Originally Posted by Deb C

If you will notice, I used a wink at the end of my sentence to indicate that I was kidding. I am not one to call names.

I will continue my challenge about the health care law. I guess if you were in the final stages of an auto immune liver disease, you too, might view the bill a lot differently.

Like I have said else where in this forum, Obama is probably a better person than I am and I will give him credit where credit is due. But but it is my job, as a citizen, to hold him accountable when he is not working for the people he was elected to represent.

My deepest sympathy. People like you most need national health care, and it is unfortunate that the US, to its inexplicable and inexcusable shame, does not have it. Speaking of auto-immune disease, I had a cousin who died of lupus at age 50. Only through some good fortune of working for a good business when it was a good business was he able to get insurance and Social Security that kept him alive and mobile from when he was a teenager until he was 50. For much of his life he looked much like a recently-released inmate of an Axis POW or forced labor camp.

I might not have been so sympathetic had he abused his body with drugs and heavy drinking, chain smoking, reckless sexuality, or even with heavy use of saturated fats and corn sweeteners... but he was the first close relative of mine younger than me who died of a disease that, although not in any way his fault, wrecked him. Lupus is an auto-immune disease.

Yes, he had to fight for Social Security because the federal government was doing everything possible to deny SSI benefits. He had to go to court or at least threaten a lawsuit.

Too bad that I am not a lawyer; I would have taken his case pro bono. All I would have had to do was to wheel him into the courtroom.

Originally Posted by DebC

I will continue my challenge about the health care law. I guess if you were in the final stages of an auto immune liver disease, you too, might view the bill a lot differently.

Like I have said else where in this forum, Obama is probably a better person than I am and I will give him credit where credit is due. But but it is my job, as a citizen, to hold him accountable when he is not working for the people he was elected to represent.

I am very sorry to hear about your illness. That might indeed give me a different slant on things; being healthy, I have the luxury of being patient.

Since Obama is a politician, I very much doubt that he is a better person than you are -- politicians as a profession tend to be less than perfectly honest and more than normally manipulative. Some of the best, most effective politicians in our history have also been some very bad people in terms of personal morality. Of course we need to hold him accountable (and Congress, too). Nothing will be accomplished if we don't -- even what has been accomplished so far would not have if we hadn't. Heck, he wouldn't even be in office if not for a popular political insurgency that was sick of the same-old.

But it's like Van Jones said in his address to Netroots Nation. It's a mistake to think that the 2008 election brought us to the finish line. Where it brought us is to the starting line. He made a great speech and I would recommend listening to it. He pointed out that the year he was born, 1968, the nation lost hope (or as he put it, hope was "assassinated" along with Robert Kennedy and ML King), and didn't get it back for forty years. We've not achieved as much as we expected in giddy excitement after that November. But if we don't allow hope to slide back into despair, we can still keep working for change.

So as inadequate as the health-care law is, I still view it as a first step forward, a not-too-shabby jump out of the starting gate. There's still a long way to go and a lot more to do, and it will be driven by us, not by Barack Obama. If he's as smart a politician as I think he is (and this has nothing to do with how good a person he is; just the opposite if anything), he'll pay attention. There's evidence that he's listening now. If we find over the next year or so that he's not -- then it will be time to find an alternative.

Thanks for the kind notes about my illness. And yes, auto-immune disease is no fault of the person who has any of the multitude of illnesses for which it is responsible. There are hundreds of illnesses that are auto-immune. I did, and still do, try to live the healthiest life possible. There are just no guarantees in life.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I am very sorry to hear about your illness. That might indeed give me a different slant on things; being healthy, I have the luxury of being patient.

Since Obama is a politician, I very much doubt that he is a better person than you are -- politicians as a profession tend to be less than perfectly honest and more than normally manipulative. Some of the best, most effective politicians in our history have also been some very bad people in terms of personal morality. Of course we need to hold him accountable (and Congress, too). Nothing will be accomplished if we don't -- even what has been accomplished so far would not have if we hadn't. Heck, he wouldn't even be in office if not for a popular political insurgency that was sick of the same-old.

