Congress passes landmark health care bill

[NorrthCafe]

You're fun to disagree with because you're such a gentleman, Brian. Thank you for the spirited debate.

I can start by saying that I trust Bloomberg's assertion that employers are beginning to feel the turn around and are going to hire. I've been wrong too many times in my life, but I hope I'm not wrong this time for believing in Bloomberg's report - they really have been pretty consistent in trending the job market. We need relief and we're getting it slowly but surely.

Another perspective about Pharma... the good times aren't all that good, and the boom times might be over soon:

http://www.biospace.com/news_story.aspx?StoryID=174792&full=1=

Let me then pick up by saying that Frank didn't create this mess. This one is Phil Gramm's big mess (along with Greenspan but Greenspan has already given his mea culpa speech). Everyone keeps saying that this is the fault of 'the poor', and Frank and others wanting Freddie and Fannie to lend to people who couldn't afford their homes. That's a TEENY sliver of the housing collapse (which would NOT have been reversed if there was no Freddie/Fannie).

It was the securitized loan market and those loans weren't made to primarily they poor. It was the big boys at the big banks who made a big mess... and Gramm helped take them there. Anyone who supported Gramm's legislation helped too (Democrat or Republican)

Hold on to your hat, Cowboy. I AGREE that some GOP members had some good ideas. Roughly two hundred of them ended up in the final proposal and probably helped make it a better bill along with the Democrats changes. I'm one of those people who believes that when BOTH parties work together, the outcome is often a much better one.

I think some GOP members had good ideas but no comprehensive plan for reform, and no desire to anyone else's plan through. I think it's quite disturbing that Mccain and others are taking the tact they're now taking. If they're going to continue to go that route, the Democrats will have to go on without them and that's going to be devastating to the GOP when the market rebounds.

I'm putting on my flame retardant gloves as I type the following: I agree with Frum, too, that there were probably members of the GOP who WANTED to be a part of this bill and who cared about reform, but were so convinced by DeMint and others to not compromise in order to 'weaken' Obama and it became a one party bill... A GOOD one party bill (my belief, not Frum's). It's a good enough that Grassley NOW wants his due for his contributions to the bill. This bill was necessary. We'll have to learn, as a nation, to support the things we need, not the things we want, and we need a universal health care policy.

BTW, I don't think that Conservatives are responsible for all of the evils of the world. There are conservative writers and thinkers I respect. I've supported Republicans before, admittedly before the Republican-must-mean-conservative-only phase. I'm a genetic Democrat, friend, so that's saying something! I use to crush on Alan Simpson (No comments from the peanut gallery) and still do. I also think he's an amazing man to get beyond his father - who, as you know, opposed the Civil Rights Acts of '64. I can't even imagine that. I think he is a man of integrity. Lott should never have been allowed to replace him.

Have you read Simpson's comments about deficit control and entitlements in an interview with Maria Bartiromo? He's tough and he says what needs to be said. We'll just have to all get over it. He's part of the bipartisan group working on deficit reduction. How could he not be?

I couldn't blog just about the BnB... I'd have to drink, A LOT, to keep focused on that show. It's soapgod awful. I'm now blogging all soaps and whatever strikes my fancy. I think I watch more of the earlier days of soaps on youtube than what's being offered now.

[GoldenDogs]

Awwww... you're cool, too. It's fun to chat about this stuff with you, as well. It's important stuff and more people should be looking into it all to see how it will affect them.

I think we will terminally disagree on whether or not this particular plan was the way to go. I don't think it was, frankly... I think we can't afford it and never will so long as our legislators sell us out for short term political gain. It happens all too often and I think it happened here.

I also think that Obama sold us a bill of goods with "Hope and Change" and I worry about what is next to come.

But Norrth, beyond the particulars of this plan, do you subscribe to the theory that representative government should only represent when individual congressmen and senators feel obliged to represent? I don't for one second believe Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or any other Democrat -- OR REPUBLICAN -- knows better than me what I want, expect, or think is good for me. They DON'T know better.

What's best for me is that the country doesn't go bankrupt and that my benefits and my ability to earn a living isn't threatened by their actions in the name of representation.

