CBO scores are in
I take comfort in the fact that things like numbers are considered somewhat important in this debate. Not as important as Rush Limbaugh’s listeners’ phone calls or comity in the Senate, of course. Ezra:
According to a Democratic source, CBO has finished its work and will release the official preliminary score later today. But here are the basic numbers: The bill will cost $940 billion over the first 10 years and reduce the deficit by $130 billion during that period. In the second 10 years—so, 2020 to 2029—it will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion. The legislation will cover 32 million Americans, or 95 percent of the legal population.
March 18, 2010 9:53 am
Posted in: Good News For Conservatives
95 Comments
95 Responses
K. Grant - March 18, 2010 | 9:56 am · Link
Will this convince some of the panicky Dems that they can vote ‘yes’ on this thing? How much more cover do they want?
Mike Kay - March 18, 2010 | 9:56 am · Link
BOOO-YAH, MUTHERFUCKERS!
The countdown begins. By this time, Sunday morning, it will be the law of the land.
Brian J - March 18, 2010 | 9:56 am · Link
But wait a minute! Didn’t Megan McArdle tell us last week the bill wouldn’t reduce the deficit? Who is right here?
The Grand Panjandrum - March 18, 2010 | 9:57 am · Link
Does this mean Rahm wins or loses? I’ve lost track.
So the House can now vote on Sunday, then the Senate votes on reconciliation bill sometime next week.
Wow. This might actually get done.
Cat Lady - March 18, 2010 | 9:58 am · Link
I love the smell of sexual napalm in the morning. It smells like victory.
Tomlinson - March 18, 2010 | 9:58 am · Link
@Brian J:
McMegan says “up”, I’m thinking “down” is correct. It’s a simple rule of thumb, but ever so useful.
gbear - March 18, 2010 | 9:59 am · Link
@K. Grant:
If this isn’t enough, we’ll have to get the 59,000 nuns after them, rulers in hand.
4jkb4ia - March 18, 2010 | 10:00 am · Link
A storm of bad wingnut March Madness references will now ensue?
General Egali Tarian Stuck - March 18, 2010 | 10:00 am · Link
Somebody bring a bucket to collect the wingnut tears.
The Grand Panjandrum - March 18, 2010 | 10:01 am · Link
@Mike Kay: Not quite. Senate still has to vote on reconciliation package and that doesn’t happen until next week.
Mike Kay - March 18, 2010 | 10:02 am · Link
The time has come to call on Jane Hamsher to step down.
I do this with sad reluctance, but blogosphere must be result oriented. And every single objective and tactic she employed in the last year failed. From her duet with grover, to threatening Bernie Sanders and Al Franken, to dumping on Lynn Woolsey, to hiring two shills to take over GOS, to weaving conspiracy theories, to placing so much unwarranted attention of Rahm, to putting all her remaining eggs into the Kucinich basket. It was one “New-Coke” like failure after another.
So for the good of the country, it’s time for Jane to resign.
Legalize - March 18, 2010 | 10:02 am · Link
If McMegan says “up” I think the answer is actually “purple” or “telephone.” She’s usually not even watching the same game as the rest of us.
Mike Kay - March 18, 2010 | 10:04 am · Link
@The Grand Panjandrum: Rahm 72 FDL 0
gbear - March 18, 2010 | 10:05 am · Link
@4jkb4ia:
I’m afraid that wingnut guns will come out when HCR passes.
Brian J - March 18, 2010 | 10:06 am · Link
@Mike Kay:
Yes. Because if there’s one way to atone for something in this country, it’s to resign. She also needs to resign from her health club, her book club, and anything else she’s a member of.
artem1s - March 18, 2010 | 10:06 am · Link
what, no $7B unbid contracts to Halliburton! this cannot stand!
JAHILL10 - March 18, 2010 | 10:07 am · Link
Woo-hoooooo!
I was starting to get worried after reading the concern trolling over at TPM.
We’re a go now! I think I’ll throw a party Sunday.
Punchy - March 18, 2010 | 10:08 am · Link
Therefore, according to Fox News, this bill will cost 1.8 trillion dollars next year and balloon the deficet by 3.4 trillion by 3Q 2010. Just you watch.
joes527 - March 18, 2010 | 10:08 am · Link
@General Egali Tarian Stuck:
Why would they care about this one? They have completely ignored everything the CBO has said to this point.
