems to come originally from congressional Republicans, presumably whole-cloth.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 3:36 PM
horizontal rule
678

My dad was an IRS agent. He's got a pension with awesome health insurance.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 3:38 PM
horizontal rule
679

677.1: still makes no damn sense the way he's using it. (I get what he was trying to say. Still!)


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 3:39 PM
horizontal rule
680

The first thing I think of now when I think of Eliade is Culianu and the Div School bathroom of death.

Or the Iron Guard.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 3:46 PM
horizontal rule
681

679: Oh, agreed.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 3:55 PM
horizontal rule
682

680: Well, yes. Also, although it remains officially unsolved, I believe that Rumanian fascists are generally assumed to be responsible for Culianu's murder.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 3:56 PM
horizontal rule
683


In a commune near old Sacrament'
A young girl was enticed by the rent
"Vegetarian cooking...
...so I'm nude, please stop looking!"
And thus were her college years spent.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 4:14 PM
horizontal rule
684

682: Eco's review seemed to find that persuasive and, given the amount of violence in Romania before and after the end of the Ceaucescu regime (even liberal Romanians were not as disapproving of burning gypsies' houses as one might expect), sounds plausible to me.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 4:17 PM
horizontal rule
685

684: Huh! And many former Iron Guardistes lived in Chicago! Who knew?


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 4:37 PM
horizontal rule
686

685: I think Culianu's fiancee was a TA of mine in college, back in the early Renaissance.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 4:42 PM
horizontal rule
687

There once was a lass who could bench a Mercedes.
Her cunning was known to bring water to Hades.
But she had two big guns,
So lay off the puns.
As for her name, it was Megan...laydeez.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 4:44 PM
horizontal rule
688

685: Also, wasn't one of Saul Bellow's wives a Chicagoan Romanian mathematician?


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 4:45 PM
horizontal rule
689

687: I screwed up the tenses. Damn!


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 4:45 PM
horizontal rule
690

There's something that always strikes me as especially sad about one's fiancé(e)s dying or being killed. I have a friend in each category, and there's something about that kind of loss that seems unbearably awful.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 5:01 PM
horizontal rule
691

You guys are awesome, and I am a caricature. But thank you.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 5:04 PM
horizontal rule
692

690: It's the death of a dream as well as the loss of a love.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 5:15 PM
horizontal rule
693

And to cut the earnestness, 692 to 691.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 5:15 PM
horizontal rule
694

Need to catch up on this thread. Lynch was the extra vote they picked up in reconciliation. Moving all student loans to direct loans is so great, a cause of celebration in itself.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 5:55 PM
horizontal rule
695

I can't get enough of this stuff:

"Well surprise surprise, even supporters now agree that it is "killing babies". Now it appears that it's just a question of the number of murders. But then, it's going to be the liberals' problem to pay for this whole mess. Best of luck to you, oh, don't forget to sign up for the French lessons. Best example of what happens when socialism is the norm."

I have no idea what the first half of this is referring to, or what the last half even means. And I've got a whole stream of this babbling in my feed. It's funny--when talking about non-political subjects, these are people who seem reasonably bright.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 6:23 PM
horizontal rule
696

I can't get enough of this stuff

I'm thoroughly appalled by this stuff. I just checked my facebook friends feed, and when they're not going on about Farmville and their astrology report (I've hidden those now), it's subject matter completely unrelated to health care reform, or at most, a "Yay Pelosi!" One post about "mixed feelings."

I guess I've sheltered myself from the crazies. I can't tell if this is good or bad.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 6:34 PM
horizontal rule
697

This stuff is so damn complicated. I wonder whether Quicken will come up with the equivalent of a TurboTax product to help.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:09 PM
horizontal rule
698

Best of luck to you, oh, don't forget to sign up for the French lessons. Best example of what happens when socialism is the norm.

I parse it to mean that when socialism is the norm we all get free language lessons. Hell yeah, but can I stick with Japanese instead? Can you ask that person for me?


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:13 PM
horizontal rule
699

Also, as an indicator of my continued enthusiasm for health reform...


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:14 PM
horizontal rule
700

Kobe Kobe Kobe Kobe Kobe Kobe KOBE!


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:14 PM
horizontal rule
701

Catching up on the thread:

565 is wonderful. Thank you so much for the laugh, Robust.

Who still refers to countries as ladies...laydeez?

Growing up, I thought it was a charming anachronism in books. As an adult, its real-life usage has proven to be a nearly-100%-accurate predictor of someone whose politics I do not share. (Sometimes in the mild sense, sometimes severe.)

Moving all student loans to direct loans is so great, a cause of celebration in itself.oving all student loans to direct loans is so great, a cause of celebration in itself.

Bg, can you or someone explain to me a in a few sentences (or send me a link) what this part of the bill means? A friend has appealed to me for help responding to talking points that it will do away with 41,000 jobs, and I admit to not having followed the discussion at all, except to understand the Pell grants will now apparently be funded at a predictable level each year, instead of seesawing.

Whoa, it's thundering. I guess it's spring for real.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:20 PM
horizontal rule
702

Student loans are guaranteed by the government, so they are as riskless to the lender as government debt. The lenders of course charge students a higher rate than that, which is pure profit subsidized by the government. This is pure corporate welfare.

The bill moves to the government directly lending to students, which saves money by cutting out the middle man. So if your job as a banker is sitting on your ass and cashing risk-free checks thanks to the government, then sure, you might be out of that job.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:30 PM
horizontal rule
703

Though the limericks had barely begun,
With scarcely a quip or a pun,
Megan's thoughts were now crossed,
Her focus was lost,
And she couldn't produce any M-Fun.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:31 PM
horizontal rule
704

702: so is the government going to start making the profits that were formerly enjoyed by the private lenders, or are student loan rates going down?


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:33 PM
horizontal rule
705

So if your job as a banker is sitting on your ass and cashing risk-free checks thanks to the government, then sure, you might be out of that job.

More likely, if your job is to work for Sallie Mae selling or creating or marketing or trying to collect on student loans. Getting rid of this unnecessary middleman is bad news for employment in my hometown. Here's some of the jobs that will no longer be needed.

Employees wore T-shirts reading "Protect Pennsylvania jobs" and held signs with various messages, including "My job is worth saving!" and "My family needs you!"

The second sign is correct but I don't know about the first.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
706

Thanks, Walt. So the grain of truth is that with the middleman-lenders cut out, there probably will be fewer jobs in those fields?

And do you know why it was set up that way in the first place? I mean, why not just make it a government loan to begin with? Why did we ever have middlemen?

(Can you tell I was a commuter student who paid for my education course by course?)


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:44 PM
horizontal rule
707

705 to 706. As for the number 41,000 I assume someone made it up.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:45 PM
horizontal rule
708

And do you know why it was set up that way in the first place? I mean, why not just make it a government loan to begin with? Why did we ever have middlemen?

Because this is America.


Posted by: emdash | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:51 PM
horizontal rule
709

There will certainly be jobs lost, which is why Ben Nelson (D- Sallie Mae) is voting against the reconciliation bill, even though he has already renounced the Cornhusker Kickback. However, the feds will have to hire for offsetting lending infrastructure.

