The $1.2 billion cloture vote in the dead of night

posted at 8:48 am on December 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Harry Reid passed his cloture bill a few hours ago, forcing the Senate to remain in session while America slept in order to meet an arbitrary deadline for his version of ObamaCare.  As expected after the reversal of Ben Nelson (D-NE), Reid got his bill past its second procedural hurdle, thanks to some arm-twisting … and vote buying:

Landmark health care legislation backed by President Barack Obama passed its sternest Senate test in the pre-dawn hours early Monday, overcoming Republican delaying tactics on a 60-40 vote that all but assures its passage by Christmas. …

The atmosphere was intensely partisan, but the outcome preordained as senators cast their votes from their desks, a practice reserved for issues of particular importance. Administration officials who have worked intensely on the issue watched from the visitor’s gallery despite the hour. So, too, Vicki Kennedy, the widow of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who championed health care across a Senate career that spanned more than 40 years.

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson’s announcement Saturday that he had decided to support the bill—in exchange for a variety of concessions—cemented the Democrats’ 60-vote majority behind a bill assembled at the direction of Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

A “varity of concessions”?  There really was no variety in the concessions at all.  Nelson changed his vote when Reid offered new language in his manager’s amendment that would send a boatload of money to Nebraska — and not just to the Cornhusker state, either:

Nebraska will receive $100 million in assistance for its state Medicaid program under provisions in the Senate’s healthcare reform bill negotiated by Sen. Ben Nelson (D).

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) informed lawmakers on Sunday night that the section of the manager’s amendment to the Senate’s health bill would cost $1.2 billion over 10 years.

Nelson managed to win a share of the section of the manager’s amendment on Equitable Support for Certain States, which will provide Nebraska, along with Massachusetts and Vermont, support in paying its share of additional costs to Medicaid in the health legislation.

Massachusetts?  Why would Massachusetts need extra help in paying its Medicaid obligations?  They already have a version of ObamaCare in place, which was supposed to contain and control health-care costs.  Apparently, it didn’t work as advertised — and neither will Reid’s version of ObamaCare either.

When that fails, who will bail out ObamaCare, as Massachusetts needs a bailout now?  Oh, right.  Us.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

The bill still gives government the power to further regulate the insurance industry. This will still lead to single payer – albeit at a much slower pace. But you are right – this could have been a lot worse. Our only hope is that liberals in the House are so stupid and frenzied about getting a single-payer system now that they will reject the senate bill. I suspect though that the final bill will not contain any government option but will create so much regulation that it will set up the insurance industry to fail so that government can swoop in to ’save’ it later.

gwelf on December 21, 2009 at 10:18 AM

While we do have to worry about regulations, the insurance companies only have to hold out for 3 more years. At which point, given The One’s current polling numbers, a republican will take office and all of this can be undone. New rulemaking, new interpretations of the statute. It can all be undone. And quickly, without going through Congress.

I think you’re right about the House. THey’ll swallow this bill because they know it’s the best they can get. I wouldn’t be surprised if they avoided the conference committee and just passed the Senate version. We’ll see. Either way, the PO is not sneaking back in.

We dodged a bullet.

Have you actually seen the bill? (rhetorical question)

neuquenguy on December 21, 2009 at 10:20 AM

As I said before, I think a lot of people are misinformed or they don’t understand the bill.

That’s not a rhetorical question. The bill has been available to the public since Saturday morning (which isn’t a long time – nice transparency, Dems!). But the point is, you can read and familiarize yourself with it. This version is only 383 pages.

Trent1289 on December 21, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Not to burst anybody’s balloon, but hoping to find that mystical single vote in the Senate or the 2 or 3 votes in the House to stop this is a frivolous was of brain activity.

I’m quite sure both Reid and Pelosi have a few RINOs they have bought and paid as standbys.

ConservativeTony on December 21, 2009 at 10:30 AM

I’m just asking a procedural question.

However, a bill being passed by a simple majority of elected senators seems pretty democratic to me.
Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 9:46 AM

Not all of them were elected, you dope.

FAIL.

fossten on December 21, 2009 at 10:30 AM

neuquenguy on December 21, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Keep driving that wedge… See where you end up.

Like it, or not, Conservatives, and Tea-partiers, need the Republican Party… They’re the only ones with the organization, and the machinery in place.

I’d rather have a left of center Republican – someone who will, at the very least, LISTEN to what you have to say, than a Liberal cockroach who WON’T.

franksalterego on December 21, 2009 at 10:32 AM

Trent1289 on December 21, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Thanks for the link.

neuquenguy on December 21, 2009 at 10:34 AM

20 to 30 percent of your health care dollars go to insurance company overhead. Sure, their margins might be small, but their salaries and bureaucracies are large.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Don’t you read the newspapers? Fed job salaries are higher than private sector salaries now.

fossten on December 21, 2009 at 10:35 AM

I’d rather have a left of center Republican – someone who will, at the very least, LISTEN to what you have to say, than a Liberal cockroach who WON’T.

franksalterego on December 21, 2009 at 10:32 AM

I’d rather have a Democrat stab me in the face then a leftist Republican stab me in the back.

