Politics

Repeal ObamaCare? Unlikely

Don't count on the GOP to clean up Obama's health care mess

|

There seems to be growing optimism among some Republicans that if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi finagles the votes to pass Obamacare, the GOP triumphantly will sweep into power and immediately repeal it.

Though short-term GOP gains are almost certain, there are numerous problems with this kind of quixotic thinking.

To begin with, there exists almost no historical evidence to suggest Republicans will possess either the fortitude or the power to undo a massive government entitlement program.

Can we trust them? Most of you will remember it was the Republican Party's leadership that pressured conservatives to vote for the fiscally irresponsible Medicare Part D program in 2003. (Democrats like to argue that this illustrates GOP hypocrisy. Perhaps. With Obamacare, the GOP has a chance at redemption.)

Then there are conspicuous problems to consider. Republicans do not possess 60 votes in the Senate—and likely won't for a while. Best-case scenario: They will have to deal with a president who will veto their efforts to undo the sole "accomplishment" of his presidency.

Obama spent last week campaigning for health care reform, at one point getting some college-age fans worked up about all the free stuff—"free" preventive care and "free" checkups and so forth—they would receive if his version of health care reform passed.

Which brings us to another stumbling block. If health care is now a "right" and "free" to an ever-growing group of Americans—people who believe stuff can be had for "free"—are Republicans really going to snatch it away from them?

You can picture the hideous debate already, as Republicans fold in the face of accusations that they are working for the murderous profit-mongers against the underprivileged victims of a wretched capitalistic system. (Even today, Jim Bunning stood nearly alone.)

Admittedly, the GOP also has a few things going for it.

If enacted, perhaps no other major federal program will have been more unpopular with the American people. A new Rasmussen survey claims only 25 percent of Americans believe Obamacare would "help the U.S. economy." Fifty percent of the nation believes it would hurt the economy, and 78 percent of those polled believe the middle class would be paying the bill.

Sixty-six percent of Americans believe the plan would increase the federal deficit, and 10 percent, apparently, will believe anything.

Republicans are now also free to unsheathe a seldom-used weapon to push through legislation. The Democrats have already made the case that ignoring committee hearings and relying on unilateral parliamentary tricks—despite the objections of the lowly proles—is acceptable, as long as you deem a bill important enough.

Republicans also have the advantage of utilizing the Democrats' own deception on cost estimates.

Most of the imagined benefits of Obamacare would not kick in until 2014, so Republicans have a few years' cushion to move forward as seniors lose their Medicare Advantage program and taxes begin to rise along with premiums.

But none of that can erase history. Once government infiltrates, it rarely retreats. There are precious few examples of federal programs shirking rather than growing—most often in extraordinary ways.

Democrats know it.

Perhaps a re-branded Republican Party will be able to deflect the emotionalism of liberal arguments and reject the lure of spending, though the past decade hasn't exactly inspired confidence.

Soon enough, we'll find out whether the GOP has transformed into a party that matches its rhetoric. But repealing Obamacare? That's a tall order.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his Web site at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

281 responses to “Repeal ObamaCare? Unlikely

  1. Unless the Republicans can somehow muster a veto proof majority come January 2010, it won’t happen. The inertia and tenticles of Obamacare will be too well established by January 2013.

    1. And that is my greatest fear! It will be too well established!

  2. January 2010 2011

    1. It will take years and years to go into effect, with sniping and challenges and fuck-ups all along the way. It ain’t over yet. Hell, it ain’t even voted on.

    2. Conservative appeal to emotion only works when it’s directed toward supporting the troops and spreading American values to the Middle East.
      how to give fellatio | how to simulate a blowjob

  3. Why can not conservative arguments be emotional?

    1. Conservative appeal to emotion only works when it’s directed toward supporting the troops and spreading American values to the Middle East.

      1. And worrying about Mexicans.

        1. Don’t forget Jebus!

          1. And the A word (Rhymes with gagortion)

  4. Shouldn’t the GOP be scared stupid that we’ll have 7 months or so after the bill passes wherein the people will realize that they’re not, in fact, being forcibly sodomized by this legislation?

    1. Shouldn’t the GOP be scared stupid that we’ll have 7 months or so after the bill passes wherein the people will realize that they’re not, in fact, being forcibly sodomized by this legislation?

      If this legislation was so good, why was it never passed at the state level?

      Why does not this legislation cover auto, fire, life, and disability insurance?

      1. Michael, is this question your theme of the month?

        1. Yes.

          I want to know why health insurance reforms are not being applied to auto, fire, life, or disability insurance?

          For example, why not require life insurance to cover pre-existing death?

    2. Indeed. Since this legislation offers very little for its first four years, the unpleasantries that show up in 2014 will come as a complete surprise.

      1. Many of the unpleasant features take place immediately. None of the spending does, however.

        1. You mean these? http://prescriptions.blogs.nyt…..impatient/

          In what way are any of those things “unpleasant”?

      2. Many of the unpleasant features take place immediately. None of the spending does, however.

      3. Many of the unpleasant features take place immediately. None of the spending does, however.

        1. Sage and John Thacker are the same person?

          1. They are actually twins who were separated at birth. They found each other on Reason’s comments sections.

            1. No, nothing to say – just wanted to continue the cool handle scheme. 😉

              1. mine is cooler

      4. Wow. The three of you are right!

        It’s hard to find an implementation timeline, but I found a PDF for the House bill.

        Of 4.5 pages of implementation timeline, 2.5 are for 2010.

        This makes the backloading of expenses in order to come in under $1,000,000,000,000 for the first decade all the more disingenuous.

      5. Yes, the insuance mandates take effect immediately, but the subsidies don’t go into effect until 2014. That’s one of the two ways they hide the cost. The other is the magical fairy wish medicare cuts.

        It WILL be hugely unpopular once people start getting slammed with letter telling them they must buy insuracne and fines in their tax returns.

        1. It WILL be hugely unpopular once people start getting slammed with letter telling them they must buy insuracne and fines in their tax returns.

          Did you happen to see a little news item the other day about Social Security being used to collect debts owed the government? If anyone thinks they can refuse to buy insurance or pay the fine, be assured that the government will take it out of your Social Security benefits someday. From an image point of view this would be less damaging to Uncle Sugar than taking your home and other property – especially if they’re faced with widespread disobediance. This way would be less of a media event.

          1. The IRS will be overseeing this bill and the IRS will get TheIRS! The ywill have all your medical information s well as your financial. No stopping them now!

    3. My new Bentley is counting on that sodomy. Don’t rain on my parade Tony.

    4. people will realize that they’re not, in fact, being forcibly sodomized by this legislation?

      No, Tony, we’re asking to be sodomized. So I wouldn’t exactly call it ‘force’. We’ll get the healthcare system we deserve with this bill. Just like Canada and Britan and Massachusetts get.

      1. Many Canadians come to the states to get treatments for two reasons. There is a shortage of doctors. They cannot pay for treatment there. If the yneed an MRI and there’s a 3month wait, they come here. They cannot pay a clinic there to do it for them. They stay on teh wait list.

    5. Tont, you have to be somewhat smart to be scared stupid. Don’t even get into their sodomy fantasies;-)

    6. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but don’t the benefits kick in in 2013? So seven months after this legislation actually takes effect and people are paying more in taxes but receiving no benefits, people won’t realize they are being sodomized by this legislation?

  5. It’s a simple issue of numbers. Even if the GOP sweeps in and takes power in both chambers of Congress, they can’t repeal Obamacare. The GOP has such a vote deficit in both houses at the moment that just re-taking the majority in either house (not to mention both) will be be a near miracle. But such a majority would be razor thin. They could pass repealing legislation alright. And Obama would veto it all day long.

    It’s just at simple numbers problem. That’s why we can not relent. Obamacare must not be allowed to pass in the first place. Once it’s in, it’s not going anywhere.

  6. A new Rasmussen survey claims only 25 percent of Americans believe Obamacare would “help the U.S. economy.”

    Cartman: 1/4 of the American people believe 9/11 was an inside job. Are you saying that 1/4 of the American people are retarded?

    Kyle: 1/4? Yeah, that sounds about right.

    1. Comparing two things that have nothing to do with each other makes you look retarded.

      6 out of the 10 911 commissioners have gone on record as saying the government lied to them.

  7. I’m not sure. There is the politics of it. If the unpopularity of a passed health care bill is what sweeps the GOP into power, and Obama is all that’s left of the group in power that pushed said bill…

    …you’d have to think every single time he vetoed the repeal he’d be losing votes in 2012. If he wanted any chance of winning at all in 2012, he’d have to work with the GOP on a repeal of much that was passed that he could live with.

    1. It’s not like the GOP has anyone to pick up the votes he loses, though.

  8. It is absolutely inconceivable to me that President Obama would ever sign a repeal of the legislation he just burned every bridge and spent every nickel of political capital to get passed.

    Not. Gonna. Happen.

    1. Forget Veto; repeal will never pass a fillibuster in the Senate.

      Live by the sword, . . . .