I assume it was set up that way because the lenders argued that that effective lending isn't possible without expert private-sector underwriting. Of course, if your loans are 100% guaranteed, you don't have to do underwriting anyway, and in any event it's pretty clear from the mortgage debacle what private-sector underwriting is worth.


Posted by: Mr. Blandings | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
710

709 is right.

I was expecting the Republicanesque Democrat Chris Carney and/or the 150-term, lazy but lovable Democrat Paul Kanjorski to vote for the Senate bill but not the reconciliation thing for this reason. But it seems like neither of them switched like that. Sources credit "a nice, long conversation" for Kanjorski's mollification.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 7:58 PM
horizontal rule
711

Has this bit of craziness been linked? Congresswoman gets her office window smashed after voting yes last nite.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:50 PM
horizontal rule
712

night.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 8:50 PM
horizontal rule
713

rite.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:05 PM
horizontal rule
714

Right now I'm in a hotel room listening to a really clear news show in Spanish that is explaining the health care bill's provisions and when they take effect, without any annoying bloviating. It's remarkable. Should I be watching the news in Spanish all the time?


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:29 PM
horizontal rule
715

Can't find the link now, but there was a study of LA news broadcasts demonstrating that the noticias en Español had vastly more public affairs coverage than the police-pursuit stations I mean English language.


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:33 PM
horizontal rule
716

Yes.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:33 PM
horizontal rule
717

Univision? Because I'm guessing you are on your New Mexico trip.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:34 PM
horizontal rule
718

Univision, yes, but I am still on the east coast for the next few weeks. (Then I craziness begins, and I'll be home something like ten days out of the two months after that.)


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:40 PM
horizontal rule
719

-I


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:40 PM
horizontal rule
720

You're always at home on Unfogged, essear.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:46 PM
horizontal rule
721

There was just an ad on TV for a chiropractor. Phone number: 1-888-ME-DUELE. Brilliant.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 9:47 PM
horizontal rule
722

Does the loan bill mean anything for those applying for Stafford loans in the next two years?


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:12 PM
horizontal rule
723

Does anyone know if US citizens living and working in a foreign country will have to pay the insurance mandate? And does that start before 2013?


Posted by: Yrruk | Link to this comment | 03-22-10 10:16 PM
horizontal rule
724

And to cut the earnestness, 692 to 691.

Twas the end of a hope and a dream
His lim'ricks had failed him it seemed
Dejected, he kissed her
Even cuter young sister
then insulted her Ultimate team


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 3:29 AM
horizontal rule
725

I think that the student loan savings will not go to lower interest rates but to higher Pell grants.

My dream is to get rid of the stupid Perkins loans which are administered and collected by each school. They are much less honest than the Federal government in this area.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:14 AM
horizontal rule
726

715: Link.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 5:30 AM
horizontal rule
727

Has anyone linked Berube's ode?

http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1415/


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 6:39 AM
horizontal rule
728

727: See 516


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 7:42 AM
horizontal rule
729

715: It's weird: I remember watching "Primer Impacto" back in the early/mid 1990s, when it was clear that the words "Si sangra, lleva" must have been engraved in the marble above the entrance to their newsroom. But I watched some a couple of nights ago and, with the exception of a piece that seemed to be about a woman in Cali, Colombia who came back from the dead after she had been transferred to a hospital morgue (I think -- I don't actually speak Spanish), it was all very serious, in-depth reporting on HCR and other issues of the day.

Also, our local Univision affiliate has little interstitial station IDs that refer to our fair city as "Latinopolis", which tickles me pink. The local wingnuts don't seem to have twigged to it yet, which shows you just how segregated local wingnuttery is.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 7:43 AM
horizontal rule
730

The Senate just passed a financial reform bill out of committee, so it looks like the next move for Democrats is going to be in that direction. Well worth doing, and something that may help in the elections.

It occurs to me that perhaps an immigration fix might be smarter from the standpoint of electoral maneuvering. It would crank the teabagger crazy all the way to eleven, but they are (1) going to turn out for the GOP in droves anyway, and (2) will never vote for a Democrat. No loss there, then. The sight of spittle-flecked nativists screaming and ranting about those people might suppress some of the moderate Republican vote, and would most certainly turn out large numbers of Hispanics for the Democrats.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 7:56 AM
horizontal rule
731

Weird. So I guess yesterday in a speech on health care, the president said something like, "Your employer's premium will go down as much as 3000% and they can use that money to give you a raise." Now, because I am not a complete moron, I realize that the man must mean "$3000." But apparently this is something that rocketed through tout wingnuttia and then was barfed into my FB feed. They seemed to think that this was an outlandish promise, rather than a mistake, because they didn't understand that lowering a premium 3000% wasn't going to make one's premium $36 or something.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 8:54 AM
horizontal rule
732

Does anybody have a decent summary of what hurdles are in the way of repealing the Hyde Amendment?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:02 AM
horizontal rule
733

"America."


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:06 AM
horizontal rule
734

732: I think it gets renewed every year by being tacked on to an appropriations bill. Which you'd think would make it easy to kill, but of course that hasn't happened in 30+ years.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
735

732: Evil assholes who hate women. There are a lot of them, and they vote. An attempt to repeal Hyde would guarantee a filibuster, and the Blue Dogs would support it.

It's sufficiently popular among the anti-choicers and insufficiently unpopular among pro-choicers that I don't think there is any chance of repeal short of a shift in the zeitgeist.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
736

734 pwnd by 733.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
737

If 734 is correct then a fix in reconciliation might be possible, but there's still the Blue Dogs to contend with.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:09 AM
horizontal rule
738

733: But in Obamica all things are possible.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:15 AM
horizontal rule
739

Why is John Dingell on crutches?


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:21 AM
horizontal rule
740

He had knee surgery in 2008 and has used crutches and an electric scooter fairly often since.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:25 AM
horizontal rule
741

740: Ouch. Poor guy.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:30 AM
horizontal rule
742

I have two in-laws who have had knee replacement surgery in that same time period and they're getting around okay now, so I don't know what the difference is. Dingell's about 10 years older than my comparators and he's had a hip replacement to boot (though those are generally much easier recoveries than knees), so maybe that contributes.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:36 AM
horizontal rule
743

Aw, the 11yo boy who was ripped apart and mocked on every bigoted teabagger website -- M/chelle M@lkin really is a hateful piece of shit -- is in the East Room with the prez, etc. right now.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:43 AM
horizontal rule
744

"President Obama will reportedly use 20 pens to sign the health care bill, more than usual. The pens will be given out as keepsakes."

I'm curious how this works, exactly. Is it like signing a mortgage, where there are seventy-bajillion places to sign, or is he going to use a new pen for each letter? "Barack Hussein Obama" only has 18 letters, but "President Barack Obama" has exactly 20. Of course, so does Der Führer Adolf Hitler.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:46 AM
horizontal rule
745

Crazy lefty president. Of course he's the anti-Christ.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:48 AM
horizontal rule
746

is he going to use a new pen for each letter?

Seems doubtful--I just tried this, and my signature didn't come out looking much like my signature at all. (It's possible that means I'm just not presidential material, I suppose.)


