hobo on the news posted:

america as it exists today could not be sustained if you cut defense spending in any meaningful way, the defense spending is necessary for america to exert influence around the world and safeguard its foreign interests. i agree uhc should be implemented since it would help businesses by reducing cost for a worker, but cutting the defense budget is the wrong way to go

quote:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he'll ditch bipartisanship in the Senate if it means getting a health care reform bill.

"As important as bipartisanship is – and it is very important – it’s not as important as helping the millions of Americans that have no health insurance."

Reid stressed that Democrats have invited Republicans to the negotiating table, and he said that Democrats still wanted to achieve a bipartisan bill.

But Reid also stressed that the costs of not addressing health care this year were simply too high and that Democrats were ready to move a bill without Republican support.

"The cost of inaction is really unacceptable," Reid told reporters. "I repeat: 'Nothing' is not an option. We must pass health care reform and do it this year."

Gazaville Slugger posted:

republican plan: good luck, 30 million of you

mistermojo posted:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/06/daschle-folds-on-federal-public-health-care-plan.html

randomnoise posted:

tacodaemon posted:

we in the USA seriously have the shittiest political system

Der Meister posted:

abolish the senate problem solved




this is literally the solution to 90% of america's political problems hth

quote:

(Washington DC) - Members of the Congressional TriCaucus - comprised of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus - along with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which together make up nearly 120 Members of the House and Senate, today held a press conference to reiterate their call that any Health Care reform must include a public health plan option.

quote:

One source familiar with Kerry's unexpected suggestion said that the idea seemed to have little impact on the meeting and that the senators quickly moved on.

Gazaville Slugger posted:

every politician in washington is really underestimating the public clamor for universal healthcare, or at the very least a viable public option.

Kunabomber posted:

why are the rich considered only hardworking

while the poor considered to have made 'mistakes' and are victims of 'ill fortune'

why can't the rich also be considered to be benefiting from 'good fortune'

Gazaville Slugger posted:

The only way UHC will get enacted is if Feinstein or Kucinich has the balls to propose it

stun runner posted:

hehe just gonna post this relevant poll

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121307/More-Americans-See-Democratic-Party-Too-Liberal.aspx

URL says it all

quote:

Republicans argue that greater government involvement in health care will lead to rationing of care and denial of coverage. A government run health care would place a bureaucrat between “you and your doctor,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, repeated at least four times during a recent interview on Fox News.

And according to some reports, Hatch is working hard to translate his criticism into reality. Hatch and his Republican colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee are pushing legislation that would require insurers operating within the new Exchange to to deny coverage for abortion services. From Raising Women’s Voices:

quote:

The Senate Finance Committee has been writing a health care reform bill and struggling to create legislation that will have bipartisan support. Chairman Max Baucus (pictured left) considered several compromises to win Republican support, so they can claim it is bipartisan legislation. One of these potential compromises comes in the form of an abortion exclusion, which would prevent abortion services from being covered by some or all insurance plans in the Health Insurance Exchange. We fear that members of the Senate Finance Committee are considering such a compromise.

Nineteen House members have also sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stating that they will not vote for health care reform legislation “unless it explicitly excludes abortion funding from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan.” “Furthermore, we want to ensure that the Health Benefits Advisory Committee cannot recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package,” the members wrote.

randomnoise posted:

If 70 - 80% of americans really do support government run health care, why has no one ever taken any kind of serious steps in mobilizing them to literally terrorize congress into submission? Seriously look at how much coverage the tea party mongoloids got. A full page newspaper ad, maybe even a half, in a few regions could probably fit in all of the major bullet points for single payer in a decent format as well as contact info for the locally relevant political offices. If someone organized a coordinated "bombing" of congress by telling people to zerg the phone lines for their congresspeople and barrage them with email and hard copy letters on a specific day, it would make national news when the lines and servers got swamped and congress was paralyzed.

Something similar has happened before but I cant recall what it was about.

cheap sunglasses posted:

it's a camper hooked up to the bookmobile's rear bumper


for reals pp does some stuff out of hope mobiles like sign you up for birth control & give depro shots but they don't drive around doing abortions. though being a moving target they'd be harder to hit than regular clinics

they do set up at remote sites for abortion procedures though, like at women's & hispanic community centers

quote:

It looks like we can chalk up a victory for the good guys. Stocks soared this week, as Congress gave up trying to enact so-called health-care reform — and the massive new taxes to pay for it — until after their August recess. That means it’s dead.

Last week I wrote that if “it gets rejected, then stocks could move a lot higher once they see that it’s still possible for the government of this country to do the right thing every once in a while.” That’s just what has happened.

Let me remind you what’s a stake here. It’s even worse than I wrote about last week. I said that the “surcharge” tax to finance this government takeover of private medicine would raise the top income tax rate to 45%. That’s bad enough, but what I didn’t mention is that the “surcharge” would affect capital gains taxes, too. The rate on long-term capital gains is now 15%. If Obama’s plan is enacted, it would jump to 25.6%.

I can’t think of a surer way to destroy the stock market — what’s left of it — than to raise taxes on capital gains. Isn’t it already hard enough to make money in stocks?

So don’t be surprised that stocks have taken off on the good news that this particular piece of political madness has been consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

It’s especially good news because there’s more and more evidence that the economy really is coming back to life. It would be a shame to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Most important this week, earnings season is shaping up to be absolutely terrific. Forty percent of the companies that are going to report this season have now done so. On average, earnings have surprised on the upside by 11%. That makes this, at least so far, the best earnings season in more than two years — by a substantial margin.

Pat Boone posted:

I know there's a word for government-supported corporatism but for the life of me I can't remember it

dividebyzero posted:

I'm working on an Emigration from the U.S. effortpost right now, but am at work/on my blackberry.

quote:

Suffice to say, get your rear end into an IT or trade skillset pronto, as in before you hit 30.

quote:

"I've told them that I can't support a trigger--no, actually, to be more explicit: If they say that it's unlikely to be [pulled] then it's unnecessary," Lieberman said. "It's an irritant. And I keep saying to my colleagues: the underlying bill, that I would say 60 of us in the caucus support, that is, the parts that we support in the underlying bill, are so full of progress--let's get that done, and stop trying to squeeze in things that some of us, respectfully, just won't accept."

randomnoise posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5ixmT83JE

quote:

Mr. Reid’s amendment also includes a substantial increase in federal contributions to Nebraska’s costs of providing Medicaid coverage to the poor.

Prince of Dicks posted:

i want news in pictures and one snetence per story. come on free market

evilweasel posted:

connecticut