[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

SK: So Big Insurance “invented the plan” to disrupt the town hall meetings? And? How does this affect the vote on Obamacare? Last time I checked, citizens don’t vote on legislation, legislators do.

The Dems control the White House and Congress and don’t need a single GOP vote to pass this legislation.

As to Billy Tauzin’s back room meeting with Obama, it isn’t “past tense” yet. Certain Dems have said they won’t honor the agreement, but that hasn’t happened yet.

And, I’ve heard that Big Insurance has been contributing to advertisements SUPPORTING Obamacare, not opposing it. I could be wrong, and I would need to do some checking in order to assert that properly, but that is my understanding.

Again, so what if there were third parties out there “disrupting” town hall meetings? That has nothing to do with the passage of this legislation, any more than Limbaugh or Hannity yapping about it do.

The Dems completely control the destiny of this legislation, correct? Or do I have that wrong as well?[/quote]

(I think I got this quote thing fixed)

I don’t disagree with anything you say here. The dems are, or at least should be in control. It’s not the deathers at the town hall meetings that will be doing the voting.

My only real issue was your assertion that the insurance companies are supportive of reform. They’re not, unless it is a watered down, do nothing reform that doesn’t include a public option. The kind of reform will do more damage than good for all concerned including democrats and republicans politically, taxpayers, the uninsured, the under-insured and health care providers. (For profit hospitals will probably make out just fine.) Everyone except for insurance companies and big pharma.

Tauzin still has a deal. It just isn’t binding on anyone in Congress. And Obama is unlikely to push it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

SK: So Big Insurance “invented the plan” to disrupt the town hall meetings? And? How does this affect the vote on Obamacare? Last time I checked, citizens don’t vote on legislation, legislators do.

The Dems control the White House and Congress and don’t need a single GOP vote to pass this legislation.

As to Billy Tauzin’s back room meeting with Obama, it isn’t “past tense” yet. Certain Dems have said they won’t honor the agreement, but that hasn’t happened yet.

And, I’ve heard that Big Insurance has been contributing to advertisements SUPPORTING Obamacare, not opposing it. I could be wrong, and I would need to do some checking in order to assert that properly, but that is my understanding.

Again, so what if there were third parties out there “disrupting” town hall meetings? That has nothing to do with the passage of this legislation, any more than Limbaugh or Hannity yapping about it do.

The Dems completely control the destiny of this legislation, correct? Or do I have that wrong as well?[/quote]

(I think I got this quote thing fixed)

I don’t disagree with anything you say here. The dems are, or at least should be in control. It’s not the deathers at the town hall meetings that will be doing the voting.

My only real issue was your assertion that the insurance companies are supportive of reform. They’re not, unless it is a watered down, do nothing reform that doesn’t include a public option. The kind of reform will do more damage than good for all concerned including democrats and republicans politically, taxpayers, the uninsured, the under-insured and health care providers. (For profit hospitals will probably make out just fine.) Everyone except for insurance companies and big pharma.

Tauzin still has a deal. It just isn’t binding on anyone in Congress. And Obama is unlikely to push it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

SK: So Big Insurance “invented the plan” to disrupt the town hall meetings? And? How does this affect the vote on Obamacare? Last time I checked, citizens don’t vote on legislation, legislators do.

The Dems control the White House and Congress and don’t need a single GOP vote to pass this legislation.

As to Billy Tauzin’s back room meeting with Obama, it isn’t “past tense” yet. Certain Dems have said they won’t honor the agreement, but that hasn’t happened yet.

And, I’ve heard that Big Insurance has been contributing to advertisements SUPPORTING Obamacare, not opposing it. I could be wrong, and I would need to do some checking in order to assert that properly, but that is my understanding.

Again, so what if there were third parties out there “disrupting” town hall meetings? That has nothing to do with the passage of this legislation, any more than Limbaugh or Hannity yapping about it do.

The Dems completely control the destiny of this legislation, correct? Or do I have that wrong as well?[/quote]

(I think I got this quote thing fixed)

I don’t disagree with anything you say here. The dems are, or at least should be in control. It’s not the deathers at the town hall meetings that will be doing the voting.

My only real issue was your assertion that the insurance companies are supportive of reform. They’re not, unless it is a watered down, do nothing reform that doesn’t include a public option. The kind of reform will do more damage than good for all concerned including democrats and republicans politically, taxpayers, the uninsured, the under-insured and health care providers. (For profit hospitals will probably make out just fine.) Everyone except for insurance companies and big pharma.

Tauzin still has a deal. It just isn’t binding on anyone in Congress. And Obama is unlikely to push it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

SK: So Big Insurance “invented the plan” to disrupt the town hall meetings? And? How does this affect the vote on Obamacare? Last time I checked, citizens don’t vote on legislation, legislators do.

The Dems control the White House and Congress and don’t need a single GOP vote to pass this legislation.

As to Billy Tauzin’s back room meeting with Obama, it isn’t “past tense” yet. Certain Dems have said they won’t honor the agreement, but that hasn’t happened yet.

And, I’ve heard that Big Insurance has been contributing to advertisements SUPPORTING Obamacare, not opposing it. I could be wrong, and I would need to do some checking in order to assert that properly, but that is my understanding.

Again, so what if there were third parties out there “disrupting” town hall meetings? That has nothing to do with the passage of this legislation, any more than Limbaugh or Hannity yapping about it do.

