Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Public Option: "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

By Ellipses

Ok, so I stole the title from a Huffington Post blog (read it here)...

I am also LOADED up with pharmaceuticals right now due to a head cold that may be caused by the bastard child resulting from an orgy between swine flu, SARS, bubonic plague, hanta virus, and the Motaba disease that the monkey had in "Outbreak." Therefore, all I am really capable of doing today is ask questions and do mindless work updating spreadsheet information. I will spare you the spreadsheets and just ask you the questions:

So here's the deal... Kent Conrad keeps blathering on about not having enough votes to pass a bill with a public option in the senate. Kent Conrad has said that he, himself won't vote for a bill with a public option. Besides being part of the problem, Mr. Conrad does have a basic and fundamental point nailed down: if you don't have the votes, it ain't gonna pass. My question is, though, "How many people are telling Conrad they won't vote for it just to hold it up so they don't HAVE to vote against it? How many spineless eel fuckers will puss out and say "Yay" when it comes time to put up or shut up?"

Over in the house, though, there are a shit-tonne of congresspeople (64, I believe) who have said that they won't pass a bill that DOESN'T have a public option. I would wager that those 64 could beat the bejeezus out of 10 or so senators to get them to change their mind. But besides that, how do you reconcile diametric opposition on an issue?

Has Conrad said how many votes he has FOR a public-option bill?

Last question... Let's say the dems don't come up with the 60 votes necessary to prevent a filibuster... Is a filibuster absolutely, unarguably "good" for the GOP on THIS issue? Sphere: Related Content


Cylinsier said...

Well, the GOP is definitely going to screw itself over if the Republican congressmen continue to behave in the way that they have. As for the bill, I'm not convinced that a filibuster would work against it and I'm not convinced that the Democrats don't have the votes to stop it. I find it hard to believe that more than a handful of them would be willing to publicly align themselves with health care lobbying by allowing a filibuster to go through in spite of their voters' opinions, and I find it hard to believe that every single Republican wants to see this struck down at the cost of their career. Ultimately, I think a bill that comes before the Senate will be passed after the theater of making it look like a fight was put up has been adequately performed.

Ellipses said...


Wesley said...

When the BO apparatchik over the weekend coughed up that trial floater that the public option could be dropped, you far lefties had a bleeding shit fit. Howard yeeeeeaahhhhhh! Dean pronounced health-care reform impossible without it. Whines of betrayal squirted across the liberal “Internets.” BO’s peeps quickly explained that he is as committed to the public option as ever which is laughable since BO’s mantra has always been flexibility on the public option.

But now BO is going to be slathered on state-run TV telling us that cold hearted Republicans are Katrina-fucking the poor again. Dems will show their obstructionist asses once more because they'll stop, at any cost, the only reforms that could reduce health care costs without rationing, creating waiting lines, or decreasing choice and quality of care.

The fundamental calculus that rapidly deteriorating medical care for our senior citizens remains exactly as it was before the public option was supposedly abandoned. Fifty million new patients to be treated with no extra doctors or nurses to care for them. The result will be precisely the same whether or not there is a public option — massive rationing of medical services to the elderly.

BO is wedging a Godzilla Ass Crack between his party and the elderly and it will remain a festering shit crevice for a long time. When fossiltards change their voting habits, they tend to do so for a very, very long time.

With this bill, those making $30,000 a year would have to pay up to 7% of their income in health insurance premiums before you could get a government subsidy. A $2,100 bill might seem affordable to Obama, but not to me. Once you bedwetters learn that you have to pay steep premiums for health care coverage, whether you want to or not, you will be whistling out the other side of your ass.

Ellipses said...

2100 bucks? That's less than 3 months payroll deductions for health insurance where I work...

Sign me up!

Cylinsier said...

Yeah, I pay 1500 a month where I work. 2100 a year for health care is a dream come true.

Also, I don't buy your assertion that old people who change their voting habits "do so for a very, very long time." You see, they'll be dead in 10 years.

The alleged cracks in the Democratic party are like stress cracks on a rock. Heat the rock up, the cracks become noticeable. Cool the rock down, it contracts back into shape and everything is smooth again. Health care is a hot issue, but when its passed everything will cool off.