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:50 AM
horizontal rule
747

"Barack Hussein Obama" only has 18 letters

Maybe he'll use a different pen for the heart over the i, and another for the smiley face in the O.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:50 AM
horizontal rule
748

He seemed to use a new pen for each letter. But of course he talked about "practicing" first.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:54 AM
horizontal rule
749

746: and my signature didn't come out looking much like my signature at all.

Don't do it Obama! Your signature provides 1/3 of legitimacy of the total legitimacy of the bill. (On preview, too late!)


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:56 AM
horizontal rule
750

He seemed to use a new pen for each letter.

Yes, I believe this is the norm for when presidents sign bills into law. It's weird!


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:56 AM
horizontal rule
751

"Barack Hussein Obama" only has 18 letters

675, how disappointing is that? Ronald Thomas Reagan has it on him in spades.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:59 AM
horizontal rule
752

Ronald Wilson Reagan. ... Where is my mind?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 10:01 AM
horizontal rule
753

Crazy lefty president

Five of the last seven presidents have been lefties (Ford, Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, and Obama). Also Al Gore, John McCain, and John Edwards.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 10:03 AM
horizontal rule
754

It's a good thing I'm unlikely ever to be president. My standard 16-character signature has been reduced to something like four sloppy strokes.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 10:04 AM
horizontal rule
755

S2Pac.
Inspired by Knecht upthread and executed by my daughter. But I did not pass on Knecht's better idea of doing the cover of All Eyez On Me. Still I like it (a more subtle treatment than I imagined, but it has grown on me). Soundtrack.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 10:08 AM
horizontal rule
756

Ronald Wilson Reagan. ... Where is my mind?

Way out in the water. See it swimming?


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 10:10 AM
horizontal rule
757

I can't get enough of this stuff:

Then Reclaim America is what you're looking for. It's a bottomless well of fear, craziness, and bad spelling.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 10:16 AM
horizontal rule
758

So, out of curiosity, does anybody have a link to an authoritative statement about what effect the abortion language will have on insurance coverage of abortion?

I'm inclined to believe Knecht's optimism in 36, but it would be nice to have some confirmation of that. I definitely believe that the Executive order merely ratifies the existing language in the Senate bill, but I'm not sure if that, by itself, will lead to fewer insurance plans covering abortion.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 10:23 AM
horizontal rule
759

758: Thisis semi-helpful, even if it is from Slate.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 10:44 AM
horizontal rule
760

758:People have different concepts of "authoritative" especially with legal language that lives to be interpreted. Natasha Chart

- The Nelson abortion provision in the Senate bill isn't status quo, goes beyond Hyde, and is very likely to end most abortion coverage in a few years, when at present, the vast majority of private plans cover it.

- The reason why the Nelson language is indeed such a big deal is that, like the Stupak language, any federal money is assumed to taint the entire plan, requiring that separate checks be written for abortion riders on plans that have even a single enrollee getting federal subsidies to purchase insurance. It's expensive to insurance companies in administrative costs and stigmatizing to individuals.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 11:11 AM
horizontal rule
761

The difference between Hyde and Nelson is the difference between restricting federal funding and restricting private insurance companies. The exchanges being where the two will merge.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 11:14 AM
horizontal rule
762

The reason why the Nelson language is indeed such a big deal is that, like the Stupak language

I'm curious about this. I haven't read the language in the Senate bill, but comparing the Executive order to the Stupak amendment there was a major difference between them. The stupak amendment excplicitly said that federal money could not be used to pay for a plan that included abortion coverage even "in part" and that was conspicuously missing from the executive order.

I don't know what precedent holds here, but to my reading there was nothing in the order that said "any federal money is assumed to taint the entire plan" whereas the original Stupak language did make that clear.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 11:22 AM
horizontal rule
763

Doing a bit of looking around, didn't the Nelson Amendment fail (45-54)?


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 11:29 AM
horizontal rule
764

Okay, I see, the language was added in as a compromise and the Washington Post seems to disagree with Knecht back in #36

Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in the insurance exchanges the bill would set up. The exchanges are designed to serve individuals who lack coverage through their jobs, with most receiving federal subsidies to buy insurance. Enrollees in plans that cover abortion procedures would pay with separate checks -- one for abortion, one for any other health-care services.

Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
765

Five of the last seven presidents have been lefties (Ford, Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, and Obama). Also Al Gore, John McCain, and John Edwards.

Don't forget Ross Perot.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 11:40 AM
horizontal rule
766

Damn you Brock! I'd almost managed to completely obliterate Ross Perot from my memory, and you have to go and do that!


Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 11:49 AM
horizontal rule
767

Here you go, OFE.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 11:54 AM
horizontal rule
768

My work blocked the link in 767 as "Pornography/Adult Content". I'd assumed that 767 was in response to 766; now I'm terrified at the prospect...


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 12:08 PM
horizontal rule
769

(Terrified, but yes, a little intrigued. He always was a feisty little Texan...)


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 12:11 PM
horizontal rule
770

Get it off me!


Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 12:13 PM
horizontal rule
771

My work blocked the link in 767 as "Pornography/Adult Content".

Interesting.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
772

764 - That's the Nelson amendment, not the executive order KR was talking about in 36. That executive order was substantively meaningless, but Stupak demanded to see a hippie punched and reproductive health called out as icky.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 12:58 PM
horizontal rule
773

Oh, dur. 772 withdrawn; I didn't understand the question.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:01 PM
horizontal rule
774

At what point will opposition leaders ask their supporters to chill the fuck out? I'm guessing broken windows won't be enough to make it happen. Maybe when somebody dies? Maybe never? (I had another question, about when Godwin's Law would be fulfilled in this instance, but it was answered by the very first comment to the linked post.)


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:03 PM
horizontal rule
775

He always was a feisty little Texan...

Umm, has everyone else been masturbating erroneously to Fess Parker these last several days? Because I haven't.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:06 PM
horizontal rule
776

At what point will opposition leaders ask their supporters to chill the fuck out?

Never. They always respond to this sort of stuff with "This is just one random person, not a representative of our morally upstanding movement."


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:07 PM
horizontal rule
777

I didn't understand the question.

I'm saying, stipulate that the Executive Order doesn't add any restrictions to the Senate bill, I still want to know what effects, if any, the Senate Bill will have on the availability insurance plans that contain abortion coverage.

Will those plans not be offered on the exchange? Will they be offered but require customers to pay with two separate checks? Will, as Knecht said, the restrictions be set up in such a way that any insurance company that wants can offer a plan that covers abortions while still satisfying the rules?


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:14 PM
horizontal rule
778

chill the fuck out?

They're chill, dude; they're all happy warriors:

"There is a God, there is good, and there will be a last day. And on that last day we will win. Victory comes though we know not when. So we must be happy warriors until the end -- warriors willing to fight with a smile and willingness to sacrifice for freedom."


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:28 PM
horizontal rule
779

What the hell is wrong with this McArdle person? Is she 100% part of the Mitch McConnell/Rush Limbaugh marketing campaign strategy now? This stuff is obvious partisan lies, unlike the merely misguided and naive business-boostering that has annoyed us before.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:34 PM
horizontal rule
780

re: 779

There were quite a few of us who thought it was always partisan bullshit and lies, and who were amazed at the level of toleration in the past; people on both sides of the pond.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:35 PM
horizontal rule
781

779: Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. I never read her, and only did yesterday because everyone was bashing her. I had assumed that she was just a thoughtless, privileged, weak-tea libertarian, but now she seems like a hateful teabagger (her contempt for the man with parkinson's at whom the 'baggers threw money, etc.).


