Political Question

Two parties that are actually more interested in their own agenda and fighting than working for common good.

to be fair, it's not like the dems never used these weapons when they had the chance....

But why not an "actual" filibuster?

I can't remember when that has actually taken place.

Because there is a general lack of support for the policies that Pelosi and Obama support. It is better to "appear" to be trying and have a scapegoat (the republicans) than actually pass something the public doesn't support. Too close to election time to be foolish.

yeah...health care not passing is a political gift to the dems...the bill was such a mess....

i just wish the entire government would close and then the productive could live in peace..

yeah,,,who needs DOD or soc security payments?...

Health care not passing allowed Bill Clinton to claim a good budget. And Obama will pass a reform bill just to say Democrats did not fail(with Republican support). If it includes things like pre-existing coverage legislation, everyone wins.

dorris kearns goodwin brought this up on the daily show recently. go to comedycentral.com and find the show, it was less than two or three weeks ago so it will show up.

let them do it. but pick the topics and the timing first. you need to force the issue in an area that will resonate with the people. that's why the administration ought to have tackled reform of the financial industries first. neither party has the backbone to deal with it, but if you get it on the table who can filibuster it without looking like assholes? get that through, and then move to a simple first step health care reform, with the understanding that more health care reform will follow. baby steps but ones that will definitely hurt the health insurance industry. let them try to filibuster. and watch what happens.

just the DOD and the court system the rest is just transfer payments..All the politicians care about is their own corrupt power.

Spending money brings power to politicians. Spending less money does not get votes. If it did we wouldn't have the deficits.

When will the young revolt against the old... Social Security and medicare has bankrupted the country...

p09, i don't agree. i don't think the public has a clue, really, about what the health care bill means (which is one of the many reasons they don't support it, things you don't understand are frightening, especially in this day and age). i don't really have a clue, at this point. i know it doesn't address the issues that i think it should. but i don't think that is primarily our president's fault.

congress is an f'ng mess. as to why the dems rolled over and let bush get his stuff through and why they now can't get their stuff through with far greater numbers, it's the nature of the beast. i've always said that if the republicans were to be handed osama's head, they'd have it on a pike and be marching in the streets within the hour. the dems would keep it in cold storage for two years arguing how best to utilize it.

Sorry - I still don't understand.

Why don't the Democrats insist on an "actual" filibuster in which Republicans read the phone book 24/7?

Seems to me seeing the Republicans reading the phone book 24/7 - as happens when a real filibuster actually takes place - would severely damage the Republicans.

So far it's just always the "threat" of a filibuster. We still have not had an "actual" filibuster.

Social security and Medicare cannot be counted on. The United States is being irresponsible in how it's treats its status of having the reserve currency of the world. Brittain was not too long ago in that position and the world moved on. I don't believe its a certainty that Social Security and Medicare will be there in the future.

Topper it's been done. The filibuster is not necessarily a bad thing. Many actions in government require more than a simple 50% majority.

washington is a pigsty of specials interests and former govt officials working as lobbyists from both parties. Much more so than two or three decades ago. The lobbying industry money is simply huge compared to the past.
Obama isn't working out as a catalyst for any real change in that system, and expectations were just too high.

As to health care, there are a number of health care reform issues that both parties can more or less agree on; the bill that was pending was a monstrosity with all kinds of crap in it, and its only chance of passing stemmed from the overwhelming desire of the dems to "do something" on the topic.

topper, go to the daily show piece i refer to. kearns has a very funny story of a prior filibuster. and a very funny analysis of why we should allow it to happen now. i particularly love the "don't give them bathroom breaks" idea.

it isn't happening because our commander in chief has this f'ng misguided notion that he can be the great unifier.

RS, please. you're more aware than that. in this country it's toxic.

For example, pursing a health care bill without tort reform is a joke. I'm not arguing that tort reform alone would solve huge problems, but not addressing it shows a failure to have a centrist, sensible reform proposal that is serious about changing the health care system. As David Brooks and others said, the proposal basically made the existing messed up ssytem bigger, and that doesn't address the long term cost issues.

ABOUTREADY You talk about Obama being the great unifier...He divides and demonizes constantly right out of the alinsky play book.

Republicans are not without fault in politics, but Democrats lost points with the American people for not supporting Tort Reform. Speak to any Doctor and they'll tell you out of control litigation costs raises health care costs for everyone.

totally agree Riversider

julialg, you're not reading very well.

RS, i've posted endlessly on this issue. tort reform is not it.

speak to any doctor and they will tell you it's the insurance companies. but maybe you don't actually talk to doctors and attorneys? because this is one area where you don't seem to post endless sources. even the conservatives can't support this. tort rewards as a percentage are way down, and yet insurance costs are way up.

Not one single filibuster since Obama became President. Just the threat of one.