But it's like Van Jones said in his address to Netroots Nation. It's a mistake to think that the 2008 election brought us to the finish line. Where it brought us is to the starting line. He made a great speech and I would recommend listening to it. He pointed out that the year he was born, 1968, the nation lost hope (or as he put it, hope was "assassinated" along with Robert Kennedy and ML King), and didn't get it back for forty years. We've not achieved as much as we expected in giddy excitement after that November. But if we don't allow hope to slide back into despair, we can still keep working for change.

So as inadequate as the health-care law is, I still view it as a first step forward, a not-too-shabby jump out of the starting gate. There's still a long way to go and a lot more to do, and it will be driven by us, not by Barack Obama. If he's as smart a politician as I think he is (and this has nothing to do with how good a person he is; just the opposite if anything), he'll pay attention. There's evidence that he's listening now. If we find over the next year or so that he's not -- then it will be time to find an alternative.

This is, in part, what I have been saying all along, it's we the people who have to move our country forward. I must not have made myself very clear in earlier posts.


I'm glad to read that you see Obama in a realistic light. Too often, and this is what concerned me greatly, was the total admiration of him by some. And any criticism of his policies, was often seen as a betrayal. It reminded me of the mentality of when Bush would say, "Your either with us or against us."

We have a lot of work to do to move a "health care for all" forward. While I am grateful for those who will now have insurance, who previously did not, there are still way too many who will still go untreated, die, or go bankrupt, because of it being in the pockets of the for profit industry. And it is for those lives that I continue to press on.

Originally Posted by Publius

Yeah, I have to agree, here. When the federal government knows everything about each individual, via controlling our national health care, and has the power to thus control everyone's health, I think it will be a great advantage to the Republican Party when they eventually (as always) finally gain control of the federal government.

Think about it, if the Republican Party controls your health care, they control your life. How cool is that? The Republican Party can then dictate who gets what kind of vital care they may need when and how. This is a beautiful thing for the GOP.

And I can see why the GOP wants to own the health care issue, in this manner, just like the Democrats do.

Regardless who, however, "owns" the issue, it's the Republicans who will make the best use of the federal government's control over each and every one of our health records and care from the minute we're born to the day, they decide, we die. I mean, after all, they are Republicans.

Thank you, Democrats, for granting the Republicans this really awesome power!

It would certainly be risky but maybe it is exactly what is needed for the longer haul. Let the GOP come to power without the filibuster. On top of that, let them take the Presidency for complete control. We got a taste of what that leads to from 2000-2008 - a near-repeat of the Great Depression and a stupid war (Iraq) that took our attention away from eliminating al Qaeda.

Yes, there is a risk here of the GOP taking the reins and refusing to give them back when the people demand it and God knows what stupid crap they can heap on the world for 2 or 4 years. But if the dictatorship risk can be avoided and we can survive another 4 years of their stupidity again, even some of the biggest idiot sheeple would finally get it and we would never have to worry again about you idiots being handed the car keys ever again. Then, maybe we can turn this country around and make it better for not just the top 1%.

I say, let it rip - take the filibuster punchbowl away for everyone and let's see if the prospect sobers up the American people. If it doesn't immediately, it will eventually.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Holy crap. It's now confirmed. You are incapable of reading more than three sentences in a row.

Okay, I'll expand.

I checked with my Russian wife who worked within that country’s medical systems. She's out now but frequently returns and is in touch with many former comrades.

Obviously, before Perestroika, nearly 100% of Russians' medical needs were covered by the state system; within that system, those that were "more equal" could get access to more elite care than those "less equal” That system began to break down, however, as the economic structure began to breakdown. Starting in ’97, it began to sink into complete chaos - people needed to more and more bring "gifts" to clinics and doctors to get care. The situation was not unique to the medical sector but reflected a convulsion in the entire society.