    2. “It is absolutely inconceivable to me that President Obama would ever sign a repeal of the legislation he just burned every bridge and spent every nickel of political capital to get passed.”

      It wouldn’t be sold that way. It would be sold as an improvement to his plan.

      …and I think if he had it to do all over again? He probably wouldn’t have burned every bridge and spent all of his political capital on this.

      He’s shown himself to be fairly pragmatic on other things–Afghanistan and Guantanamo among others. If Obamacare is really as unpopular as I think it is, he’ll offer a Clintonesque solution…

      We all know that Gingrich shut the government down rather than compromise with the President–but somehow Bill Clinton got the credit for both balancing the budget AND moderating Gingrich’s supposed extremes.

      The reality doesn’t matter there. Obama will shoot for something like that if Obamacare is really that unpopular. …if the alternative is being a one term president? Certainly!

  9. Republicans on HCR: “This bill will cut your granny’s medicare before killing her in a death panel, after having sodomized everyone’s throats.” Repeat ad nauseum.

    “The American people are against this bill!”

    1. Shorter Tony: “hurrrr sodomy”

    2. Tony on HCR: “I can’t actually defend this bill on any basis other than it doesn’t forcibly sodomize people.”

      1. Are we talking the contents of the bill or a printed copy of the bill doing the sodomizing.

        Tony: “Well, it’s not like this bill would print it self out and sodomize you.”

        Vs

        Tony: “Well, its not like the content of this legislation will sodomize you.”

        I have to ask, because i could see him taking either stance.

      2. I love typing Tony and sodomy in the same sentence but I don’t think he’s just that into me.

    3. Republicans on HCR: “This bill will cut your granny’s medicare before killing her in a death panel, after having sodomized everyone’s throats.” Repeat ad nauseum.

      Fearmongering is an effective tactic.

    4. You are right Tony. That is not the most honest way to attack the bill. The real reason it should fail is that it will be ineffective, expensive and it will not solve any of the problems it is meant to solve.
      Very few of us here are Republicans.

      1. Funny how he never grasps this.

  10. The only way the GOP is going to really be the party of small government is if Ron Paul and the true small-government branch of the Republican Party become the leaders. We cannot count on the good ol’ boys to stick to their guns, but we can count on Paul and the freedom message.

    1. That’s irrelevant, because in neither case will the GOP have the votes to repeal it over a Presidential veto.

  11. Oh jeez, let’s not go getting into Ron Paul hero worship.

  12. John Thacker is right. That’s why it’s gotta be stopped in the House. We have to rely completely on Democrats to stop this because the GOP doesn’t have the votes to stop it alone. How freaking scary is it to have to rely on dems to stop the greatest piece of socialist legislation this nation has ever seen?

    1. “the greatest piece of socialist legislation”?
      Have you not forgotten the income tax, the creation of social security and medicare and medicaid?

      I myself don’t really care at all about this whole Healthcare brouhaha, as I am still recovering from how close we came to a dictatorship under Bush/Cheney/Rove.
      Im not looking at the GOP for help, after all they pretty much did steal the 2004 presidential election

      1. I myself don’t really care at all about this whole Healthcare brouhaha, as I am still recovering from how close we came to a dictatorship under Bush/Cheney/Rove.
        Im not looking at the GOP for help, after all they pretty much did steal the 2004 presidential election

        How so?

          1. Of course, Maxim, that bastion of journalistic accuracy and integrity!!!

      2. The 2004 election? I thought it was the 2000 Bush vs Gore election they were accused of stealing.

        1. I’m told they even stole the 2008 election. Those bastards!

      3. I myself don’t really care at all about this whole Healthcare brouhaha, as I am still recovering from how close we came to a dictatorship under Bush/Cheney/Rove.

        Newsflash: Bush isn’t in office anymore.

        BTW, that’s real intelligent — continue to be apathetic about a bad piece of legislation because you hate the FORMER President/Administration.

        1. That’s because he has shIce for brains.

      4. Don’t forget the 2000 election, and the 2002/2006 mid-term elections. The righteous saintly Democrats would have won *every* seat *every* time by at least 0 time if it wasn’t for those dastardly Republicans. We would have a one-party government by now like all truly civiled nations!

    2. We have to rely completely on Democrats to stop this because the GOP doesn’t have the votes to stop it alone.

      And that’s what is most irritating. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE voted these schmucks into office and now they’re cocking their heads and going, “Duhhhhhh. Universal health care? I didn’t want thaaaaat.”

      Furthermore, they’re surprised that the Dems are using corrupt Chicago politics? If you vote blind and dumb, then you’ll get blind and dumb leaders.

      The public gets the government they deserve.

      1. No, really, I don’t deserve this.

        1. You do! You deserve it! And you’re going to get it, because it’s good for you!

          Sodomy! In! The Throat!

      2. Are you referencing New York Governor Patterson with the blind and dumb remark? That’s RACIST!!

      3. Yeah, because if we’d only elected McCain, we’d be invading Iran instead. Or in addition to. Real choice we had there.

  13. Do you mean the Ron Paul that is endorsing Republican candidates in Texas who voted for the bailout? The one who said that even though he was an “independent” Republican that there was only so much he could get away with? That Ron Paul?

  14. If this thing passes my dream scenario is they collect the money and Obama loses in 2012 before any benefits are handed out. Then the GOP uses the money to retire debt.

    1. my dream scenario is that we get government by unicorns that can piss solid gold bars. My dream scenario is slightly more plausible than yours.

      1. don’t you wish that you’d shit your own and leave the cute unicorns out of it.

  15. This is accurate. There is no way any health care bill being passed will be repealed by a Republican Congress. In fact, the chances of the Republicans taking over either house of Congress in 2010, let alone both, are fairly small. They will probably make significant gains in both houses, but not enough to give them a majority in either. They also probably won’t retake the White House in 2012 unless they pull a Ronald Reagan out of their ass (Romney, Palin, Gingrich, Huckabee, etc., ain’t going to do it).

    Of course, it’s also clear the Democrats can’t do much with the large majority they already have, let alone a smaller one. Chances are, after the elections this November, no significant legislation of any type will pass, at least not until after the next election (hard to predict Congress’s make up after 2012).

    1. They also probably won’t retake the White House in 2012 unless they pull a Ronald Reagan out of their ass (Romney, Palin, Gingrich, Huckabee, etc., ain’t going to do it).

      First of all, LOL.

      Second of all, why is that? Why are there no super charismatic/intelligent Republicans to lead? This country is pretty big. You’d think we can find just one. Maybe because career politicians are simply not that bright and people with great leadership would rather stay in the private sector?

  16. the greatest piece of socialist legislation this nation has ever seen

    Funny, at Huffpost everyone is certain this is a giant corporate giveaway. You might want to keep this to yourself. If lefties get word the bill’s popularity might be back up in the 60s.

      1. It’s spelled “Douche.”

    1. The people at HuffPo are also certain they’re not functionally retarded. The rest of us have some doubts.

      In any event, HCR can both be a corporate giveaway and hugely socialist. You might want to consider how that’s possible and why that’s really bad.

      1. “In any event, HCR can both be a corporate giveaway and hugely socialist.”

        I think there’s a name for that.

    2. Of course it’s a giveaway…I wrote the damn thing myself.

    3. Funny, at Huffpost everyone is certain this is a giant corporate giveaway.

      What makes you think that giant corporate giveaways can’t be socialist?

    4. Actually, it’s both. Just like all socialist legislation amounts to corporate giveaways.

    5. the greatest piece of socialist legislation this nation has ever seen

      Funny, at Huffpost everyone is certain this is a giant corporate giveaway. You might want to keep this to yourself. If lefties get word the bill’s popularity might be back up in the 60s.

      Huffpo is right. It’s not a socialist piece of legislation, it’s a corporatist piece of legislation brought to you by the Party of Corporate Welfare: The Democrats.

    6. The HuffPo crowd can honestly maintain that because it is both. I.e. it is fascist, the defining characteristic of which is that transactions are nominally private, but wholly controlled by government dictates. Hence, certain ‘businesses’ with political pull definitely can and do benefit, at least in the short term. In the long term, the entire form of business will be severely damaged.

      But then, you know all this and want it anyway because there is nothing so satisfying to a Progressive than the prospect of having your surrogates control the choices of individuals.

  17. “the past decade hasn’t exactly inspired confidence”

    The past EIGHT decades do not inspire confidence.

    The only hope is that outfits like Reason, Cato, et al are able to educate the public regarding the real root cause of the impending financial collapse of the USA.

    The past FOUR decades don’t exactly inspire confidence of that either.

  18. Among it’s numerous flaws it is a giant corporate boost to the Health Care companies. Another reason Libertarians oppose it.
    BTW, if you are interested in forced sodomy, there might be some fraking openings on Eric Massa’s staff.

    1. “there might be some fraking openings on Eric Massa’s staff.”

      and let’s just say he doesn’t have anyone working for him anymore. if you get our drifts.

      working it, on the other hand…

    2. I have a feeling there are plenty of Republican and Democratic staff openings but unfortunately your office space will be the size of a closet.