Ask yourself which would be worse, Ben Nelson voting for this or Olympia Snow?

ConservativeTony on December 21, 2009 at 10:36 AM

20 to 30 percent of your health care dollars go to insurance company overhead. Sure, their margins might be small, but their salaries and bureaucracies are large.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Bullsh1te, bub. 70+% goes to LAWYERS for tort coverage. If the Dems wanted to control costs, they’d address tort reform – but then, they really don’t *want* to do that, do they?

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/12/19/top-nine-health-care-charts-youve-never-seen-before/

Midas on December 21, 2009 at 10:36 AM

I’d rather have a left of center Republican – someone who will, at the very least, LISTEN to what you have to say, than a Liberal cockroach who WON’T.

franksalterego on December 21, 2009 at 10:32 AM

And where has that gotten us to? other than MAYBE marginally slowing down the march to socialism

neuquenguy on December 21, 2009 at 10:37 AM

I’m just asking a procedural question.

However, a bill being passed by a simple majority of elected senators seems pretty democratic to me.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 9:46 AM

Indeed, and so will five of those Senators losing their reelections next year.

Just remember, the tax increases and insurance mandates go into effect immediately, but the benefits do not start until 2013 and 2014. By next November, most Americans will have received bills for massive premium hikes, see less money in their paychecks (if they still have jobs), yet still see the same horror stories in the papers about people with no health insurance.

It’s unbelievable to me that any group of politicians could so willingly commit suicide just to give a Christmas president to a failed President.

rockmom on December 21, 2009 at 10:37 AM

While we do have to worry about regulations, the insurance companies only have to hold out for 3 more years. At which point, given The One’s current polling numbers, a republican will take office and all of this can be undone. New rulemaking, new interpretations of the statute. It can all be undone. And quickly, without going through Congress.
Trent1289 on December 21, 2009 at 10:30 AM

My concern with this approach is that it’s only good as long as there is a President in office who’s willing to do this.

gwelf on December 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Overhead largely created by massive government regulation.

You think the government can run an insurance scheme with less overhead? Medicare loses hundreds of billions a year in fraud. If this was occurring in the private industry they would be bankrupt.

gwelf on December 21, 2009 at 10:28 AM

And government is going to have a smaller bureaucracy? With lower salaries? And less red tape?

gwelf on December 21, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Absolutely. Once you make the decision that all health care is covered, there’s no need for bureaucracy. This is one reason why the French system is so inexpensive, compared to ours, and yet has similar or — by some measures — superior outcomes.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Can we just agree we need more Conservatives?

ConservativeTony on December 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Don’t you read the newspapers? Fed job salaries are higher than private sector salaries now.

fossten on December 21, 2009 at 10:35 AM

He obviously doesn’t believe this and thinks it is a lie….

deidre on December 21, 2009 at 10:39 AM

neuquenguy on December 21, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Sorry, but third party nonsense is insanity.

Ponder the following years and ask what impact the third party nominee had in that presidential election:

1992
1996
2000

Works both ways, but in all three cases, the person that won did so *because* the other side had a third party candidate that split the vote.

If you want to guarantee Obama’s re-election in 2012, splitting the Republican vote into 2 or more pieces would be a great way to do it.

Midas on December 21, 2009 at 10:39 AM

20 to 30 percent of your health care dollars go to insurance company overhead. Sure, their margins might be small, but their salaries and bureaucracies are large.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 10:26 AM

118 new federal boards and commisssions are cfreated in this legislation. You think this is an improvement over the bureaucracy we have now?

Go ahead and celebrate this hollow political victory for your side, you won it fair and square. But please, spare us any defense of what is actually in this bill and stop claiming that it is any sort of actual “reform.”

rockmom on December 21, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Indeed, and so will five of those Senators losing their reelections next year.

Just remember, the tax increases and insurance mandates go into effect immediately, but the benefits do not start until 2013 and 2014. By next November, most Americans will have received bills for massive premium hikes, see less money in their paychecks (if they still have jobs), yet still see the same horror stories in the papers about people with no health insurance.

It’s unbelievable to me that any group of politicians could so willingly commit suicide just to give a Christmas president to a failed President.

rockmom on December 21, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Arguably, they’re doing what they think is right. If Joe Lieberman is going to get sloppy wet kisses for his “courage”, so should these guys.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Absolutely. Once you make the decision that all health care is covered, there’s no need for bureaucracy. This is one reason why the French system is so inexpensive, compared to ours, and yet has similar or — by some measures — superior outcomes.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Please describe the medical or pharmaceutical innovations that have originated in France.

Better yet, move there if you like its health care system so much.

rockmom on December 21, 2009 at 10:41 AM

I’m just asking a procedural question.

However, a bill being passed by a simple majority of elected senators seems pretty democratic to me.
Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 9:46 AM

I agree, it is completely democratic. I also think it is completely unconstitutional. A legal mandate to require someone to purchase a product. Imagine if this is not overturned in the SCOTUS. How would you like to be required to:
Purchase life insurance.
Purchase a cell phone.
Purchase a TV.
Purchase a Uniform.
Purchase a Bible.
Purchase a specific type of bread. (It is more healthy.)
Pay your union dues.
Pay your political party dues. (We are bi-cameral, so only two choices.)

