Are You Watching The CSPAN This Morning To See The Health Care Bill Pass or Fail?

I know this is something people on all sides of the aisle care deeply about, just curious how many are actually watching this process. Evidently there were all sorts of new things added late last night. Like... a Veterans tax, super.

Image for post Are You Watching The CSPAN This Morning To See The Health Care Bill Pass or Fail?
25% Yes 75% No 0% Other
ForkNdaRoads avatar Health, Beauty & Fitness
Share
4 22

I have been, I also watched yesterday and the day before as a handful of ranking members in both houses stood for hours and hours slowly pealing away and or changing the rules in order to yet again, ram something down our throats.

I tell you what, these Republicans have their gall - using all the same talking points and all the same tactics for which they spent years criticizing Democrats. And I'm reminded yet again of how little representation we actually have.

@Budwick Agreed. I feel betrayed... once again.

If you removed all the labels and faces and simply listened to the words and tactics being used to push this through, you could easily think we were back in 2010 watching the passing of Obamacare.

I feel betrayed as well. I don't know that this will ever work on behalf of us.

@ForkNdaRoad If you removed all the labels and faces and simply listened to the words and tactics being used to push this...

I'm hoping that if this thing passes, that there's some plan to pull some kind of unforeseen switcharoo - that is enabled because of some stupid parliamentary rule or something.

I could never be a politician - I like facing problems head on.

Unfortunately - I think we're gonna get screwed once again. Sad, but the only bright side to this is that I'm on the back nine of life and I won't have to deal with it for long.

@Budwick I'm hoping that if this thing passes, that there's some plan to pull some kind of unforeseen switcharoo - that is...

From what I've seen, they instituted the same day rule, but they removed the rule allowing any further amendments. They'll debate for four hours, but the senate cannot add any further amendments according to the parliamentary rules. That is to my knowledge.

They continue to suggest their hands are tied due to the reconciliation process, but that's bullshit. Dems amended a 3000+ page bill to the student aid bill and passed it, those rules have not changed.

They could easily amend this to an budgetary appropriation and pass it through reconciliation. But they wouldn't be able to keep the provisions secret until just hours before it went to vote.

I've been watching it, yes. I DO care deeply about the ramifications of this proposed bill passing, and nothing I've read or hear about it is any way an improvement over the ACA for many, many people.

@Piper2 I've been watching it, yes. I DO care deeply about the ramifications of this proposed bill passing, and nothing...

I figured you were, I know a lot of people can't because they work or don't have access to it. But I'm always curious as to whether those who have access to it are watching through CSPAN or the news because I think which way you 'consume' it can greatly affect your overall perception of it, you know?

I agree. Piper you know I'm all in for free market solutions, I'm unapologetic in my advocacy and often in the face of great (albeit unwarranted imo) derision, but I don't see any of that present here.

What I see here is a simple shift in where the money goes, not a voluntary exchange of that money - which is the definition of a free market.

This morning I saw Nancy Pelosi, for the first time since I've observed her political career, tell the honest to God truth. That should scare the hell out of republicans who consider themselves diametrically opposed to her ideologically. Yet many don't see the problem with that. The only way I can see that happening is if people are viewing this whole process through a lens of biased media 'presentation' rather than honestly observing the process.

So I can't help but wonder if those who have access to CSPAN still choose to see it through the lens of media and if so why. Just to further explain my question.

@ForkNdaRoad I figured you were, I know a lot of people can't because they work or don't have access to it. But I'm always...

Yes, I almost surely wouldn't be watching it if I was at work. Unlike many of my former co-workers, I'm usually concentrating on the job I'm being paid to do. :) Certainly the way news is presented has an impact on how it is perceived, I DO know.

I do know that are you for free market solutions, Tink. So am I, to an extent. I don't share the view, however, that the "free market" is always going to do the right thing without some federal government regulations.

As far as Nancy Pelosi.....this morning I found myself for the first time ever, wanting to applaud Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for her assessment of this proposed healthcare bill! ;)

I know for sure that many people choose to only see issues through the lens of their preferred 'media'.

I'm glad the bill didn't pass. A bit cowardly of them to just "pull" it, I think, as opposed to having an actual recorded vote.....

@Piper2 Yes, I almost surely wouldn't be watching it if I was at work. Unlike many of my former co-workers, I'm usually...

Same here on the market. Was mentioning that to another person the other day. Republicans talk about a "market" that sounds like a magic wand you wave and bibbidi, bobbidi, boo... all is well. For me a free market is free of govt. control.