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:37 PM
horizontal rule
782

Well, on your side of the pond there are much fewer people who are misguided enough to truly believe Alan Greenspan-style market utopianism.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:37 PM
horizontal rule
783

780: Well, on your side of the pond there are much fewer people who are misguided enough to truly believe Alan Greenspan-style market utopianism. If you hear someone spouting it you can be pretty sure it's a lying politician or businessman, but here the brainwashing has advanced pretty far.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:38 PM
horizontal rule
784

oops


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:39 PM
horizontal rule
785

re: 782

Possibly, although the fact that the people in power are prepared to talk about markets in a slightly less utopian manner, and maybe invoke the odd social democratic caveat, hasn't really stopped them being captured by exactly the same sorts of special interests, unfortunately.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:39 PM
horizontal rule
786

I don't know why anybody ever thought McMegan was anything less than hypocritical and disingenuous. That's her special magic: she's both and oblivious, thoughtless, privileged libertarian-lite with lousy critical thinking skills and a hypocritical, water-carrying conservatarian keyboard kommando in good standing. As long as she's able to convince people that the first characterization is the only one, she's able to carry the GOP's water at a much higher level (and in much different venues) than she would otherwise.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:43 PM
horizontal rule
787

It is a categorical mistake to think that what's driving current US conservatism is "capture by special interests." If the Republicans have shown us anything over the past year, it is that they truly believe in their own bullshit.

In general, I'd say that UK/European conservative parties are far, far more corporate dominated than the US GOP. The scary thing is that we'd probably be better off if big corporations did control the GOP.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:44 PM
horizontal rule
788

That McMegan post doesn't make any sense. It's like she's saying "If Republicans had the majorities the democrats have, they would eliminate Social Security and Medicare, except they wouldn't because they care about being re-elected, and people like entitlement programs." And from this we are supposed to conclude that the Democrats won't be re-elected, because they created an entitlement program.

In any case, the democrats are to blame for doing something unpopular which can't be repealed because it is too popular.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
789

If the Republicans have shown us anything over the past year, it is that they truly believe in their own bullshit.

Its true. This year all the money stayed out of the health care fight, because Obama was giving them something they wanted. No one with a financial stake in the matter opposed the bill.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:47 PM
horizontal rule
790

787.1: I was talking to Blume about that earlier; in interesting ways, it isn't a category mistake: the lies they're peddling were initially cynical creations designed to serve special interests, but then those lies were accepted wholesale by the base, and now via some magical idiot conservative feedback, the opinion leaders actually believe the lies they initially spread cynically and disingenuously. Their actual critical thinking ability per se has been captured by special interests.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:48 PM
horizontal rule
791

Oh, and I agree 100% with what Tweety says about McMegan, although even that fails to capture her particular brand of unbelievable obnoxiousness, which is really something to behold.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:48 PM
horizontal rule
792

No one with a financial stake in the matter opposed the bill.

Except the doctor that is ranting on my Facebook feed about how the government is going to tax him and then give his tax money to people who will force him to see too many patients and make mistakes and get sued and lose more money.

Err, who was ranting on my Facebook feed. Safely hidden now.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:56 PM
horizontal rule
793

789 -- It's pretty hard to sell the argument that the opposition to this particular health care bill was driven by corporate capture. The biggest political money in health care -- the doctors and Pharma -- were on board. The insurance industry was formally opposed, but their opposition was incoherent and at many times different companies were signed on to many parts of the bill. The US Chamber of Commerce (which itself is far more ideological than most US businesses) was opposed, but was hardly the driving force of the opposition, and plenty of bigger companies were between neutral and moderately favorable -- not surprising, since, in fact, many corporations benefit in substantial ways from bill.

Corporate opposition to the bill simply does not get you to 100% Republican opposition, or the kind of rhetoric Boehner used on the House floor. Large business interests stopped being central to the GOP a while ago (with the sole exception, perhaps, of the oil + gas industry); it is now, at its core, an ideological movement which sometimes has affinities with the agenda of large corporations (and sometimes not). And, not to kiss Tweety's ass, but I agree that a lot of the story is that people became true believers in an ideology that was largely created by business interests, but has now spun far out of the control of those interests.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:58 PM
horizontal rule
794

Follow-up to 792: his "Political Views" are listed as "Liberal". Um.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 1:58 PM
horizontal rule
795

789: Uh, like the Chamber of Commerce that spent something like $150 million?


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 2:00 PM
horizontal rule
796

795 -- The Chamber of Commerce doesn't really represent the agenda of large US corporations any more -- it's dominated by ideologically committed staff and smaller businesses. And even so, I don't think that C of C opposition was particularly important to the Republican opposition to the bill -- it certainly doesn't explain the vehemence or the unanimity.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 2:03 PM
horizontal rule
797

795 continued: Or this from the Guardian in October, which says that insurance companies had spent more than $380 million.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 2:04 PM
horizontal rule
798

unlike the merely misguided and naive business-boostering that has annoyed us before

I dunno. Reads to me pretty much like every other column she's written.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 2:08 PM
horizontal rule
799

797 -- Don't confuse expenditure with opposition -- much, in fact, probably most, of that money went to Democrats who voted in favor of the bill, or in order to secure passage of specific amendments.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 2:08 PM
horizontal rule
800

799: Well, that does indeed say that Baucus was the biggest taker.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
801

779, 780: I was surprised by the post immediately after passage, where she lost her cool. That is out of character -- not losing her cool at all, but doing it over a policy defeat.

I'm not sure exactly why I read her. Maybe it's that, given that her schtick is purportedly evenhanded policy analysis, if there actually were a decent argument for anything the Republicans were advocating, or a decent argument against anything the Democrats wanted, it'd show up there. This hasn't borne much fruit, but I'm hopeful.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 2:21 PM
horizontal rule
802

Except the doctor that is ranting on my Facebook feed

I recently had dinner with a doctor friend who's the only left-leaning person in a hospital surrounded by Republican doctors. She was relaying how she had to bite her tongue all the time, including most recently when another doctor was complaining because healthcare's just not a fundamental right and they're gonna raise his taxes and give the money to people who don't deserve it and then those people won't work hard because they'll no longer have the incentive of not losing their insurance.

I'm not sure how she abides the dude.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 2:27 PM
horizontal rule
803

Maybe it's that, given that her schtick is purportedly evenhanded policy analysis, if there actually were a decent argument for anything the Republicans were advocating, or a decent argument against anything the Democrats wanted, it'd show up there. This hasn't borne much fruit, but I'm hopeful.

LB, have you lost your mind?

she lost her cool. That is out of character -- not losing her cool at all, but doing it over a policy defeat.

Usually, she loses her cool when someone points out to her that she is literally making up bullshit to support her entitled selfish/right wing agenda. Which happens every time someone knowledgeable reads something that she's written and bothers to tell her about it. Which is why she's always losing her cool.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
804

Is it still unfair to mention the whole "2 X 4" thing? You know, from before she started losing her cool?