And if you don’t, you will be fined. And if you don’t pay the fine, you will be imprisoned.

barnone on December 21, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Arguably, they’re doing what they think is right. If Joe Lieberman is going to get sloppy wet kisses for his “courage”, so should these guys.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 10:40 AM

I’m sure the President will give them all nice gold watches, along with some cushy Ambassadorship or subcabinet position with a gold-plated pension, after they lose next year. All at YOUR expense.

rockmom on December 21, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Sorry, but third party nonsense is insanity.

Midas on December 21, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Take a quick look at the recent history of conservatives in Canada. They had to go down to practically no sits in government to com back to power. They had to go the 3rd party route to accomplish that. It might or might not work here, but it is not insanity. On the other hand, some people define insanity as continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results.

neuquenguy on December 21, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Absolutely. Once you make the decision that all health care is covered, there’s no need for bureaucracy. This is one reason why the French system is so inexpensive, compared to ours, and yet has similar or — by some measures — superior outcomes.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Allow me to quote Buckley here:

“I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.”

Midas on December 21, 2009 at 10:45 AM

This is one reason why the French system is so inexpensive, compared to ours, and yet has similar or — by some measures — superior outcomes.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Their Debt-to-GDP ratio is just great also. The system is working…if your intention is to bankrupt a country. How long can countries keep on increasing their debts relative to their GDP? You know this cannot go on forever.

WashJeff on December 21, 2009 at 10:46 AM

I’ve seen better legislation come out of the rear end of a dog. I hear Obama’s gonna move that copy of the Constitution from the National Archives to the Smithsonian where it belongs. “My country, tis of thee, ain’t what it used to be…”

gordo on December 21, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Better yet, move there if you like its health care system so much.

rockmom on December 21, 2009 at 10:41 AM

You fogot to mention they allegedly have great wine to sip.

WashJeff on December 21, 2009 at 10:47 AM

I have to get out of Massachusetts. The odor here is overwhelming.

But hey, how about this idea: ALL states get the same deal so none of them have to pay for anything. Or maybe the whole country! Yeah… everything free! Why didn’t they think of this before??

MassVictim on December 21, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Their Debt-to-GDP ratio is just great also. The system is working…if your intention is to bankrupt a country. How long can countries keep on increasing their debts relative to their GDP? You know this cannot go on forever.

WashJeff on December 21, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Well of course it can’t. That’s why death panels are needed.

gwelf on December 21, 2009 at 10:47 AM

barnone on December 21, 2009 at 10:43 AM

You forgot the most important one: purchase a GM car

katablog.com on December 21, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Please describe the medical or pharmaceutical innovations that have originated in France.

Better yet, move there if you like its health care system so much.

rockmom on December 21, 2009 at 10:41 AM

A nice right-wing take on the French system.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Absolutely. Once you make the decision that all health care is covered, there’s no need for bureaucracy. This is one reason why the French system is so inexpensive, compared to ours, and yet has similar or — by some measures — superior outcomes.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM

France has also recently needed to open up to private insurance to try to make things more affordable. They also only offer ‘free’ health care to those who are there legally.

gwelf on December 21, 2009 at 10:49 AM

With the third party option, we can easily get to 58-38-4 by 2016, of course the 4 being Blue Frauds.

ConservativeTony on December 21, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Yeah… everything free! Why didn’t they think of this before??

MassVictim on December 21, 2009 at 10:47 AM

The only thing not free will be the taxes. I do want to thank the top 1% for all they do for me. And I wish the bottom 45% appreciate all I do for them.

But the Dims will not stop. They realize that they need more money, so now they are proposing a VAT tax in ADDITION to the income tax (and all the other taxes.) So those at the bottom with no income will pay more for their groceries and other necessities so EVERYONE will pay more taxes.

barnone on December 21, 2009 at 10:52 AM

A nice right-wing take on the French system.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Nice try. The author of that piece makes it clear that this is only in comparison with our current situation – in which our insurance is tied to our employment and obtained through our employer. Something that should NEVER have occurred in the first place.

Firefly_76 on December 21, 2009 at 10:52 AM

However, a bill being passed by a simple majority of elected senators seems pretty democratic to me.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 9:46 AM

It’s not democratic, because when a “simple majority” of elected senators can control election laws and campaign finance laws, they virtually guarantee their re-election. Any government in which the “elected” officials make the rules regarding their own elections, is undemocratic, unless we have term limits.

