 |
Comments |
|
 | Monday, November 9, 2009 at 5:51:28 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
According to Politico, Cardinal George called John Boehner to gain assurances that he wouldn't vote against the Stupak Amendment in an effort to try to kill the bill:
http://www.politico.com/politicopulse/
In the end, the Stupak Amendment (which expands the Hyde Amendment restricting access to abortion funds) is what sealed the deal in the House. What ever happened to separation of church and state? Boehner should have scuttled the amendment (he had the votes to do it). 3 more Democratic defections and this would have been a stunning defeat for the Speaker. |
|
| Monday, November 9, 2009 at 9:06:10 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Tom Rowland
E-mail: atlasfan(at)earthlink.net
As discusted as I am, and disheartened by the vote, the fight is far from over. Thanks for the reminder. |
|
| Monday, November 9, 2009 at 10:45:26 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: RT
KPO'M that's what I totally don't get -- from news reports, without the amendment, conservative Dems would have sunk the whole thing. Yet it was only because of overwhelming *Republican* support that the abortion amendment passed, thereby allowing conservative Dems to vote for the whole bill and *pass* it!?! Are Republicans that blind?? |
|
| Monday, November 9, 2009 at 11:11:33 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
RT: I can see two possible answers. One is that the Republicans are so dead set against abortion that they could not bring themselves to risk the passage of a health care bill that might fund abortions, and this took precedence for them over tactical considerations. The other is that it was a tactical gamble: They were hoping that if the bill clearly and explicitly denied funding to abortions, the liberal and feminist Democrats would revolt and kill it. If the latter, it's even possible that it might pay off later . . . reportedly some members of Congress are talking of voting against it when it comes back from the Senate . . . though I suspect that they'll cave in to Pelosi's manipulations again when it comes down to it. |
|
| Monday, November 9, 2009 at 11:36:24 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
As soon as Boehner announced on Saturday that he wouldn't scuttle the Stupak Amendment I knew Pelosi would get to 218.
I sense that Boehner didn't want to take the chance that she got to 218 anyway even without the amendment. If he thought that including the amendment would scuttle the bill, he obviously underestimated Pelosi's negotiating skills. She was party whip before being elected Speaker, so horse trading and vote canvassing are her strong points. There was no way she was letting a vote happen unless she knew she had 218. Boehner is weak as a minority leader, and he didn't play every card he had. Just before the final vote for passage was a "motion to recommit," which was basically the last chance to add an amendment that might have scuttled the bill. The GOP could have tried something more tactical, such as an amendment to prohibit extending benefits to undocumented workers. That may have forced the Blue Dogs to go on record voting down what appears to be a quite reasonable amendment. Instead, they proposed a tort reform amendment that, however worthwhile, stood no chance of being approved.
Anyway, I have used the Stupak Amendment's existence as an arguing tool, though. If Pelosi was willing to compromise on a rights issue as important to her liberal base as abortion is, then what do supporters of government health care think will happen when the GOP returns to power at some point in the future? Surely there will be some nanny statism from the right that the left finds disagreeable. |
|
| Monday, November 9, 2009 at 11:49:31 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
Unfortunately, recent events in the House illustrate the truth of John Lewis' observation from his Fall 2009 TOS article:
"Obama's Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda"
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/obamas-atomic- ...
"...The protests and the polls are clear: Americans have, by and large, rejected the radical leftist agenda. But the issue is not yet closed. The Democrats have one last resource -- one secret weapon -- with which they can save their plans while avoiding political suicide in the next election. That weapon is the Republicans.
"If the Republicans compromise -- if they accept federally-mandated health insurance in the guise of a 'co-op' or the like, or a cap-and-trade bill that is marginally less draconian than the Democratic version -- they will have once again capitulated to their opponents, abandoned liberty, and ruined the opportunity to redirect this nation toward its founding moral principle: individual rights, protected under a constitution in a free republic." |
|
| Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 11:56:18 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
Here's the Wall Street Journal's take on the Stupak Amendment. They are of the view that the GOP couldn't scuttle the amendment in an attempt to scuttle the bill.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574525962492 ... |
|
| Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 19:43:40 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: idan
E-mail: shohami(at)yahoo.com
You guys are just missing the point.
Healthcare is expensive. Having redundant capacity in the system is expensive. Having employers pay for healthcare, rather than taxpayers is anti-competitive.
I live in Canada, I'm in management and we sometimes do hire US staff, so I'm exposed to both systems. Some observations:
* The Canadian system sucks - service is slow for minor things like cuts, scrapes, etc.
* The Canadian system is awesome - service is excellent for major and urgent procedures, there is no risk of bankruptcies, etc. and everybody is covered.
* The Canadian system is great - one of the highest life expectancies in the world.
* The US system sucks - it's ridiculously expensive and impedes US employment in a very significant way. Want to fix 10% or higher unemployment? Move healthcare costs to the taxpayer and watch the unemployed gets jobs *fast*.
* The US system is great - if you have a great plan, you get the best care in the world. Sometimes too much care - like mistakenly disagnosed quadruple bypasses (true story, but obviously just anecdotal).
* The US system is a disgrace - by far the lowest life expectancy among developed countries.
Every other developed country has taxpayer-funded healthcare - it's not a bogey-man, it's not scarey, it works and the fact that the US doesn't have it is anti-competitive (i.e., it makes US workers less competitive globally).
Get on with it already... I'll hire more Americans once you do.
-- Idan |
|
| Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 19:54:26 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Andrew Dalton
E-mail: andrew.s.dalton(at)gmail.com
URL: http://witchdoctorrepellent.blogspot.com
What do you mean by "anti-competitive"? |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Paul Hsieh
Comments