The Dems completely control the destiny of this legislation, correct? Or do I have that wrong as well?[/quote]

(I think I got this quote thing fixed)

I don’t disagree with anything you say here. The dems are, or at least should be in control. It’s not the deathers at the town hall meetings that will be doing the voting.

My only real issue was your assertion that the insurance companies are supportive of reform. They’re not, unless it is a watered down, do nothing reform that doesn’t include a public option. The kind of reform will do more damage than good for all concerned including democrats and republicans politically, taxpayers, the uninsured, the under-insured and health care providers. (For profit hospitals will probably make out just fine.) Everyone except for insurance companies and big pharma.

Tauzin still has a deal. It just isn’t binding on anyone in Congress. And Obama is unlikely to push it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook

All of this nonsense obscures the fact that the Dems have made a hash of healthcare reform (again) and, ironically, this time Big Pharma and Big Insurance were SUPPORTING the President, unlike Hillarycare back in the Clinton Administration.

[/quote]

Uh, no siree. Pharma had (past tense) a non-binding deal to not oppose reform. Insurance is fighting it tooth and nail, having spent millions in just the last few months. Who do you think invented the plan to disrupt the town hall meetings? The insurance companies have attempted (and may have succeeded) in buying the blue dog dems. They have billions in profits at stake. Their 467% increase in profits over the last 9 years are the reason we’re even discussing it again.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook

All of this nonsense obscures the fact that the Dems have made a hash of healthcare reform (again) and, ironically, this time Big Pharma and Big Insurance were SUPPORTING the President, unlike Hillarycare back in the Clinton Administration.

[/quote]

Uh, no siree. Pharma had (past tense) a non-binding deal to not oppose reform. Insurance is fighting it tooth and nail, having spent millions in just the last few months. Who do you think invented the plan to disrupt the town hall meetings? The insurance companies have attempted (and may have succeeded) in buying the blue dog dems. They have billions in profits at stake. Their 467% increase in profits over the last 9 years are the reason we’re even discussing it again.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook

All of this nonsense obscures the fact that the Dems have made a hash of healthcare reform (again) and, ironically, this time Big Pharma and Big Insurance were SUPPORTING the President, unlike Hillarycare back in the Clinton Administration.

[/quote]

Uh, no siree. Pharma had (past tense) a non-binding deal to not oppose reform. Insurance is fighting it tooth and nail, having spent millions in just the last few months. Who do you think invented the plan to disrupt the town hall meetings? The insurance companies have attempted (and may have succeeded) in buying the blue dog dems. They have billions in profits at stake. Their 467% increase in profits over the last 9 years are the reason we’re even discussing it again.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook

All of this nonsense obscures the fact that the Dems have made a hash of healthcare reform (again) and, ironically, this time Big Pharma and Big Insurance were SUPPORTING the President, unlike Hillarycare back in the Clinton Administration.

[/quote]

Uh, no siree. Pharma had (past tense) a non-binding deal to not oppose reform. Insurance is fighting it tooth and nail, having spent millions in just the last few months. Who do you think invented the plan to disrupt the town hall meetings? The insurance companies have attempted (and may have succeeded) in buying the blue dog dems. They have billions in profits at stake. Their 467% increase in profits over the last 9 years are the reason we’re even discussing it again.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook

All of this nonsense obscures the fact that the Dems have made a hash of healthcare reform (again) and, ironically, this time Big Pharma and Big Insurance were SUPPORTING the President, unlike Hillarycare back in the Clinton Administration.

[/quote]

Uh, no siree. Pharma had (past tense) a non-binding deal to not oppose reform. Insurance is fighting it tooth and nail, having spent millions in just the last few months. Who do you think invented the plan to disrupt the town hall meetings? The insurance companies have attempted (and may have succeeded) in buying the blue dog dems. They have billions in profits at stake. Their 467% increase in profits over the last 9 years are the reason we’re even discussing it again.

[SK in CV]

I could be wrong, but I can find no evidence this bill ever got out of committee. It wasn’t voted on in the house, and there was no comparable bill in the Senate. I do not believe it is law.

[SK in CV]

I could be wrong, but I can find no evidence this bill ever got out of committee. It wasn’t voted on in the house, and there was no comparable bill in the Senate. I do not believe it is law.

[SK in CV]

I could be wrong, but I can find no evidence this bill ever got out of committee. It wasn’t voted on in the house, and there was no comparable bill in the Senate. I do not believe it is law.

[SK in CV]

I could be wrong, but I can find no evidence this bill ever got out of committee. It wasn’t voted on in the house, and there was no comparable bill in the Senate. I do not believe it is law.

[SK in CV]

I could be wrong, but I can find no evidence this bill ever got out of committee. It wasn’t voted on in the house, and there was no comparable bill in the Senate. I do not believe it is law.

[SK in CV]

The headline is more than a little misleading. According to the Columbia Journalism Review:

These planes are for an Air Force fleet that’s barely used by Congress—at least compared to the others who also use it. Over the last five years, 86 percent of the use of the private-plane fleet has been by the White House and the military. Just 14.5 percent has been congressional use.

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/journal_misleads_congress_jets.php

Not to mention that the addition just may make financial sense. From the WSJ article, well after the disingenuous lede:

The House Appropriations Committee says the new purchases are designed to replace seven aging and more expensive business jets. The net impact is one additional plane owned by the federal government and a substantial increase in its passenger capacity.

[Author]

Posts