  19. Repeal a law?

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!1!

  20. Heh, the GOP won’t repeal it, they’ll “fix” it by piling on some extra goodies for themselves.

  21. If this thing passes my dream scenario is they collect the money and Obama loses in 2012 before any benefits are handed out. Then the GOP uses the money to retire debt.

    Wow- I thought *I* was living in a dream world.

    1. I didn’t know dream scenarios had to be grounded in reality.

      1. Yeah, but if you’re going to get that crazy, do it right. Like “2012 heralded the evolution of humans into pure energy beings and world harmony ensued. Bacon evolved into pure energy with us, so double-win.”

        1. um, can a pure energy human eat regular food? cause I like my bacon the way it is now, thank you very much. But being pure energy sounds fun.

  22. From here:

    For about a hundred years, America has been a nation of accumulating medical controls. Each new regulation was passed with the same justification made for the previous one: This measure will sufficiently correct the failings of the free market and thus save the free-market system. And the result? Today’s “crisis in health care” — as the welfare statists themselves call this iatrogenic disease. The more band-aids are applied, the more wounds appear! And with nothing but band-aids in their bags, these “liberals” (often the same aging advocates of past regulation) can now prescribe only covering the patient head to toe — i.e., the final move to the outright socialization of all medicine. What this says about the microcosm of medicine is obvious; what it means for our mixed economy is ominous.

  23. Yeah…um…ok,

    My my, what short memories we have. Was it even a month ago that the Scott Brown fellating contest was on like donkey kong. Remember when he was going to ride in on a white horse of liberty and save America, and the libertarian candidate, Kennedy, couldn’t even get a mention here. Now how we fret so fitfully at the specter of eunuch republicans.
    Maybe Brown can talk about how awful Obamacare is in his new book, after it’s passed with his vote.

    1. Why would it be passing with his vote? That is the problem, they can’t get another bill through the Senate because of Brown. So, the Democrats are trying to get the House to pass the Senate bill that passed thanks to buying off Nelson and Landreau.

      1. That was just a bit of hyperbole, he isn’t going to vote for it, I know that.

        My comment was mostly directed at the libertarian element here. If you are a republican, having another member in the senate is a good thing, just don’t fool yourself into thinking this monstrosity isn’t going to pass in some mutated form. To me though,as a libertarian, the ignoring of our candidate in this publication is inexcusable. It was as if Brown won then a democrat health care bill was d.o.a. If so then why even print this article, it’s a non-issue.

        I’ll step down off of my high horse now.

        1. capitol, too much guinness last night.

        2. It still is likely to die. It might not. But it still might. If Brown had lost, it would have been law by now. Brown winning is still a good thing.

          1. I honestly don’t know, but I have a feeling that in it’s death throes this bill is going to cough up something nasty. That phlegm is probably going to be the “law of the land”.

            Someone could of said something about my handle, it’s fucking embarrassing. Like having a booger on your face that no one will tell you about.

            1. I am naturally pessimistic. If they pass it, it is going to be a disaster for the country. I only hope that the right people get blamed. If it destroys the Democratic party and creates a new system and discredits big government for a few decades, things might be okay.

            2. They didn’t ignore Kennedy. There was at least one article about him, and most of the MA race articles mentioned him.

              I can’t blame any libertarian (any certainly not any Libertarian) who voted for Kennedy. The thing is, in addition to the health care bill, Coakley is a worthless scumbag as a human being (she was a Nifong – type prosecutor). I could see why someone might have wanted to vote for “the lesser evil”.

              Brown is a “moderate” RINO douchebag. Coakley is human waste.

              1. FUCK YOU!

            3. I thought you were referring to the US Capitol, as if you were the “I” there.

        3. To me though,as a libertarian, the ignoring of our candidate in this publication is inexcusable. It was as if Brown won then a democrat health care bill was d.o.a.

          If your candidate had gotten more votes and Brown had lost, then the bill would already be passed.

          Politics doesn’t end. If you win, the other side doesn’t admit defeat and go home. It’s an eternal struggle.

          1. The vote siphoning thing makes a lot of assumptions. Most importantly, that a vote for a libertarian is a vote taken away from a republican. There is no way I am voting for any republican whose last name isn’t Paul or Davis. Also, around here libertarians are derided by the left and right as being so ineffectual to the point of obscurity. So the argument that we have any effect on elections is dubious at best.

            In re: Mr. Penguin, Scott Brown had the entire media fawning over him, and I think the slobberfest that occurred here was unnecessary.

            If you win, the other side doesn’t admit defeat and go home

            Unless you are libertarian.

            1. Unless you are libertarian.

              I’m sorry, do you mean that libertarians admit defeat and go home? Because I guarantee that if and when libertarians win elections, the other side definitely continues to fight.

              1. libertarians admit defeat and go home

                Sorry to be vague there. But yeah, this is what I meant. Every election it is the same thing “there’s no way we can win, I’m going to vote r/d, or I’m not going to vote”

                I think if libertarians were seriously affecting the outcome of elections, the tenor of the political discourse would have to change.

                Red team, blue team, fuck ’em both. No matter who’s in power I know that I will spend my days in impotent rage.

                And to those who think the ersatz small government people (r’s) if elected are going to shrink the size of the monstrosity that is our government then you are a fooling yourself. Never forget that one of the republican’s most effective arguments against Obamacare was that Obama was going to cut medicare.

            2. “There is no way I am voting for any republican whose last name isn’t Paul or Davis.”
              Or maybe Johnson?

              1. Yeah, that’s the one, I don’t know who the fuck Davis is. I think I made him up.

  24. One thing that should be pointed out. The article’s subtitle: “Don’t count on the GOP to clean up Obama’s health care mess” sort of gives off the implication that the GOP won’t repeal because for lack of desire to repeal.

    They won’t repeal because they won’t be able to. There is a difference and I think the subtitle muddies that up a bit. The GOP has its issues for sure, but they have been quite unified in opposition to this.

    1. You really think that? Most of the congressional GOP is the same group who was in office during W’s reign. Even if a new crew swipes some Dem seats in November you’re counting on (1) that number being incredibly large and (2) that they have the testicular fortitude to do what others do not. Neither strikes me as particularly likely.

      1. My point exactly – they won’t repeal it because they won’t have the numbers to do so.

        If you are trying to say that the current bunch of GOPers won’t repeal because they’re the same bunch as those who were there during the Bush years that’s just silly. They didn’t go around pushing nationalized health care back then any more than they support it now or would become supporters of it if it should pass.

        The reason it won’t get repealed if it passes is because they won’t be able to override a veto. If they did get both houses of congress they probably would pass repealing legislation out of protest with the full knowledge that it would be vetoed and that they couldn’t override.

        But all that is a mute point because it is extremely unlikely they will get a majority in either house – much less in both houses.

        1. The Democrats pass this is it more than likely Republicans will get the House and maybe the Senate. And yes Obama can veto. Let him. This thing is going to tied up in court for a few years. Then 2012 becomes another referendum on Obamacare. Nothing says it can’t be repealed in 2013.

        2. They didn’t go around pushing nationalized health care back then any more than they support it now or would become supporters of it if it should pass.

          Man, I sure remember some kind of law about giving old people drugs. Did they not vote for that, too? Because I could swear that passed. Seems to me that’s nationalizing more health care, isn’t it?

          1. But Medicare Part D was loathed by the Democrats as being private sector based and just a pay off to the drug companies. The fact that it has cost less than advertised and worked pretty well because it broke from the government control model never gets talked about.

          2. Subsidizing some meds (which, granted is dumb) is not the same thing as full scale nationalized healthcare. Not even a close comparison.

            1. It’s a matter of degree, not kind.

              1. So is Medicare Part D compared to Part A, then.

          3. Once you’re giving old people operations for free, it is actually sort of dumb to refuse to give them meds that can prevent them from having the operations. That’s why all high-deductible health plans that I know of have free preventative care.

            Of course, I quibble about the details of Part D.

        3. No. Say it passes, and the number of Dems expected to lose is accurate. It is reasonable to believe that after seeing their colleagues slaughtered, a few smart Dems will join the GOP and vote for repeal. Especially in the senate.

        4. It’s a big turd thrown against the wall. If it passes, there’s going to be a huge amount of laws and regulations that’ll splatter everywhere.

  25. I don’t put much stock in Harsanyi’s analysis. He’s neither a talented writer nor – and I can’t stress this enough – a serious thinker.

    1. i must love ron paul. i must love ron paul. i must love ron paul. i must love ron paul. i must love ron paul. i must love ron paul. i must love ron paul.

      1. Yeah, those are the two options – either worship Ron Paul or go out of your way to defame, demonize and slander him.

  26. “But none of that can erase history. Once government infiltrates, it rarely retreats. There are precious few examples of federal programs shirking rather than growing?most often in extraordinary ways.”

