Thursday, January 21, 2010


The Brown election didn't tube "health care".

Hell, there was no "health care" bill on the table.

Why would anybody want to cram something down folks' throats that they didn't want? People, by a majority, want the disqualification of pre-existing conditions eliminated. They want non work-related portability. Most Repubs want it, too.

How about just passing a "health insurance" bill and letting that cook for a while. If we need tweaks, the people will support them.

This whole "health care" movement was taking gas before anybody knew Senator Elect Brown Bad, Bad LeRoy Brown.


At 7:08 PM, January 21, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, it's probably just a coincidence that it died just a couple days after the election. Ask Hare about the cramming.

At 7:29 PM, January 21, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ask Dick Durbin next time he's in town to have you turds like his balls. It'a a bout power. And Brown killed it. He killed it real good.

At 7:35 PM, January 21, 2010, Blogger TOOKIE said...

I would say "horse flop" is Marcia or was it Martha getting her clock cleaned .


Viva le Tea

At 8:07 PM, January 21, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you're saying that Coakley wins and the dems are not going to finish with a big push to ram the current bill forward? You are backtracking. O'Bama had every intention of taking care of business along with Harry, Nancy and a couple of other caring liberals. Every D was lined up to drink the kool aid.

At 8:52 AM, January 22, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...


Brown was such an outstanding candidate that he simply won. Tea Party talk adds a layer of credit that I'm not sure is earned. Keep in mind that Mass. has universal coverage, so why would independent voters want to pay for California's or Arizona's?

Perfect issue, nearly perfect candidate and timed perfectly.


At 8:56 AM, January 22, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

708, 807

I am saying two things. As I have been saying since Christmas eve, the package that passed out of the Senate was a piece of crap. That's one.

Secondly, there are about thirty house democrats who were not on board (left of it and right of it) so nobody knows what the reconciled bill would have looked like anyhow. The survival of the crap package was always in doubt.

Brown's election is more important as a road map for the '10 than as an impact on so-called "Health Care Reform".


At 9:02 AM, January 22, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 11:26 AM, January 22, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't want to be denied coverage for preexisting conditions if they took my money for 10 years. But I also don't want my rates to cover people that wait till they are ready to have surgery to get coverage.

I also don't want to be thrown in the same pool with obese smokers that never exercise and have three DUI's. (ie. don't toss me in a cesspool, and charge me for the BigGov spa treatment)

There are ways to improve insurance, but what we had was a bunch of special interests at the table (behind closed doors), and the buyers of insurance were on the table, being forced to give them all pay raises via much higher premiums.

That process needs to be reversed. Brown promised to represent the people, not the special interests, and that seems like the change people really wanted.

But the special interests will not walk away fro the table. The lobbyists will still spend a million a day trying to carve up the consumer, and sell his organs.

I agree the health care "bill" was in trouble ... some even say they wanted Brown in so they could have an excuse to not pass the pig.

I doubt that, but in any case, now Democrats can blame Republicans for killing their health care unicorn.

At 11:46 AM, January 22, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...


Thoughtful points all. I have always felt that the most actuarially valid sample was everybody but, even under the Senate's dubious HCR you would have been able to opt out and keep yours.

The rest of your points are also well made and, I suspect, we'll see them in about 2036 or so.


At 11:48 AM, January 22, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...


Lemme See, how many times can you gag in a four sentence comment.

First, the Basin and Durbin have never agreed on this HCR bill. I know that would require actual reading on your part but you might be able to manage it if you can get a Teacher's Aide assigned to you for study hall.

Second, I think you meant "lick". Did you think this up all by your little self or did you get it off the stall in a truck stop bathroom where you hang out with all the boys?

Third, "about" is one word. Try to pay attention.

Fourth, what do you think it is that Brown "killed". What, if any, sort of package were you expecting from the reconciliation and ad hoc committees? You sound like you have lots of really inside information so please do explain yourself. Our readers just can't wait for more of your clever repartee.

TYFCB with your little bundle of enlightenment.

At 12:08 PM, January 22, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama and the Dems could get 85% of what the House Bill was, if they'd break it down into 10 separate pieces of legislation. I believe 8/10 would get huge margins as a lot of Republicans would like to see reform also. If anything, the Brown election helped Health Care reform as now they'll go for a more bipartisan effort than the all or nothing legislation like before.

At 12:25 PM, January 22, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. Turns out you and the Dick don't agree on the SCOTUS decision either. Getting tougher to find common ground with him, huh?

2. good catch, it's an original and you picked it up quick

3. petty

4. HCR is dead in it's current form. And I misspoke, the people of MA killed it.

At 2:20 PM, January 22, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pay or die, folks, pay or die. It's the American way.

At 2:53 PM, January 22, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...


In a world of good sense, you would be correct. This would move enlightened coverage reform forward. The history of HCR, however, is that the coverage part of it for adults only gets revisited about every 15 years. I guess that's Washington being Washington.

I hope you're right. Good bi-partisan legislation would be refreshing.


At 3:04 PM, January 22, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...


1. We didn't agree on POTUS either;

2. Not always a good plan to put your ideations on the Web;

3. There is a certain disconnect between it being fair comment to lump me with "turds" but for you to consider it petty when I point out you misspelled a word;

4. At least you're consistent. The possessive of "it" is "its" and not "it's"



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home