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 2:31 PM
horizontal rule
805

To move away from discussing McMegan, which is one of the least productive and most rage-producing activities possible, I'll note that I teared up a little at this.

(although I guess I don't really agree that all of the unfinished business is "done.")


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 2:40 PM
horizontal rule
806

This does not sound encouraging, though I guess at this point it would be hard for the House not to vote yes again.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 2:41 PM
horizontal rule
807

803.1: Nah, she doesn't seem to be an idiot -- I figure if there were good arguments for anything she's pushing, she'd use them. She just doesn't often have anything useful to work with.

803.2: Well, yes. She reacted to the health care vote as if someone were being mean to her personally, which is out of character.

804: That was nasty, but it was flippant nastiness, if you see the distinction. Compatible with not having lost one's cool.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 2:44 PM
horizontal rule
808

What's the 2x4 thing?


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 2:58 PM
horizontal rule
809

It equals 8, neb. Pretty remedial stuff, really.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
810

808: Way back in the prehistory of the blogosphere

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/003959.html


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 3:04 PM
horizontal rule
811

I'm pretty sure the way it works is 21x22 = (2x2)1x2 = 16, Stanners.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 3:10 PM
horizontal rule
812

810: what a shit. I can't believe I was at a party with her and no one demonstrated the power of violence applied in a preemptive manner. (Surely the linked post would adequately demonstrate the justification for any such.)


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 3:11 PM
horizontal rule
813

dsquared! John Cole complaining about the "pathetic punks" who don't support the invasion!


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 3:13 PM
horizontal rule
814

812: I'm impressed that you missed the references later made to that post, followed by the general agreement that it is somewhat unfair to keep bringing it up which, I must admit, it is (hence my reference to unfairness in 804) given it was quite a while ago and she later recanted. I think I only learned about all of this from reading threads on this blog.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 3:18 PM
horizontal rule
815

I do my best to not be an expert on McMegan, but I thought normally when she loses her cool she acts all hurt about someone being mean to her for being an ignorant idiot. This time was unusual for her waxing apocalyptic. It's closer to the 2x4 post than her usual lofty libertarian bullshit.

I think the whole freak-out (McMegan's post just being an example) is like the reaction of an abuser when the abused tries to stand up for themselves. The abuser feels so entitled to the acquiescence of the abused that they they can't cope. (That's the only way I can interpret outbursts like McCain's about no longer cooperating.) The Democrats role in recent American politics is hapless, though perhaps principled, losers. The fact that the Democrats managed to execute politically, even in a small way, has violated the rules.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
816

806: It sounds like it was just a warning about a possible worst case, not a prediction. Kent Conrad predicts there will be no changes.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 3:29 PM
horizontal rule
817

Ah, 2003. A seller's market for Internet-tough-guy-ism.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
818

I dunno. Reads to me pretty much like every other column she's written.

It looks to me like it's intended for a stupider audience than usual. You know, like Jonah Goldberg's stuff.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 3:34 PM
horizontal rule
819

815: This is too close to Josh's "bitchslap theory" for my tastes, though I don't doubt that there's something to what you're saying. I also think that Republicans (and their ilk) have bought into their ideology as a kind of stand-in for a better reality (which I think is what Tweety was saying above). And the existence of opposing public opinion, brought into being in the form of an elected president like Obama or the current congressional majorities, thus makes them crazy. Because the public just doesn't understand how right the Republicans are, you see, how their policies will unleash the nation's energies by unfettering the market or whatever. Which is why at the moment we're hearing so much talk of a tyrannical majority. (This is especially true for McCain, who obviously still can't believe that someone like Obama beat him. But it's also true, and maybe even truer I'm afraid, for people of the left, including me, who fall into Pauline Kael solipsism all too often. How come the masses don't understand how right we are? That kind of thing.)

Furthermore, I think Republicans genuinely feel like they win many fewer victories than they should -- because the media is stacked against them, because FDR was such a meanie and created so many hurdles to a just world, etc. -- and the passage of HCR thus feels like an incredibly huge reversal for them. Which it is! Which is why I've been so surprised by the vehemence of the opposition to HCR on the Democratic side. Not that I want to re-fight that fight.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 3:45 PM
horizontal rule
820

As for McMegan, it boggles my mind that anyone with half a brain reads her (no offense, LB). She's apparently either incredibly stupid, incredibly hateful, incredibly ignorant, or some combination of all of the above with a healthy dose of smug privilege baked into the cake, such that her opinions are valueless. But then again, I feel the same way about nearly everyone who reads, writes, or comments on the news*. The artist formerly known as baa, of all people, made me feel better about this state of affairs when he reminded me that newspapers, magazines, and television stations are for-profit ventures, and that their employees should be understood in that light: as sophisticated hucksters, talented entertainers, or loyal shills.

* Meaning newsreaders on tv, print journalists, and pundits/editorial writers, in case that wasn't clear.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 3:54 PM
horizontal rule
821

The scary thing is that we'd probably be better off if big corporations did control the GOP.

You're right, of course. I'd be less frightened if it was clear that GE was in charge, rather than the current Batshit-Oil-Mercenaries coalition. To McManus-out for a moment, Hugenberg's DNVP was the party of big business, Hitler's NSDAP was the party of ideological nutters and Prussian dukes. And when the time came, Hitler used the DNVP for a good month or two before he could shove it into the ditch and rule alone. Big business had to either arrange itself with him, or get expropriated (as happened to Herr Dr. Junkers) and possibly shot.

Lesson - beat the ideological nutters.


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 3:55 PM
horizontal rule
822

819: The bitchslap theory implies intent. The reaction has been so hysterical that they sound like they really believe that the Democrats ordinary politicking is shocking. Even some of the Villager reactions fit that. The Democrats' role is to hapless, and they transgressed that.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 3:57 PM
horizontal rule
823

The artist formerly known as baa

Is he about under another name? Or is this just cleverness of some sort?

Observe! The Bandarlog exists yet!


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 3:57 PM
horizontal rule
824

She's apparently either incredibly stupid, incredibly hateful, incredibly ignorant, or some combination of all of the above with a healthy dose of smug privilege baked into the cake, such that her opinions are valueless.

It's the political centrifuge - as with Iraq, it's not obvious who's an idiot or a monster until you crank them up to 10 million revs and see which ones float over the rim first. This has been a clarity moment.


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 3:59 PM
horizontal rule
825

819: That kind of thing
Have I mentioned the clerk at my local convenience store before? He's an overweight, dreadlocked, African-American guy in his late-20s/early-30s who works at a very down-market independent convenience store in a working-class neighborhood. Clearly, there is pretty much no Republican policy that would benefit him in any meaningful, material way. And yet every time I go in there he's listening to Jason Lewis or some similar talk-radio bullshit. Why? Apparently, according to one of my informants, he's a confirmed male chauvinist, which (despite the fact that, by his own admission, it has not measurably improved his love life) apparently means that he's willing to countenance every other piece of conservative nonsense propaganda, as long as he is confirmed in his view that women should be at home, barefoot and pregnant, and men should be at work or out having fun with their buddies. Bizarre, but there you have it. I don't think it's going too far out on a limb to suggest that most of their success is due to the fact that the Republicans have used this principle to effectively lock in many of their constituencies. Poor white racists will support tax breaks for big business as long as they can be assured that Black people and immigrants won't get full civil rights. Christian white women in the suburbs will oppose the ERA or better school funding or healthcare because those evil Democrats want to murder all the poor little unborn babies. That's just how the world works right now. Unfortunate, but what are you going to do? Go to a demonstration? Hah! A lot of good that will do you!