    History is relevant until it isn’t. That is a pretty unconvincing argument. More importantly, this bill doesn’t just hand out money. It does two things that a large majority of people are going to hate and hate from day one. It eliminates medicare prime. And it mandates everyone buy health insurance. Killing medicare prime is going to be death to Democrats all over the country. The old folks who have that and love it, tend to be middle class, large in number, and vote. That is a single issue vote if there ever was one.

    The mandate offers nothing to anyone other than health insurance companies. And it is probably not even constitutional. And even if it is, it will be tied up in court for years before it is ever enforced.

    I don’t care what people say, the mandate and the ending of Medicare prime will never stand. If BO, vetoes, they will put another President in who won’t.

  27. “…relying on unilateral parliamentary tricks ….”

    You mean, one side gets to win just because they have a majority in both Houses, plus their guy is President? That is such bullshit!

    1. Jesus Christ, Vanneman, just shut the fuck up.

    2. Yeah Vanneman you prick. That is kind of how it works. Same reason Republicans didn’t get to privatize Social Security even thought they had a majority in both houses and the Presidency. Or the Democrats didn’t get Hillarycare in 1993.

      1. So our government is specifically designed to accomplish nothing? How convenient for you armchair anarchists.

        Actually, majority rule tends to be the default rule in any legislature, with exceptions made for specific reasons–not for anything and everything.

        1. No, it was designed to keep colonial elites in power and maintain their ecomomic status. Read some history sometime.

  28. For all the obvious reasons, this won’t be repealed — that is until all the money runs out. Then even Obama’s blue ribbon commission on entitlement reform will have to recommend it’s repeal along with all those other government giveaways.

    1. We all need to just accept the fact that nothing will be repealed and no spending will be cut until the U.S. Government goes utterly bankrupt and collapses. And by then it will be far too late to help any.

  29. Well, we can always hope that anti-abortion dems like Stupak will continue towing the lion. The fetus-fight is the only thing keeping this from passing.

    1. Abortion may be the biggest hurdle, but no public option sets up some interesting choices for the progressives. Kucinich already said he’s a no vote. I’m pretty sure the CBC will come down with Obama.

      1. And Kos vows they’ll primary against him. Who the fuck gave this little weasel a platform?

  30. I think there’s some danger here of conflating this program with an entitlement program like Medicare or Social Security that people feel they’re entitled to because they think of it as a savings account and they’re money’s in.

    What Obama’s about to pass, if he can, isn’t that at all. It’s a wildly unpopular form or welfare that’s massively unpopular–especially among the working poor, who will most likely have to buy something they didn’t have buy before…

    passing an entitlement program that’s wildly popular and that people have a lot invested in is one thing–passing something that’s wildly unpopular is something else entirely.

    How much you wanna bet the more people find out about the less popular it’ll be? The people who support Obamacare think it’s free healthcare for the poor at the expense of the wealthy–and it just isn’t that at all.

    I’m not a fan of any politician who lets something bad for the country and bad for the economy slide by, but I really don’t see a downside for the Republicans here if it does pass, and I see a lot of upside if it does.

    1. I agree. Also, the Democrats have pinned for Health care reform for so long and sold it as a solution to all our problems, they are going to now have to answer for every horror story and anecdote. Instead of playing offense about the need for some pie in the sky health care reform, they will now have to play defense of a system they are unilaterally creating. It is going to be a disaster for them. If this passes, not one Democrat will win re-election in the Senate in 2010. You watch.

    2. How much you wanna bet the more people find out about the less popular it’ll be?

      Yeah, but the Botoxed one says they have to pass it before we can find out what’s in it.

      1. But that’s the point. One the middle class finds out it isn’t about getting them healthcare, once the working poor realize they’re being forced to buy things they weren’t forced to buy before…

        Who’s in favor of it now?

        Entitlements are hard to get rid of because we all think we’re getting our own money back–this isn’t that.

        It may be like an entitlement–but it isn’t thought of as a savings account, like Social Security and Medicare (wrongly) are. So who’s going to fight to keep it after it passes?

        *crickets*

  31. especially among the working poor, who will most likely have to buy something they didn’t have buy before…

    I haven’t read the bill, so take this w/ whatever grain of $1,000 salt you need. I imagine there are credits for the poor so they won’t actually have to outlay any money; their coverage, in other words, will be subsidized. And if it’s not currently in the bill it won’t take long before someone realize that and either puts its in before it passes or after it does.

    1. The people I know in Massachusetts hate the mandate. The problem is that the government is too incompetant to track who has insurance and who doesn’t and pay the subsidies on time. So, you have people who are out of work and stuck putting out $500 a month of their own money while they wait two and three months for the state to reimburse them.

      Also, most people are not the working poor. The majority of people in this country are middle class and have health insurance. And their premiums are going to go up immediately and their health plans are going to change. Everyone knows Obama’s line of bullshit about “keep your plan if you like it” is just that; bullshit. When people start seeing their health insurance rates go up and their coverage changing for the worst, they are going to be pissed.

    2. I doubt any subsidy would cover the new premiums after this bill passes.

      Seriously, if the government is willing to give you $500 a month to pay for your coverage, will any insurance company charge less than that? Look at what student loans have done to the cost of tuition.

      1. Very good.

    3. Have you met any poor people? One of the primary reasons — perhaps even THE primary reason — that they are poor is because every aspect of life is a challenge for them. There will be at least a million poor people that won’t be able to figure out how to buy health insurance AND get the credits. Shit, half of the poor can’t even figure out how to make change for the bus.

  32. Pretty sad when the only defense of the Obama healthcare bill is:

    “Well, it won’t forcibly sodomize you.”

  33. Even if they could, why would the GOP repeal the health care bill? As we have seen they don’t have any problem with big government and high spending as long as they’re the ones in charge. They can sit back and enjoy the growth in government and the new revenue, and blame it all on the Dipposhits.

    The bill is essentially about revenue enhancement. The government can’t afford the debts and the entitlement programs it already has; we have arrived at the point where more than half of the population is a net receiver of government largess and less than half are paying for it. To maintain the status quo the government either must raise taxes, or borrow and inflate the money supply, or – “horrors” – cut spending levels. The Dems are not about to cut spending significantly – that would cost them too many votes from the have-not crowd. They can’t inflate the money supply by much more or they risk runaway inflation and economic collapse. So the only thing left is to raise taxes or pass new ones and have the insurance companies collect them, ie., create a new Ponzi scheme for new suckers (who won’t receive much) to pay into.

    That’s why, from the beginning, Obama has pitched the health care bill as necessary to the country’s economic stability and health. That’s why his “new, improved” version has new taxes on investment and rental income – and everything else under the sun. It has very little to do with providing any health care and what insurance it provides will quickly be found to be not worth a crap – the deductibles and insurance premiums will go up along with the price of health care. Trust me – it’s all about the money – it’s always about the money. This is just another scheme to squeeze a few more grains of rice out of the peons.

    1. The Dems are not about to cut spending significantly – that would cost them too many votes from the have-not crowd[, wealthy real estate developers, financial corporations, banking and insurance institutions.]

      Fixed.

      1. Yep, them too.

    2. Good points. No question that when the bill comes and someone goes to repeal this thing the Democrats will suddenly be fiscally responsible and insists all of the tax increases must stay. And no question the Republicans have been pretty worthless of late. But I honestly think the mood of the country is different. This shit will get changed or there will be hell to pay. There will be a real third party or a complete turn over in the Republican party. People are not going to take it like they have in the past.

  34. “Even if they could, why would the GOP repeal the health care bill? As we have seen they don’t have any problem with big government and high spending as long as they’re the ones in charge.”

    Seriously? It takes a pretty lethal combibation of naive and cynical to really believe that. The whole “there’s no difference between the parties” meme is just willfull blindness. There are a lot of bad apple GOPers on the hill, there is no doubt about that. But fundamentally, the Republican party is the party of smaller government as opposed to the Democrat party which is the party of larger government. IN GENERAL. Of course there are some areas where Republicans lean toward bigger government, but not in general and not on the issue of nationalizing health care.

    1. You know, dude, this “the GOP is still better than the Dems on smaller government” trope has been proven to be flat-out bullshit, so stop fucking peddling it. The GOP had 6 years to prove that, and instead increased government at meteoric rates, so just, really, shut the fuck up.

      The GOP burned its bridges, and they can blow me, and so can any douchebag coming along and trying to sell their diseased brand.

      1. Just tell us where Trent Lott touched you Epi. It’s okay.

        1. He touched my heart, John. My heart.

          1. All politicians, even libertarian ones, are craven. Normal people don’t go into politics. But they will occasionally do the right thing for the wrong reasons. This bill is going to be so unpopular and people are going to be so angry, even the lowest Congress creature is going to proclaiming their new found faith in small government.

            1. So why, exactly, does you statement in any way mean that I should support the GOP over anyone else? In essence, you’re saying look at every politician individually and decide on what I will think they will do out of self interest. Which would make sense if I could vote for more than a tiny handful of them.

              1. You should vote by your self interest. If I lived in Pennsylvania, I sure as hell wouldn’t have voted for Arlan Spector. I don’t care what party he was in. You make the best of what you have. Whining about how no one ever meets your purity test doesn’t accomplish much.

