Schumer: We've Reached Agreement With Nelson
Brian Beutler | December 19, 2009, 9:01AM TPM read more:
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Abortion, Ben Nelson, Chuck Schumer, Health Care Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) just told reporters that he and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid shook hands last night at 10:30 p.m. with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) on an agreement that he would vote for cloture on health care reform, on the basis of the abortion language in the manager's amendment.
For those of you who understand legislative language, the text of the abortion amendment is below the fold.
Sounds like they've got 60.
Hey Sue.. it's the voices.. they are very confusing to us all.. like I said... you will be better off if you don't listen to them...lol
ReplyDeleteAnd I just read that cots and so forth are being placed in the Cap building, so our fearless leaders don't get stuck in the snow. More interestingly, Joe boy has flat disappeared.
ReplyDeleteMitch McConnell is talking now on C-Span, what a fuckin liar he is!!!
ReplyDeleteThe people are tired of their lies and whining!
Apparently, after being reassured by both parties that his absence would effect them, Joe went home to spend the last night of Hanukkah with his wife.
ReplyDeleteSue,
ReplyDeleteDoesn't Mitch McConnell look like a Cabbage Patch doll? Of course appearance is where the similarity ends. A Cabbage Patch doll has more brains.
Very funny, Leslie, and very true also.
ReplyDeleteSenate finally passed it... I'm exhausted!
ReplyDeleteLeslie LOL!
ReplyDeleteJerry you're right he does, but I used to think those dolls were adorable, I will never look at another without thinking of fugly McC!! LOL
karen I'm exhausted too but we still have along way to go!! BTW the vote is 1am Monday.
Of course this is not the final bill. Once passed by the Senate, it has to go to the conference committee to be combined with the House version, and then it is back again to trying for 60 votes in order to do a final vote on the real bill.
ReplyDeleteJerry I'm hoping once both bill are combined we will have more we can like about it. I'm still feeling so much more optimistic!
ReplyDeletebye bye lisa, go spend your life at the rightwing blogs you love so much. WE DON'T WANT YOUR COMMENTS HERE ANY MORE!! DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR!!!
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand, lowering the age of Medicare illegibility can be done with reconciliation and would not have to wait until 2014 to kick in. Age could be lowered to 55 as previously discussed, or...lower it to 0.
ReplyDeleteMedicare for everyone and the current bill becomes moot.
The left doesn't like the current bill. The right doesn't like the current bill. The middle is ambivalent. Everyone wins with Medicare for all.
I know. This is old news. It will never go anywhere. It was rejected before it even got started. Blah blah blah.
Just wishful thinking.
I'm not ready to celebrate over this. I'm not sure we have heard the last of LIEberman. Should he choose to get 'snowed in' all next week, we have nothing.
ReplyDeleteTomCat - you're not the first person who's said we're out if JL gets snowed in. I guess I'm being my usual dense self, but I don't understand why this is so. Care to enlighten me? Or somebody.
ReplyDeleteHe won't get snowed in. The weather will be clear enough for him to fly or even take the train. He'll be there or be square :-)
ReplyDeleteBTW, our blizzard is still in full force, wow thats alot of snow....
I don't know why you are all so worried. The administration will get what they want, either under the table or otherwise. It really doesn't matter what anyone thinks or wants. The only thing that matters is that what Obama wants, Obama gets. After a few knee caps were broken, he got his votes. Those whose refused to crumble - they got them the old fashioned Democrat way...they bought them. You know the end always justifies the means with libs. Those situational ethics are sure convenient, aren't they? No conscience comes in handy, too! You can rip off the American taxpayer 100 different ways, but at least you can say, "I got health care reform passed."
ReplyDeleteI can't wait until you find out how much your "affordable" health care will cost you...and I'm not just talking about money.
I fully expect to be blocked as Lisa has been, so I will take this opportunity to wave bye, bye. It's been real.
