Apparently the Congress is indeed going to join this thread. The bill seems certain to pass--and rumor has it that even Bart Stupak has agreed to vote for it. If that's true it will have a substantial majority.

I posted some new thoughts on the situation on my blog yesterday and will not repeat them here (link below.) But to summarize, I've been reading about the civil war, and Obama, like Lincoln, has had a very tough year--but this looks like Antietam, about six months early. Hallelujah.

No, it isn't perfect by any means, and it will do little right away, and Democrats will lose some seats this fall (as Republicans did in 1862), but it reverses the awful momentum that has built up over the last year. Obama will be Superman for a while in the media and perhaps sanity will take a step forward. Having had many despairing moments, I'm feeling a lot better now.

Originally Posted by The Rani

If anyone has a specific question, that's cool.
I'm not particularly interested in "arguing" against googlized "evidence."

Talk to me, Rani.


http://www.rxlist.com/tranxene-drug.htm

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That's only true if someone who has actually prescribed the stuff is willing to talk, which apparently:

Think of Benzos as a class of drugs, like antibiotics. As per prior post, I selected one I'm familiar with. They all have different half lives, targeted uses, and metabolic profiles.

Is not the case.

We shall see, I guess...

Originally Posted by The Rani

If anyone has a specific question, that's cool.

I asked you one earlier. You never answered. I then did some research on my own, as you suggested.

Here, I'll try again. What problems exist with the short-term use of these drugs? (Over time, the problems are obvious and so that's not what I'm asking about.) You mentioned respiratory and cognitive impairment.

Do the respiratory problems associated with the drugs persist after they are discontinued?

Under what circumstances could these respiratory problems lead to fatality?

Does the cognitive impairment associated with the drugs persist after they are discontinued?

If that's not sufficiently specific I'll try to narrow it down further.

I'm really not playing games with you here. I respect your opinion as an expert, and would like to understand why you hold that opinion. I assume that you have some good reason. I would like to know what it is.

It's amazing that Republican opponents to the bill have been lining up to say this:

"I request to extend my comment in opposition to this flawed health care bill" as if the message were supplied from some outside entity or from some Party boss.

A few have even forgotten to say the last word -- bill -- which gives a comic effect in that it negates the message. Freudian slip?

You would think that there would be some variety. To be sure, I heard "failed" and "unconstitutional". Does it take much imagination to be a corporate stooge in Congress? I don't know. Did it take much intellect to be a member of the Reichstag between 1933 and 1945 or the Parliament of Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power??

Apparently some Congressmen have campaign contributions to collect.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...
Apparently some Congressmen have campaign contributions to collect.

And obviously to contribute nothing to actually solving the problem! Like the old commercial, to the Republican party, where is YOUR plan? Where's the beef?

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

And obviously to contribute nothing to actually solving the problem! Like the old commercial, to the Republican party, where is YOUR plan? Where's the beef?

They chose war over healthcare in every circumstance, save Nixon during Watergate.

(Sigh.) I guess I have to make allowances in your case, all things considered. But really, you're being utterly paranoid here.

I am not trying to "show you up at your profession." I'm just trying to learn something. All right, you say those questions are irrelevant. Why is that? What are the relevant questions? What makes these drugs unsuitable for use as anti-anxiety medications pre-surgery?

These aren't "gotcha" questions, they're real ones. Like I said, I assume you have a good reason for what you believe. I just can't see what it could be.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It's amazing that Republican opponents to the bill have been lining up to say this:

"I request to extend my comment in opposition to this flawed health care bill" as if the message were supplied from some outside entity or from some Party boss.

A few have even forgotten to say the last word -- bill -- which gives a comic effect in that it negates the message. Freudian slip?

You would think that there would be some variety. To be sure, I heard "failed" and "unconstitutional". Does it take much imagination to be a corporate stooge in Congress? I don't know. Did it take much intellect to be a member of the Reichstag between 1933 and 1945 or the Parliament of Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power??

Apparently some Congressmen have campaign contributions to collect.

Yes, I noticed that too. The one who substituted "unconstitutional" for "flawed" grinned at how clever he was. It is amazing they are so proud of marching in lock step.

Originally Posted by The Rani

One word: tolerance.
Google it.

I know my mother was always able to build up a tolerance to pain relieving drug medications. She had to constantly switch pain relieving drugs towards the end of her life because she kept building up a tolerance to drugs after a month or less.

I'm guessing the same would be true, Rani?

~Chas'88

The Senate HCR bill passes the House. President Obama will sign it. It will now become the law. Two related votes pending and both are expected to pass.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

The Senate HCR bill passes the House. President Obama will sign it. It will now become the law. Two related votes pending and both are expected to pass.

But not before the anti-abortion crowd has to make even more noise (sigh). It's almost 11:00 on this side of the country. I turned on C-SPAN at 1 thinking there'd be a little bit of formal debate, and then the votes. (Was I ever wrong. Fortunately I haven't stayed with C-SPAN all this time.)

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

But not before the anti-abortion crowd has to make even more noise (sigh).

With merit.

It's over. Now it devolves to issues of implementation. We get to join the rest of the world -- maybe with undue sloth -- toward a system of health care that makes sense.

I knew that it was over when John Boehner gave a hysterical oration claiming that passage of this bill would result in the destruction that everything we Americans believe in. A system in which insurance companies insure at will, take away at will, and effectively take a cut out of every medical procedure. Nancy Pelosi countered with a calm, measured, rational approach, one 100% alien to the paranoid rantings of tea-bag protesters and the Orwellian rhetoric of the health insurance industry. Political debate is best done with sanity in view of the consequences.

