As if exempting Nebraska wasn't insulting enough to "equal protection"...

[corplinx]

If corporate reps are at the negotiations and Roman Catholic bishops are at the negotiations, I think the unions should also be at the negotiations.

The negotiations are over. The bills were passed. Perhaps you haven't been watching the news.....

This is a special interest group dictating competitive advantages for itself in the conference (where there are new negotiations but nothing on par with the actual process to get the two bills passed to begin with, there should be zero special interests involved with the conference bill, period). Its really sickening. You should be appalled.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The negotiations are over. The bills were passed. Perhaps you haven't been watching the news.....

I suggest you watch this:


A bill* has to pass both chambers of Congress to become a law.

*ETA: The same bill, that is. So far, we've got a bill passed by the House and a different bill passed by the Senate. There are currently negotiations going on to merge the two bills, after which there will need to be another vote (at least one) in each chamber for it to pass Congress and be sent to Obama to be signed into law.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

where there are new negotiations but nothing on par with the actual process to get the two bills passed to begin with

You're joking, right? One bill has a public option and one doesn't. That was a central sticking point in the "actual process" of negotiations that got the two bills passed through their respective chambers, and it's a big fat issue to be negotiated in conference.

How is that "nothing on par" with the debate on a public option to this point?

In fact, it's the same debate, isn't it?

The merged bill will either have the public option or not.

 

[corplinx]

it's a big fat issue to be negotiated in conference

Right, as opposed to a closed door meeting between the white house and union reps. Thanks for backing me up on this.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Right, as opposed to a closed door meeting between the white house and union reps. Thanks for backing me up on this.

I already said that if industry reps and the Catholic Church (special interest groups) are involved, then union reps should also be. Did you feel strongly against the involvement of special interest groups in other large legislation was also wrong? (I'm thinking in particular of the Medicare Reform in 2003 and the Energy Bill of 2005.) Or is just when you're against the legislation involved? (Or maybe just when it's the party pushing the legislation?)

But on the point of my recent post, I most definitely disagree. You said the the bill was already passed and negotiations are done (or at least any remaining negotiations are "nothing on par" with what's already happened). Just as a matter of fact, you're wrong.

 

[Peephole]

The merged bill will either have the public option or not.

It won't, the Senate is opposed.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It won't, the Senate is opposed.

You mean the entire Senate is opposed to the public option?

I think the majority of the House is opposed to a bill without it--exactly why it is still the subject of discussion/debate/negotiation and compromise.

Ditto the abortion language (which shouldn't even be a concern for this bill, and wouldn't but for the influence of "special interest groups").

ETA: While there is a lot of agreement between the two bills, there are some important differences. Here's a pdf of a side-by-side comparison:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/health_care/HScomparison.pdf

 

[Peephole]

I think the majority of the House is opposed to a bill without it--exactly why it is still the subject of discussion/debate/negotiation and compromise.

No, it's not. Because a public option is simply not going to pass. If there are still House members that are under the illusion that it still might happen, they're delusional and will sooner or later be faced with the decision of a passing a bill without a public option or passing no bill at all.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, it's not. Because a public option is simply not going to pass. If there are still House members that are under the illusion that it still might happen, they're delusional and will sooner or later be faced with the decision of a passing a bill without a public option or passing no bill at all.

You might be right, but why not look at it that Senate Democrats (including Lieberman) might have to deal with the question of either passing a bill with a public option or passing no bill at all?

From what I hear, there are enough people on both sides of this issue who have said they're not willing to give up their position that the public option is still an issue of negotiation.

 

[Peephole]

You might be right, but why not look at it that Senate Democrats (including Lieberman) might have to deal with the question of either passing a bill with a public option or passing no bill at all?

That's not Lieberman's problem at all. He is only up for election in 2012 and has lost the Democratic base anyway. For House members however, no health care bill would be a disaster in an already difficult political environment.

That being said, everyone from the House's leadership to the White House have given up on the public option. And I haven't read anything about rank and file House members threatening to vote against the bill. They're well aware that it only takes one Lieberman to torpedo something.

