Republican Senator in Massachusetts?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

True. I also think its an indication that most voters want a middle ground. Heck of a result when you consider how long dems held that seat

Today is a great day and I am so thrilled there are 41 Red's in the Senate now.

Also, a very liberal dem in the house (dont know name) said "maybe we should think about taking a step back, passing through a jobs bill that has some health reform attached to lower costs"

If this hypothetical "jobs" bill has some tort reform in it, elimination of pre-existing conditions, language stating that you cant drop someone for getting sick, and opens up competition over state lines.... AND costs less than 50 billion or so (which is still insanily high).. then I'm all for it!!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Today is a great day and I am so thrilled there are 41 Red's in the Senate now.

Also, a very liberal dem in the house (dont know name) said "maybe we should think about taking a step back, passing through a jobs bill that has some health reform attached to lower costs"

If this hypothetical "jobs" bill has some tort reform in it, elimination of pre-existing conditions, language stating that you cant drop someone for getting sick, and opens up competition over state lines.... AND costs less than 50 billion or so (which is still insanily high).. then I'm all for it!!

i would rather they passed something with incentives for more employers to offer insurance. since it seems for the most part to be handled by businesses anyway, they need to make it easier, more affordable to get for small businesses. then, if it didn't cost the employer so much, they in turn wouldn't have to get the employee to pay such a large portion. more purchasers in turn drives down cost. more purchasers engenders more competition as well between insurers.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i would rather they passed something with incentives for more employers to offer insurance. since it seems for the most part to be handled by businesses anyway, they need to make it easier, more affordable to get for small businesses. then, if it didn't cost the employer so much, they in turn wouldn't have to get the employee to pay such a large portion. more purchasers in turn drives down cost. more purchasers engenders more competition as well between insurers.

That was there. It was called, "the public option" and "insurance exchanges". The Republicans wouldn't approve it. So it's gone.

Now the House bill does have some insurance exchanges left for companies to try and buy less expensive insurance, but who knows if it will remain.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

That was there. It was called, "the public option" and "insurance exchanges". The Republicans wouldn't approve it. So it's gone.

Now the House bill does have some insurance exchanges left for companies to try and buy less expensive insurance, but who knows if it will remain.

Um, Senate Democrats, who had a fillibuster proof majority, did not approve the public option. but you already know that. It just goes against your agenda that you cant possibly say something good about a Republican or bad about a Dem.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Um, Senate Democrats, who had a fillibuster proof majority, did not approve the public option. but you already know that. It just goes against your agenda that you cant possibly say something good about a Republican or bad about a Dem.

That last proves you really don't read what I post

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

That last proves you really don't read what I post

riiiiiight

the reason the public option isnt in the senate bill is republicans fault. Though you had 60 democrats who could have put in a public option, though the smart ones didnt want it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

riiiiiight

the reason the public option isnt in the senate bill is republicans fault. Though you had 60 democrats who could have put in a public option, though the smart ones didnt want it.

Yeah, right. Before you comment on my "agenda", you might know what you are talking about. You might notice where I said Coakely ran a bad campaign, Brown a good one; where in the past I've written I don't agree with much of the Dem platform (and what parts), where I said Obama should fire Geithner, I don't agree with taxing cadillac plans, etc.

The Senate wouldn't have passed a public option at all. 60 Dems couldn't have forced that through, because 60 Dems didn't want it.