>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>I hate to point out the obvious but by accounts those problems will still exist and worsen with this/these bills.
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>Meh, sounds like the bloom is coming off the rose for you as well. Baby steps. ;)
>>>>
>>>>Have a great weekend!
>>>
>>>You, too. I think you already know this but I never mind discussing politics with you, even though our views are miles apart. You discuss things rationally instead of just foaming at the mouth.
>>>
>>>I am far from giving up on Obama. His first year has not been what I hoped it would be, due (IMO) to a combination of some mistakes of his own and relentless opposition.
>>>
>>>Do you really think the cost of health care will continue to rise even more than it has been?
>>
>>Yes, at a minimum the costs of care will continue to rise at their current pace. What's worse, I don't see way that costs do not accelerate.
>>1) Mandatory insurance coverage + no conditionary rejections = higher costs
>>2) 30 million more patients + the same or less medical professionals to serve them = higher costs
>>3) Increased regulatory control + bueaucratic paperwork to satisfy those regulations = higher costs
>>
>>Add in the medicare cuts causing increases to supplemental plans along with the above...the math is rudimentary.
>>
>>>That even more people will be uninsured?
>>
>>Here's a scenario where more people will be uninsured, at least for a time. If we mandate citizens to purchase insurance and insurance companies are required to accept them regardless of pre-conditions then prices for that insurance are going to rise as a simple matter of re-balancing their finances to prove profitable. Now, if the fine for not having insurance is as low as $1000, as proposed more than once, who among us is going to carry an insurance policy until we get really sick? As such, I can foresee many more people being uninsured for a great deal of time, but able to get insurance at the first sign of a problem. That's a recipe for implosion of the insurance industry.
>>
>>>Honest questions, not being sarcastic. If so, I will find that hard to believe.
>>
>>I've said before, there are real-life examples, right here in the US about how to increase insurance coverage and lower costs. We have several states who have enacted various ideas. Some work, most don't. What's currently being proposed from DC is a recipe for failure. Then there's the fundamental Constitutional issue of forcing a US citizen to purchase health insurance.
>
>We shall see. Maybe my crystal ball has some cracks in it. Or maybe yours does, who knows? ;-)
>
>How is forced health insurance any different from forced auto insurance, forced driver's licenses, forced professional licenses, etc. etc. etc.? It's new but it's not different.

US citizens are not required to drive, work as a professional requiring a license, etc.

>Actually I should avoid speaking in the present tense until we see what happens in Massachusetts today. It is a tribute to the resilience (like cockroaches) of conservatives that health care reform has passed both legislatures and they STILL might stop it.

I'm seeing reports of 50%+ turnout. Extraordinary for a special election.