One aspect of this was the impact on Russian medical technology. Under the USSR, Russian medical technology was considered competitive with the West in many regards (e.g. Lasik surgery was being preformed first in St. Pete for a few years before it even was considered possible in the West). The '98 crisis brought that to a standstill; there was an enormous brain drain from the medical research sector in the late 90s and early 00s (e.g., my wife). Under Putin’s directive, there is now a priority emphasis to bringing back that former prestige but it remains uncertain if that will indeed happen – a lot of catching up to do.

In the 2000's, with economic prosperity and Putin's strong arming, things started to get back under control, including more enforcement of tax requirements to raise government revenue and Putin's directive that there would be a sustained medical system in the country.

What is there today is that 85-90% of the people depend on government clinics and doctors much like in their former USSR. People can provide "extra" to those government clinics and doctors to get something more, if they choose and can afford it. People can also go to private clinics and doctors if they choose and can afford it. Some subset of these latter people get health insurance to cover the private services they obtain; and, some sub-set of these people get their insurance subsidized by their employers similar to what we do in the US. Since the vast number of people depend upon on government-run services, those that can get insurance get it much cheaper than in the US due much better risk pools for the insurers

Basically, the Russian system would be like the proposed "Medicare-for Everyone Proposal" that Sen. Wyden put forward. It would provide the buld of medical care for the vast number of Americans; those that could afford more could pay for it - either on their own or through insurance that they paid for. Obviously, there wouldn't be too many insurers left to do business any more.

I like Russia’s vast government-controlled approach to health care, but it is usually not what one would think a Libertarian would be enamored with, even if it was a pretty darn system for delivering good medical services. What's up with that?

Originally Posted by Deb C

...

I'm glad to read that you see Obama in a realistic light. Too often, and this is what concerned me greatly, was the total admiration of him by some. And any criticism of his policies, was often seen as a betrayal. It reminded me of the mentality of when Bush would say, "Your either with us or against us.".

If you can appreciate putting Obama in a realistic light, why can't you put in realistic light the Senate's filibuster foreclosing on anything that you would consider robust?

That seems just as disingenuous as someone avoiding any criticism of Obama's policies.

Originally Posted by Deb C

If you will notice, I used a wink at the end of my sentence to indicate that I was kidding. I am not one to call names.

I will continue my challenge about the health care law. I guess if you were in the final stages of an auto immune liver disease, you too, might view the bill a lot differently.

Like I have said else where in this forum, Obama is probably a better person than I am and I will give him credit where credit is due. But but it is my job, as a citizen, to hold him accountable when he is not working for the people he was elected to represent.

I'm very sorry to hear about your illness. That's a rotten thing to have happen.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Wow, this goes even further than that T-bagger in the Nevada Senate primary race that suggested folks could get good medical care by bringing a couple of chickens in to the doctor to barter for an MRI.

Yep, there's the answer folks - you'll get your kids medical care by way of charity.

And you guys wonder why Glibertarians just don't seem to catch a break and get elected.

personally I find the Right-Libertarian worshiping of charity as offensive and disgusting. in a truly just society charity would be unnecessary.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If you can appreciate putting Obama in a realistic light, why can't you put in realistic light the Senate's filibuster foreclosing on anything that you would consider robust?

That seems just as disingenuous as someone avoiding any criticism of Obama's policies.

I'm not sure how I got drug into the debate about the filibuster but................

I offer these few snippets on a realistic view of the filibuster by Nader.

{The filibuster is now virtual, unlike the traditional filibuster where its practitioners would have to go on the Senate floor for hours straining their bladders and the patience of the public.

Presently, all Minority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell (Rep. KY) has to do is merely notify Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid (Dem. NV) of the intent to extend debate and, voila, a minority of forty-one Senators defeats the majority rule of fifty-nine Senators.

So Senator Reid bewails that: “We had to file cloture some seventy times last year, seventy times. That’s remarkably bad. Let’s change that.”

So why don’t the Democrats “change that?” In 1975, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, in his role as president of the Senate, ruled that fifty-one Senators could amend Senate rules. Senator Tom Udall has a resolution to do just that—predictably languishing in the Senate without even a hearing.