The wingnut strategy is to out Pelosi for using UNPRECEDENTED and UNCONSTITUTIONAL Jedi mind tricks to pass the bill without a vote.
With this as their point of reference, why would reality give them any concern?
jibeaux - March 18, 2010 | 10:10 am · Link
@Legalize:
Yeah, I think Tomlinson’s thinking of Bill Kristol.
Maude - March 18, 2010 | 10:11 am · Link
@gbear: Metal ones.
Re: Banner tag, at least you got a shitty blog. Quit your whining.
Xenos - March 18, 2010 | 10:12 am · Link
@gbear:
That. I am postponing the Spring Break family trip to Washington D.C. indefinitely. This is not going to be a great time to be standing in line for museums and such.
Redshirt - March 18, 2010 | 10:13 am · Link
Reduces the deficit? Well, the Republicans will HAVE to be against it then. Everyone knows how much the Repugs hate lowering the deficit.
burnspbesq - March 18, 2010 | 10:15 am · Link
In a rational world, these data would cause Budget-Scold-in-Chief Judd Gregg to favor the bill.
That’ll happen. Suuuuuuuuuure it will.
cleek - March 18, 2010 | 10:16 am · Link
@Punchy:
Fox News will report it thusly:
General Egali Tarian Stuck - March 18, 2010 | 10:16 am · Link
@joes527: Because their only hope for defeating HCR was for Blue Dogs to kill it for being too expensive and causing long term deficits, that would also gum up the reconciliation process in the senate via not meeting the Byrd Rule. It came in under the psychologically important number of 1 trillion and will reduce the deficit long term.
The wingnuts will all vote no as they have for any kind of dem HCR, but they themselves don’t have enough votes to defeat it.
some guy - March 18, 2010 | 10:20 am · Link
“The bill will cost $940 billion over the first 10 years and reduce the deficit by $130 billion during that period.”
Guess which part of that sentence conservatives will quote and which part they’ll ignore.
Actually, you don’t have to guess, because they’ve been doing it for months. For pretty much every version of the HCR bill the CBO has scored they’ve said the same damned thing. And yet, what’s the GOP talking point?
“OMG IT COSTS A TRILLION DOLLARS
!!”
EDIT:
@cleek: beat me to it
JasonF - March 18, 2010 | 10:20 am · Link
The reaction of my wingnut friends last time around was to insist that the CBO was being too optimistic and couldn’t possibly be right, then point to the fact that 45 years ago they scored the Medicare bill as costing less than it turned out to cost. I expect more of the same this time around.
Linda Featheringill - March 18, 2010 | 10:21 am · Link
Isn’t it nice when the morally right thing to do turns out to be most financially responsible thing as well?
toujoursdan - March 18, 2010 | 10:22 am · Link
Good luck on this changing anything.
On the NY Times Facebook page, they are already calling the CBO a “liberal/Democrat” group and that their findings “lies and statistics”. Expect that to be aired on Fox in 5… 4… 3… 2…
It’s like arguing with 6 day creationists.
Rommie - March 18, 2010 | 10:22 am · Link
I don’t think the Senate is a problem – if they don’t have 50 votes + Joe the Biden, I don’t believe this dance would have started in the first place.
The only Monkey-Moron wrench might be some Blue Dog throwing a hissy fit about something, but it’ll be hard to get 8 others to join them on the Iceflow as they are
pushedblown out to sea.It might just be down to Wingnut tears or Wingnut madness stopping the bill – I hope that’s the case.
Redshift - March 18, 2010 | 10:25 am · Link
@Punchy: The lines I’ve been seeing a lot in comments on newspapers articles and such are “teh government can never really predict what these things are going to cost” and “can you name one government program where the cost didn’t go up after it started?”
So yeah, basically, it’s always heads I win, tails you lose on CBO scores.
Dave Paulson - March 18, 2010 | 10:26 am · Link
This is indeed good news, but it’s still far from a victory for the dems or the people. We could have had a public option, but our gutless leaders caved to big money. We could have made a statement for women’s reproductive rights, but we caved to gain votes. We could have engaged in an intelligent debate on the benefits and costs of the bill, but we decided to rely on talking points and rhetoric instead. And we could have made a bold stand as the party for the people, but now it looks like it might be another Washington “approve without voting” cowardly crawl.