          2. So he touched a lump of coal? I wouldn’t think that would have much of an effect.

            1. Squeeze coal hard enough and it becomes a diamond in the rough or … ice.

        2. I had to learn this in 1993, when I was still young enough and dumb enough to think that politicians might not lie about anything and everything. Remember the “Contract with America”?

          I’d say “Fuck the Republicans with a tree stump”, but with the ever growing list of revelations, I fear too many of them might enjoy it.

          1. They will either change or die. I honestly don’t think people will put up with it anymore. Now, they will not become the peacenik, give a terrorist a hug and leave them alone and we will all be happy in the morning types that Libertarians want. But, the reaction against this is going to be so strong that both parties are going to either buy into small government on the domestic level or they won’t exist anymore. First it will be the Republicans who find the religion. And then after getting killed in a few elections, Democrats will do a lot of thumb sucking and soul searching about where they went wrong. You watch.

          2. I had to learn this in 1993, when I was still young enough and dumb enough to think that politicians might not lie about anything and everything. Remember the “Contract with America”?

            I remember the years from 1994 to 1998 as being pretty good, relatively so, for politics. Then the GOP leadership changed and the people who authored the Contract With America left, and the politicians who thought that spending was the key to reelection succeeded.

            What’s your problem with 1994-1998 and the Contract With America?

            1. Contract with America became compassionate conservatism. The country could do a lot worse than have Kasich and Gingrich in charge.

      2. + many.

      3. If you want someone to blow you, I suggest you talk to Eric Massa. I hear he’s fresh out of staffers.

        And you’re right. The GOP is no better at all. That’s why they nationalize everything they get every chance they get. It’s why they caved on Cap&Trade;, Card Check, and Nationalized Health Care. You’re right.

        1. Check and mate, Epi. Team R opposed some Team D bills, ergo they are heroes to us all. Motherfucking check and motherfucking mate, Epi, you anus-licking DEMONCRAP.

          1. It’s like I’ve been outsmarted by a marmoset, or possibly a gibbon. I must hang my head in shame.

        2. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          Medicare Part D? Multiple wars? Initializing the bailouts? Drug war?

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          Sell it somewhere else, dipshit. We don’t want it here.

          1. Initializing the bailouts

            Bailout bailout = new Bailout(7000000000);

            1. You forgot the overloaded constructor, Warty (and, you fucking dipshit, you shouldn’t name the variable the same as the class):

              public Bailout(long Amount, bool FuckTheAmericanPeople) { }

              So you’d get:

              Bailout B = new Bailout(7000000000, true);

              1. Shouldn’t there be an array? I suspect there will be more bailouts to come.

                1. Dictionary<DateTime, Bailout> Bailouts = new Dictionary<DateTime, Bailout>();

              2. Why wouldn’t I name the variable the same as the class? The fact that it’s lowercase tells me that it’s not a class, you verminous clod. You might also note that I used more than one character for the variable name, as I do not enjoy unreadable code. Dumbass.

                Also, we don’t need to worry about the constructors, since the gov.assrape.* package contains all the constructors we could possibly need.

                1. Well, you atrocious persnickety gonad, I use a, you know, modern code editor called Visual Studio, and I can mouse over any variable and immediately know its type, so I don’t need to lengthen my code when naming objects.

                  1. Well, my youthful fingertips allow me to type all I want, old man. The day that I have to use a typing wand like you is the day I start worrying about variable length.

                    1. You used the words “youthful fingers”, “wand”, and “length” pretty conspicuously there, Warty. NTTAWWT.

                      Also, concise code is clean code. Naming shit the same as the class but with lower case is still somewhat visually confusing. My code is not only vastly technically superior to yours, it is also more aesthetically pleasing.

            2. Arguing online once with a guy…he wrote something of the form:

              if (a) {
                 b != c;
              }

              I had to chuckle.

              1. Uh…yeah. That one always cracks me up.

          2. Medicare part D cost about 1/2 the amount of a single McHopey stimulus. And as far as the multiple wars go, I thought your beef was with Iraq? Or do you think that we should have told the Taliban, hey no problem don’t worry about turning over Bin Ladin.

            1. You want to go in and beat the shit out of the Taliban? Fine. But GET THE FUCK OUT AFTERWARD.

              1. But going over and killing a bunch of people and then leaving and letting the same people back in power that caused the problem and allowing them to claim victory is worse than not going. Hell, if all we were going to do was pointless bomb and kill a few people, we would have been better off groveling.

                Wars suck. And enemies don’t always just give up in the proscribed time period. England had to fight Revolutionary and later Napoleonic France basically from 1794 to 1814. We had to fight the Indians for most of the 19th Century. China had to fight Japan for over 10 years. Catholics and Protestants fought it out for over thirty years in Europe. Who ever said wars must be short and wonderful?

        3. And you’re right. The GOP is no better at all. That’s why they nationalize everything they get every chance they get. It’s why they caved on Cap&Trade;, Card Check, and Nationalized Health Care. You’re right.

          They have caved on Nationalized Healthcare. Obama care is the first step in a nationalized system.

          The GOP caved… fuck that… cave is too generous. The GOP stood athwart Medicare Part D yelling “Go BABY GO BABY GO!” which is the largest. fucking. government. entitlement. of. all. time.

          Their only remaining complaint to Obama care is “ZOMG… FUNDING ABORTIONS!”

          What I’m ultimately left with is that the GOP “not caving” is merely a code word for objecting in committee that maybe things might be growing faster than they’re sort of, you know, comfortable with, but we’ll go ahead and vote if you throw us an occasional abortion bone.

          1. The GOP stood athwart Medicare Part D yelling “Go BABY GO BABY GO!” which is the largest. fucking. government. entitlement. of. all. time.

            Medicare Part D is bad, but your extra periods don’t actually make Part D larger than the rest of Medicare or even Social Security.

            1. Sorry, John. “Biggest New Entitlement”. Better?

              Here’s GOP Larry Craig, claiming that it will “reduce dependency on government”:

              For the first time in 50 years we have a Republican Congress and a Republican President. Do you want the monument to this session to say, “This was the Republican government that created the biggest new entitlement since Johnson”-the Medicare prescription drugs plan?

              SEN. LARRY CRAIG (R.-IDAHO): Or you can say this is the Congress that faced a Medicare program that is ballooning out of control and has created competitive forces in it that will allow the free market to begin to contain and hold prices down. As an advocate of Medical Savings Accounts, which has always been limited by the liberals, it is now wide open. It is probably the most significant reform for the private sector in health care in 50 years. . . .. I am going to vote for this bill. . . .We can either look at it as major reform or a step in the right direction that will get better over time. And if we keep electing conservative forces to Congress those steps will all be in the right direction

              Do you think this bill will actually decrease government dependency?

              CRAIG: It has that possibility. . . . There are at least four factors in this bill that defy those who believe in a federalized health care system. Means testing-first time ever. Premium payments. Deductibles. All those kinds of things are in here. . . . So there are other ways of looking at it besides calling it the largest entitlement ever.

              1. Biggest new entitlement since the previous new entitlement, sure.

                Everything Craig says there is correct in that it made the bill better than the alternative, but still not worth passing. Too bad the concept was too popular with the American people.

          2. Paul, you do realize that it is actually a faction of democrats holding up the bill on abortion funding grounds, don’t you? Republicans are standing against the bill on fiscal grounds but don’t have enough votes to actually block it in the house without help from democrats. The democrats who are helping are ones who realize a yes vote is suicide or who oppose federal funding of abortion. So, you’ve kinda got that all mixed up there, Paul.

      4. Point is, no one is here to sell the republican brand. But to deny that there is a difference between Rs & Ds is foolish.

        1. Different priorities, same final result.

        2. Wow, Warty. A little passive aggressive there? Since there’s no difference between the parties, let’s just have all the R’s roll over and vote yes. Then in the next cycle we can have a fully one party congress. That will be a lot of fun.

          1. That would be a disaster. We might get some gigantic new educational boondoggles, or doubled spending over 8 years, or multiple new foreign entanglements. FUCKING DEMONRATS

          2. You really are a zombie if you think the GOP opposes the Dems on votes out of any principle whatsoever.

            1. I don’t know. I can’t read their minds. But what difference does it make? Do you honestly think that they would pass Obamacare if they were in charge? In the end, all that matters is they vote the right way. I don’t really care if their souls are pure. That is between them and God.

              1. Oh, it’s great that they’re opposing Team D’s current assrape attempts. Good for them. I will be much more impressed if they fail to commit assrape next time they run things.

                1. Warty, we’re all hoping not to get assraped next time the R’s are in charge. But you and Epi are basically saying there’s no point in even wishing the R’s would be in charge again because it’s a given that they are going to give us the same assraping as the D’s are giving us. I simply say that is not a given and it’s unlikely.