Moreover, Senator Tom Harkin proposed a resolution that would require a series of votes to cut off a filibuster. The first stage would need sixty votes, the second would need fifty-seven, then fifty-four and finally a simple majority over a period of weeks. That proposal is going nowhere.

Obviously, the Democrats could end the filibuster with a majority vote but choose not to because they may wish to use this tool of obstruction should they be in the minority. In fact, Harry Reid has ruled out any filibuster reform. Well then, why not end the “virtual” filibuster and make the Republicans hit the floor with round-the-clock debate televised around the nation. People are waiting and suffering from corporate-desired inaction.

Chicago lawyer and scholar, Thomas Geoghegan wrote an open letter to Senator Reid urging that he make the Republicans actually filibuster. Either make them stall the Senate on a minor bill to generate public ire or generate public outrage by making them filibuster a popular bill aimed at curbing corporate crime, waste and abuse or one that would save people money or their health.}

If you want to read the entire article about Nader's ideas regarding the filibuster, here's the site address.
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader03182010.html

Don't worry Deb, I got yer back. Celiac is also an auto-immune disease. Though curable at zero cost (diet only), nothing about the insurance model gives an incentive to send me home healthy. This isn't just my cynical observation of 10 years and $x00,000 "worth" of services, the WHO says testing should be universal but American doctors only end up catching about 3% of the expected cases. That is almost 3 million undiagnosed/misdiagnosed Americans with autoimmune disease - who could be getting healthier - but are instead guaranteed customers with high demand for help. When I'm forced to buy insurance again, I'll be buying it from the "single buyer" "pre-existing condition" group and I think they're currently charging about $800-$1000 a month for that (The per-capita GDP of Jacksonville is $16,000 so thank god I can telecommute and do business across global borders instantly). I'm not completely comforted that this cost is offset a bit for people at low incomes, because that fundamental incentive flaw doesn't get fixed just by pushing those ballooning costs around and hiding them out of sight. The patient will still be liable for up to a few thousand out of pocket every year, so any instance of extended illness is going to leave people in debts that are more closely watched & enforced by the IRS.

It does manage to "prevent" collapse of the system from individuals & employers going Galt or tuning in & dropping out. We're supposedely respecting the free market ideal of private insurance, but we're eliminating the correcting agent achieved from individuals deciding whether or not their risks and needs are worth the cost. What we've really got is an arbitrary, yet socialized middle-man, and they're now guaranteed percent on whatever price they can convince our politicians to buy at.

Insured or not, it is going to suck when those years of my immune system playing M.A.D. with the food in my gut catch up. Despite paying at least 24% of my gross wages in to Social Security & Medicare & insurance, I'm almost guaranteed an early retirement forced by illness. Playwrite is over here telling me I can just work 'til I'm 70... Hah, I probably wouldn't live long enough to collect if they don't raise the retirement age so really.. why am I supposed to care again?

I really do try to not be upset. I'm sorry when it does come across as harsh, but I've always dealt with medical problems and I can't help but be frustrated at the self-righteous ones who want to make my life harder in the name of helping the sick. Bonus rage points for the "heartless, greedy" accusations they make to defend corrupt plans. The trend I've seen is more that people who are healthy & have employer provided insurance think they're doing some great favor for the rest of us. Basically, people who don't need the service and don't sign the bills are really happy with marginal reform or the status quo.

Everything else is outside the bounds of discussion and the paradigm persists...

Originally Posted by independent

Don't worry Deb, I got yer back. Celiac is also an auto-immune disease. Though curable at zero cost (diet only), nothing about the insurance model gives an incentive to send me home healthy. This isn't just my cynical observation of 10 years and $x00,000 "worth" of services, the WHO says testing should be universal but American doctors only end up catching about 3% of the expected cases. That is almost 3 million undiagnosed/misdiagnosed Americans with autoimmune disease - who could be getting healthier - but are instead guaranteed customers with high demand for help. When I'm forced to buy insurance again, I'll be buying it from the "single buyer" "pre-existing condition" group and I think they're currently charging about $800-$1000 a month for that (The per-capita GDP of Jacksonville is $16,000 so thank god I can telecommute and do business across global borders instantly). I'm not completely comforted that this cost is offset a bit for people at low incomes, because that fundamental incentive flaw doesn't get fixed just by pushing those ballooning costs around and hiding them out of sight. The patient will still be liable for up to a few thousand out of pocket every year, so any instance of extended illness is going to leave people in debts that are more closely watched & enforced by the IRS.