MassVictim on December 21, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Absolutely. Once you make the decision that all health care is covered, there’s no need for bureaucracy. This is one reason why the French system is so inexpensive, compared to ours, and yet has similar or — by some measures — superior outcomes.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM

A completely free-market health care system would have even less paper work, bureaucracy and lower costs (ones that are actually sustainable and still drive innovation). I find it rich when liberals decry the American system as being too expensive and having bureaucracy laden insurance companies when government intrusion into the market creates these conditions. For example, you’ve completely ignored the role that torte law plays in how expensive it is to have a medical practice or offer insurance. Socialist systems simply side-step this by making it illegal to sue the government for damages.

gwelf on December 21, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Shouldn’t that article cited, AND the headlines to this thread be 1.2 TRILLION?????

karenhasfreedom on December 21, 2009 at 10:56 AM

These arguments about how other systems compare are moot. The French use American innovation to get to supposed “similar outcomes” to ours. But dummies like Needs Clue don’t care that his party just flushed the future of American innovation (and the care of the rest of his precious socialist world) down the toilet.

LibTired on December 21, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Absolutely. Once you make the decision that all health care is covered, there’s no need for bureaucracy. This is one reason why the French system is so inexpensive, compared to ours, and yet has similar or — by some measures — superior outcomes.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM

And the hundreds of billions per year lost to Medicare fraud will magically disappear once everything is controlled by the government?

gwelf on December 21, 2009 at 10:58 AM

<blockquote
I was sipping wine with Senate employee yesterday, and she maintained that conference bills are not subject to closure. I contained my glee but wonder if she was correct. Any parliamentarians Out there?
Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 9:39 AM

Two elitist liberals laughing about jamming legislation down America’s over chardonnay.

Way to throw a slow ball right over the plate, BB.

Chuck Schick on December 21, 2009 at 11:00 AM

With unequal concessions to some states on Medicaid, and to others on Medicare Advantage plans, surely this is unconstitutional.

We need to use the leftists tactics and have this Obamacare bill thrown out in the courts if this abortion happens.

txdoc on December 21, 2009 at 11:01 AM

And the word is “cloture”.

Chuck Schick on December 21, 2009 at 11:02 AM

God, the Chicago thug presidency. It’s just so ghetto and banana republic

Oil Can on December 21, 2009 at 11:02 AM

I thought McCaskill wasn’t going to vote for this, if it increased the deficit? Apparently she was full of crap as well.

Let’s vote these jokes off the stage, and get some real conservatism going in Washington. I don’t want the U.S. to be another run of the mill, over taxed, over spend, impoverished , socialist nation. We are unique, and should remain that way.

capejasmine on December 21, 2009 at 11:03 AM

Trent1289 on December 21, 2009 at 10:30 AM

RE: We dodged a bullet..

No we ate a Beretta.

The bill to which you link, is NOT ‘the bill’. It is the managers amendment to ‘the bill’.

H.R. 3590 Released by Senator Reid in November.

Skandia Recluse on December 21, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Oh, right. Us.

Nope. China.

spmat on December 21, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Insurance companies are leeches, the free market does not work for health care (for a number of reasons) and a government option provides needed competition to the oligopoly that now controls our health care.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 10:06 AM

You are breathlessly stupid. The reason our health care system has the problems it does is specifically because of government.

You idiot lefties have only managed to compound those problems, probably exponentially so.

The American people are one Senate vote away from losing their forever freedom because 41% of us, moochers and leeches like you, do not want to take responsibility for your own health care.

Fork you, leech.

Dave R. on December 21, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Absolutely. Once you make the decision that all health care is covered, there’s no need for bureaucracy. This is one reason why the French system is so inexpensive, compared to ours, and yet has similar or — by some measures — superior outcomes.
Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM

The French system has been in the red since 1989 and their public debt ratio is worse than ours.

Even bettet? Their doctors are paid about 1/3 what Medicare pays US doctors, and we both know that 21% rate cut to make Obamacare seem like it cuts the deficit will be paid for in a sepaeate bill that costs twice the alleged 10 year savings.

You subsist on a diet of lies.

Chuck Schick on December 21, 2009 at 11:09 AM

I was sipping wine with Senate employee yesterday, and she maintained that conference bills are not subject to closure. I contained my glee but wonder if she was correct. Any parliamentarians Out there?
Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 9:39 AM

Two elitist liberals laughing about jamming legislation down America’s over chardonnay.

Way to throw a slow ball right over the plate, BB.

Chuck Schick on December 21, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Yeah, a suburban kid whose dad went to college on the GI bill and a West Virginia girl. We’re elitist as all hell. Her husband, interestingly enough is a solid conservative who — in between bitching about the Packers’ loss — supplied the anti-health care argument for purposes of balance.

This legislation has been 15 or maybe a hundred years in the making, depending on how you measure. Nothing’s getting jammed down anyone’s throat.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 11:12 AM

…I don’t want the U.S. to be another run of the mill, over taxed, over spend, impoverished , socialist nation…

capejasmine on December 21, 2009 at 11:03 AM

…like Canada.

royzer on December 21, 2009 at 11:14 AM

RE: We dodged a bullet..

No we ate a Beretta.

The bill to which you link, is NOT ‘the bill’. It is the managers amendment to ‘the bill’.

H.R. 3590 Released by Senator Reid in November.

Skandia Recluse on December 21, 2009 at 11:04 AM

You’ve just linked the House healthcare bill (see that “H.R.” in the name? that means House – senate bills have “S.”), it has no bearing on what took place last night in the Senate..
The bill that passed last night was the manager’s amendment to the Senate bill. Though an amendment, it superceded all previous legislative language that was introduced before.