Linda: the hypocrisy of your statemen is staggering. Ever figure out why Tom DeLay wa known as “The Hammer.” Where was your outrage whn he was twisting arms in the middle of the night in the halls (and backrooms) of Congress?
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of hypocrisy …
"Lives will be saved and our health care system will reflect the better nature of our country." Sen. Ben Nelson made this statement following his tentative decision to support healthcare reform legislation. How can he have the cojones to make such a statement after refusing to support the legislation until he got his way – not just on the abortion issue, but getting full government Medicaid funding for Nebraska? Sorry you know what!
the age of Medicare illegibility can be done
ReplyDeleteThey're going to make the forms unreadable? I bet Lieberman demanded that.
Seriously, if they can pass this and put some of the good stuff in later via reconciliation, great.
"Lives will be saved and our health care system will reflect the better nature of our country." Sen. Ben Nelson made this statement following his tentative decision to support healthcare reform legislation. How can he have the cojones to make such a statement
The better to kick him in, my dear.....
Don't forget that the fetus-fetishists believe life begins at conception and ends at birth. By "lives will be saved" he probably meant abortions will be prevented. After that, they can go hang (or be shot, if they choose to become doctors).
Linda: they got them the old fashioned Democrat way...they bought them.
ReplyDeleteThat's rich, considering the extremely fat checks that the insurance companies have been writing to Lieberman as an incentive to screw this up on their behalf. There's no denying that he gives good worth for his pay, though.
Linda I have never deleted your comments. Yours amuse me and bring good replies while Lisa's were just pure idiotic and annoying rants.
ReplyDeletelike my friends here have said, your comments about dems are so hypocritical. You must not have thought that one out before you typed it! lol
My party is looking forward to reform kicking in so countless lives can be saved and people can finally do something as simple as going to the family Dr. for a check-up!
Infidel I love your comment about the fetus-fetishers, its sooooooo true! And let me be clear, I am pro-life, but I believe it's a womans right to choose, not the governments. See Linda, your way of bringing the government into our lives, how do you explain that away?
BJ, we all remember "The Hammer", now he is "twinkle toes"! lol
Sue ~ Since I sincerely believe abortion to be the murder of innocent babies, the government NEEDS to come to their defense to protect their lives...you know..."life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." As it is, the guarantee to life only applies to those human beings that someone wants. That is the only difference, you know, between an aborted "fetus" and a baby...someone wants the "baby". If a pre-born human is considered to be an intrusion or a nuisance, then he is deemed to be a "fetus" and eligible for the death penalty. If your neighborhood animal shelter methodically aborted baby kittens or puppies, there would be such an angry outcry. It is pretty sad that the life of a cat or dog carries more importance in some people's hearts than a human baby. (No I don't hate animals, I love them...I have a dog that I adopted from a shelter.) BTW, the funding for abortion is STILL in the health care bill, according to several news sources. If you want to see anger, just wait until people discover that Harry Reid's bill will use taxpayer money to pay for abortion.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason to rush the debate on this bill in order to get a vote on or before Christmas Eve is to prevent as many people as possible from finding out what is in the legislation. None of those in Congress want to go home for the Holidays to face angry constituents railing on them about the bill that no one wants passed.
Jerry C ~ Right...because adding millions of people to a program that is on the precipice of bankruptcy makes so much sense...I see your point......sheesh!
ReplyDeleteLinda,
ReplyDeleteGlad you see my point. However, there is something you don't seem to understand about having Medicare for all. Those under 65 will pay for it. They will pay premiums just like any other insurance policy. Those premiums will pay the cost. There will be no additional cost to Medicare for covering the under 65 people. There will be government assistance for low income people the same as there is in both the house and senate bills, but that is not a Medicare cost, and the money would come from the same sources as in the current legislation.
Oh, and it is also the cheapest way to provide insurance and will cover the most people. Who loses? The insurance companies. So what do you want? Rich insurance executives or healthy people. Your choice.