                  1. Every now and then, a circumcision thread comes up. I invariably note that performing cosmetic non-consensual amputations on infants is evil, whether they’re boys or girls. I get a lot of WELL ITS SO MUCH WORSE FOR GIRLS THEY SEW THEM UP YOU’RE CRAZY

                    You remind me of those threads. I, for one, and not particularly interested in “less bad”.

                    1. I don’t like less bad either. But when the choices are limited to bad or less bad where else do you go. In your case, you seem to be saying eff it all if we’re gonna set the house on fire let’s make sure it burns all the way to the ground.

                    2. Oh god, don’t get me started on that again!

                2. So would everyone else. But, again, you fight with what you have. And you don’t help matters by never admitting when one side does the right thing.

                  Think about this for a second. The entire Republican caucus has actually stood up and tried to stop something. No one RINO traitor in the mix. Even Olympia Snow hasn’t sold out. If the Republicans are really no different than the Democrats, why haven’t at least a few of them sold out to pass this thing? You don’t think Obama wouldn’t have made it worth their while to get even one Republican vote? Can you imagine the press accolades the Republican traitor would have gotten? The media would have held that person up as the “only reasonable Republican in America”. The personal benefits would have been huge. And yet not one has taken the bait. That even surprises me to be honest. And they may actually stop this thing and keep Obama from doing long term damage. And all Libertarians can do is bitch and bang their rattles about shit that happened nearly ten years ago now.

            2. As I have said repeatedly – no they’re not all pure as the driven snow. I do know that when republicans were in charge we measured defecits in billions. That was bad. With democrats in charg we measure defecits in trillions. That’s worse. A lot worse.

          3. You’re right, the Dems believe in big government, while the Republicans say they don’t.

            If we leave out the Obama admin. (too soon to judge + massive recession), over the past couple decades, Republican governments have consistently exploded deficits while Democratic ones have not. You’re buying into talking points, not reality.

            1. Over the “past couple of decades”, “minus obama” = Clinton.

              I.e. The only Democratic President who didn’t explode budget deficits was Clinton.

              One point is not a trend, Tony.

              1. Okay make it 3. Carter and Clinton were better than Reagan and Bush.

        3. Point is, no one is here to sell the republican brand. But to deny that there is a difference between Rs & Ds is foolish.

          Name one meaningful difference that has nothing to do with pet social conservative issues:

          Corporate welfare? Nope.
          Too big to fail? Nope.
          Government bailouts? Nope.
          Medicare Part D? Nope.
          ObamaCare? Minor details.
          Wiretaps? Nope.
          War on Terror? Minor details.
          The policy that created Guantanamo? Nope.

          1. Name one meaningful difference that has nothing to do with pet social conservative issues:

            Free trade.
            Educational charter schools and vouchers, though I suppose you’ll call that pet social conservative issues, because we know that social conservatives love giving scholarships to poor black kids in DC.
            HSAs.

            Corporate welfare? Nope.
            Too big to fail? Nope.
            Government bailouts? Nope.
            Medicare Part D? Nope.
            ObamaCare? Minor details.
            Wiretaps? Nope.
            War on Terror? Minor details.
            The policy that created Guantanamo? Nope.

            Oh, come on. We know those aren’t the basis of certain libertarian objections to the GOP, or people wouldn’t have hated McCain so much.

            Parties aren’t monoliths. Many of the policies you’ve listed a majority of Republicans voted against, or the Democrats proposed something twice as much (Medicare Part D), and it polled extremely well. Do you think it would have been better for the Republicans to be wiped out so that the Democrats could have passed a more expensive Part D plus Obamacare?

            The average Republican is better than the average Democrat, but the average both, just like the average American voter, isn’t libertarian enough, certainly. And even with a Republican majority, the center of power was the squishy moderates.

            Granted, Bush was definitely at fault for being way, way too bipartisan as a President. Only good thing was the farm bill veto.

            Of course, at the same time, the leftists right now are screaming that a Democratic majority isn’t enough to push the center of power left enough to pass single-payer.

            You can participate in the system or not, but, yeah, changes at the margin tend to be pretty small, which mostly is the fault of the American voter.

            1. Free trade.

              Vague, be more specific.

              Educational charter schools and vouchers, though I suppose you’ll call that pet social conservative issues, because we know that social conservatives love giving scholarships to poor black kids in DC.
              HSAs.

              No Child Left Behind. A large federal program which created all manner of new levers to federal power over local schools– allowing Democrats to bitch onstage about Bush’s failed education programs, while backstage, their mouths watered at the prospect of getting their own hands on those levers.

              Parties aren’t monoliths. Many of the policies you’ve listed a majority of Republicans voted against, or the Democrats proposed something twice as much (Medicare Part D), and it polled extremely well. Do you think it would have been better for the Republicans to be wiped out so that the Democrats could have passed a more expensive Part D plus Obamacare?

              You’re only serving to make my point. If it weren’t for the GOP, government would be growing at 900x the rate of inflation. But thanks to the gop’s bitching about… ABORTION FUNDING FOR OBAMACARE, it only grows at 890x the rate of inflation.

              The average Republican is better than the average Democrat, but the average both, just like the average American voter, isn’t libertarian enough, certainly. And even with a Republican majority, the center of power was the squishy moderates.

              I’m not going to speak on the squishy moderates… but what did principled conservatism get us over the last eight years in the realm of civil liberties?

              1. And to think I used to be one…GAH!

              2. Free trade.

                Vague, be more specific.

                The parties are light years different on free trade, especially now. Essentially every Democratic Senate gain in 2006 and 2008 involved someone rabidly anti-trade winning.

                I realize that many libertarians like to be against free trade agreements because they have provisions detailing exactly how a tariff is going to be repealed over ten years instead of unilaterally repealing them immediately, but there’s the agreements, the Mexican trucks thing and the resultant tariffs, the Brazil tariffs, the Chinese tariffs, etc.

                No Child Left Behind. A large federal program which created all manner of new levers to federal power over local schools– allowing Democrats to bitch onstage about Bush’s failed education programs, while backstage, their mouths watered at the prospect of getting their own hands on those levers.

                A law written by Ted Kennedy and voted for by a higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans, which makes the bitching even sillier. I agree, Bush was far, far too bipartisan, and the Republicans shouldn’t have gone along.

                But thanks to the gop’s bitching about… ABORTION FUNDING FOR OBAMACARE, it only grows at 890x the rate of inflation.

                That’s a block of Democrats bitching that’s slowing it down. The GOP would be bitching regardless.

                1. And don’t forget unions. The Republicans would never pass something like card check. And a lot of turd bag Democrats whom commentators on here claim are “good guys” (Jim Webb I am looking at you) support card check.

                  1. Or a law requiring that companies that receive government contracts have to pay their employees above a certain level and provide healthcare, etc. Obama is trying to do just that.

                2. That’s a block of Democrats bitching that’s slowing it down. The GOP would be bitching regardless.

                  And we still cling to this notion that there different from eachother? When do I do my endzone dance?

                  1. there = ‘they’re’ sheesh.

                    I will use the preview button.
                    I will use the preview button.
                    I will use the preview button.

                  2. Some democrats voting with republicans some of the time for their own reasons doesn’t make the parties the same any more than some repubicans voting with democrats some of the time makes them the same. In the case of the current health care debacle we just happen to be lucky that the democrats triangulated themselves so badly that they can’t satisfy all of their members so some of those members will vote with the republicans out of protest.

                    But on the principle of this issue, of Obamacare, the differences couldn’t be more stark. Starker? Whatever.

                  3. And we still cling to this notion that there different from eachother? When do I do my endzone dance?

                    When you actually make a point.

                    Rep. Stupak’s group is formed of Democrats who would love to vote for the bill, but don’t like abortion. The Republicans would vote against the bill anyway. Sounds to me like that supports the notion that they’re different from each other.

                    Parties have varying opinions; they’re not monoliths. Just because there’s a spectrum of opinion, outlier cases, and particular issues, doesn’t mean that the parties and the average opinions in each party aren’t different.

                    What it does mean is that change in control, while it makes marginal differences, does not necessarily lead to wholesale changes.

                    Nor should it, incidentally, from the libertarian perspective, for the reasons mentioned in this article. Repealing something is always far, far more politically unpopular than preventing it from being passed. The bias against change in the US government system overwhelmingly favors libertarians over the long run, even if it means that libertarian ideas can’t be passed when they have a simple majority.

      5. You know, dude, this “the GOP is still better than the Dems on smaller government” trope has been proven to be flat-out bullshit, so stop fucking peddling it. The GOP had 6 years to prove that, and instead increased government at meteoric rates, so just, really, shut the fuck up.

        If those six years are a “proof,” then 1994-1999 “proves” that a Republican Congress with a Democratic President is better for small government and that we should all hope for that.

        And 2007-2008 along with the 1980s “proves” that a Democratic Congress with Republican President is no better than unified control.

