Coakley vs. Brown

[Psi U MC Vito]

Is there anywhere that we could read the bill if we so choose?

[Stanleypeep]

The media story I saw about it yesterday morning implied that this is essentially an election about national health care and that, since Massachusetts already has their own health plan, many are against national health care. What do those closer to this state think of this analysis?

Being from Massachusetts (granted I've only lived here 2 years) I LOVE the state's healthcare plan. I can't move even though I desperately need to because of it. I can't get healthcare without paying my entire life savings if I get sick. I'm a type 2 diabetic as well. Being that I'm in a tough business of entertainment and theatre, hardly any of the organizations I work for can afford to offer their employees healthcare. In order to keep my healthcare, I have to travel an 1hr 15 min. to work and then the same distance back. I live just on the border of Mass and RI.

People didn't vote for Scott Brown in Mass because they thought he'd save MassHealth (hehe play on words ), people voted for him because Martha ran a TERRIBLE campaign. Being a blue dog Dem, I voted for Coakley under duress. I came VERY close to voting for the Libertarian, or simply not voting.

I also think that people don't like the Senate health bill in general. It doesn't seem like its going to help anyone. Of course like myself, we all naturally are thinking of our situations, but there are a TON of people who really really need this healthcare. Especially with the job market and this economy. Without MassHealth, a lot of people would be without it and the insurance companies would make a BUNDLE like they are elsewhere.

[Stanleypeep]

Is there anywhere that we could read the bill if we so choose?

I believe its available on the senate website...its a pain in the a to find, and it also is wordy like all bills, but its worth a read. I'm not sure the exact number of the bill which makes it a lot easier to find.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Is there anywhere that we could read the bill if we so choose?

The House Bill and the Senate Bill.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

So Coakley has conceded and Brown is the new Senator. I'm kind of surprised it wasn't closer, although Coakley's lack of campaigning was a part of that.

The funniest part about all of this: back in 2004, when John Kerry was running for President, there was a lot of discussion of who would fill his seat. At the time, the law on the books was that the Governor would have the power to appoint a replacement. The MA legislature was not happy with this, as the Governor was a Republican (Romney). So, it changed the law allowing for the special election. Of course Kerry lost, so it ended up being a moot point.

The funny part is, if the legislature hadn't changed the vote, Democrats would still hold the seat (Gov. Patrick would have appointed a Democrat). So, in a way, the MA Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.

And what's more entertaining... after Kennedy died, they tried to change the law again.

Silly Democrats.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

I believe this is the least likely outcome, but I could of course be wrong.

KSigKid -- I think it's unlikely that they'll attempt to push anything through before Brown is seated. A few Dems have already sent out press releases asking for all votes on health care to be held until after he is seated, and it really goes against the nature of the Senate as a collegial body.

My sense is that the House will pass the Senate bill as it is, then simultaneously bring up a corrections bill that would incorporate deals made in negotiations over the last week. The corrections bill could be passed through reconciliation, which requires only 51 votes in the Senate, or even under regular order, assuming Dem leaders find the votes.

I thought I read that reconciliation could only be used for budget stuff so a lot of elements couldn't really be addressed. Is that not true?

[ADqtPiMel]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I thought I read that reconciliation could only be used for budget stuff so a lot of elements couldn't really be addressed. Is that not true?

Reconciliation can be used for any legislation affecting the budget.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

Reconciliation can be used for any legislation affecting the budget.

Doesn't almost any legislation affect the budget in a loose sense?

And yet, it seems to only be used to specifically address budgets in the past, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconci...es_Congress%29

It seems to me that some contested elements of health care wouldn't seem to be reconciled under the usual uses of reconciliation, like handling the differences about abortions in the two versions.

Or even that some of the rules about the length of deficits would make it hard to use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_..._the_Byrd_Rule

(I'm guessing that ADqtPiMel doesn't need the wikipedia links, but I thought other people might find them interesting.)

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

I disagree. Democrats are already saddled with the political fallout, whether the bill passes or not, and it’s better for them to have a bill to defend that has tangible benefits than try to explain why they voted for something and then walked away. There's no incentive whatsoever for any Republican to vote for the bill, so they certainly won't start over unless there's absolutely no other way.

Dems have a large enough margin in the House to get a simple majority on the Senate bill. The party leaders will be sure to make the caucus members aware of the consequences of letting the main aspect of Obama's platform fail. I've seen this happen over and over in the House, and the rank and file always end up falling in line. I could be wrong, but my experience says they can do it.

New info from Speaker Pelosi:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...-health-house/

I understand that this doesn't mean the Senate bill will not be brought up before the House but it certainly doesn't look plausible at this time.

[ADqtPiMel]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

New info from Speaker Pelosi:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...-health-house/

I understand that this doesn't mean the Senate bill will not be brought up before the House but it certainly doesn't look plausible at this time.

Points to you on this one I think that they will step back for a while and work on other priorities and then pick health care back up when they've negotiated a way forward...which I still think will involve the House passing the Senate bill. But I honestly have no idea what will happen...just extrapolating based on my experience watching these kind of situations.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by bignasty

Obamacare is doomed.

If Dems want health care they are going to have to get jobs like the rest of the planet. No free health care for all your illegitimate kids.

Hey I hate to break it to you, but quite a few democracies have some kind of universal health care or stricter health care regulation then we have. And of course all democrats in the USA are black, unemployed with a bunch of illegitimate kids.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by bignasty

Obamacare is doomed.

If Dems want health care they are going to have to get jobs like the rest of the planet. No free health care for all your illegitimate kids.

Oh yeah...the WHOLE PLANET gets their health insurance through their jobs...that's a strictly American strategy, and with our recent foray into the fun and games of a recession with record unemployment, we see how well that strategy works.

[dukemama]

Originally Posted by bignasty

Obamacare is doomed.

If Dems want health care they are going to have to get jobs like the rest of the planet. No free health care for all your illegitimate kids.

You're an idiot. Shut up. Just. shut. up.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Yes we do have a a large amount of illegal immigrants. However by law we are not allowed to refuse emergency care to those who require it. I have to yield the floor to somebody who knows better, but I assume that those countries that have universal health require proof of at least residency before they treat you.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by bignasty

How many of those countries have 40 million illegals and another 30 million legals that have no interest in working?

Do a little research. These socialist democracies have taken in a lot of foreign nationals including muslims fleeing persecution from regimes in their own countries. Have you been reading stories about the Dutch voting to outlaw minarets? How about the French having a little issue with fire bombings of their cars in Paris a couple years ago? We are not the only country that has a large number of immigrants looking for a better life in a richer, industrialized country. No, they aren't sharing a large border with one of these countries, but they are also much smaller countries, and they do provide healthcare and benefits to these people. I am very good friends with a Swedish couple who are often surprised at attitudes in this country, though, they do admit that a homogenous population like Sweden has experienced extensive growing pains from the number of immigrants they've accepted over the past 20 years.

BTW...neither of the plans passed by Congress would cover illegal immigrants. Even now, as Psi U stated, legal or illegal, anyone with or without money can receive care at an ER no questions asked. We are NOT allowed to refuse care. If the patient cannot pay, the tax payers are ALREADY paying for this care.