I’m optimistic that the bill will bring some benefit, but I’ll hold real judgment until I learn more about the details and what the CBO has to say about qualifiers and assumptions.
BenA - March 18, 2010 | 10:29 am · Link
I think I may call my RINO representative and ask his staffers why he doesn’t support lowering the deficit AND increasing access to health care? As far as Republicans go he’s not too bad, actually has fairly decent pro-choice rep, and occasionally breaks ranks on things that don’t have a national profile… but there’s really no such thing as a moderate Republican anymore… and the vote on this bill will prove it.
I think I’ll dig up the article that compares the 1993 Republican health care alternative to this one too.
BenA - March 18, 2010 | 10:31 am · Link
@Dave Paulson:
And I could have won the lottery last week, if only I had played.
Redshift - March 18, 2010 | 10:31 am · Link
@some guy: And in addition, there will be the eternal cycle of wingnut seasons:
Winter: “We can’t afford this while the economy is so bad.”
Spring” “If we do this it will kill off the recovery.”
Summer: “Now that the economy is humming along, you’re just going to break it!”
Fall: “This huge burden will only make the decline worse!”
Punchy - March 18, 2010 | 10:32 am · Link
Thing is, if the tables were turned and the Repubs had the CBO score sumpin in their favor, there’d be at least half a dozen DKos diaries decrying the CBO as a Republican whatever, etc.
Nuts on both sides of the aisle simply unable to figgy out reality.
IndieTarheel - March 18, 2010 | 10:33 am · Link
Faux didn’t even have to wake their chryon writer up for this one – they’ve got them on a loop now…
Mike Kay - March 18, 2010 | 10:34 am · Link
@Dave Paulson: Do you do kids parties? Kids love it when clowns set their hair on fire.
Litlebritdifrnt - March 18, 2010 | 10:34 am · Link
@gbear:
Rachael Maddow tweeted yesterday “who would you rather pick a fight with Stupak or 59,000 nuns?”
jibeaux - March 18, 2010 | 10:35 am · Link
@some guy:
@cleek:
Headline on yahoo news, House Dems on track for vote on $940 billion health care bill.
Citizen_X - March 18, 2010 | 10:36 am · Link
Then we will have to start a couple of extra wars so we can keep the deficit high so we can cut all the social programs we can’t afford on account of the deficit.
joe from Lowell - March 18, 2010 | 10:38 am · Link
@ Mike Kay:
So full of win.
cat48 - March 18, 2010 | 10:38 am · Link
Unfortunately, the teabaggers & repugs never remember good numbers like $l.2T or $120B. I’m still worried because the prez had to call Trumka back in today some time because the bill wasn’t scoring correctly at first. Hopefully he will accept a change gracefully on the excise tax, if necessary. There definitely seems to be momentum though.
Redshift - March 18, 2010 | 10:38 am · Link
@Dave Paulson:
Gee, they’re awfully concerned about counting votes for something they’re going to approve without voting.
No matter what the wingnut talking points say, it’s not a “cowardly crawl.” It’s structuring the rule so the House can vote on exactly what they support and what will finally pass and make a bold stand with that, rather than voting for the Senate bill they don’t support with the assumption that the Senate will then vote for their changes to it. Why exactly is holding a separate vote on the un-amended Senate bill “bolder” than holding a vote on the final package?
demo woman - March 18, 2010 | 10:40 am · Link
msnbc.com headline…
Da Bomb - March 18, 2010 | 10:40 am · Link
@Mike Kay: LOL!
Redshift - March 18, 2010 | 10:41 am · Link
@Punchy: Yeah, but the difference is that Democrats rarely quote their nuts on the House and Senate floor, and Republicans do it all the time.
rachel - March 18, 2010 | 10:42 am · Link
@cat48: True. Their math skills are about as good ad Dr. Evil’s: “Why save $1.2 trillion when we could save $940 billion? Bwhahahahahah!”
Legalize - March 18, 2010 | 10:42 am · Link
Steve Driehaus’ staffer (OH-1) tells me that the Congressman is sticking with the Supak bloc and won’t vote in favor of the bill because of abortion language. I told him that if the Congressman sticks to this line, he won’t get my vote in November, and that it’s very disappointing that he isn’t stepping up when the president needs his vote.
EDIT: Driehaus’ district is about 28% black folks – folks who helped carry him in 2008. Why? Barack Obama.