Jerry C ~ Cheaper for WHOM??? The taxpayers are paying for the payouts for Aunt Margaret's hip replacement and Grandpa's hernia. How can you say that Medicare is the cheapest way to buy insurance? Sure, it's a little cheaper for the person covered, but it is waaaay more expensive for the government to pay for all the cost of treatments, etc. Who pays the cost, Class? Yes, the taxpayers!
ReplyDeleteThe abuse level shoots up on any program that is government run. Look at food stamps and Medicaid. Fraud runs rampant. The premiums of those under 65 will not cover the cost of treatment payouts...that is the problem with Medicare now, and we are planning to raise the number of those covered by MILLIONS???? Explain to me how the premiums from fewer people working will cover the medical costs of millions of baby boomers who are just now coming into the program. It is IMPOSSIBLE. One of two things will happen...actually they both will probably happen. Taxes will raise and coverage will be cut...you may not get optimum health care if some bureaucrat decides you are too old to make that expensive hip replacement worth the money. I'm asking you to wake up...there is no Santa Claus. Our country is over 12 TRILLION dollars in debt, the value of the dollar is dropping, and people are losing jobs right and left (oops, there go the tax revenues)! We are in trouble, Bro!!! We cannot afford this influx of people.
Gee, and I thought I was being clear. Linda, you do not understand one word I wrote.
ReplyDeleteJC:Gee, and I thought I was being clear. Linda, you do not understand one word I wrote.
ReplyDeleteJC: What do you expect? ; )
Jerry C ~ Then enlighten me...tell me exactly what you meant when you said that premiums for those under 65 will pay the cost of care for those millions who will then be on Medicare. Does that actually make sense to you?? I'd like to know your explanation of how that will work.
ReplyDeleteIt works the same way that our premiums now pay for our health care through the private insurance companies, except the private insurance companies skim about 30% off the top and only 70% goes to paying for health care. Under Medicare, about 95% of the premiums would go to paying for health care. Medicare overhead is only about 5%.
ReplyDeleteIf your health care premium is $1000 (what you pay plus what your employer pays if you have health insurance through your employer), the $700 of that premium goes toward paying for health care. If Medicare was paying that $700 instead of a private health insurance company, you premium would be about $737.
Jerry your intelligence is much appreciated here! :-)
ReplyDeleteOne might add that we already all pay for uninsured people as-is. In emergency situations they get treated in spite of having no insurance, and the hospitals recoup the loss of the unpaid bills by raising the prices they charge to everyone else.
ReplyDeleteGetting the uninsured insurance and subsidizing it would just do the same thing more efficiently and probably more cheaply, since (as Jerry says) the overhead costs of government systems are lower.
Infidel I explained that point to Linda countless times, it goes over her head...
ReplyDeleteWHY are we half-way intelligent people spending our time and energy arguing with an air-head?
ReplyDeleteThere are more productive things to do.
Infidel ~ I respectfully disagree with the premise that government does anything less expensively than private enterprise. I know that, technically, the Federal government would not be striving to make a profit, so they SHOULD be cheaper, but we know that that never happens. Fraud, waste, paper work, etc. take their toll on efficiency. Name one government run program that has come in under cost or even at cost. You would be hard pressed to find one.
ReplyDeleteDoes the $5,000 toilet seat ring a bell? Or how about the multi-million dollar tea cup museum?
Common sense would tell you that a smaller more organized private company trying to compete with other smaller private enterprises would be far more efficient than a huge, bloated bureacracy. That's why the Founders gave the states so many rights in themselves. The Federal government was never intended to grow so large and have influence over so much of our lives as it has today. A leaner, less influential government would naturally be more efficient in the fewer duties for which it is responsible.
But never mind, I'm just the visiting "air-head."
interesting read. I would love to follow you on twitter.
ReplyDeletesorry I don't tweet
ReplyDeleteamazing stuff thanx :)
ReplyDelete