The House and the Senate will have to combine their two versions in conference (unless the House just adopts the Senate language that will pass on the 24th). Either way, the final bill will look MUCH more like the Senate version. Every politician who’s talked to the press from Hoyer in the House to Sanders (the avowed socialist in the Senate) has said this is the case. Everyone knows that a PO will not get the 60 votes needed in the Senate, should it re-emerge in the conference bill.

Trent1289 on December 21, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM

If you think there is going to be less red tape, I don’t think your thinking properly. Government run health care is loaded with red tape. It only gets worse as the years go by. Not only are you limited as to what doctors you can see, if you go to the ER you better make sure you call ahead or it’s not covered. Unless it’s a threat to life, limb or sight. You may think Government health care is a good idea but when implemented it’s a joke and your on the phone with the insurance company trying to figure out why they didn’t pay for this after they said they would. When are they going to pay the dr. Not many places take it.

Brat4life on December 21, 2009 at 11:15 AM

bleeds blue just told you that a govt insurance plan would have less bureaucracy than ANY private plan. This she points out knowing full well about the hundreds of billions of dollars lost to medicare fraud EVERY YEAR, knowing full well that the current govt insurance plans already have much more red tape than ALL private plans, that being the only way a private company could possibly survive.

Add all of that up, you have a congenital liar who lies simply for the thrill of lying. She knows she’s lying, but her party is the only thing in her life that she thinks has value, so lying when they tell her to is all she understands. Pity her.

runawayyyy on December 21, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Absolutely. Once you make the decision that all health care is covered, there’s no need for bureaucracy. This is one reason why the French system is so inexpensive, compared to ours, and yet has similar or — by some measures — superior outcomes.
Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Massachusetts care is a shining example of how wrong you are. They pay the highest premiums in America.

Good luck finding a doctor that can keep their practice open with no torte reform and with the government paying them 20-30% less than they already do.

gwelf on December 21, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Boy Disgusted to Find Senate Health Care Bill Next to Rat’s Head In Holiday Sausage http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/12/boy-disgusted-to-find-senate-health.html

Mervis Winter on December 21, 2009 at 11:21 AM

Everything the Obama admin and congress are doing is for one purpose only…to be able to influence future election outcomes in their favour through power and contol.

royzer on December 21, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Once you make the decision that all health care is covered, there’s no need for bureaucracy.

Ahem. The British NHS is the third largest employer IN THE WORLD behind the Chinese Army and the Indian rail system. The majority of these employees are not direct providers of care. It is bureaucrat central.

Missy on December 21, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Add all of that up, you have a congenital liar who lies simply for the thrill of lying. She knows she’s lying, but her party is the only thing in her life that she thinks has value, so lying when they tell her to is all she understands. Pity her.

runawayyyy on December 21, 2009 at 11:17 AM

First, I’m a he.

Second, I’m blessed with a great marriage and children who — and even I am startled by this — seem to love me, despite my shortcomings.

So, you’ll need another theory regarding my “congenital lying.”

Project much?

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Absolutely. Once you make the decision that all health care is covered, there’s no need for bureaucracy. This is one reason why the French system is so inexpensive, compared to ours, and yet has similar or — by some measures — superior outcomes.

In what world is this true? I love how the left simply makes stuff up and/or lies completely in support of this bill. Does it ever occur to those of you on the left that if you have to lie to win an argument, maybe you are not supporting the right side? If your position was really so great, why do you have to lie to support it?

Monkeytoe on December 21, 2009 at 11:27 AM

Ahem. The British NHS is the third largest employer IN THE WORLD behind the Chinese Army and the Indian rail system. The majority of these employees are not direct providers of care. It is bureaucrat central.

Missy on December 21, 2009 at 11:26 AM

I’ve never held out the British system as the model.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 11:28 AM

I’ve never held out the British system as the model.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 11:28 AM

No – just the French model which is headed for bankruptcy. The French model also – at least as far as I can find – only gives free care to people who are there legally. This is but one example of why we’ll never have a system as ‘good’ as theirs (e.g., one in which we’re only headed towards inevitable bankruptcy). Holding out the going-bankrupt model of the French still fails to explain how we could ever model them. You also dodge many of the problems that are plaguing the system we do have – e.g., torte and fraud.

gwelf on December 21, 2009 at 11:37 AM

The Republic is dead, time for Revolution!

omnipotent on December 21, 2009 at 11:37 AM

While we do have to worry about regulations, the insurance companies only have to hold out for 3 more years. At which point, given The One’s current polling numbers, a republican will take office and all of this can be undone. New rulemaking, new interpretations of the statute. It can all be undone. And quickly, without going through Congress.
Trent1289 on December 21, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Once this passes it would take a House majority, 70 Republican senators (60 conservatives to allow for the loss of 10 Rinos) and a conservative president to change it. The most rosy scenarios do not see this happening anytime soon. The slow walk towards socialized medicine is about to begin.

Annar on December 21, 2009 at 11:42 AM

I’ve never held out the British system as the model.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 11:28 AM

You did however suggest that bureaucracies would diminish, and this is a wonderful example of how full of crap your statement was.

