the reconciliation or "fixes" package

[Freddy]

You oppose the principle of privacy with regards to medical treatment?

They can buy their own viagra. And they can do it in private, so no, I have nothing against their privacy. I certainly don't want to know about it as long as I don't have to foot the bill. I would be against a law that prohibited them from buying it on their own dime.

 

[Thunder]

But nothing is going to go wrong in the House over an amendment like that. The world could also end before the reconciliation bill passes, but it's not bloody likely. I'm saying the Republicans' plan was dumb, and the Democrats could have helped themselves by playing along.

219 is too close a margin of victory, to **** around with.

 

[Thunder]

You can bet those attack ads are already in the works. And they're not lies.

clearly, the GOP thinks the American people are morons.

 

[Freddy]

219 is too close a margin of victory, to **** around with.

But 219 was because even a lot of Democrats hated the Senate bill. The fixes are a much easier sell to the blue dogs, especially after the Senate bill is already law. But I certainly don't think your position is crazy. I guess I'm less risk averse.

 

[Thunder]

But 219 was because even a lot of Democrats hated the Senate bill. The fixes are a much easier sell to the blue dogs, especially after the Senate bill is already law. But I certainly don't think your position is crazy. I guess I'm less risk averse.

i am more than glad to have the Dems pass some of these amendments. just attach them to some other bill.

 

[Freddy]

clearly, the GOP thinks the American people are morons.

The American people have remembered why they hate one-party dominance of both of the political branches of government (see 2004-2006). The Democrats are going to lose the House. The only question is how big the Republican majority will be. They are vulnerable in the Senate too, but they'll probably hang on there. The Republicans don't need this, but they'll take it. And if you think it won't have any effect, I disagree. Not all the people can be swayed by political games like this, but some certainly can. But the main thing is getting their base energized. This will help with that. As I've said elsewhere, midterm elections are all about turnout. Neither party is above this sort of thing. Remember what a big deal was made about Mark Foley in 2006? Talk about a tempest in a teapot.

 

[Thunder]

The American people have remembered why they hate one-party dominance of both of the political branches of government (see 2004-2006). The Democrats are going to lose the House.

I bet you $20 the Democrats lose neither the House nor the Senate in November's elections. I have a Paypal account we can do this on.

 

[Freddy]

i am more than glad to have the Dems pass some of these amendments. just attach them to some other bill.

Well, I really don't see any point in Republicans opposing reconciliation, so we agree on that. It makes what I consider a crappy bill significantly less crappy. The Republicans would do well to bide their time until they control at least one house, and then try to change what they don't like about it.

 

[Freddy]

I bet you $20 the Democrats lose neither the House nor the Senate in November's elections. I have a Paypal account we can do this on.

A gentleman's bet will do. I'm a law student. Lots of debt. No income. This feels a lot like 2006. I'd be very surprised to lose this bet.

 

[Thunder]

Well, I really don't see any point in Republicans opposing reconciliation, so we agree on that. It makes what I consider a crappy bill significantly less crappy. The Republicans would do well to bide their time until they control at least one house, and then try to change what they don't like about it.

how about our little bet?

anyways, the GOP can't change ****...until they control both houses.

 

[Thunder]

A gentleman's bet will do. I'm a law student. Lots of debt. No income.

my friend has been out of law school for...perhaps 3 years.

he is making a good $250,000 a year.

I think you can afford a $20 bet. but i wont force this, as its a derail.

 

[Freddy]

my friend has been out of law school for...perhaps 3 years.

he is making a good $250,000 a year.

I think you can afford a $20 bet. but i wont force this, as its a derail.

What the hell, all right. $20 bucks that the Republicans take the House. I guess we can save a screenshot or something, but I don't think it's necessary.

 

[geni]

They can buy their own viagra. And they can do it in private, so no, I have nothing against their privacy. I certainly don't want to know about it as long as I don't have to foot the bill. I would be against a law that prohibited them from buying it on their own dime.

So you oppose the existance of privacy in healthcare when it is provided by the goverment? So when your grandmother gets her Medicare prescription the local police should be able to check up to see that she is a sutible person to get whatever it is?

 

[Freddy]

So you oppose the existance of privacy in healthcare when it is provided by the goverment? So when your grandmother gets her Medicare prescription the local police should be able to check up to see that she is a sutible person to get whatever it is?

I guess enforcement raises a few issues I hadn't considered.

Of course, without an appropriation of funds for enforcement, it's meaningless anyway. See the border fence (which was a dumb idea anyway, but it illustrates the principle - it hasn't been built). With such appropriation, it probably no longer saves money and thus would be struck from the bill pursuant to the Byrd rule.

Of course, that's even more reason just to vote for it. Then one completely safe Democratic Senator can take the hit and raise a Byrd Rule challenge, instead of 51 Democratic Senators having to take an awkward vote. They should hire me to strategize these things.

 

[Thunder]

you know, now that i thought about it, I guess the Dems losing the House is more of a possibility than I thought. sooo many of the folks who won in 2006, won in traditionally GOP districts. they were pretty much protest wins, not a true conversion to Democratic and Liberal principles. we will have to see.

though, i really don't know if its fare for liberals to represent solidly conservative districts anyways.

 

[Freddy]

you know, now that i thought about it, I guess the Dems losing the House is more of a possibility than I thought. sooo many of the folks who won in 2006, won in traditionally GOP districts. they were pretty much protest wins, not a true conversion to Democratic and Liberal principles. we will have to see.

though, i really don't know if its fare for liberals to represent solidly conservative districts anyways.

Well, the Democrats that won in conservative districts aren't exactly liberal. But the health care bill that many of them voted for is disproportionately unpopular in those districts, compared to nationally. If you want to back out of that bet, I'm fine with that.

 

[Meadmaker]

Deleted because Geni beat me to it.

Of course Senator/Doctor Coburn undoubtedly did think of it before he introduced the amendment, but it didn't worry him too much, because he knew it wasn't intended to pass anyway. It was just a stupid political stunt.

 

[Thunder]

Well, the Democrats that won in conservative districts aren't exactly liberal. But the health care bill that many of them voted for is disproportionately unpopular in those districts, compared to nationally. If you want to back out of that bet, I'm fine with that.

I am Jewish...not Welsh.

i still do not expect the Democrats to lose.....60 something seats in November.

 

[Freddy]

How about because it would require a background check every time someone asks for viagra?


Coburn doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would like the government sticking their nose into that sort of doctor patient relationship. I'm sure that he would object to that sort of interference in his own practice, what with him being a doctor and all. It's almost as if he didn't really want it to pass, and it was just a stupid political stunt anyway.

It was definitely a stunt. And see my latest response to Geni. Those background checks, if funded, mean that it would almost certainly run afoul of the Byrd Rule. Which means they could have voted for it and then had someone not up for re-election challenge its eligibility for inclusion in a reconciliation bill. So they could have voted for it and still defeated it, beating Coburn at his own game.

 

[Freddy]

I am Jewish...not Welsh.

i still do not expect the Democrats to lose.....60 something seats in November.

Well, a 60 seat swing would mean 30 net Democratic loses, because that would also add 30 Republicans. It wouldn't be close to a historic swing, unless I'm mistaken.