It does manage to "prevent" collapse of the system from individuals & employers going Galt or tuning in & dropping out. We're supposedely respecting the free market ideal of private insurance, but we're eliminating the correcting agent achieved from individuals deciding whether or not their risks and needs are worth the cost. What we've really got is an arbitrary, yet socialized middle-man, and they're now guaranteed percent on whatever price they can convince our politicians to buy at.

Insured or not, it is going to suck when those years of my immune system playing M.A.D. with the food in my gut catch up. Despite paying at least 24% of my gross wages in to Social Security & Medicare & insurance, I'm almost guaranteed an early retirement forced by illness. Playwrite is over here telling me I can just work 'til I'm 70... Hah, I probably wouldn't live long enough to collect if they don't raise the retirement age so really.. why am I supposed to care again?

I really do try to not be upset. I'm sorry when it does come across as harsh, but I've always dealt with medical problems and I can't help but be frustrated at the self-righteous ones who want to make my life harder in the name of helping the sick. The trend I've seen is more that people who are healthy & have employer provided insurance think they're doing some great favor for the rest of us. Basically, people who don't need the service and don't sign the bills are really happy with marginal reform or the status quo.

Everything else is outside the bounds of discussion and the paradigm persists...

I couldn't think of a better person, than you, to have my back. Although, I'm sorry that you also have an auto-immune illness. I know way too many people who are in the same boat as us. It's a sad day when a so called winning reform leaves millions at the mercy of the insurance industry.

So yes, you make an intelligent point, it is so very true that the view from the healthy person's front porch is very different than the view of someone in the trenches of an illness. This is why I often suggest that we all put ourselves in the shoes of others. If there was an honest attempt to do just that, the paradigm would have a chance at transformation.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I'm very sorry to hear about your illness. That's a rotten thing to have happen.

Thank you for your kind words.

"A year or so ago, editor Jon Meacham announced that the venerable news magazine would become a journal of liberal opinion, in hopes of vitalizing its sagging circulation. That didn't exactly work--it turns out that very few Americans think they are suffering from a shortage of liberal opinion. Today, the Washington Post, Newsweek's owner, announced that it is selling the magazine to 91-year-old Sidney Harman, the stereo magnate, for $1. That, plus his assumption of Newsweek's considerable debts."

Originally Posted by playwrite

I like Russia’s vast government-controlled approach to health care, but it is usually not what one would think a Libertarian would be enamored with, even if it was a pretty darn system for delivering good medical services. What's up with that?

a) good thing I'm not a libertarian, eh?
b) the system there has the very strong virtue of being honest. It is exactly what it seems to be, and it aims to do what it is 'supposed' to do. It provides what its society values, simple as that, without damaging any individual's interests (one could mention that, as it is funded by taxes, it is just as anti-liberty as any other; to which it deserves pointing out that compliance with personal-taxpaying in Russia is so low and so poorly enforced that it truly is, largely, voluntary). It represents a form of charity right out in the open; the level offered for free is a true basic-minimum -- something actually achievable by any honest charitable system. It is absolutely uncartelized in both its charitable and pay sides. It's also not a 'government-controlled' system; rather it is a system with a widely-use government component.

Originally Posted by Odin

...in a truly just society charity would be unnecessary.

See, now that is a disgusting sentiment. Considering an ideal society to be one in which simple goodwill towards others, reflected in simply doing good things for them without expectation of recompense, is absent or irrelevant... that says a whole lot of not-very-good about the person who holds that ideal.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

See, now that is a disgusting sentiment. Considering an ideal society to be one in which simple goodwill towards others, reflected in simply doing good things for them without expectation of recompense, is absent or irrelevant... that says a whole lot of not-very-good about the person who holds that ideal.