Dave Paulson - March 18, 2010 | 10:43 am · Link
BenA and Mary Kay, congratulations—you’re getting exactly the mediocrity you support and deserve. BTW, nice work with the meaningless sarcasm . . . you wouldn’t want to assert a point that could actually be debated.
Redshift - March 18, 2010 | 10:45 am · Link
@jibeaux: Well, you know, the only reason we can say it’s paid for is because it must be stealing more from poor put-upon teabaggers by massively raising their taxes! Even if it’s not, they know it has to be true.
Stooleo - March 18, 2010 | 10:45 am · Link
Expert commenters at FDL assert that CBO is wrong. LMFAO.
demo woman - March 18, 2010 | 10:45 am · Link
Washington Post headline
House leaders: Health-care plan will reduce deficit by more than $100 billion
NewYorkTimes
Health Bill Will Reduce Deficit, Democrat Says, Citing Report
Fox News
House Dems: CBO Report on Health Bill Confirms Deficit Reductions, Setting Up Possible Sunday Vote
when you click to the page it says
Health Bill Estimated to Cost $940 Billion, Setting Up Possible Sunday Vote
The Grand Panjandrum - March 18, 2010 | 10:45 am · Link
If anyone every thought Stupak’s was taking a principled stand against HCR based on his religious beliefs, then these past few days should have clarified what his real intentions were all along. His principled stand is not against abortion, it’s against women having a say in anything.
aimai - March 18, 2010 | 10:48 am · Link
I love it,gbear I’ve been waiting for this joke since the news came out.
Years ago, at the time of Vatican II, a nun said to my mother “All the priests are republicans—but all the nuns are democrats.”
aimai
Seanly - March 18, 2010 | 10:49 am · Link
Waiting with wife in hospital after neck lymph node CT-guided biopsy. Hoping that we can afford all the co-pays & such. We both have employer coverage so we’re in good shape – I hope. For all of those with little or no coverage, pass the damn bill.
I saw a bit of the Repub presser. Mitch McConnell kept saying how no one in US likes it, CBO sez it costs money. – he sounded desperate. Could we be close to this being done.
I don’t think this is the best bill, but its a start. Let’s hope it is a good start.
Nick - March 18, 2010 | 10:50 am · Link
@Legalize:
Which means no matter what he does, these people probably aren’t showing up in November, so he’s better off trying to appease the right-leaning voters.
Sentient Puddle - March 18, 2010 | 10:54 am · Link
Ugh.
Can we get a media that functions properly? Y’know, headlining the budget savings? Because that was kind of a fucking hugely important part of this bill.
Corner Stone - March 18, 2010 | 10:54 am · Link
Somebody needs to get all the Democrats who are for HCR passing, put them in a room and have them repeat after me:
“This bill will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion. The legislation will cover 32 million Americans, or 95 percent of the legal population!!”
...mumble mumble…{sotto voce} second ten years …mumble mumble
“It will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion. The legislation will cover 32 million Americans, or 95 percent of the legal population!!”
And repeat ad infinitarium.
demo woman - March 18, 2010 | 10:56 am · Link
@Seanly: Good luck to your wife. My son had a biopsy of a neck gland that came back suspicious for non-hodgkins and he had to have to gland removed. Fortunately, the larger biopsy came out clean.
Fingers crossed that your wife’s results will be as good.
wrb - March 18, 2010 | 10:56 am · Link
@Dave Paulson:
And we would have gotten fucking nothing.
Except people dying in exchange for being seen to have struck such noble poses
Quackosaur - March 18, 2010 | 10:57 am · Link
@The Grand Panjandrum:
Of course he wouldn’t consult the nuns; it’s not like they have to worry about getting abortions or getting pregnant or whatever. Those other people are just concerned citizens exercising their right to petition elected officials; so what if some of them wear pointy hats?
/snark
Legalize - March 18, 2010 | 10:57 am · Link
I don’t know about that calculation, Nick. When has attempting to appease right-leaning voters worked for Democrats? Right-leaning voters are going to go for Steve Chabbot® because that’s the asshole they’ve always gone for.
Redshift - March 18, 2010 | 10:59 am · Link
@Corner Stone: Good advice. I’d actually leave the mumbled part for a response if challenged about the second ten years detail, because it gives them the opportunity to say “yes, and it will reduce the deficit by $120B over the first ten years, too.”
