|
|
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Democratic Underground is reporting that Ed Schultz has announced on his radio show that Franken has won his Senate seat in MN. Source: Ed Shultz radio show
Just now on Ed Shultz breaking news that the Minnesota Supreme Court has declared Al Franken as the winner! YAY!! It's over
No link yet. Here's the link to the DU page reporting the announcement for updates as they're posted this afternoon and evening: Democratic Underground 6/30/09 - MN High Court Declares Franken the Victor Now we'll have to wait and see if Norm Coleman takes this any further. Cleo  -- "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke "I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams." From "He Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven", W.B. Yeats Go YANKEES!!!
|
Posts:
13,779
Registered:
3/22/06
|
|
(150 of 150)
Jul 10, 2009 8:47 AM
|
> PBJ,
>
> The reality is as described. I'm positive the AMA
> would be all over government assuming the liability
> risk.....
>
> But, here's a better question, why not actually
> address it? Why obfuscate and fail to actually
> address the root causes of the cost of Health care in
> this country.
>
> Why shouldn't that also be a part of the public
> discussion? You act as if the medical process is
> your right, and not a service that is provided to
> you. You act as if the medical professionals that
> provide your healthcare are somehow your slavish
> automotons and have no voice in this discussion.
>
> And, how about this, why shouldn't government
> acknowledge that their own requirements of compliancy
> drive the cost of health care up without any
> assurance of benefit to the patient? This is still
> the largest growth center in the profession. Low
> skilled medical services employees and overhead for
> doctors.
>
> How about this question, how much does it cost to
> develop a new drug? Who bears the cost of that
> development? Seen any grants or federal/state/local
> governments supplying VC funds for that? Hardly.
>
> You act as if these services just magically appear,
> cures ripped from thin air, and your expectation is
> that it should just be given to you. I would ask you
> why? Why should it be given to you?
if you're going to pronounce how i act then why the fuck need i respond to your presumtuous missive ? freethinking are ye?
--
" anyway its your personal business anyway" hitherto anonymous poster
|
|
|
Posts:
20,652
Registered:
4/11/05
|
|
(149 of 150)
Jul 10, 2009 8:34 AM
|
Republicans Send Franken $96K Check
"In the last chapter of a stinging loss to now-Sen. Al Franken, Minnesota's Republican Party has sent the Democrat almost $96,000 to cover lawsuit costs," the AP reports.
"Republican Party spokesman Mark Drake said a check was sent via courier Monday to Franken's campaign committee. It arrived Tuesday, the same day Franken took his oath for a seat held open during an eight-month recount and court fight."
--
Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,776
Registered:
6/23/08
|
|
(148 of 150)
Jul 9, 2009 10:51 AM
|
PBJ,
The reality is as described. I'm positive the AMA would be all over government assuming the liability risk.....
But, here's a better question, why not actually address it? Why obfuscate and fail to actually address the root causes of the cost of Health care in this country.
Why shouldn't that also be a part of the public discussion? You act as if the medical process is your right, and not a service that is provided to you. You act as if the medical professionals that provide your healthcare are somehow your slavish automotons and have no voice in this discussion.
And, how about this, why shouldn't government acknowledge that their own requirements of compliancy drive the cost of health care up without any assurance of benefit to the patient? This is still the largest growth center in the profession. Low skilled medical services employees and overhead for doctors.
How about this question, how much does it cost to develop a new drug? Who bears the cost of that development? Seen any grants or federal/state/local governments supplying VC funds for that? Hardly.
You act as if these services just magically appear, cures ripped from thin air, and your expectation is that it should just be given to you. I would ask you why? Why should it be given to you?
|
|
|
Posts:
13,779
Registered:
3/22/06
|
|
(147 of 150)
Jul 9, 2009 10:38 AM
|
> I have to ask...
>
> Why is it folks are positive that government provided
> health care is the answer? Shouldn't they have to
> atleast experience it before they force it on
> everyone else?
>
> And if the issue is really cost, then let's address
> the cost of health care, and not gloss over the fact
> that a vast majority of the cost of health care is
> adherence to regulation, and the cost of medical
> malpractice insurance.
>
> Insurance costs are astronomical. How about some
> tort reform? How about taking away the prospect of
> winning the lottery from folks? And, at the same
> time, let's also say that there is implied risk, nay,
> inherent risk when you go to a doctor. Who is
> nationalization of healthcare going to solve for
> that? Has anyone seen ANYTHING to suggest that once
> government supplies the health coverage that they are
> going to be the defendent in a liability case?
> Hardly. Ask any military member who's had a botched
> d medical procedure what their ability to recoup
> damages from Uncle Sam has been. Similarly, the
> threat of liability drives doctors to perform
> procedures that are completely unnecessary in order
> to meet some unatainable standard that they've
> exhausted every possilbe avenue to treat the
> ungrateful wretches that sue at the drop of a hat.