You mis understood me, What I meant was people should never have to be in such a destitute condition in the first place.

Originally Posted by Deb C

If you will notice, I used a wink at the end of my sentence to indicate that I was kidding. I am not one to call names.

I will continue my challenge about the health care law. I guess if you were in the final stages of an auto immune liver disease, you too, might view the bill a lot differently.

Like I have said else where in this forum, Obama is probably a better person than I am and I will give him credit where credit is due. But but it is my job, as a citizen, to hold him accountable when he is not working for the people he was elected to represent.

I'm sorry about your illness. But your revelation does make me curious. Are you personally being screwed over by an insurance company due to your condition?

Originally Posted by Odin

personally I find the Right-Libertarian worshiping of charity as offensive and disgusting. in a truly just society charity would be unnecessary.

Well, I wouldn't call it worshiping. I think charity is wonderful. I just don't think that private efforts are sufficient, and that's where I part company with anarchists and libertarians.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I couldn't think of a better person, than you, to have my back. Although, I'm sorry that you also have an auto-immune illness. I know way too many people who are in the same boat as us. It's a sad day when a so called winning reform leaves millions at the mercy of the insurance industry.

So yes, you make an intelligent point, it is so very true that the view from the healthy person's front porch is very different than the view of someone in the trenches of an illness. This is why I often suggest that we all put ourselves in the shoes of others. If there was an honest attempt to do just that, the paradigm would have a chance at transformation.

For yet another perspective, I'm married to someone with a chronic health condition and he feels the same way I do about the new law -- that it was a necessary first step but certainly not the desired end result.

Originally Posted by Odin

You mis understood me, What I meant was people should never have to be in such a destitute condition in the first place.

Okay then. You're not a misanthrope; you're just a little kid who still believes in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. We were all that way once.

No one has to be in such straights. But to disparage mean by which people in such straights can be helped to make it through on the basis of "no one should ever need help" is just plain silly. People will need help from time to time. That's just part of reality.

I apologize for the uncalled-for jumping down your throat.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

a) good thing I'm not a libertarian, eh?
b) the system there has the very strong virtue of being honest. It is exactly what it seems to be, and it aims to do what it is 'supposed' to do. It provides what its society values, simple as that, without damaging any individual's interests (one could mention that, as it is funded by taxes, it is just as anti-liberty as any other; to which it deserves pointing out that compliance with personal-taxpaying in Russia is so low and so poorly enforced that it truly is, largely, voluntary). It represents a form of charity right out in the open; the level offered for free is a true basic-minimum -- something actually achievable by any honest charitable system. It is absolutely uncartelized in both its charitable and pay sides. It's also not a 'government-controlled' system; rather it is a system with a widely-use government component.

Well, I'm glad to see we are coming close to agreeing on something, but I do think we need to be clear and honest as to what it is.

Yes, tax evasion remains fairly pervasive in Russia but no where near to the extent of just a few years ago particularly amongst the really big players. Putin made it clear that any true power elite had to pay homage to the state - particularly in regard to taxes. He made clear that keeping the average Russian happy (to the extend Russians can be happy ) with adequate access to health care was going to happen. It is truly a transfer of wealth, but the wealthy get to stay that way (as well as live or not be disappeared into the Gulag) . If you want to call that charity, you can; I call it necessary maintenance by. and eventually for. the elites. Russian elites seem to have a much better grasp of that idea that our own elites - may have something to do with their history.

Also, let's not forget that those govt clinics, of which the vast number of Russians rely on, are staffed by govt workers. Doctors and other medical personnel have not historically been viewed as prestigious positions and have not been highly paid (medical researchers are a different story). Most Russian doctors are women, and women, except for a temporary exception during the early stages of the Soviet Union, are not consider equals to men - they are generally excluded from power, prestigious and high-income positions, A high number of Russian female doctors have come to the West where they can enjoy that honor ... and incomes.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I'm not sure how I got drug into the debate about the filibuster but................