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:01 PM
horizontal rule
826

Mary Landrieu, giving McCain a spanking!

Andrew Samwick has been one of the good conservative commenters on this, had a particularly good comment today:

The third [conservative] complaint is the most legitimate of the three, that we have created a new entitlement with dubious financing and greater government involvement in the provision of health care. This is more true than I would like it to be, but given what Republicans passed with Medicare Part D, they have surrendered the fiscally responsible high ground. And, more importantly, they surrendered the political high ground when they failed to propose a coherent alternative that addressed the critical problems of pre-existing conditions in health insurance markets. It was a mystery to me that no Republican stepped up with a sensible alternative that addressed the structural problems without committing to such a large federal government role in the conduct and financing of health care markets. That was the fight they should have had. To say that they lost would not be right. They simply didn't show up.

Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:01 PM
horizontal rule
827

or a decent argument against anything the Democrats wanted, it'd show up there.

What am I to say to someone who reads McArdle for "decent arguments against the Democrats?"

There is the alternative of Richard Estes and the Marxian Left to read. There are the Post-Keynesians, who are livid, but cautiously polite.

Now what is the difference between informing your analysis of Democrats by reading McArdle and watching Palin and listening to Republicans...and coming at Democrats from the far left?

Incidentally, Estes and the Marxists do read FDL. but consider the FDL crowd somewhat compromised by their need to remain emotionally and philosophically within the Democratic establishment. This is what I mean by the need for "Correct Theory."

But I have not read McArdle for at least 5 years. I pay no attention to Republicans.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:03 PM
horizontal rule
828

I pay no attention to Republicans.

And when you agree with them, it's entirely by accident.


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:06 PM
horizontal rule
829

I found it disturbing to watch Bush (Tungsten) to go from seeming like he was doing things "just to get elected" to not giving a shit about approval ratings or any other measure of public opinion. I know it's usually a form of criticism to accuse a politician of doing something "just to get elected" but sometimes that motivation will lead to better outcomes than sticking to principles ideology.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:07 PM
horizontal rule
830

or a decent argument against anything the Democrats wanted, it'd show up there.

There are all sorts of decent arguments against lots and lots of things the Democrats want. But they tend to come from the left, not the right.

But I applaud you. I read Megan (as Jane Galt) for a long time, but eventually just couldn't take it anymore. I'm amazed sometimes at the degree to which the availability of an endless stream of high-quality political discussion and analysis in the blogosphere has made me dramatically less willing to waste my time with stupidity. I used to deliberately read reams of right-wing material, with the hope of finding some golden nugget of truth I'd otherwise have missed. (My tolerance was so high at one point that I even used to listen to G. Gordon Liddy every day on the radio.) But now it just feels like a colossal waste of time--there's much more interesting and more informative things I could be reading instead. (Yes, that was always true, I know, but they weren't always at my fingertips.)


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:08 PM
horizontal rule
831

pwned by mcmanus... not sure that's ever happened to me before.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:11 PM
horizontal rule
832

I think 825 is almost entirely true. My only minor quibble is that it seems to suggest that there was a time, perhaps before time, when this wasn't the way things worked in this country. If so, I'm not sure when that time was.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:12 PM
horizontal rule
833

831:Lesson - beat the ideological nutters.

Anybody reading Yglesias today?

Modern American Politics keeps improving my understanding of Weimar.

The "Real Conservatives", oh, like DeMaistre or Kirk, were deeply profoundly suspicious of business, or big business.

It's classical liberals and modern liberals, who used to exist on both sides, who think they get in bed with Capital and stay on top. It is a methodological and ideological arrogance. They think they can control anything.

The ideological nutters:MY, Josh, Ezra, CT Crowd, etc.

Liberalism isn't fascism, but everyday I believe more and more that it, not conservatism, is what creates the preconditions opens the door. for fascism.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:18 PM
horizontal rule
834

Oh 833 probably sucks as Socialism, is not Right Theory.

Marxist response to parliamentarianism and reformism has always been really complicated. SWP in England just split over it.

It could be that Conservatism and Socialism are dialectical in a way that liberalism and socialism cannot be.

Oh, never mind.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:23 PM
horizontal rule
835

It's classical liberals and modern liberals, who used to exist on both sides, who think they get in bed with Capital and stay on top. It is a methodological and ideological arrogance. They think they can control anything.

I think there's a lot of truth in this as well. I'm not a particularly well-trained intellectual historian, but I sometimes think that the rise of a middle class hinged on an expanding and entirely illusory sense of the possibility of control. Then again, that's probably pure bullshit.


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:24 PM
horizontal rule
836

I feel the need to say that I read a lot more criticizing Democrats from the left than from the right -- McMegan's the token rightwinger that I figure will tip me off if there's anything interesting going on over there.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
837

Too late! You've been unmasked as a Bootlicker of the British!


Posted by: ari | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:29 PM
horizontal rule
838

Bob -- you should read Patrick Joyce: really interesting work in British labour history, with some attention to the emergence of the modern liberal state and etc.


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:31 PM
horizontal rule
839

Marriage between iron and rye violates nature.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:38 PM
horizontal rule
840

It is a goddamn beautiful day.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:41 PM
horizontal rule
841

Coburn amendment: no public funds may be used to provide viagra to rapists or child molestors, through the Exchanges or other public programs. Let's see Democrats vote against that!

This is going to be Tom Coburn's finest hour on amendments.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:44 PM
horizontal rule
842

Here is what I just posted at Yggles, who just doesn't inderstand the core essential difference between Obamacare and European systems. Or maybe the fucker does.

"I think it's fair to say this bill enshrines American healthcare as a mandatory component of the social contract."

No what it does is make Wellpoint and private insurance "too big to fail."

It does this in two ways:by making private insurance very large, concentrated and powerful so as to be financially essential to the US economy and b) by making ever American completely dependent on private insurance, or will when Yglesias and Obama get their hands on all the other healthcare programs.

The point of making Wellpoint TBTF is the same as the point of making Goldman-Sachs TBTF:when the money gets tight, G-S and Wellpoint will always be the first ones paid.

Thus we had a depression, the banks got trillions, and we have to live with double-digit unemployment because we can't afford a real jobs programs. HCR was another move in creating a heirarchy of who has first claims on American resources"

And maybe when the real fiscal crunch comes, everyone will have healthcare, but no job. But I don't think that's the plan.

And that will be my trolling for the day.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:45 PM
horizontal rule
843

835: wasn't something close to that Zinn's central thesis?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:46 PM
horizontal rule
844

I sometimes think that the rise of a middle class hinged on an expanding and entirely illusory sense of the possibility of control.

yes, but surely not entirely illusory -- didn't the rise of the middle class also coincide with a massive rationalization and regimentation of daily life?