Da Bomb - March 18, 2010 | 11:00 am · Link
@Seanly: I hope everything turns out okay for your wife.
Napoleon - March 18, 2010 | 11:00 am · Link
This will send FDL in to a tizzy. Kucinich is now actively assisting in whipping Dem members to get HCR passed.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.....?ref=fpblg
BenA - March 18, 2010 | 11:02 am · Link
@Dave Paulson:
What point? If I close my eyes and wish hard enough magical things will happen?
I wish we could have thoughtful meaningful debate on issues as well, but how can you? Look at the players involved: Bart Stupak? Joe Lieberman? No one is acting in good faith…
Anyway I don’t think your comment was in good faith either based on your “cowerdly crawl”. There is no effective difference between voting once or voting twice, other than the fact that you reduce the chances of health care reform passing. Which is probably your prefered outcome.
I’m definitely not in favor of sacrificing progress on the alter of principle.
And ultimately my philosophy is this: pass what you can now, then modify it overtime. There are hundreds of votes to come that effect this legislation that wont be occurring in such a high profile situation during an election year.
Redshift - March 18, 2010 | 11:05 am · Link
@wrb: I’m hard pressed to pick my favorite part of Dave’s little whine, between opining that making a statement would be better than getting votes, or the assertion that “we” relied on talking points and rhetoric, immediately followed by a false GOP talking point.
Mike Kay - March 18, 2010 | 11:08 am · Link
@Dave Paulson: hahahahhahahahhahahahhahhahhhahhahahahhahahahhahah I love the smell of thin skinned being sizzled in the morning. That smell. Smells like victory.
Bender - March 18, 2010 | 11:08 am · Link
No matter the score, President “You Lie” (Supergenius) will just keep telling the whoppers to his legion of sheep:
A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000.
But even that’s a lie:
Roberto - March 18, 2010 | 11:09 am · Link
The CBO is obviously a left-leaning Democrat-oriented organization.
Tenzil Kem - March 18, 2010 | 11:10 am · Link
You reform health care with the Congress you have, not the Congress you wish you had. You want to improve this bill? Elect more and better Democrats.
kay - March 18, 2010 | 11:12 am · Link
@The Grand Panjandrum:
It’s the community health centers. That’s the religious objection.
They don’t want a secular non-profit competing with the religious non-profits. They’re both federally funded.
gbear - March 18, 2010 | 11:13 am · Link
@wrb:
Yea, but the purity of nothing is so much purer than the messy mess of possibility.
Bad Horse's Filly - March 18, 2010 | 11:18 am · Link
@Linda Featheringill: Oh that’s a win.
I used this report to finally contact my rep who is sitting on the fence. I threw in a little, you can vote for us or you can vote for continued insurance abuse, since she’s a Dem.
Sentient Puddle - March 18, 2010 | 11:18 am · Link
@Bender: Yeah, if this is all you got on the morning of the CBO numbers, I think we’ll just declare victory and move on.
Ash Can - March 18, 2010 | 11:18 am · Link
@Litlebritdifrnt: LOL! That’s beautiful.
@Legalize: Driehaus’ district is about 28% black folks – folks who helped carry him in 2008. Why? Barack Obama.
Whoopsie. Didn’t the Prez just say Dems voting against HCR couldn’t rely on his help during the campaign? Ouch. Oh well—Driehaus didn’t really need his Rep job, did he?
Chyron HR - March 18, 2010 | 11:24 am · Link
@Bender:
Are you the Ad Wizard who came up with GOP’s “Harry Reid is like Scooby Doo because shut up we never said that” campaign? It seems to have your trademark schmear of “Trying too hard, but also not hard enough”.
Ash Can - March 18, 2010 | 11:25 am · Link
@Napoleon: Holy smokes. Forget the campaigning issues—Obama must have threatened to send Rahm to pay him a little visit in the shower.
Sentient Puddle - March 18, 2010 | 11:32 am · Link
Full report is apparently out now. If you want to read it over, give Ezra a little traffic.
Should mean the full text of the bill is coming very soon as well. Then the 72-hour clock begins.
Jim, Foolish Literalist - March 18, 2010 | 11:34 am · Link
@Dave Paulson:
Yes, we “could have had” all those things in a bill that failed, and we “caved to gain votes”, also known as getting a bill passed.