And I STRONGLY disagree with the notion of redistributing the wealth in the way that it has evolved. I'm for helping others and giving them a leg up... but I'm not a big entitlement fan.

Would you and others here agree that the number of people pulling the cart are rapidly diminishing while those sitting atop it are growing?

By the way... AT&T announced today that they will be impacted $1 Billion by health care reform, and they will be cutting benefits for retired workers. Verizon announced a massive hit. Others have, as well... I'm sure this will at some point translate into lost jobs with many companies down the road. This is a real result of health care reform... how does this all help things in America?

UGGGHHH... don't get me started on the state of soaps today. I happened to catch bits and pieces of a few today. What garbage!!! Daytime TV is no longer recognizable. In some cases, I saw familiar faces... but the structure of shows built around them was not even recognizable... worse, it was all poorly done. Very sad.

[quartermainefan]

Hi, nowhere and at no time has any member or congress been obligated to vote the will of the majority, or even expected or asked to. The people elect their representatives, they vote as they see fit, and then every two years the people get the chance to throw the bums out. They don't know better what you want, but they do know what they feel on the issues. The majority was against continuing the way in Iraq, congress was not expected to bow to the majority. The majority in the south did not want interrated schooling, Eisenhower sent the troops to Little Rock anyway.

People are fickle. George Bush had a 90% approval rating in 2001. He left in virtual disgrace, less popular than Nixon. Who can determine which is the correct snapshot of the public's opinions and which opinion is just passing fancy? People don't like healthcare today, two years from now people may like it. And today it seems more like a 50/50 split and we know the hardcore 30% that is republican wouldn't like anything Obama championed even if it curing cancer, bringing about world peace, and eliminating hunger. So how can anyone expect a politician to vote based on the whims of a moody people who reserve the right to change their minds any time they want?

[DeeeDee]

+1.

[EricMontreal22]

I know I'm Canadian but-- +1

[GoldenDogs]

Hi Quartermainefan... Can't disagree with you there. But, generally, most congresspersons (politically correct term!) DO attempt to represent the wishes of their constituents because, generally, they come from a district with similar desires and beliefs. Here in California, we're practically a divided state in terms of beliefs, values, and what people think is important. As a result, our friends in Northern California are represented by people like Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. They're ultra-liberals and the districts and communities they represent are ultra-liberal. So much so, in fact, that liberals elsewhere thing the liberals in Northern California are radical! That also holds true for Los Angeles, though to a lesser degree. But where I'm at, in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, where people lean right, a good number of representatives from this area lean right.

I don't know if I really like introducing the strife of the civil rights era into discussions about health care. I know you didn't mean it in a bad way, but too often debates tend to reach back to that time as if to equate what is at stake now with the struggles of that time, and I really don't think there is a comparison. Some obviously disagree with me, but I'm not sure health care is a civil right. Hmmm... the right to have health benefits? We all have the right already to be treated in a hospital even if we can't afford it... you can go to the emergency room and they MUST care for you, right? Hmmm...

Mmmmm... I think people rallied behind the President at a time of shock and disbelief following a tragic event where we were, as a nation, attacked and victimized. It's like when extended family, who don't particularly like each other or hang out with each other, come together when there is a death in the family. After the funeral, they all go back to their respective lives, generally still not having much to do with each other.

I don't think dislike of health care reform is a passing fancy. Not sure of your political stripes, Q, but Dems should be quick to dismiss the anger people are feeling right now... I personally think it's late for them... but November will tell the story, eh?

[NorrthCafe]

Regarding AT&T, it seems that they're misrepresenting the actual issue:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/27/att-plans-1-billion-charg_n_515747.html

No more getting something for nothing? No more taking money from the American Taxpayer? More money to help shore up Medicare and Medicaid? I'm all for that idea. Does anyone know what AT&T's CEO made last year? You have to wonder if it was some outrageous salary.

As I'm reading through the comments, they're doing this now to lower their tax burden and then store the cash they'll pocket. Sweet. Get what you can from the American public while you can? That's not so patriotic.

[applcin]

Here in NY, Rep. Anthony Weiner, who voted yes to the bill, received a threatening letter in an envelope containing white powder...it turned out to be antacid.