I saw that, Wasserman-Shultz! I actually mentioned it to a friend, she was not being hyperbolic, I agreed with her. Beyond a simple disagreement on policy, she summed it up well. For them to hand $600B to private interests while cutting coverage to the people, that's pretty low down.

If they want to repeal, go for it, own it, but how dare they attempt to throw-down the amount of our entire defense budget and some while cutting peoples coverage. Vipers, all of 'em.

You know that's why they killed; without the Senate votes, they weren't going to put their names next to it permanently. Although, they did vote unanimously along with a one dem on the rules and they can't take that off the record.

Not CSpan but I have been watching CNN and MSNBC off and all day long.

No - I can't deal with the distraction. I don't think I'm going to like with what ever they end up with anyway. IMO government has no business being involved in health insurance or healthcare. They could do some tort reform and allow insurance to be sold across state lines to make it more competitive - but government can not develop something that is going to work for everyone. The marketplace can develop as many plans as there are situations.

@Budwick No - I can't deal with the distraction. I don't think I'm going to like with what ever they end up with anyway...

Healthcare should be american citizens right
This is the weathiest country in the world.
You either have, or are close to having mdicare. This will barely touch you.

Insurance companies profit from the well and exclude the sick.

How many people had been kicked out of their insurance because of illness?

Or flat out refused because of illness.

People who provide medical services should be paid.

But healthcare insurance is just another big business that cares only for the bottom line.

Healthcare should be a american's human right

@Carla Healthcare should be american citizens right This is the weathiest country in the world. You either have, or are...

It already is considered a right, that's why hospitals can't turn away patients. Provision is an altogether different question, or that's my understanding of it.

Totally agreed on the big business comments. If they can include a $600B subsidy to insurers, there by God better be an equal or greater amount being handed back to the people, but that isn't what this does. Evidently, once again we're being taxed while the real money is dished up to private interests.

That is complete and total bs.

@Carla Healthcare should be american citizens right This is the weathiest country in the world. You either have, or are...

The Constitution has several obligations set up for government and rights for the citizens. Silly junk like protecting it's borders, defending it's citizens, working honestly with foreign governments, managing a currency, respecting citizens rights, and a biggy - if the privilege isn't specifically named in the Constitution - then the federal government can't touch it.

Rights of citizens are clearly named as well. None of them even come close to healthcare.

The wealth of the nation has nothing to do with it. Maybe we got wealthier than everyone else cuz the government stayed out of healthcare until fairly recently.

We've had seven years of Obamacare - it failed miserably. Government sucks at managing stuff. It's too costly, too ineffective, unsustainable and just plain wrong - Congress had to pass the thing in the dead 9of night and Supreme Court had to change the law in order to make it look kind of legal.

@Budwick The Constitution has several obligations set up for government and rights for the citizens. Silly junk like...

The constitution also says all MEN are created equal

Doctors were doctors, then, because
they cared

Would take a chicken for payment

Medical insurance was not in their sightline

People got sick and died.

@Carla The constitution also says all MEN are created equal Doctors were doctors, then, because they cared Would take a...

Believe it or not, "men" easily passes the dictionary test.

There is a difference between textualism and originalism. We've heard quite a bit about both recently and mostly from people who fail to make a clear distinction between the two or simply fail to understand it.

Textualists and Loose Constructionists have more common ground than many think and because dictionary definitions change with the times whereas attempts to jump into and read the consciences of dead men, well... they don't. jmho

@Carla The constitution also says all MEN are created equal Doctors were doctors, then, because they cared Would take a...

No argument there. Created equal - once created you can use your talents and freedoms to do what you will to improve your life or the life of others.

I suspect doctors are doctors today for much the same reason. Medicine has changed a bit since the 1700's. Society has too. Training for doctors has advanced. Even doctors have limited use for chickens - currency became a more popular method of payment.

Insurance has been around a long time Carla. People liked the idea of taking care of themselves and their families, employers found they could attract desirable candidates if they offered health insurance.

Socialism has for a long time too taken over the health care of it's citizens in other countries. The USA maintained a better healthcare system when insurance was still privatized. The USA has resisted national healthcare becasue we didn't have an interest in becoming a socialist country. There are some that disagree with that. And, that's where you and I are.

@Budwick The Constitution has several obligations set up for government and rights for the citizens. Silly junk like...

Not all rights of the people are clearly named in the Bill of Rights. How do we know this? The 9th Amendment states it plainly:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Just saying...

No, I don't believe I am.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.