From what I hear, there are enough people on both sides of this issue who have said they're not willing to give up their position that the public option is still an issue of negotiation.

Can you post some links, please?

 

[Ziggurat]

When you want less of something, you tax the bejeebus out of it. You want more of something, you subsidize it.

Wow, I never thought I'd see you admit this. Now, let's see how that applies in the current context: you want to tax workers who don't belong to unions and exempt workers who do. So logically, you're trying to increase union membership. Not exactly a surprising position for you.

Most of the people pulling in the really big bucks are off-shoring our production.

Hang 'em by the heels and shake vigorously.

And now we get to the reason I didn't think you'd admit the effects of taxes and subsidies. You want fewer rich people, and more poor people.

Your own words, lefty. Your own words.

 

[The Painter]

The investor class pissed it away in China.

I guess you don't realize that you would be on a "soup line" right now if it weren't for China. Maybe you should bone up on how much of our debt they own.

Anyway, giving the unions a tax break that no one else will get, flies in the face of equality. More back room deals. Is that the transparency you voted for?

 

[Alt+F4]

Anyway, giving the unions a tax break that no one else will get, flies in the face of equality. More back room deals. Is that the transparency you voted for?

Some Americans can travel to Cuba, others can't.
Some Americans can get the Earned Income Credit, others can't.
Some Americans can marry the person they love, others can't.

How is what's going on with the health care bill any different?

 

[leftysergeant]

I guess you don't realize that you would be on a "soup line" right now if it weren't for China. Maybe you should bone up on how much of our debt they own.

Theyu hold that debt because some idiot from California became POTUS on the idiotic premise that the best way to stimulate the ecconomy was to castrate the government and let the investor class import a whole bunch of cherap crap from China. and then some brain-damaged alcoholic cut the taxes on the people imoprting that cheap crap so that the government could not access 80% of the wealth that used to be available to solve problems.

Anyway, giving the unions a tax break that no one else will get, flies in the face of equality. More back room deals. Is that the transparency you voted for?

WTF?

 

[leftysergeant]

And now we get to the reason I didn't think you'd admit the effects of taxes and subsidies. You want fewer rich people, and more poor people.

That's the wierdest conclusion I have seen even you reach. I'm saying that the people who recieve the greatest value owe the largest bill. And, if there is misery to be borne, spread it around.

There is no reason that the poor should suffer while the government figures out how to fix the stuff that the parasitic class broke since 1980.

 

[Lurker]

BS. It's political payback for swinging the Union vote. Nothing noble about it. It's not change and hope, it's politics as usual.

I'm a liberal and I agree with this. If more info comes to light I may change my opinion but as of now, this stinks!

 

[FlamingMoe]

Is that the transparency you voted for?

No, but it is the union kickback he voted for.

 

[leftysergeant]

No, but it is the union kickback he voted for.

The unions built the middle class in this country. The imvestor class is gobbling it up.

The unions gave up something to get that health care, there is no reason to take more from them than they already gave, especially in an age where the investor class can so easily steal the pensions that the union workers were supposed to recieve just by using bankruptcy.

And the investors still get their tax breaks when the companies become solvent again.

Why do you hate working people so much?

 

[Francesca R]

Most of the people pulling in the really big bucks are off-shoring our production.

Sounds like you should want more of it then.

 

[Beerina]

Why should any insurance plan be taxed? Why should the government climb on people's backs to make it harder to buy crucial things like this?

Why? Follow the money and the power. They want to drive people off it and onto government dependency. Don't listen to the words. Listen to what actually happens.


Union has more votes, they get exempted. It's that simple. It's about votes. Not about caring for people. It is in the political interest of certain parties to get people dependent on government. They look around the world at how in other countries people are now fearful and will vote against anybody who touches the tit of government on which they suckle. They look at our country, and how Social Security is a lightning rod that no politician will touch, and They See It Is Good for maintaining votes.

Clowns? It's clowns all the way down.