The Passage of the Democratic Health Care Bill: An Act of God?

[SirJosephPorter]

Well, looks like Democrats got their 60 votes and are on their way to pass the health care bill. It is still not a done deal, it could still come unraveled. The bills passed by the House and the senate are very much different from each other and it will be a Herculean task to reconcile the two, to try to come up with a blended bill which will be acceptable to a majority of House members and a majority of senators.

However, now it is doable, I would put chances of health care reform being passed at around 80%, not 100%.

Anyway, so how is it an act of God? Well, at the beginning of the year, it looked highly unlikely that there will be a health care reform. After the election, Democrats had 57 Senate seats, three short of the 60 needed. Then Mark Begich defeated Ted Stevens of Alaska in a very close race and Democrats got 58 seats.

Then unexpectedly, Arlen Specter bolted from the Republican Party and joined the Democrats, giving them 59, still short of the 60 needed. The election between Franken and Coleman in Minnesota dragged on for months, with neither side giving up. Finally Al Franken won, giving the Democrats the 60 needed.

But then Ted Kennedy died, leaving Democrats again with 59. In Massachusetts, a senate vacancy has to be filled by an election (in November) the Governor cannot appoint a replacement. So it looked as if Democrats would end up with 59 after all.

Then Democrats changed the rules in Massachusetts and gave the governor the power to appoint a senator. That gave democrats 60 seats once again and they could try for health care reform.

So the health care reform is the results of all these gyrations and unlikely, chance occurrences. So the question is, would you call it an act of God (or an act of the Devil, depending upon your point of view)?

 

[Liberalman]

Finally the devil HMOs will be chained and the Americans will have free healthcare no money upfront just from the taxes that one pays anyway.

It's about time

 

[weaselwords]

Sure its an act of dog, toughens the ability to get an abortion doesn't it and we all know that dog is on the side of prolife. (I am being facetious.)

 

[lone wolf]

I love it when self-professed atheists start preaching about acts of God

 

[ironsides]

:evil3::evil::argue:
The Devil made them do it.

 

[EagleSmack]

But then Ted Kennedy died, leaving Democrats again with 59. In Massachusetts, a senate vacancy has to be filled by an election (in November) the Governor cannot appoint a replacement. So it looked as if Democrats would end up with 59 after all.

Then Democrats changed the rules in Massachusetts and gave the governor the power to appoint a senator. That gave democrats 60 seats once again and they could try for health care reform.

This is only part of the story.

When Sen. John Kerry was running for President there was a feeling around here that he may just beat Bush in the election and Massachusetts had an old law that stated that the Governor would be able to appoint a Senator if Kerry won.

The Massachusetts Governor was Mitt Romney, a Republican so the Democrat controlled State House IMMEDIATELY passed a new law stripping the right of a governor to appoint a Senator and stated that a general election must decide the new Senator. That is the way it stood until Ted Kennedy got gravely ill.

On the death of Kennedy the Massachusetts state house realizing that since there is a Democrat Governor that the recently changed law should be changed AGAIN, back to the way it was to allow the DEMOCRAT governor to appoint a Senator.

Hypocricy at it's finest.

Corruption as always in the Democrat controlled People's Republic of Massachusetts.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

This is only part of the story.

When Sen. John Kerry was running for President there was a feeling around here that he may just beat Bush in the election and Massachusetts had an old law that stated that the Governor would be able to appoint a Senator if Kerry won.

The Massachusetts Governor was Mitt Romney, a Republican so the Democrat controlled State House IMMEDIATELY passed a new law stripping the right of a governor to appoint a Senator and stated that a general election must decide the new Senator. That is the way it stood until Ted Kennedy got gravely ill.

On the death of Kennedy the Massachusetts state house realizing that since there is a Democrat Governor that the recently changed law should be changed AGAIN, back to the way it was to allow the DEMOCRAT governor to appoint a Senator.

Hypocricy at it's finest.

Corruption as always in the Democrat controlled People's Republic of Massachusetts.

I did not know that (that Massachusetts had a law, Democrats repealed it and then reinstated it when it suited them).

And there is nothing corrupt or hypocritical about it, it is simply political hardball, both parties do that. Republicans do that as well.

When Republicans first got the majorities in both Senate and House in Texas, their first act (with the blessings of the ‘Hammer’, Tom Delay) was to gerrymander the whole state to give them the advantage. Normally Congressional district boundaries are redrawn every 10 years after a census. They were never before redrawn in between.

That didn’t stop the Republicans, gerrymandering was one of their first acts. Democrats tried to fight it in the Texas Senate, Texas House, courts, nothing worked. Republicans were successful in gerrymandering the whole state to give them an advantage. The gerrymandering netted Republicans seven seats, they had seven more safe seats after gerrymandering than they had before.

Unfortunately for Republicans people were so thoroughly disgusted with them that even gerrymandering did not help them in 2006 or 2008. But the point is, both parties play political hardball, there is no corruption or hypocrisy here.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

:evil3::evil::argue:
The Devil made them do it.

So it is not act of God, but act of Devil.

 

[AnnaG]

I did not know that (that Massachusetts had a law, Democrats repealed it and then reinstated it when it suited them).

And there is nothing corrupt or hypocritical about it, it is simply political hardball, both parties do that. Republicans do that as well.