> How will nationalization of medical insurance or
> r medicine eliminate that?
>
> Second, compliancy. The cost of the bureaucratic
> reality that is medicine is one of the major cost
> centers. All that paperwork, all the menial labor
> associated with processing it. How is government
> insurance or nationalization of medicine going to fix
> that? If anything, it will make it worse.
>
> Why is it that progressives and liberals never get
> this part? Extending insurance to folks for
> coverage's sake is a noble thought, but the reality
> is that cost is driven by the requirements or
> failures of government already. How is adding an
> entirely new infrastructure across the practice going
> to solve the underlying problems? If anything, it
> creates a new ponzi.
tort reform? all kinda bushiness in that idea . hot coffee suits maybe , but if you wanna sound like an insurance, pharmco , ama cheerleader keep doing them splits
--
" anyway its your personal business anyway" hitherto anonymous poster
--
Edited by portrayedbyjim at 07/09/2009 7:39 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,776
Registered:
6/23/08
|
|
(146 of 150)
Jul 9, 2009 10:33 AM
|
I have to ask...
Why is it folks are positive that government provided health care is the answer? Shouldn't they have to atleast experience it before they force it on everyone else?
And if the issue is really cost, then let's address the cost of health care, and not gloss over the fact that a vast majority of the cost of health care is adherence to regulation, and the cost of medical malpractice insurance.
Insurance costs are astronomical. How about some tort reform? How about taking away the prospect of winning the lottery from folks? And, at the same time, let's also say that there is implied risk, nay, inherent risk when you go to a doctor. Who is nationalization of healthcare going to solve for that? Has anyone seen ANYTHING to suggest that once government supplies the health coverage that they are going to be the defendent in a liability case? Hardly. Ask any military member who's had a botched medical procedure what their ability to recoup damages from Uncle Sam has been. Similarly, the threat of liability drives doctors to perform procedures that are completely unnecessary in order to meet some unatainable standard that they've exhausted every possilbe avenue to treat the ungrateful wretches that sue at the drop of a hat. How will nationalization of medical insurance or medicine eliminate that?
Second, compliancy. The cost of the bureaucratic reality that is medicine is one of the major cost centers. All that paperwork, all the menial labor associated with processing it. How is government insurance or nationalization of medicine going to fix that? If anything, it will make it worse.
Why is it that progressives and liberals never get this part? Extending insurance to folks for coverage's sake is a noble thought, but the reality is that cost is driven by the requirements or failures of government already. How is adding an entirely new infrastructure across the practice going to solve the underlying problems? If anything, it creates a new ponzi.
|
|
|
Posts:
364
Registered:
6/9/08
|
|
(145 of 150)
Jul 8, 2009 11:30 PM
|
> > I wonder if any of them support Obama's health
> care
> > initiatives
>
> I think most people support some type of reform, but
> I don't think their's much agreement in either party
> as to how to shape it.
>
> We are way too far away from the final product to
> know what it will look like. They haven't even
> settled on whether their will be a public plan
> proposed or not. Huge pieces of it are only in the
> most preliminary of discussions, or are not being
> addressed yet at all.
>
> Obama's initiatives are pretty darn vague, truth be
> told. That was apparent before and during his
> healthcare "infomercial". Congress is building it-
> not Obama.
Obama is trying to avoid the mistake of the Clinton administration of deliverying a complete bill to Congress and not being very flexible in revising it. Some (even supporters of Obama) believes he be too cautious in trying to force his ideas into the bill, but that is why he is vague. Only time will tell if his over cautiousness in trying to shape the bill will be the right strategy or not.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,078
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(144 of 150)
Jul 8, 2009 11:19 PM
|
> I wonder if any of them support Obama's health care
> initiatives
I think most people support some type of reform, but I don't think their's much agreement in either party as to how to shape it.
We are way too far away from the final product to know what it will look like. They haven't even settled on whether their will be a public plan proposed or not. Huge pieces of it are only in the most preliminary of discussions, or are not being addressed yet at all.
Obama's initiatives are pretty darn vague, truth be told. That was apparent before and during his healthcare "infomercial". Congress is building it- not Obama.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,078
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(143 of 150)
Jul 8, 2009 11:06 PM
|
> doubletake
>
> thank you
you're welcome.
|
|
|
Posts:
34,799
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(142 of 150)
Jul 8, 2009 11:03 PM
|
|
I wonder if any of them support Obama's health care initiatives
|
|
|
Posts:
34,799
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(141 of 150)
Jul 8, 2009 11:02 PM
|
doubletake
thank you
|
|
|
Posts:
3,078
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(140 of 150)
Jul 8, 2009 10:59 PM
|
> Now that I finally understand what Blue Dogs
> are...what are RINOs?
It stands for "republican in name only".
