>>>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34859430/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
>>>>>
>>>>>It's a targeted tax. Targeted directly at those non-union, non-government employees whose existing health care plans are at the upper end of the benefits spectrum. In other words, it's targeted at those people who most disagree with the new "health-care" scheme.
>>>>>
>>>>>Go Brown! You may be our last "hope" to stop this unmitigated disaster.
>>>>
>>>>Don't forget the special election in Massachusetts next week to replace Ted Kennedy. The Republican has a 4% lead in the latest poll. That would give the Republicans 41 votes in the Senate -- let the filibusters begin!
>>>
>>>Umm, Mike. Who do you think I was referencing when I said "Go Brown"? ;)
>>>
>>>>What a system when Senators representing 10% of the population, plus one more, can thwart the will of the majority. No wonder not much gets done.
>>>
>>>Not sure where your 10% is coming from but I'll play along...
>>>What a system when Senators representing 90% of the population can thwart the will of the majority of that population.
>>>
>>>The Senate was established specifically to slow down the whims of a populist House.
>>>
>>>"With the consent of the minority" is the essential portion of the well know phrase which keeps "majority rules" from becoming tyranny.
>>>
>>>btw : That this is happening in uber-blue Massachusetts is extra delicious. ;)
>>
>>I figured the Massachusetts angle would delight many conservatives ;-)
>
>It's delighting across the political spectrum.
>
>>Yes, I know that is the intent of the Senate, and I don't disagree with it. I do wonder sometimes if the minority was intended to have THIS much power to obstruct.
>
>The majority of the population does not want either the House or Senate versions of this bill. With each new bribe, the numbers go further down. On Monday, once the polling comes in following the union buyoff, the numbers will be even lower. I believe this is exactly the circumstance for the Senate's role in slowing down legislation. This ensures that brief dramatic shifts in power do not create radical legislation which will affect generations.
>
>>The 10% came from a recent column by one of those damned lib columnists at the NY Times. Not Maureen Dowd, the other one. She added up the populations of the 20 least populous states.
>
>Ah.
>
>Update : I'm curious...Do you really want this bill? Or is it more a case of not wanting failure on Obama's biggest priority?

There is a lot I don't like about the bill(s) but yes, I would rather have this than nothing. If nothing passes it will be a generation before anyone even tries it again. And the two huge health care problems will remain: a crushing weight on the economy and tens of millions uninsured.

A failure for Obama is less important to me. It would still sting, though, because it would make it easier for the minority to obstruct everything else he wants to do.