Midas on December 21, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Massachusetts? Why would Massachusetts need extra help in paying its Medicaid obligations? They already have a version of ObamaCare in place, which was supposed to contain and control health-care costs.

Morrisey hits the nail on the head

If there is any talking point needing promotion, this is more important than Nelson supposedly caving for the sake of his State

It is hard to criticize DEMs for shifty weekend/Holiday bill passing. That was the Bush/McCain specialty.

Just like Obama promising to keeping submitting Healthcare until it sticks, Bush rammed amnesty against louder protests than the Healthcare protests – and amnesty was bucks for illegals while healthcare is bucks for citizens and illegals

Bush openly flaunted border law.

We are now in an era of selectively ignoring the law, and therefore, selectively ignoring the will of the public. Obama merely continues the spiral

entagor on December 21, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Annar on December 21, 2009 at 11:42 AM

This is why I advocate getting all 100 of the current senators out of office.

Even the supposed conservative big guns, like DeMint and McConnell, caved in when crunch time came. They couldn’t bring themselves to play hardball; all that “my good friend, the distinguished senator from…” crap kicked in automatically.

There must be 100 people in this nation with the sense and basic human decency to act as the “servants of the people” senators are supposed to be.

Wishful thinking, I guess….

MrScribbler on December 21, 2009 at 11:51 AM

I want to be there when bleeds stupid stands in front of the death panel pleading to Obama that he deserves the medical procedure because he supported the death panels all along.

The irony will be deliciously schadenfreudealistic!

csdeven on December 21, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Second, I’m blessed with a great marriage and children who — and even I am startled by this — seem to love me, despite my shortcomings.

So, you’ll need another theory regarding my “congenital lying.”

Project much?

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 11:26 AM

I hope your children have skills that will enable them to make a lot of money in the underground economy. Otherwise, you are going to die much earlier and much more miserably than you think, and your children and grandchildren will be slaves. But I’m sure that when you are lying there ona cot in your son’s house at age 75, bankrupt, and unable to get the operation or drug you need to relieve your suffering, you will smile realizing how your sacrifice helped so many illegal Mexicans and drug company executives to live a better life.

rockmom on December 21, 2009 at 11:53 AM

This IS what Americans voted for. Now this MESS is what they will have to fix.

The days of sitting on the couch are OVER!

DannoJyd on December 21, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Everything the Obama admin and congress are doing is for one purpose only…to be able to influence future election outcomes in their favour through power and contol.

royzer on December 21, 2009 at 11:25 AM

It’s even more crass than that – it’s all being done simply to polish Barack Obama’s halo as a “historic” President who was able to get things done that none of his Democratic predecessors, including FDR, were able to do.

This is Obama’s “Mission Accomplished” moment. And it will have the same blowback on him as the original did. But just like the Republicans marched off the cliff into Iraq behind Bush, the Democrats are doing the same with Obama. They have too much personally invested in this fake President to allow him to fail.

rockmom on December 21, 2009 at 11:57 AM

This legislation has been 15 or maybe a hundred years in the making, depending on how you measure. Nothing’s getting jammed down anyone’s throat.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Is that why it has to be passed in the dead of night after hundreds of millions in bribes? Forgive me, but this does not seem to be consistent with the pride the Dems claim to have in their bill.

If it is so good, why has formulating it and passing it been so chaotic? Compromises with Republicans? Doesn’t seem so.

If it is so good, why is it opposed by almost the entire political spectrum (apart from the tribal zealots and clueless cargo-cultists)?

If it is so good, why do the Dems resort to laughably implausible budget chicanery to make it seem less like the fiscal disaster that it will be?

Anybody who thinks this is really about health care is pathetically naive and foolish. It’s about grabbing the money and power, and the actions of the Democrats are compelling evidence for that argument.

mr.blacksheep on December 21, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Won’t the United States have to about include everyone down the the southern Mexican border? I can see here that people there will demand health care because they have relatives up north and it would be racist to be left out. I can also envision health care for all the folks all the way to Panama. Some would discredit all this but nothing shocks me anymore.

garydt on December 21, 2009 at 12:01 PM

I hope your children have skills that will enable them to make a lot of money in the underground economy. Otherwise, you are going to die much earlier and much more miserably than you think, and your children and grandchildren will be slaves. But I’m sure that when you are lying there ona cot in your son’s house at age 75, bankrupt, and unable to get the operation or drug you need to relieve your suffering, you will smile realizing how your sacrifice helped so many illegal Mexicans and drug company executives to live a better life.

rockmom on December 21, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Yeah, because the entire rest of the developed world collapsed when they adopted single-payer health care. Apparently you don’t realize just how mad you sound when you throw out scenarios like this. If you actually want to persuade people, it’s best not to sound like a paranoid who’s lost her meds.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Obama is trying to bail out his fellow Chicagoan and brother from another mother, Gov. Deval Patrick. Ain’t gonna work.
Deval is toast next fall.