It is supposed to refer to folks that call themselves republicans that aren't very conservative, or outside of what hardcore conservatives would call conservative, anyway.
|
|
|
Posts:
34,799
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(139 of 150)
Jul 8, 2009 10:33 PM
|
|
Now that I finally understand what Blue Dogs are...what are RINOs?
|
|
|
Posts:
3,078
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(138 of 150)
Jul 8, 2009 9:04 PM
|
> > > >
> > > > You are missing my point enirely,
> face. You
> > may
> > > not
> > > > agree with my stance, but stay with me
> on
> > this.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What I am saying is the responsibility
> of
> > what
> > > comes
> > > > out of Congress falls squarely on the
> > shoulders
> > > of
> > > > the dems from this point moving
> forward.
> > >
> > > are you suggesting, if the GOP joins in
> with
> > dems and
> > > the measures are a total sucess, it has
> nothing
> > to do
> > > with the GOP?
> >
> > pretty much, yes. The dems will be making the
> > decision to work in a bipartisan way, in those
> cases-
> > so yes, the dems would get the credit because
> they
> > made the choice.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> i don't agree with that one bit. just today Judd
> Greg's amendment to the health bill got voted up in
> committee. it wasn't a concession at all by the dems.
why do you say that?
If you want to give republicans credit, go right ahead. It doesn't change the facts on the ground. The dems have total control with choices to make. They can not blame republicans if bills are not passed or watered down, because they do not require a single republican vote if their party votes with them dems.
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > They do not
> > > > require republican votes. Anything
> they
> > can
> > > pass,
> > > > can't pass, of any watering down of
> bills
> > will
> > > stem
> > > > from what happens within thier own
> party.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > but what exactly does "watering down" mean
> to
> > you?
> > >
> > > to dawg, well, he just likes dems with
> balls.
> > but
> > > that's his flavor. doesn't make him a bad
> > person. you
> > > don't like dems at all, so what is
> "watering
> > down" to
> > > you?
> >
> > The same thing it means to the rest of the
> rational
> > world- concessions.
> >
>
>
>
> yes but the rational world also understands
> concessions are SOP, due to things like not being
> compliant with existing regs, laws etc.
Those are not concessions- they are corrections. Concessions mean giving something up in exchange for the vote.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Do you think the supermajorty status is
> meaningless
> > for the dems? That's the topic of this
> discussion-
> > the potential the supermajority status has to be
> a
> > game changer, with Franken's win.
> >
> > It is a game changer, as I've said, but only if
> the
> > dems are united in their votes.
>
>
> nope. simply because you keep saying with one side
> showing, that there are these ever existing animals
> called "blue dogs" who we all knew about and who
> won't side with liberal dems, but will side with the
> GOP.
I have not said that the blue dogs will do anything. Not once.
>
> then with the other side showing you say the dems
> will be totally responsible if they don't get things
> through because these "blue dogs" ( who we already
> know vote GOP) won't vote with dems, but somehow
> RINOs don't count in this equation.
The dems will be responsible if their bills don't pass without or because of the blue dogs. The dems have enough voting power to shut out the republicans completely. The question will be if they will use it. This is simple math.
>
>
>
> doesn't make sense to me.
>
> --
> 100
|
|
|
Posts:
13,779
Registered:
3/22/06
|
|
(137 of 150)
Jul 8, 2009 7:46 PM
|
"*#&$^#&@*$$" charlie brown's teacher
--
" anyway its your personal business anyway" hitherto anonymous poster
|
|
|
Posts:
364
Registered:
6/9/08
|
|
(136 of 150)
Jul 8, 2009 5:38 PM
|
> Rob,
>
> Point of parliamentry procedure, but it was a vote on
> the amendment, not the "bill".....
>
> And, it got 51 dem votes.....So, you could say the
> clown was the tie breaker....
It hasn't made any difference between parlamentary proceedure or actual bills, on certain subjects the Blue Dogs side with the Republicans. If you want to look at specific Bills, here some of the votes on Bills the last 12 months or so where some Dems have broken ranks:
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
17 Senators in total voted against it with one being a Dem
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00207
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009
Three Senators voted against it with one being a Dem
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00202
District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009
37 no votes with 2 Dems
"A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes."
25 No votes with 8 of them being Dems
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213
India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act
13 no votes with all but one being Dems (the rest of the Dems voted yes except Kennedy who didn't vote)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00211
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008
Only 27 Dems voted against, the rest except Kennedy again voted for
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
15 no votes with 2 coming from Dems
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00144
I went through all the bills from the last year, there were about three other bills where it was almost the entire Senate voting to approve other than 3-5 Republicans. There were a couple others where about 20 Reps voted against and the rest voted for. And about 3-4 where most or all the Republicans voted against and no Democrats voted with the Republicans.
So again, even on the bills, there has been dissent among some of the Dems on certain issues. I was suprised to see that the Republicans didn't uniformly vote against bills as I thought and only a handful has universal or near universal opposition from the GOP.
--
Edited by Rob0729 at 07/08/2009 7:27 PM PDT
|
|
|
|
|