        1. Total government spending as a percent of GNP in 1980 was 33.72%. In 1988 it was 34.73%. And that includes state and local spending. Yeah, Reagan didn’t reduce the size of government like he wanted to. But it hardly exploded either. To compare the 1980s to 2007 and 2008, is just an outright lie.

          http://www.usgovernmentspendin…..p;title=US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s

          1. What the graph reveals is that spending as a percentage of GDP goes up in recessions.

            That of course is what happened during GWB’s Presidency as well. Spending (as a percentage of GDP) lurched upwards during the recession, and then was very stable from 2002 onwards.

            The “OMG the Bush years were so terrible” argument mostly lies with the timing of the business cycle and recessions, and the responses thereto. Of course, to the degree you think that the politicians are responsible for making that worse, that’s another thing.

            The recent recession is much worse than the 2000-2002 recession, and the government response is much worse. (Out of proportion? I’d argue so.)

          2. Carter was president all of 1980.

            1. Yeah. And Reagan took over in 1981. So, the 1980 level is the starting point for Reagan. Bush took over in 1989, so 1988 is the ending level.

        2. And 2007-2008 along with the 1980s “proves” that a Democratic Congress with Republican President is no better than unified control.

          John,

          I would argue that any more, a democrat congress with a republican president is unified control.

          But I admit I’m one of those cantankerous libertarians that fails to see the difference between the two…

          1. I would argue that any more, a democrat congress with a republican president is unified control.

            Well, sure, with a President as bipartisan as GWB…

            1. Thank you John. As I said, I can’t hardly tell the difference. So why did the GOP back him for so long?

              1. The War in Iraq. Had the Democrats not gone nuts and aligned themselves with Michael Moore, Bush might not have been re-elected. Had there never been a 9-11, he would probably not have been re-elected.

              2. The war.

                Bush moved considerably to the center on spending after 9/11.

                Libertarians will argue, understandably, that that’s good reason not to be involved with a war.

                And yet, at the same time, it’s also true that libertarian desertion from the GOP coalition over the war forced Bush (in the “trying to win a majority” way that politicians are forced) to seek extra votes from moderates in the electorate to replace the lost libertarians.

                1. Bush bought Congressional support for the war by letting them have all the goodies and ear marks they wanted.

      6. It it were not taboo now I would type “+1” or maybe it should be “QFT”.

        1. Above is directed at Episiarch’s response to DC’s post.

        2. QFT is acceptable. If you want to be a smartass, try “Plus One”.

        3. Whatever happened to:

          This.

    2. It takes a pretty lethal combibation of naive and cynical to really believe that.

      Cynicism, as it is generally used, means seeing truths that most people find unpleasant and would rather kid themselves about. I’ve been voting in presidential elections since 1972 and watching politics since before that; no matter which party runs the government it’s kept getting bigger and bigger. They’re just two sides of the same counterfeit coin. I may be cynical, but naivete is something I lost with my virginity years ago.

        1. Well…it was a chick and she had a crack.

  35. This is a good point. If the GOP can stop the bill before it passes its a good thing but this problem has existed in the past.

    In 1962 the CCF introduced Universal Medicare to Saskatchewan in spite of great controversy by docters, nurses, community leaders and the general public. Univeral Medicare was a fundematal issue leading to the election of the Liberals under Ross Thatcher in 1964, is spite of Medicare being a campaign issue it was not repealled. Today Saskatchewan has gone from a health system on par tiwh the US to the worst health system in Canada, and 49% of the provincial budget goes to healthcare.

    1. So what you’re saying is thanks to conservatives, only 49% of the provincial budget goes to healthcare.

      1. What he’s saying is that entitlements are damn near impossible to repeal.

        Which, yes, makes Medicare Part D a huge problem, but it also means that solutions along the lines of “let’s just vote for third parties or not vote until the GOP is pure libertarian, and if it takes an election drubbing to achieve that so what!” aren’t really solutions, because even two years of a big majority is enough to pass things that will never be repealed.

        1. Absolutly. In fact it gets worse because after Sasatchewan intorduced Medicare, the NDP introduced the Canada Health Act which was passed by the a Liberal minority government to prevent a non confidence vote (a vote to disolve parliament and call an election). The former NDP leader Tommy Douglas is heroically viewed as the “Father of Medicare” and Canadians take pride in medicare even though healthcare has gotten steadily worse and has since the 1970’s been the number one issue except when there is a big deficit (healthcare spending can easily make the difference between a surplus and a deficit).

          Americans are lucky because the checks and balances veto, two houses, filibuster, have not been givien up in the name of democracy, and this has prevented big programs from coming into affect.

  36. This bill will not be repealed legislatively once passed-Pure & Simple. That being said, why wouldn’t a Republican Congress simply defund Obamacare (i.e. don’t appropriate any money for it.) Congress controls the purse strings, not The Presidency.

    If The GOP actually had the stones to do this (and I severely doubt they do), Obamacare would “die on the vine” so to speak.

    I can dream.

    1. Kevin, that’s not a bad idea as a last resort. But it’s only kind of a temporary fix. We really need it to fail altogether in the House – which I realize is dreaming on my part.

  37. Really, this is now what is turning out to be “Classic Obama”:

    Obama delivers fiery rhetoric about the the evil insurance companies, and how he’s not going to stand idly by while they bulldoze the American people.

    Meanwhile, the executive director of the Healthcare Insurance Alliance is on hold where Obama and he will talk about just how to formulate this bill so as to satisfy the insurance companies.

    He did the exact same thing during the bank and financial sector bailouts. He bitched non-stop about $160 million dollars in bonuses rewarding irresponsible behavior, all the while his administration was wiring billions of dollars to those same corporations.

    Everytime Obama says he’s going to ‘stick it to corporate America’, my ass hurts…

  38. “The GOP stood athwart Medicare Part D yelling “Go BABY GO BABY GO!” ”

    That’s some funny shit. I mean it’s very clever. Conservatives have often been accused of “standing athwart history and shouting no” but he turns it around cleverly, and then the SNL style sexual inneundo allcaps yelling of “GO BABY GO BABY GO!”. That really made me laugh. +1

    Now the rest of you comics get cracking on measuring up to that…

    1. Medicare Part D was pretty bi-partisan. The people at National Review hated it because they saw it as a new entitlement. The liberals hated it because it didn’t follow the medicare model and actually had a few free market features. The bill got 9 Dem votes in the Senate. And 7 Republicans voted against it. I can’t find the House numbers. But it was hardly a party line vote.

      1. Vote counts for Bush’s bipartisan bills here.

        Medicare Part D got 12 Dem votes for in the Senate, 9 Republicans against. The slightly different numbers you offer are for the cloture vote.

        In the House, 16 Dems for, 25 Reps against.

    2. Hello Shit Facktory!

      EOM

  39. I would prefer a GOP that recognizes the position of weakness it is in, and gets as many concessions as possible. Principled opposition, my ass. We’re the ones who have to pay for your principled ass. If the thing is going to pass, then chip away at it, don’t just sit on the sidelines and complain to your smug-ass self. Do some work, fer chrissakes.

    1. What concessions are they really going to get? And further, if they followed that path, it would just ensure that the Democrats would never get blamed for this. Nothing makes a policy permanent quicker than making it “bi-partisan”. If they are going to get it anyway, better to get it on a party line vote so there is no question who is responsible.

      1. We’re going to pay out the nose, and you’re worried that the Democrats might not get blamed? Who do we blame for Bush II blowing up the budget? Let’s get past the blame game, because getting a GOP majority doesn’t mean the deficit will go down. History teaches us that. So I don’t buy into the blame game scenario.

        1. If neither side gets blamed, it never gets fixed. That is why it is important to have clarity. All a bi-partisan compromise would do, would create a horrible bill that no one could ever argue against.

      2. We’re going to pay out the nose, and you’re worried that the Democrats might not get blamed? Who do we blame for Bush II blowing up the budget? Let’s get past the blame game, because getting a GOP majority doesn’t mean the deficit will go down. History teaches us that. So I don’t buy into the blame game scenario.

        1. Double post? Not cool, squirrely man.

        2. Who do we blame for Bush II blowing up the budget?

          Mostly the recession, the rest on the politicians. There was a bubble in 1999-2000, as well as being the top of the economic cycle, and it was always almost certain that when the bubble popped and the recession started, government spending as a percentage of GDP would increase back to the historical average, after 2002 or so it was constant.

          because getting a GOP majority doesn’t mean the deficit will go down. History teaches us that.

          History teaches us that a GOP majority with a Democratic President means that the deficit will go down. Unless we suddenly have a problem with invoking “History” for small sample sizes.

    2. Lamar, that is precisely the type of governance that leads to people like Epi and Warty saying there is no difference between the parties. Kinda like when Rs opposed the D’s big whopping Medicare Part D bill, so insetad passed their own scaled down version. So a less bad policy was passed in place of a much worse policy and R’s still get stuck with the “well look at you you’re no different than the democrats” meme.

      Sometimes maybe we gotta just stand on principle and oppose the sodomizing altogether, rather than negotiating down to a slightly less painful sodomizing. If we stand on principle we might snag enough dems and stop the thing. We might also lose and get sodomized. If we compromise for a smaller sodomizing, we’re going to get it for sure.

