Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Loud Whispers]

"House votes to let Americans keep health plans; 39 Dems defy Obama.
...
Four Republicans voted against the bill, perhaps because it could be viewed as an attempt to smooth over Obama's controversial reforms."

[Leafsnail]

How does that law actually work?  The insurers chose to cancel these plans rather than allow them to continue in a grandfathered state, so is this law going to force them to bring them back?

[mainiac]

Why not offer only 90% and charge 695$ directly?

Because asking states to pony up tens of billions of dollars immediately would create a budgetary shitstorm at a time that when the economy is fragile.  State budgets and borrowing are a lot less flexible than the federal budget and borrowing.  Easing them in means it's no problems because the effects of this expansion will improve the state budget outlook in a way that will cover the expense.

Okay, maybe soundbite is not the right term, what I mean is that progressive roll-out of Obamacare is only there so POTUS can claim that the penalty is very low or the state don't have to pay a dime, while this is only true for a few years.

I would suggest that you've got it backwards.  The democrats are making no effort at all to highlight to everyone that the mandate starts really small.  They want people to sign up for insurance.  Most of the advertising about how small the mandate is actually comes from a Koch brothers funded group.  They're going around college campuses, paying for keggers and telling college students not to buy insurance because the mandate is so small.

[misko27]

"House votes to let Americans keep health plans; 39 Dems defy Obama.
...
Four Republicans voted against the bill, perhaps because it could be viewed as an attempt to smooth over Obama's controversial reforms."

Ehh. The House votes rather consistently to repeal the entire law (42 times so far I believe, but the Shutdown may have added more), so they doing against it was obvious. The Dems who voted for it are the ones who are in the most moderate districts.They are going farther then Obama's recent apology and change of pace goes, which most likely blunted democratic defections (There are exactly 200 House Democrats after all, 39 isn't that many). The Senate is much more likely to go with Obama. There is open frustration with the White House right now, especially given how the botched rollout is looking for them, but defying Obama like that might be a step too far.

[FearfulJesuit]

A Republican has won a special election for Louisiana's 5th House district despite embracing Obamacare's Medicaid expansion.

[RedKing]

Senate Dems to deploy "the nuclear option".

SHIT JUST GOT REAL Y'ALL

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Democrats grew a spine? This really is the end.

[RedKing]

Expect to see Republicans decrying that the end is near, that Obama is on the verge of dissolving Congress and declaring martial law.

Honestly, I'm fine with leaving the filibuster in place but actually MAKING THEM FILIBUSTER. The reason they invoke the threat of filibuster so damn much is that they don't have to actually do anything. They'd probably be less eager to pull that card if it meant making yet another 20-hour long speech and looking like a damned fool in front of the world each time. Granted, nothing would get done in the meantime, but how is that different from now?

[FearfulJesuit]

Expect to see Republicans decrying that the end is near, that Obama is on the verge of dissolving Congress and declaring martial law.

Honestly, I'm fine with leaving the filibuster in place but actually MAKING THEM FILIBUSTER. The reason they invoke the threat of filibuster so damn much is that they don't have to actually do anything. They'd probably be less eager to pull that card if it meant making yet another 20-hour long speech and looking like a damned fool in front of the world each time. Granted, nothing would get done in the meantime, but how is that different from now?

On the other hand, we'd get to see Ted Cruz making dramatic readings from much longer children's works. Twilight, anybody?

[Darvi]

Yes, please.

[RedKing]

Hell, CSPAN could become a ratings giant if they kept upping the ante on what they were doing to fill the time.

I look forward to Mitch McConnell's 7-hour long rock opera complete with pyrotechnics and a laser light show.

[misko27]

Senate Dems to deploy "the nuclear option".

SHIT JUST GOT REAL Y'ALL

*Note that this applies only to Presidential appointees other the Supreme Court Justices.


But still, Republicans are in an uproar. Democrats have already used their new powers to confirm one of Obama's appointees to a powerful Appellate court, one with a Conservative bent that republicans say should have fewer members, specifically exactly as many as it has now. They recently denied three of Obama's nominees in a row, in one month, which set off the current crisis.


Also accusations of trying to distract from the botched roll-out of ACA. Both Boehner and McConnell said this, as did other commentators. This is now their response to everything, which is why the problems with it are so damaging.

[mainiac]

Expect to see Republicans decrying that the end is near, that Obama is on the verge of dissolving Congress and declaring martial law.

Honestly, I'm fine with leaving the filibuster in place but actually MAKING THEM FILIBUSTER. The reason they invoke the threat of filibuster so damn much is that they don't have to actually do anything. They'd probably be less eager to pull that card if it meant making yet another 20-hour long speech and looking like a damned fool in front of the world each time. Granted, nothing would get done in the meantime, but how is that different from now?

Forcing them to do a talking filibuster also means abandoning any chance of the Senate doing anything for a minimum of three days plus the time spent talking.  It's not just that they wouldn't be able to do so much as name a post office, they also wouldn't have time to review and revise legislation, negotiate deals, etc.  Yes a lot of this is handled by staffers but Senators need to personally do a fair amount of work if they want shit to get done.  Despite the republican obstructionism, the democrats usually have better things to do then waste a week of everyone's time giving the republicans free publicity.

[GlyphGryph]

Doesn't a standing filibuster mean it eventually ends? Something the current filibuster has no risk of doing.

[mainiac]

Doesn't a standing filibuster mean it eventually ends? Something the current filibuster has no risk of doing.

Eventually might mean a long time.  The republicans in the senate see obstruction as an ends in and of itself.  The rules are set up so that a fillibuster effectively needs to be broken three times.  So they can talk for say, a week, then come back and talk again for another week then do it again.  All the while they are on national tv everynight saying whatever they want about the democrats.  And the media will play it regardless of the veracity.  If you are a bunch of treasonous bastards who are happy to let the country burn to stoke your insecure ego, that's quite an attractive possibility.