So I guess you'd say that if the Democrats decided to change around public intrusion into private life, too. "Oh sorry, guy. I know yesterday we got rid of the Rep thing about compensating people for their property when we wanted to build a highway there. Noooo, it has no bearing on you being a Rep."
The next day: "Oh, hey, George. What? You mean no-one compensated you for paving over your property. We'll fix that. Oh, BTW, I don't suppose you could give donate another pile of money to us, could you? We need new tvs in our offices"
Yeah. There's no hypocrisy there.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Democrat+hypocrisy&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0

 

[EagleSmack]

I did not know that (that Massachusetts had a law, Democrats repealed it and then reinstated it when it suited them).

Oh yes. Romney was governor and the Democrats said the law takes away the right of the people to elect their Senator. The reality was they did not want him appointing a Republican Senator. After our state elected a Democrat Governor, the Mass House took the right away from the people to immediately vote for a Senator and allowed our Democrat Governor to appoint one.

Highly hypocritical and corrupt.

 

[AnnaG]

Oh yes. Romney was governor and the Democrats said the law takes away the right of the people to elect their Senator. The reality was they did not want him appointing a Republican Senator. After our state elected a Democrat Governor, the Mass House took the right away from the people to immediately vote for a Senator and allowed our Democrat Governor to appoint one.

Highly hypocritical and corrupt.

Noonononono, it isn't hypocrisy if Pompa ooops Joke's fave party does it. It's called duplicity.

 

[darkbeaver]

The insurance industrys health will be maintained because of this momentous legislation and every American can be proud and happy that the "free market" will provide for their well being, once again, as usual, only better.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Oh yes. Romney was governor and the Democrats said the law takes away the right of the people to elect their Senator. The reality was they did not want him appointing a Republican Senator. After our state elected a Democrat Governor, the Mass House took the right away from the people to immediately vote for a Senator and allowed our Democrat Governor to appoint one.

Highly hypocritical and corrupt.

I assume because Democrats did it, it is hypocritical and corrupt, when Republicans do it (as they did in Texas), it is a brilliant masterstroke of politics, designed to benefit the Republicans.

It seems to me Republicans are ready and willing to play hardball politics but cry foul when they are the victims of it. Well, hardball politics is nothing new and it produces results.

Just as the current arm twisting, bribery that went on in order to get the necessary 60 votes for health care reform.

Just as the strong arm, bullying tactics by Republicans in Texas, gerrymandering the state to give them seven extra safe seats are (or by Republicans in Florida during the 2000 presidential election) understandable, so are the strong arm, bulling tactics of Democrats in DC or in Massachusetts.

It seems Republicans can dish it out, but they can’t take it. Then they start whining and crying foul.

 

[EagleSmack]

I assume because Democrats did it, it is hypocritical and corrupt, when Republicans do it (as they did in Texas), it is a brilliant masterstroke of politics, designed to benefit the Republicans.

It seems to me Republicans are ready and willing to play hardball politics but cry foul when they are the victims of it. Well, hardball politics is nothing new and it produces results.

Just as the current arm twisting, bribery that went on in order to get the necessary 60 votes for health care reform.

Just as the strong arm, bullying tactics by Republicans in Texas, gerrymandering the state to give them seven extra safe seats are (or by Republicans in Florida during the 2000 presidential election) understandable, so are the strong arm, bulling tactics of Democrats in DC or in Massachusetts.

It seems Republicans can dish it out, but they can’t take it. Then they start whining and crying foul.

It was downright hypocritical but not unexpected here in Massachusetts.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It was downright hypocritical but not unexpected here in Massachusetts.

According to your opinion only, EagleSmack. I see much more hardball politics coming from Republicans than from Democrats.

 

[EagleSmack]

According to your opinion only, EagleSmack. I see much more hardball politics coming from Republicans than from Democrats.

Because you are incapable of logical thought. Everyone knows that in here. That is why you are mocked incessantly by both sides of the aisle.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Because you are incapable of logical thought. Everyone knows that in here. That is why you are mocked incessantly by both sides of the aisle.

I see, so you really had no answer for me, as to why hardball politics by Republicans is acceptable, but hardball politics by Democrats constitutes hypocrisy and corruption. I thought so.

 

[AnnaG]

I see much more hardball politics coming from Republicans than from Democrats.

lol That's only your opinion.

 

[EagleSmack]

I see, so you really had no answer for me, as to why hardball politics by Republicans is acceptable, but hardball politics by Democrats constitutes hypocrisy and corruption. I thought so.

Joey...it is not hardball politics what happened in Massachusetts. It was pure hypocrisy.

It was the law for the Governor to appoint a Senator. The Dems changed it because we had a GOP Governor listing a whole bunch of reasons why the people and not just one man should have the right to appoint a governor. Fine.

But when the opportunity came and a Democrat Gov had the seat the same EXACT Democrats went back on their reasons for changing the law saying it was imperative that a Governor have the right to appoint a Senator.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

And just how does that constitute hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is when a politician preaches to the masses that they should live one way and he himself does exactly the opposite, like Newt ‘three divorces’ Gingrich, or Senator Larry ‘wide stance’ Craig, Rush ‘drug addict’ Limbaugh etc.

What happened in Massachusetts was pure political hardball, something which both parties indulge in. But then you probably think that anything Democrats do is hypocrisy, while anything Republicans do (like what they did in Texas, or what they did in Florida during 2000 election) is a paragon of virtue. After all, Republican Party is the party of God, how can it possibly do anything wrong?

So no doubt in your opinion, what Democrats did in Massachusetts constitutes hypocrisy (but then doesn’t anything and everything that democrats do constitute hypocrisy and corruption?). But that is not hypocrisy in the conventional sense of the word.