      1. I can’t speak for Epi or Warty, but people say there is no difference in the parties because they both spend like crazy when they are in power. And now it looks like the GOP is going to let the Democrats have their way because they are too proud to scale the thing back. Too Proud. Hey, maybe they stop the whole thing. I hope you’re right. But that’s a big risk for pride, especially since I’m the one who will be paying for your little exercise in pride.

        1. people say there is no difference in the parties because they both spend like crazy when they are in power. And now it looks like the GOP is going to let the Democrats have their way because they are too proud to scale the thing back. Too Proud.

          And the alternative to the scaled back Medicare Part D as passed was a twice as expensive Medicare Part D.

          People bitch either way, but the American people vote for spending like crazy.

          1. If we elect the ‘Great One’ supreme ruler, and lord of the land. We would all be unified in our dislike.

            Maybe then we could have peace, love, and tulips to dance in. The sky would never be dark. The oceans would be calm. And the world will love us.

            Sorry I smoked something Tony sent me…..

        2. Lamar, I don’t see how you cast this as an issue of GOP pride? How is any little concession they might get worth rolling over? So let’s say they get a cuople little concessions? It won’t be on anything substantial and the pain in your wallet will be only slightly less. Why screw around with the margins when we can maybe stand on principle and stop the whole thing? We are extremely lucky that Nancy Pelosi has pissed off a big enough part of her caucus that they might vote no. Some will do so out of spite, some to save their jobs, some over the abortion funding, some because it’s not progressive enough. Whatever. But we have a chance to stop this by standing on principle and exploiting fisures in the Dem caucus. Why not play to win here?

        3. And now it looks like the GOP is going to let the Democrats have their way

          Because nothing says “we’re going to let the Dems have their way” better than a unanimous party-line vote against the Dems having their way.

          1. If you lose the vote, then that is essentially what happens. I’m not talking about the GOP’s obsession with “sending a [meaningless] message”. I’m talking about getting in their and scaling this thing back.

            1. That is what they did with Medicare Part D. What passed was much smaller than the alternative. And they still get killed for it today. If they got this thing scaled back, it would just tell people they are the same as Dems.

              And also, I have yet to hear how the Dems would agree to scale it back. Pelosi thinks she can get everything without a Republican vote. What motivation does she have to compromise?

      2. STEVE SMITH NEVER NEGOTIATE.

  40. 50% of Americans want to dump their congressman

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/#ixzz0hoFEN45A

    1. Damn joke handles.

      BTW:

      Republicans Say Tea Party Candidate is Fake

      CNN reports that some Republicans are accusing Jon Scott Ashjian, “a new Tea Party candidate running for U.S. Senate in Nevada, of being a fake. The allegation? He was put in the race by agents of Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to siphon votes from the GOP.”

      Says Senate candidate Danny Takanian (R): “No doubt about it. Nobody in the Tea Party knows who he is. He didn’t know any of the principles of the Tea Party.”

      If true, and Reid ultimately wins, it would be one of the all time great political stories.

      Read more: http://politicalwire.com/archi…..z0hoFUCo1P

  41. I just can’t understand that NOTHING IS FREE! If the government gives you a service, especially at no or reduced cost, your taxes and/or inflation will rise. You may not be paying directly for it, but you will pay. More often than not, paying indirectly means you will get even less bang for your buck. How is that too complex?

  42. Would this bill have to be repealed per se? I would think a bill be enacted to reinstitute high deductible plans and more choice in insurance options to override the current bill’s mandates. Like Bush or not I think he was on the right track with the high deductible plans. Now just get health insurance away from employment.

  43. This letter appeared in the Indianapolis Star (which is owned by the same people who own the Arizona Republic ) and was sent to a very popular Indiana Senator. This just goes to show everyone what pressure these Democrats are currently under, so continue to let them know how you feel about the healthcare bill.
    Bill Stough

    Shock to NBC This morning.

    An Indianapolis doctor’s letter to Sen. Bayh about the Bill (Note: Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, MD practices as an anesthesiologist in Indianapolis, IN ) Here is a letter I sent to Senator Bayh.. Feel free to copy it and send it around to all other representatives. — Stephen Fraser

    Senator Bayh,

    As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the health care bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government’s proposed involvement in the patient-physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a health care system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our health care system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster if passed.

    I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens.

    Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!

    Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

    Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

    Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!

    Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

    Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals’ finances & a ‘National ID Health card’ will be issued! (Papers please!)

    Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer. (Time for more cash and carry)

    Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

    Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the ‘Exchange.’

    Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans — The Govt will ration your health care!

    Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)

    Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

    Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members – your health care WILL be rationed!)
    Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)

    Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt monopoly.

    Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association – The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.

    Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)

    Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees ANDtheir families. (Employees shouldn’t get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)

    Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.)
    Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn’t provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.

    Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

    Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.) (Like always)

    Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. will have access to ALL Americans’ finances and personal records. (I guess so they can ‘deduct’ their fees)

    Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” (Yes, it really says that!) ( a ‘fee’ instead)
    Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.)

    Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn’t matter what specialty you have trained yourself in — you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that’s not Socialism!)

    Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor’s time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally– the value of humans.)

    Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for “private” HC industries.

    Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

    Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!

    Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e…re-admissions).

    Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission — the Govt will penalize you.

    Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)

    Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)
    Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)

    Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based measures. (HC the way they want — rationing.)
    Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)

    Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of ‘special needs people!’ Unbelievable!

    Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a “Tele-Health Advisory Committee.” (Can you say HC by phone?)

    Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates “Advance-Care Planning Consult.” (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)

    Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it’s mandatory!)
    Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an “approved” list of end-of-life resources; guiding you in death. (Also called ‘assisted suicide.’)(Sounds like Soylent Green to me.)

    Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on “end-of-life.” (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)

    Page 429 Lines 1-9: An “advanced-care planning consultant” will be used frequently as a patient’s health deteriorates.

    Page 429 Lines 10-12: An “advanced care consultation” may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans.. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)

    Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.. (I wouldn’t want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)

    Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again — no choice!)

    Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)

    Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)

    Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.

    Senator, I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.

    Furthermore, if you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor-patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election.

    Respectfully,

    Stephen E. Fraser, MD

    Dear Reader,

    I urge you to use the power that you were born with (and the power that may soon be taken away) and circulate this email to as many people as you can reach. The Power of the People can stop this from happening to us, our parents, our grandparents, our children, and to following generations

  44. Thank you David Harsanyi for stating the obvious. The two major parties are two sides of the same coin who both believe in statism only for different reasons. For all the talk from Republicans make about being for smaller government, the government never got smaller with they were in charge at any time in history. Democrats have been a big government party since Woodrow Wilson.

    The debate has change from should we takeover health care to how should we takeover health care. That tells you all you need to know.

  45. Actually, when republicans take back the senate (and they will soon) all they need to do is a simple majority vote to abolish the filibuster rule in the senate (it’s a procedural rule that can be rescinded by 51 votes). This was the original “nuclear option” (first bandied about when the democrats were filibustering everything under Bush). After Obama, there will be no worry of the democrats controlling the Senate for years to come. They’ll also need a republican president, of course (but that will be a given in 2012). Obamacare can be completely undone by January 2013, well before the true damage is done.

  46. Bush bought Congressional support for the war by letting them have all the goodies and ear marks they wanted.
    website:
    http://www.christianlouboutinvips.com

  47. truth,,,,obama people have no idea of the extent to which they have to be gulled in order to be led.”
    “The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one.”
    “All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it.”
    “Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.”pelosi don’t see much future for the Americans … it’s a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities …obama feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance … everything about the behaviour of American society reveals that it’s half Judaised, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold TOGTHER.They include the angry left wing bloggers who spread vicious lies and half-truths about their political adversaries… Those lies are then repeated by the duplicitous left wing media outlets who “discuss” the nonsense on air as if it has merit? The media’s justification is apparently “because it’s out there”, truth be damned. STOP THIS COMMUNIST OBAMA ,GOD HELP US ALL .THE COMMANDER ((GOD OPEN YOUR EYES)) stop the communist obama & pelosi.((open you eyes)) ,the commander

  48. This has been very helpful understanding a lot of things. I’m sure a lot of other people will agree with me.

  49. This is very helpful. Thanks for the information.

    juristische ?bersetzung

  50. votes to pass Obamacare, the GOP triumphantly will

  51. you are absolutely right when you said that once the government infiltrate,it rarely retreats.I mean how many times have we seen that happen?especially in the recent times,its very rare compared to the earlier times.this article of yours definitely helped clear the fog around this question

  52. you are absolutely right when you said that once the government infiltrate,it rarely retreats.I mean how many times have we seen that happen?especially in the recent times,its very rare compared to the earlier times.this article of yours definitely clear the fog around this question
    http://helpforsinglemother.net/

  53. This bill will not be repealed legislatively once passed-Pure & Simple. That being said, why wouldn’t a Republican Congress simply defund Obamacare (i.e. don’t appropriate any money for it.) Congress controls the purse strings, not The Presidency.

  54. I admire the useful details you supply in your content.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.