Little Boomer on December 21, 2009 at 12:07 PM

When Granny comes home in a plastic bag, Hurrah! Hurrah!
Obama will give her a hearty high five then, Hurrah! Hurrah!
The Emanuels will cheer, the Kevorkians will shout
The eugenicists they will all turn out
And the old folks will all be dead by Christmas time next year!

Cheshire Cat on December 21, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Well you have to hand it to the Caliph and his staff. They and Soros and the SEIU / Planned Parenthood crowd have defeated the Sleeping American masses.

We’ve been lulled to sleep by both parties for decades.

And this healthcare will of course be wiped out by the uniform UNCare when we get our new Globl government. Brought about by the collapse of the U.S. All good news for those in power right now.

What will we do for our family?

Join the Democratic party to protect our own kids healthcare, ammo up, curtail spending and get ready for them to come with their Civilian police ACORN force. Goodbye 2nd Amendment.

Barry may very well be the final President of the U.S.A.

And to the lying politicians out there that back slap each other while the country goes down the tubes?

Insert profanity filled tirade of your choice here!!

Goodbye American freedom!

PappyD61 on December 21, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Absolutely. Once you make the decision that all health care is covered, there’s no need for bureaucracy. This is one reason why the French system is so inexpensive, compared to ours, and yet has similar or — by some measures — superior outcomes.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM

It’s amazing how many lies BB is willing to repeat.

Not all health care will be covered. Even your idols never made that claim.

You are aware that medicare rejects twice as many claims as do private insurers.

Additionally, it’s very difficult to find out how much anything provided by govt costs. They are very good at hiding huge portions of their real costs in other budgets.

For example, here in the states, all HR costs are hidden by moving them to a seperate budget.

MarkTheGreat on December 21, 2009 at 12:10 PM

This legislation has been 15 or maybe a hundred years in the making, depending on how you measure. Nothing’s getting jammed down anyone’s throat.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 11:12 AM

So a very large bill needs to be passed in the dead of night before people really have time to find out and discuss what it specifically does? Health care has been an issue for a long time but this specific implementation of a ‘fix’ is not 15-100 years old. If a bill cannot stand up to scrutiny in the light of day and a full discussion of what it says and does then it should not be passed.

gwelf on December 21, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Round about the cauldron go
In the poisoned entrails throw
Fillet of Kevorkian snake
In the cauldron boil and bake
Eye of Reid and toe of Ezekiel frog
Wool of kosbat and tongue of Mengele dog
Red State democrats hide and blind-bureaucrat sting
Chris Matthew’s tingling leg and White House far left wing
Maw of ravening ACORN shark
Root of Pelosi hemlock digged in the dark

Cheshire Cat on December 21, 2009 at 12:10 PM

So a very large bill needs to be passed in the dead of night before people really have time to find out and discuss what it specifically does? Health care has been an issue for a long time but this specific implementation of a ‘fix’ is not 15-100 years old. If a bill cannot stand up to scrutiny in the light of day and a full discussion of what it says and does then it should not be passed.

gwelf on December 21, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Yeah. dead of night. Nobody noticed (except for the front page of every major newspaper in America). How sneaky of Reid!

We’ve been debating health care reform as a nation for decades. The Republicans don’t care whether the bill is read or not, they’re just trying to slow it down and kill it. Fair enough.

But homey don’t play that. Time for a vote.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Yeah, because the entire rest of the developed world collapsed when they adopted single-payer health care.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Collapsed? Not quite, but close enough that the difference is hard to discern. And that was with the US as a safety valve.

Who’s going to be our safety valve?

MarkTheGreat on December 21, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Collapsed? Not quite, but close enough that the difference is hard to discern. And that was with the US as a safety valve.

Who’s going to be our safety valve?

MarkTheGreat on December 21, 2009 at 12:18 PM

yeah, last time I was in France the whole country was so slum-like I thought I was in Alabama.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 12:19 PM

We’ve been debating health care reform as a nation for decades.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 12:17 PM

So because health care reform in general has been the subject of occassional conversation for years, there is no need for anyone to actually read this bill before it is passed?

What’s the flavor of the kool-aide you’ve been drinking?

MarkTheGreat on December 21, 2009 at 12:20 PM

yeah, last time I was in France the whole country was so slum-like I thought I was in Alabama.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Those who live at the poverty line in the US have a higher standard of living than the upper middle class in France.

MarkTheGreat on December 21, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Those who live at the poverty line in the US have a higher standard of living than the upper middle class in France.

MarkTheGreat on December 21, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Dark-Star on December 21, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Gah, retry:

Those who live at the poverty line in the US have a higher standard of living than the upper middle class in France.

MarkTheGreat on December 21, 2009 at 12:21 PM

(a hell of a lot of citations needed)

Dark-Star on December 21, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Great question Mark, what nation will immigrants go to and what nation will provide the services that the USA used to do? Who will provide the innovation? How does this cut less redtape? How will we get enough doctors to cover all these extra folks who will still have to buy high insurance?

garydt on December 21, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Yeah. dead of night. Nobody noticed (except for the front page of every major newspaper in America). How sneaky of Reid!