Atrios is promoting some fantasy that the PO and Medicare buy-in were real possibilities until this morning. How this is possible, I can’t imagine, and he typically has a post that would fit on Twitter so he doesn’t explain how he arrives at this odd conclusion, but I’m sure his remaining fourteen commenters are in a circle jerk of self-righteous rage about “President BlueCross”. Which is where they want to be.
Corner Stone - March 18, 2010 | 11:34 am · Link
@gbear:
This wasn’t very nice of you. I will now drift off into a Zen state to contemplate what could possibly be more pure than nothing.
OriGuy - March 18, 2010 | 11:40 am · Link
@BenA:
Fixt.
blackwaterdog - March 18, 2010 | 12:38 pm · Link
NO EXCUSES. NO EXCUSES NOW!
Sorry about the caps.
Grumpy Code Monkey - March 18, 2010 | 12:53 pm · Link
@OriGuy:
Fixt some more.
Svensker - March 18, 2010 | 1:09 pm · Link
@cleek:
I’ve already heard this from wingnut relatives.
Svensker - March 18, 2010 | 1:12 pm · Link
@Seanly:
Best wishes to you both. Fingers crossed, toes, too.
Grumpy Code Monkey - March 18, 2010 | 1:15 pm · Link
@Dave Paulson:
I’ll gladly take a field goal over a touchdown if it puts us ahead of where we are now. Not to mention that we can leverage an actual legislative victory in upcoming primaries. If this bill passes, then that gives congressional Democrats cover for passing more meaningful reform later.
trollhattan - March 18, 2010 | 1:55 pm · Link
@ Bender
Didn’t you forget to warn us half the stars in the night sky will wink out permanently, immediately following the signing of the law? Thought so. Do a refresh on your talking points, you have the old cached list.
I, for one, will luxuriate in spending your money on sociaIist health care, that is, the portion that’s left after paying for these pesky but wholesome wars. Now I’m off to fling coins at some cripples.
Tax Analyst - March 18, 2010 | 2:31 pm · Link
OT - but since you mentioned “Senate comity” in the thread post here’s a fine example of pearl clutching courtesy of the Wah-Wah-Wah-ington Post today:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35.....ton_post//
It’s about how Senator Al Franken’s nasty and mean sarcasm might have hurt the precious feelings of several Senator’s and maybe even a WH aide or two – in theory possibly hampering his effectiveness as a Senator (giggle). Why he might have even made poor John Thune sad when he called Thune out for being a posturing horse’s ass over Thune’s comments about the HCR bill. Awww…sad…(double-giggle)
But the article ends on an up note, noting that the freshman Senator seems to be tracking back towards humor and making nice with everyone. I’m sure that will help us all breathe so much easier now.
Da Bomb - March 18, 2010 | 3:26 pm · Link
@Tax Analyst:
That gave me warm and fuzzy feelings on the inside.
Chuck Butcher - March 18, 2010 | 5:50 pm · Link
@wrb:
And it is thanks to folks just exactly like yourself that this is true and that a political party has spent 30 years tacking to the right. You think this is some accident? It is the outcome of your version of politics. I eagerly await the spectacle of how far right you’ll go to get a vote…
All somebody has to say is, “you can’t do this,” and you’ll go to sucking off Hoe Lieberman. He can do that because you say he can and he knows it.
Dave Paulson - March 18, 2010 | 7:29 pm · Link
@Grumpy,
I do hear what you’re saying, and I’ll have to admit there’s some truth in it, but it’s equally true that the dems never fail to disappoint. They are, as a group, a bunch of gutless backdoor politocrats. We accept mediocrity from them and they always deliver. I’m just glad they weren’t in charge in the 1770’s, because we’d damn sure still be under British rule, though they probably could have bought some Tea Tax reform, and maybe even opened the port of Boston.
Dave Paulson - March 18, 2010 | 7:40 pm · Link
@BenA and Mary Kay:
Hurray for our side! So long as you keep your sights in the dirt, you’ll NEVER be disappointed.
In case you haven’t noticed, our system is broken, and one of the chief causes is layer upon layer of BS legislation—there is a major difference between “voting once and voting twice.”
And Ben, I do understand the nature of the people involved and how impractical it is to expect a meaningful debate, but you do have to start somewhere. The American people deserve that. Also BTW, I’m definitely in favor of health care reform passing—real reform.