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:46 PM
horizontal rule
845

840:Fuck, we have a month of beautiful days in Dallas.

Too bad I have a lot of yard work, housecleaning and repair...and a dog that is still a little lame. The male is inseparable from his sister. Maybe I will just sit at the edge of the woods.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:48 PM
horizontal rule
846

844:Hell, another comment at Yglesias

110:"1) Because a "welfare state" ensures the welfare of the state. This is actually quite simple."

"War is the health of the state." The "welfare state", going back to Bismarck, is a war machine.

I'll be honest, an awful lot of Europe contradicts this since WWII, politically liberal, semi-socialist, and not war machines...all at least in degree. I'm missing something.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:51 PM
horizontal rule
847

837 to 309.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 4:56 PM
horizontal rule
848

Christ, what an asshole.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 5:02 PM
horizontal rule
849

848: Liberty University produces some high quality graduates.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 5:06 PM
horizontal rule
850

"I was a journalism major in college, so I have every reason to believe my research is accurate."

What?


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 5:13 PM
horizontal rule
851

848: that's disturbing, as is all the inflammatory rhetoric we've been hearing recently from the right. Of course it's fringe-thinking even by the standards of the right-wing, but it honestly doesn't take that many well-organized (and armed!) idiots to cause real trouble.

Of course this is strongly reminiscent of the "militia" movements that sprung up in response to Clinton's tyranny in the 1990s. As a percentage of the population, I'm not sure the extremists are more numerous now than they were then. But it's alarming how much more attention--and legitimacy--they're given by the media (and by establishment Republicans) now than they were then.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 5:16 PM
horizontal rule
852

850: I was a philosophy major in college, and so I have every reason to believe I am Diotima.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 5:17 PM
horizontal rule
853

You weren't a philosophy major either.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 5:21 PM
horizontal rule
854

853: Was too! Or rather, as it says on our transcripts that, worked out by credit, we have (I think) a double major in philosophy and comp lit with minors in history of science and classics. Or something.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 5:27 PM
horizontal rule
855

Well this Senate debate should be a hoot.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 6:15 PM
horizontal rule
856

I bet that the use of "sooner rather than later" will decline sooner rather than later. The reason is because it takes too long to type and it's not an inherently interesting phrase.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 6:19 PM
horizontal rule
857

I bet that I should have put that comment in the correct thread, but I won't now.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 6:20 PM
horizontal rule
858

Speaking of health, I recently bought some frozen (pre-cooked) chicken at the grocery store and then today realized that the sell-by date was last October. Should I be concerned? I haven't eaten any, but I'm reluctant both to eat it and to throw it out.

(Someone other than Brock please answer.)


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 6:23 PM
horizontal rule
859

I haven't eaten any, but I'm reluctant both to eat it and to throw it out.

Yes, I would advise choosing one or the other.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 6:24 PM
horizontal rule
860

859 is weak.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 6:24 PM
horizontal rule
861

I bet that I should have put that comment in the correct thread, but I won't now.

I imagine nosflow will get around to reading it…


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 6:25 PM
horizontal rule
862

Expiration date aside, the fact that something was evidently on the shelves (or in the storeroom) so long implies most people don't like it. I should have gone for the kind I usually buy, but this was half the price. Stupid penny-pinching.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 6:29 PM
horizontal rule
863

858: I wouldn't eat it. Unless you bought it prior to last October -- definitions of "recently" differ -- and have yourself kept it frozen since then.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 6:30 PM
horizontal rule
864

Here is what I just posted at Yggles

bob, that Yglesias post struck me as incomprehensibly naive - rather like the Ezra post about the neutralization of the special interests that Yglesias rightly mocked.

Next up: Yglesias declares the End of History.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 6:52 PM
horizontal rule
865

You should send it to Brock Landers, clearly.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 6:53 PM
horizontal rule
866

855- It's too bad this is the Senate because in the House I could see some members presenting statistics on how many Republicans would lose their Viagra coverage.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 6:59 PM
horizontal rule
867

Maybe I'll do that. Once the weather warms.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 6:59 PM
horizontal rule
868

867 to whatever is more amusing.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 7:00 PM
horizontal rule
869

I'm reluctant both to eat it and to throw it out.

??! Why not take it back to the store and get a refund?

(And while you're there, check to see if they are selling a lot of out-of-date products or if it was just a one-off, so you can let the good folks at the health dept. know.)

/brought to you by the person who, admittedly, is an outlier on the public-duty-to-report spectrum


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 7:19 PM
horizontal rule
870

748 et al.- If you look at the signature you can mostly see where he switched pens. He obviously used at least two on just the O, causing a break in the circle, which I believe makes the entire law invalid according to the Constitution.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 7:29 PM
horizontal rule
871

869: You've convinced me not to eat it, but I'm unlikely to go back to complain. As for my reluctance, my family tends to be more on the Brock side of things. At least, I check expiration dates much more than they do and they have frowned on my tossing things out in the past.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 8:01 PM
horizontal rule
872

820: Ref.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-23-10 9:04 PM
horizontal rule
873

The people who thought they could control Hitler were not "liberal" in any sense of the word, nor were they "centrists" even though there was a party called that - Hugenberg and friends were the original supporters of Carl Schmitt, radical rightwing "New Conservatives" who wanted to replace the liberal republic with an authoritarian state, and the Zentrum was the lobby for political Catholicism - i.e. a party explicitly dedicated to opposing liberalism, founded in the values of the Counter-Enlightenment. This is really ridiculously counterfactual.


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 3:56 AM
horizontal rule
874

873. Whereas the FDL coterie and our own dear Bob appear to be operating entirely in the headspace of the Comintern of the 3rd period: "Let the Nazis come to power, and let them fail. Our turn will be next."

In the case of such as Hamsher, it's quite a trick to do this without being some sort of Maoist at the same time.


Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 4:44 AM
horizontal rule
875

Going forward, would it be possible, assuming Democratic majorities and a Dem president, to pass a public option through reconciliation and/or expanding an option to buy into Medicare at age 55?

And how long would it take for larger employers to go into the exchange and to allow individuals with large employer plans to take their contributions and go to the exchange?

Does this law require ERISA plans to provide mental health coverage?


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 5:06 AM
horizontal rule
876


This is really ridiculously counterfactual.

Yes, but you see, bob's historiagraphy of Weimar is based entirely on extrapolating backwards from Correct Theory (see "Modern American Politics keeps improving my understanding of Weimar" above). This week it was the liberals who give us Hitler, last week it was the social democrats.

Fidelity to historical fact is a bourgeois affectation, and internal consistency is a counterrevolutionary indulgence, doncha know.


Posted by: KR | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 5:22 AM
horizontal rule
877

875: I think you need this link. As far as I can tell, the provisions on bears can be altered in reconciliation, but not the ones on Satanism, as unlike bears, it costs nothing to worship the Devil.


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 6:47 AM
horizontal rule
878

Modern liberalism has of course written and and rewritten the History of Weimar (as a project of self absolving, the consequences were so dire) until the Truth, as opposed to the "Facts," can be very difficult to determine. One can be so very easily misled by following the superficial political maneuverings and we are better served by immersion in the deeper cultural trends, especially of the intelligentsia, but never excluding the petty bourgeois mass consumption culture. Architecture and film are important. And display windows.