We’ve been debating health care reform as a nation for decades. The Republicans don’t care whether the bill is read or not, they’re just trying to slow it down and kill it. Fair enough.

But homey don’t play that. Time for a vote.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 12:17 PM

You completely ignored my point.

Vote on what exactly? Health care has been debated for a long time but you neatly dodge the real issue that this specific implementation of a ‘fix’ is brand new. The bill is very large and we know little about it – what’s the harm in actually debating the specifics?

gwelf on December 21, 2009 at 12:24 PM

yeah, last time I was in France the whole country was so slum-like I thought I was in Alabama.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 12:19 PM

It’s a good thing those mouth-breathing inbred idiots in Alabama have an elitist like you looking out for them.

gwelf on December 21, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Again, I don’t think people understand the bill. Lieberman and Nelson got rid of any government run insurance option. We don’t have to worry baout a new Meicare-like entity.

Trent1289 on December 21, 2009 at 10:14 AM

I don’t know what you’ve been toking, but you need to share the wealth.

While govt run insurance was bad, it wasn’t the only bad thing in this bill.
There’s still a mandate to buy insurance.
There are still the many new regulations on insurance companies.
The path to single payer isn’t as quick as it would have been with the public option, but it is still there.

MarkTheGreat on December 21, 2009 at 12:29 PM

yeah, last time I was in France the whole country was so slum-like I thought I was in Alabama.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Those who live at the poverty line in the US have a higher standard of living than the upper middle class in France.

MarkTheGreat on December 21, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Absolutely untrue.

You completely ignored my point.

Vote on what exactly? Health care has been debated for a long time but you neatly dodge the real issue that this specific implementation of a ‘fix’ is brand new. The bill is very large and we know little about it – what’s the harm in actually debating the specifics?

gwelf on December 21, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Go for it. You ave 72 hours.

Not a single vote is going to be changed by the debate; everyone who cares already knows as much as they need to. You don’t actually give a tinker’s damn about debate, you’re just trying to kill the bill by elongating the process. That’s not going to happen, despite insincere protests about the need to study the bill.

Nice to see Dems having cohones for a change.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Absolutely untrue.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Typical liberal response to any fact that doesn’t fit into this mornings talking points.

MarkTheGreat on December 21, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Not a single vote is going to be changed by the debate; everyone who cares already knows as much as they need to. You don’t actually give a tinker’s damn about debate, you’re just trying to kill the bill by elongating the process. That’s not going to happen, despite insincere protests about the need to study the bill.

Nice to see Dems having cohones for a change.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 12:31 PM

You posit that debate would kill the bill. I wonder why that is? Could it be that it’s a crap sandwich that the more that’s understood about it the less popular it will be?

You’re all for democracy – except where it concerns an informed citizenry right?

gwelf on December 21, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Absolutely untrue.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Typical liberal response to any fact that doesn’t fit into this mornings talking points.

MarkTheGreat on December 21, 2009 at 12:33 PM

I’ve been to France. I’ve read economic statistics. Upper-middle class French people have free health care, free higher education for their kids, one of the best public school systems in the world and six weeks of vacation. They make good money and have better job security. Incomes are lower than in America, and houses are smaller, but the social safety net is better and so are the restaurants. It’s a different choice, but certainly a viable one and the idea that some poor Wal-Mart employee is better off than a French engineer is utterly stupid.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 12:38 PM

You don’t actually give a tinker’s damn about debate, you’re just trying to kill the bill by elongating the process.

The debate on this current version of ‘healthcare reform’ has been settled for all but the hopelessly deranged – nothing like ‘reform’ and everything like a mess. If DC manages to produce a version that isn’t utter nonsense, debate will reopen.

Nice to see Dems having cohones for a change.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 12:31 PM

The Dems have balls the size of BB’s. Their sudden pretense at being tough is so the Republican opposition doesn’t make them out to be the complete failures that they are, which is becoming so obvious even the hard left is becoming disillusioned.

Dark-Star on December 21, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Go for it. You ave 72 hours.

Not a single vote is going to be changed by the debate; everyone who cares already knows as much as they need to. You don’t actually give a tinker’s damn about debate, you’re just trying to kill the bill by elongating the process. That’s not going to happen, despite insincere protests about the need to study the bill.

Nice to see Dems having cohones for a change.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Is this the stance you’re going to keep with when conservatives take back Congress?

“Let’s not debate or reveal the content of bills for discussion because debate won’t actually change anything…and besides the more people learn about this the less they’ll like about it. Shut up, sit down and enjoy your democracy.”

You like to make all sorts of assurances that the government is going to do a great job of taking care of this problem yet you cheer when any meaningful discussion of it in our government is shut down. So this large bill that contains who knows what is going to be passed by the Senate – solving a difficult problem that’s decades old – but we don’t really need to know what it says and does, we don’t need to examine it to see where it gets things wrong, and it’s authors don’t need to defend it? That’s quite an assurance you’re making there.

gwelf on December 21, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Nice to see Dems having cohones for a change.

Bleeds Blue on December 21, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Yeah they do have big ones – telling the majority of Americans who oppose this bill to go screw themselves. Democracy in action!

gwelf on December 21, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4