I offer these few snippets on a realistic view of the filibuster by Nader.

{The filibuster is now virtual, unlike the traditional filibuster where its practitioners would have to go on the Senate floor for hours straining their bladders and the patience of the public.

Presently, all Minority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell (Rep. KY) has to do is merely notify Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid (Dem. NV) of the intent to extend debate and, voila, a minority of forty-one Senators defeats the majority rule of fifty-nine Senators.

So Senator Reid bewails that: “We had to file cloture some seventy times last year, seventy times. That’s remarkably bad. Let’s change that.”

So why don’t the Democrats “change that?” In 1975, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, in his role as president of the Senate, ruled that fifty-one Senators could amend Senate rules. Senator Tom Udall has a resolution to do just that—predictably languishing in the Senate without even a hearing.

Moreover, Senator Tom Harkin proposed a resolution that would require a series of votes to cut off a filibuster. The first stage would need sixty votes, the second would need fifty-seven, then fifty-four and finally a simple majority over a period of weeks. That proposal is going nowhere.

Obviously, the Democrats could end the filibuster with a majority vote but choose not to because they may wish to use this tool of obstruction should they be in the minority. In fact, Harry Reid has ruled out any filibuster reform. Well then, why not end the “virtual” filibuster and make the Republicans hit the floor with round-the-clock debate televised around the nation. People are waiting and suffering from corporate-desired inaction.

Chicago lawyer and scholar, Thomas Geoghegan wrote an open letter to Senator Reid urging that he make the Republicans actually filibuster. Either make them stall the Senate on a minor bill to generate public ire or generate public outrage by making them filibuster a popular bill aimed at curbing corporate crime, waste and abuse or one that would save people money or their health.}

I would neither drug nor drag a lady! Even if one wasn't as obviously as nice as you!

Well, at least, we're getting your attention off Obama as being the root of all bad things.

It is the filibuster that has hampered getting more of a progressive agenda. Maybe Obama would pull back eventually from some degree of a progressive agenda, but I don't think anyone believes that we've gotten anywhere close to that point and that is because the filibuster has choked the living crap out of any progressive agenda. If anything, Obama has had to give in nearly every time BECAUSE of the filibuster - look at the legislative record.

I'm convinced that historians looking back will find that Obama, Reid and Pelosi did amazing things to get out what they managed to get out.

Nothing the Dems could have done about the filibuster in this Congress that they didn't try (e.g. reconciliation, the House having to eat Senate crap). This trick of making the GOP Senators actually filibuster looks great until you really look into the mechanics - you only need one filibustering Senator on the floor to stall; you need all of the majority to actually move to closure - do you think Byrd (or, for about half of this Congress, Kennedy) would have been able to be there on a moment's notice?

Now people are putting the idea that something could be done in the next Congress IF the Dems maintain control of the Senate. But even then, if the House goes to the GOP, then the House becomes the stranglehold (but again, it would NOT be Obama being the bottleneck).

Now two things about that next Congress. We do have Blue Dog Dems that could hold up the change in the rules for the next Congress - I would be happy to see them go if replaced by a more progressive Dem. But even on his worst day, Ben Nelson is better than any GOP Senator. I didn't use to say that, but the GOP Senators have had to run to the far right to maintain their seats - they have actually become insane. At least with Big Ben, you can see that his gears still mesh and turn - Lindsey, McCain, Grassley have become not only two-faced but as multi-faced as Sybil

The other thing is the question of would it be tactically smart right now to be talking about changing the Senate rules in the next Congress?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Okay then. You're not a misanthrope; you're just a little kid who still believes in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. We were all that way once.

No one has to be in such straights. But to disparage mean by which people in such straights can be helped to make it through on the basis of "no one should ever need help" is just plain silly. People will need help from time to time. That's just part of reality.

I apologize for the uncalled-for jumping down your throat.

Oh, of course. An ideal can only ever be approached, never achieved.