Let's have an "actual" filibuster.

aboutready: do you have URL for the Daily Show (the real news) clip on a filibuster?

aboutready it is all the defensive medicine the doctors have to practice... the endless test so they don't get sued.

I found it, aboutready. Thanks.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/filibusters

At 3:25 into the clip Doris Kearns Goodwin talks about what I've been saying - get the Republicans to "actually" filibuster. We've had great drama in the past - we need it now. What a clear message it would send to the country about obstructionism. It would not win votes for the Republicans! Time to take off the gloves - finally.

No more "threats" of a filibuster but rather "actual" filibusters."

Agreed, it's about the cost of unnecessary tests, added insurance and the obscene damage awards. I think the trial lawyers can show some compassion here and stop acting as leeches.

Tort reform would bring down malpractice premiums (which are enormous) and reduce the wasteful defensive medicine. Obama would not support it because he is the farthest thing from a centrist.

The best way to fix healthcare would be to change the tax code away from employer tax credits to individual tax credits, nationwide competition for insurance companies, and tort reform. Democrats will not go for this because the unions like employer based tax credits and the trial lawyers do not want tort reform, and because the Dems and Obama want huge government control and government influence in peoples' lives.

aboutready, you are wrong. The majority of the country is against Obamacare. It is highly unpopular. The stimulus spending that appears to have done nothing but blow out the deficit, Obamacare, and the insane stance on giving extra rights to foreign terrorists have been three of the biggest things that have brought down Obama's job performance numbers with the populace.

julialg, no, it's not. medmal has been doing very poorly. largely it's the money available to hospitals for advancement. kind of like free money that was available everywhere. health care costs increased because they could. doctors charged because they could, but i'd guess their standard of living declined mostly during this time period while bankers' increased.

Disagee LIC. Obama withdrew his support due to the power of the Trial Lawyers. It wasn't his leftist leanings so much as the political clout of a Democratic backer.

wow, you guys have zero knowledge of tort reform. or med mal. we now have far higher insurance premiums with far lower loss experience. the insurance companies are kicking ass.

found it, aboutready. Thanks.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/filibusters

At 3:25 into the clip Doris Kearns Goodwin talks about what I've been saying - get the Republicans to "actually" filibuster. We've had great drama in the past - we need it now. What a clear message it would send to the country about obstructionism. It would not win votes for the Republicans! Time to take off the gloves - finally.

No more "threats" of a filibuster but rather "actual" filibusters.

Disagree health care costs caused their own increases(because they could).
Disagree costs go up because Doctors can charge what they could. The real answer is consumers are not directly paying for health care. You don't see runaway health care inflation in elective surgery such as LASIK & breast implants.

really, rs? you had breast implants done in 1990? and then again in 2010? you don't think they'd be at least 100% more expensive. lasik?

funny.

i have bc/bs. i used to have bc/bs back in the day. which one worked better? which one was ten times cheaper? which one was before tort reform? give me an f'ng break.

http://www.ncpa.org/images/148.gif

http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/31/health-care-gdp-reform-opinions-columnists-john-tamny.html
And while it's difficult to imagine a life without glasses, the growing consumption of LASIK surgery (this writer swears by it) is more of a vanity thing than economically essential. Notably, because LASIK procedures are purely elective since the consumer is also the payer, the prices of these procedures continue to drop.

lasik. i really want to hear about your breast implants. or your hair plugs (more likely).

Clever retort.

no, not, actually. but i suspect you realize how flawed your analysis is. have i said this before? what a surprise.

a large percentage of the population is getting medical care for free.. they don't care about cost or need; driving up the cost for the other paying consumer.. plus the third party pay system also has no cost control incentive. medical care if left to the free market would innovate and the cost would go way down. like cell phones and computers.. think of the price of cell phone and quality if we had universal phone care run by the government.

Serfdom USA
(sung to the tune of "Surfin' USA" by the Beach Boys)

We're doing battle with statists
Across the USA,
'Cause everybody's reading Hayek,
The man from Austri-ay --
In spontaneous order
We let the market play,
With the writer Fred Hayek,
H-A-Y-E-K.

We use the signals of prices
And then we'll be O.K.,
'Cause no one knows what's efficient
Unless they have to pay;
If we replace that with planning
Like once in Russ-i-ay, [pronounced "Rush-Eye-Ay"]
We'll take the road to serfdom --
Serfdom USA.

[Backup singers should at this point start singing, "Serfdom, serfdom USA, Friedrich H-A-Y-E-K."]

We still have government bureaus,
Just like the FDA, [replace with three-letter agency of your choice ending in A]
But the welfare state mindset
Will soon become passe.
Ayn Rand said he was evil,
Which makes him A-O.K. --
Friedrich August von Hayek, H-A-Y-E-K.