It is largely on partisan lines, Republicans, the supposed pro-business party, standing firmly against legislation that is good for every business except the health-insurance business. It will be good for the small businesses that will need to form to abso0rb the unemployed who can no longer expect to be on a payroll of a large business. It will be good for people. Sure, it's only a start, and we need to work on a full-employment economy so that people can pay for their insurance.

The tension is over.

Is this the regeneracy?

Here's the one trillion dollar question: is this the Millennial Cycle's Smoot-Hawley Tariff or Social Security? Smoot-Hawley Tariff passed at the same point as in the current Crisis.

Originally Posted by General Mung Beans

Here's the one trillion dollar question: is this the Millennial Cycle's Smoot-Hawley Tariff or Social Security? Smoot-Hawley Tariff passed at the same point as in the current Crisis.

It is hard to ovestate how important tonight is.
We are moving deeper into the 4T.

Short term tonight means that the 1994 redux midterm election that the Republicans were hoping for will be dampened. Democratic vote numbers in the next Congress will be higher because of today's results than they would have been.

Longer term this means that the the policy shift away from the supply side economics dominant since the Reagan years continues. The 3T is over. The 3T policy agenda is beginning to fall away with the changing conditions.

In terms of the 2012 election the odds of an Obama second term is a lot higher today than it was a few days ago when total governing failure on this issue seemed possible.

Obama is now up there with FDR and his Social Security and LBJ with Medicare. A major policy shift that will be in the history books has happened.

Originally Posted by General Mung Beans

With merit.

Old bigoted white men have no right to tell women what to do with their bodies.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

It is hard to ovestate how important tonight is.
We are moving deeper into the 4T.

Short term tonight means that the 1994 redux midterm election that the Republicans were hoping for will be dampened. Democratic vote numbers in the next Congress will be higher because of today's results than they would have been.

Longer term this means that the the policy shift away from the supply side economics dominant since the Reagan years continues. The 3T is over. The 3T policy agenda is beginning to fall away with the changing conditions.

In terms of the 2012 election the odds of an Obama second term is a lot higher today than it was a few days ago when total governing failure on this issue seemed possible.

Obama is now up there with FDR and his Social Security and LBJ with Medicare. A major policy shift that will be in the history books has happened.

I agree with all of the above. Congratulations to all who worked so hard to get this done.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Is this the regeneracy?

Ironically I'm reading about the New Deal right now for history class. In the time it took Obama to pass HCR, FDR had introduced government regulation to almost every economic system that needed reform. He also, until 1935, had Congress's full support, and a much more subdued opposition.
If this is the regeneracy, this is a much different 4T than last time.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

Ironically I'm reading about the New Deal right now for history class. In the time it took Obama to pass HCR, FDR had introduced government regulation to almost every economic system that needed reform. He also, until 1935, had Congress's full support, and a much more subdued opposition.
If this is the regeneracy, this is a much different 4T than last time.

Of course it's different, Rose. When in history has a 4T closely resembled the previous one? I believe it was Mark Twain who said that history doesn't repeat itself, but does tend to rhyme.

Originally Posted by Odin

Old bigoted white men have no right to tell women what to do with their bodies.

With rights, however, do come responsibilities.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Of course it's different, Rose. When in history has a 4T closely resembled the previous one? I believe it was Mark Twain who said that history doesn't repeat itself, but does tend to rhyme.

You're quoting the old Gilded quite correctly.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Rose1992

Ironically I'm reading about the New Deal right now for history class. In the time it took Obama to pass HCR, FDR had introduced government regulation to almost every economic system that needed reform. He also, until 1935, had Congress's full support, and a much more subdued opposition.
If this is the regeneracy, this is a much different 4T than last time.

Aside from there being no obvious Hitler figure...

in other 4Ts, economic collapse (a panic) preceded a shift in political realities. This time, the Democrats took the House and Senate away from the Republicans (2006) before the economic meltdown of 2008. The change from a 3T President (Dubya) to a 4T President happened during the meltdown. Such may have allowed a swifter and more decisive response to the economic crisis.

This time America had two bungled wars that had started in the 3T. Contrast 1932 to 2008: Herbert Hoover had peace.

Of course we can't forget that we already have some New Deal and Great Society reforms intact -- and those may have mitigated the effects of the 2007-2009 meltdown. Obama had no qualms about putting Keynesian economics to effect from the first moment.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Aside from there being no obvious Hitler figure...

in other 4Ts, economic collapse (a panic) preceded a shift in political realities. This time, the Democrats took the House and Senate away from the Republicans (2006) before the economic meltdown of 2008. The change from a 3T President (Dubya) to a 4T President happened during the meltdown. Such may have allowed a swifter and more decisive response to the economic crisis.

This time America had two bungled wars that had started in the 3T. Contrast 1932 to 2008: Herbert Hoover had peace.

Of course we can't forget that we already have some New Deal and Great Society reforms intact -- and those may have mitigated the effects of the 2007-2009 meltdown. Obama had no qualms about putting Keynesian economics to effect from the first moment.

To continue this idea along: like having heated homes & snow plows to make a Winter Crisis that might have been much worse, more mild.

~Chas'88

A couple of Millennials shot this very comical video at a Tea Party rally:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VpOnOspBZo