[quartermainefan]

As George W Bush reminded the country in 2004, it is better to stand by your convictions than be a poll driven hack who was against health care before he was for it. I suspect that the Republicans are in for another surprise when all the yelling stops and people start to realize they can keep their doctors AND can't get cut off from insurance via a doughnut loophole. If the democrats take their lumps in November so be it, but at least no one can ever accuse Nancy Pelosi of running a do-nothing Congress.

[bellcurve]

So let me ask you something GD...

I completely understand your view on this bill and that health care "shouldn't be a right." To a certain extent, I absolutely agree with you. Healthcare shouldn't be a right. It should be accessible and affordable without these medical companies putting people in debt because they want to live, which is a Conservative/Republican value: the right to live. Hence the stand on abortion and euthanasia(Schiavo). If Republicans value life and living with dignity, why not make the tools necessary for that more affordable for the average consumer? There are lots of things I don't care for that are in this bill, but we've got to start somewhere. I'm just excited that insurance companies will no longer be able to deny someone coverage based on a pre-existing condition. Hello, isn't that the whole bloody reason why people get healthcare?

I also want to ask what you think about children under 18, who don't have a choice or really the means to go about insuring themselves. It's not like these kids chose to be born into this world. If their parents can't afford to pay for healthcare, shouldn't they at least be taken care of until they reach age 18?

I find it rich that the exact same party that preaches about the value of life would deny children healthcare access because "it's not a right." I thought each child mattered, regardless of how much money their parents rake in.

[NorrthCafe]

More news like this will help the Dems, too:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032604938.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/27/obama-cites-savings-in-st_n_515772.html

http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/few-know-health-care-law-has-class/19413357

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/25/david-frum-aei-split-cons_n_513544.html

I'm not worried about THIS President paying for health care. His plans to save the economy are paying off big. What I am worried about is whomever it is that takes his place in 2016.

[George008]

Corporations theoretically do not pay taxes. They roll the cost into the given product or service they provide. If this method doesn't allow them to remain competitive, they cut jobs. Taxing business is in a sense is a consumption tax on every American.

[NorrthCafe]

Hi Casey, my comment was that AT&T and others were taking money FROM taxpayers and now that loophole has now been closed. Gibbs explained the loophole as follows:

Same article cited above. The emphasis is mine. No more double dipping (profits that I'm guessing they weren't passing back to their customers - the customers from whom they got it in the first place).

[George008]

I understand what you're saying. I disagree, but still value your opinion

My point is that this will result in a higher tax burden (with less deductions available for AT&T).

This doesn't hurt the business as they can roll the costs down, this hurts the consumer. That is what my first response was in reference to.

Not to mention, this will most likely mean an end in private sector coverage for AT&T retirees.

So now they will be covered SOLELY by the taxpayer through ObamaCare. If taxpayer funded healthcare bothers you, then you don't agree with this bill! What's worse, 28% or 100%?

AT&T was covering their former employees while creating less of a tax burden. We can't have that! We all know bigger government is the answer to all of our problems.

You made the comment that they were lowering their tax burden and "pocketing" the cash. You inferred this was to the detrement of the public.

The opposite is true, liquidity for AT&T means thousands stay employed and their service remains affordable.

I look forward to the day when people realize that corporations are not the enemy. Their success is for the good of the economy and our country. Corporations employ millions and provide services that we seem to take for granted.

I also wanted to say that I find it interesting that they only bipartisan effort in this bill was in its opposition. As no Republicans voted for the bill, but some Democrats voted, no.

[quartermainefan]

The whole concept of "tax burden" I think needs to be reexamined. In the 1950s when the highest tax rate was 70% the American economy was never stronger, with a thriving middle class and not as much congregation of wealth in the top percentile. Adjusted for inflation the middle class had more, with one parent able to support a full family on one income.

I don't mean to say that tax rates should go back to that level but there has to be some medium between that and the ridiculously low tax rates today that have managed to reduce actual income, savings, government solvency, and saw an erosion in the middle class with real salaries lower now when you adjust for inflation especially among the lower income sector. Yes, there are more billionaires, but outside of those few hundred people I don't see where this neverending quest to eliminate taxes has actually produced any results worth bragging about.