Will Scott Brown Kill ObamaCare?

the US consitition is nonsense to you?

in other words no you don't you just have a bullshit veiw and think people should suffer for bad look.

every action has a cost. and no they aren't. IT requires more than just them for them to succede.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is true that we've already covered the most expensive part of the population with Medicare; but it's also true that the premiums they're charged don't come close to covering the cost of insuring them.

I am familiar with Medicare as a provider and I certainly know a lot of people on it. So allowing more people to sign up for Medicare is far less scary than any program Obama, Pelosi, and Reid come up with.

Have any studies been done on the cost of opening up Medicare to everyone (ie it's effect on the budget)? Is information available on what premium would be needed to cover the actual cost so that it could actually be "budget neutral"?

Perhaps we could try opening it up to everyone in one state and see what happens as a trial. Or perhaps we might start by allowing people age 55 and up buy in.

Why not impanel a bipartisan commision to come up with some alternative plans of this sort. Maybe we could then have town hall meetings in which the various plans would be presented and explained to the voters. No rush. Take some time. You know, try to reach an actual consensus before acting on something that affects every American rather than this secretive bullshit going on behind closed doors with sweetheart deals for the unions and insurance companies and payoffs for various politicians so they can ram "reform" down our throats.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because you couldn't get any Republicans to join it. You would have to rely on the fraction of Democrats who weren't in the insurance or financial industry's pockets.

That's been tried repeatedly for half a century.

There have already been been many alternative plans of this sort proposed, some with reasonably careful budget analyses and so forth, by what we now call fringe leftists and the like, over the past fifty years. Wellstone's plan was shopped around to dozens of town hall meetings and citizen's commissions of various kinds - that's the only way he could get any information about in into the media discussion. That was ten or fifteen years ago now. There's been plenty of time, plenty of ideas, plenty of analysis, plenty of work put into the preparation phase. That's not what's going wrong here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Remember Ross Perot with his charts and what not? That's what the president should have done. He should have taken an active role and put forth a coherent proposal rather than this Frankenstein monster they're trying to bring to life right now.

I really hope Brown wins and kills this bill, or that it dies some other way.

Obama appears to be taking a hands off approach to this election, despite pleas from Ms. Coakley.

Even though the campaign of Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has been making quiet entreaties, the president has no plans to visit her in the last week of the special election to fill the Senate seat once held by the late Edward M. Kennedy.

"It's not on our schedule to go to next week," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said matter-of-factly.

With Mrs. Coakley flagging in the polls and Republican Scott Brown closing fast -- one recent polls puts him 2 points ahead -- Mr. Obama has decided to keep his fingerprints off a race that would be an embarrassment for Democrats should they lose, given that Mr. Obama won the state in 2008 by a 27 point margin. ...

On Thursday, Mr. Obama cut a video for the Democrat. "Its clear now that the outcome of these and other fights will probably rest on one vote in the United States Senate, Mr. Obama said in the message. "Thats why what happens Tuesday in Massachusetts is so important."

But not quite important enough for a presidential visit. ​

http://washingtontimes.com/news/201...tance-massachusetts-race/?feat=home_headlines

 

Latest Poll:
Brown 50 Coakley 46

This result is still within the margin of error, but wow. This is Massachusettes we're talking about. The bluest of the blue states. Go Brown!
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/po..._trumping_martha_coakley/srvc=home&position=0

And check out this video:

Krauthammer: Health Bill Will Be Seen As "Poison" By Dems If Brown Wins

 

To the US Senate?

To the public: that's the media's job. That liberal biased media, remember?

What happened to this bill is that the entire thing had to be fitted to what the insurance and drug and finance industry would accept. Like fitting a Christmas tree through the cat door, things started small and went ugly from there.

There is nothing the President could have done to get a single Republican vote in the Senate, and very little to sway the likes of Joe Lieberman or Ben Johnson that would have looked any different than this. The US Congress and media are seriously malfunctioning, and there isn't much Obama could do about that even if he were so inclined.

 

Reagan also did it with Star Wars, as I recall, and he got at least part of that passed.

 

Reagan with charts and graphs and stuff would have been quite the memorable comedy event - but no, he didn't. The media cooperated all by themselves, with the occasional AWOL - like Scientific American - finding themselves suddenly at odds with important advertisers.

Reagan's Congressional opposition, in the Star Wars debacle, was a motley crowd of better educated and less corrupt Congressmen, anyway - not a unified bloc of Party line conga and some allied corporate pocket lint.

 

Massachusetts: 'Bottom has fallen out' of Coakley's polls; Dems prepare to explain defeat, protect Obama
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
01/15/10 7:10 AM EST​

Here in Massachusetts, as well as in Washington, a growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. "I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers," says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. "If she's not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout," the Democrat says. "So right now, she is destined to lose."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...eat-protect-Obama-81681862.html#ixzz0chKTzxOl
​

 

It would be easier to laugh at these people if they lived in a different country from me.

You have to agree that the United States citizens have the government they deserve, and richly deserve the governing they have been getting and are going to get, good and hard.

 

I found this interesting...

This is pretty amazing considering the seat was held by dems for decades, maybe the people there are ready for a change. However, the only way Brown has a chance is by landslide, no doubt the dem machine is in full swing. Acorn and SEIU etc. will be bussing folks in to vote, stuffing ballot boxes, lose a few rep votes and double count a few dem votes. With Mass. being totally dem controlled this will happen with no repercussions. And if Brown still leads the vote count...see Al Franken MN.

 

No doubt the Chicago Republicans will be voting in this election too. I would not be suprised to see the Tea Party people busing them in to flood the polling stations.

 

So in other words you think the dems are going to act like republicans?

 

By Ted Kennedy, not "dems".

All of the stuff that looked like fraud favored Coleman - the hand count caught some odd stuff - but there wasn't much, and it was probably coincidence. The legal delays and screwing around were by the Republican legal team, to delay the seating of the elected Senator.

Coleman just lost the election, is all. The circus was Republican - and yes, we could see another one in an election like this one.

 

Who are these Chicago Republicans you keep talking about? Chicago is generally Democrat territory. Once you've got the Democratic nomination in Chicago, the actual election is just a formality. You know, kind of like Massachusetts..........:scratchin:......er.....wait a minute....like Massachusetts BOPR (Before Obama, Pelosi, and Reid).

 

4 of the last 5 governors of Massachusetts have been Republican.

Mitt Romney was the governor of Mass until just recently. Then he quit to run for President on the Republican ticket, in which attempt he embarrassed himself (not his Party, which has no shame).

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/15/14910/7764
Article on Why Republicans win in Massachusetts. Republicans can win in Massachusetts if they run as being efficient and honest. Running against the cultural perversion of liberalism won't work in Massachusetts. Republicans in Massachusetts must insist that they are not party loyalists.

 

I was referring to those Republicans who will bend the rules in order to win an election...not that the necessarily come from Chicago.

 

liberalism is not a cultural perversion but an expression of it growing

 

I'm aware of Mitt Romney. I'm talking about Senate seats. A Republican hasn't held a Senate seat in Massachusetts in over 30 years.

As to the governorships, that's the old game we played all those years when the Democrats had control of congress of over 40 years. You elect a Democrat Representative and Senator to get all the goodies he can from the government; and a Republican president to protect you from everyone else's Representative/Senator.