Bourgois Right, Bourgeois Left, Zentrum, Catholics, Social Democrats...the deliberately confusing cloud of identity and tribal politics was not invented in the 1980s.

Trying to understand Weimar by looking at its conservative enemies is exactly the same, by no means coincidentally, as letting Obama be defined by the Teabaggers. "Rush hates him, Obama must be a good liberal."

/taking the piss


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 6:57 AM
horizontal rule
879

it costs nothing to worship the Devil.

OH I BEG TO DIFFER


Posted by: OPINIONATED DR. FAUSTUS | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 6:58 AM
horizontal rule
880

One can be so very easily misled by following the superficial political maneuverings and we are better served by immersion in the deeper cultural trends, especially of the intelligentsia, but never excluding the petty bourgeois mass consumption culture. Architecture and film are important. And display windows.

I'm going to tack this onto the end of every statement I make about politics. Because if everything I saw is unfalsifiable, then I'll be right all the time.


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 7:09 AM
horizontal rule
881

Saw/see, of course. I wonder what that's a Freudian slip for.


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 7:10 AM
horizontal rule
882

It's a political seesaw, Alex. Bob did say he was taking the piss.


Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 7:12 AM
horizontal rule
883

Chris Muir teasing out the subtle racial humor in the HCR debate.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 7:45 AM
horizontal rule
884

880: You could also be wrong all the time. It is the road less traveled, and therefore makes all the difference.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 8:04 AM
horizontal rule
885

884:It's either Zen or Zizek, but if I chose, I would be wrong.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 8:55 AM
horizontal rule
886

413, 417, 421 What happened in the UK in 1911 vis a vis health?

It killed the Empire accoring to cnbc and the Kudlow-Cramer reunion tour.

In their expansionary phase, empires force people to go out, seek risks and fend for themselves, Murrin said, reminding of the dismantling of the British empire after the war, when the National Health Service, which ensures universal health coverage in Britain, was created.

"This (empire decline) is actually a dead-set course that societies get into and it will happen very quickly I'm afraid," he told "Squawk Box Europe."

"As you start to build a system it becomes cohesive because of its success... the fractures in the American system I think are more apparent than ever," Murrin added.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/36013573
Posted by: Econolicious | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
887

886. If you believe that, sir, you will believe anything.


Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 11:23 AM
horizontal rule
888

Just as Obama's presidency caused the financial crisis from the future, the creation of health-care regulations caused the decline of the American empire and probably the rise of China too.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 11:26 AM
horizontal rule
889

he Zentrum was the lobby for political Catholicism - i.e. a party explicitly dedicated to opposing liberalism, founded in the values of the Counter-Enlightenment

I think that's much to harsh on the Center Party and distorting in its own way. It was not so much anti-liberalism but anti the Prussian National Liberal Party which, during the Kulturkampf strongly backed treating Prussian Catholics as second class citizens. And while it had various factions, including some pretty reactionary ones, the dominant group under the Kaiserreich and Weimar was quite liberal in the context of its time. Under the Kaiserreich they supported political liberalization and were uncomfortable with the expansionary imperialism of the both the traditional elites and the protestant bourgeoisie represented by the National Liberals. During Weimar they were strong supporters of the Republic and routinely worked with the SPD. That doesn't mean they liked the SPD, but they disliked them less than the DNVP (hardline reactionary authoritarians), let alone the NSDAP. What you're describing would fairly describe their Bavarian sister party. Amazing how representing a minority population can affect ones perspective.


Posted by: teraz kurwa my | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 2:22 PM
horizontal rule
890

Now I come to think of it, Adenauer was prominent in the Centre Party before 1933, and he had no truck with the Nazis.


Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 2:45 PM
horizontal rule
891

Good point, TKM, about being against the National Liberals.


Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 4:25 PM
horizontal rule
892

Follow-up to 848.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 5:02 PM
horizontal rule
893

In a late response to Bob, I think it's a misreading to think of de Maistre's opposition to 'Big Business' as being a sign of his differences with modern Conservatism. Maistre was all about preserving the existing, or rather the pre-1789 social order and its hierarchy. He opposed the emerging capitalists since they represented (and needed) massive social change and sought to supplant the agrarian and blood based wealth/status elites with themselves. But those elites, and the society they were part of is long, long gone. The current conservatives support the current elites and social organization - i.e. the business elites and their hegemony. No Marxist should need me to explain this.


Posted by: teraz kurwa my | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 5:36 PM
horizontal rule
894

The current conservatives support the current elites and social organization - i.e. the business elites and their hegemony.

So the Republicans supported the bank bailout in Oct 08? Somehow I think the Repubs are more complicated, have more factions than that.

See, this is how liberals falsely paint themselves as champions of the proletariat (and marginalize the actual left)...by warning about dragons over there.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-24-10 6:07 PM
horizontal rule
895

Yeah, like it really mattered that Republicans opposed Democratic bailouts; I'm sure if McCain had won there wouldn't have been. Not!!

Both parties are tools of entrenched capital; this is not a new nor unnoticed phenomenon and both parties only listen to their supporters when it's useful or they have to. The teabaggers can call for all kinds of crazy shit because the Repubs aren't in power and they benefit from "heightening the contradictions". Once they are again, you'll see them wither away soon enough.


Posted by: Martin Wisse | Link to this comment | 03-25-10 12:57 AM
horizontal rule
896

Does this matter much?


Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 03-25-10 4:21 AM
horizontal rule
897

896: The required changes look to be quite small and inconsequential, so just the annoyance and delay of requiring another House vote. But as with any stalling tactic it provides the opportunity for completely unanticipated events to intervene (not to mention completely anticipated invective and asshattery). And this is just about the "fixing the Senate bill" part; the bill itself has already been signed into law.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-25-10 5:17 AM
horizontal rule
898

OK. But what happens if something like this turns up after a bill is signed? Seems to me that's only a matter of time, given the childishness of the American right. Does it have to go back to be re-signed? or does Obama just say, 'tough shit, you're too late.' Or does SCOTUS strike it down?


Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 03-25-10 5:54 AM
horizontal rule
899

898: no, the inclusion of the provisions is a technical violation of Senate rules, not the Constitution. Supreme Court will not strike something down for being a violation of internal Senate rules (as McManus pointed out far above in a totally different context).

It just means another House vote without those two provisions.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 03-25-10 7:40 AM
horizontal rule
900

You'd hardly know from Bob's discussion of Weimar that if the far left (Communists) had agreed to compromise with parliamentary democracy and form a coalition with the Social Democrats in 1932 then Hitler's coming to power might have been averted.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 03-25-10 7:48 AM
horizontal rule
901

Supreme Court will not strike something down for being a violation of internal Senate rules

The Supreme Court *has not previously* struck something down for violating Senate rules. The current conservative majority, however, has proven to be somewhat cavalier with precedent and law (hello, Bush v. Gore!) if it gets in the way of their desired outcome. Which, ghoulish a statement as this may be, we really need one of those five seats to open up.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-25-10 8:13 AM
horizontal rule
902

^is why^ we really need


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-25-10 8:14 AM
horizontal rule