home

House Health Care Debate

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:28:08 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Should lead to final votes tonight. You can watch on C-Span or online.

< Saturday College Football Open Thread | Saturday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    House Health Care Debate | 74 comments (74 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Stupak was apparently a better "madman " (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:44:02 AM EST
    than the liberals, so he's getting his abortion ban to a vote.

    The liberals (none / 0) (#4)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:58:07 AM EST
    deliberately chose not to bring single-payer to a vote.  Kucinich had a diary on GOS.

    Parent
    That was a mistake (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:01:53 AM EST
    They should have let it have a vote. It would have lost badly and people would understand what the realities were on single payer.

    As for the abortion amendemnt, we need to go out and win the argument and support primary challengers who agree with us.

    It seems difficult for me to argue against the Stupak Amendment's inclusion since a majority seem to favor it. The thing to do is to get representatives who agree with your views.

    NARAL etc need to find primary challengers.

    Parent

    A majority don't favor it (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by trillian on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:16:04 AM EST
    Stupak was having trouble coming up with 40...and many accused him of double counting. Of course now we will never know as the Leadership decided against calling his bluff

    It's a complete cave....

    I'm with Digby

    Parent

    The Republicans would have tested it (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:19:58 AM EST
    in a motion to recommit. But we could have had a better shot at defeating that as a procedural poison pill. Now, not so much.

    Parent
    Information re: (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:25:30 AM EST
    Motion to Recommit

    andgarden knows all this stuff.  This if for people like moi.

    Parent

    I fundamentally disagree (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:05:12 AM EST
    I think Pelosi made a massive mistake in abandoning the Hastert rule.

    Parent
    Dems have never followed the Hastert Rule (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:06:20 AM EST


    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:08:26 AM EST
    But it's a good rule. If you're going to make your majority matter, a majority of your majority has to have a veto over what comes to the floor.

    Parent
    I don't agree (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:14:36 AM EST
    We have a much more ideologically diverse caucus than the GOP.  I give Pelosi much credit for doing what it takes to keep that caucus unified on key votes.  One of those things is that you can't treat the moderates like second-class citizens.

    Parent
    We've had this debate before (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:18:53 AM EST
    I think your position is asinine. What possible reason could there now be for pro-choice voters to support a Democratic majority if the fact of that majority provides no protection?

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:30:49 AM EST
    I think it is obvious hyperbole to say that it makes no difference.

    Pro-choice Democrats should support pro-choice Democratic representatives in their district.  I've never been one to expect pro-choice voters to support anti-choice Democrats just because they're Democrats, so those candidates are going to need to find majority support elsewhere.

    Parent

    Two words: Brian Bilbray. (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:33:22 AM EST


    Parent
    E mailed him anyhow. Support of (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 12:57:12 PM EST
    capitalism requires permitting insurers to determine whether to cover cost of abortions.  Government should not interfere.

    Parent
    What you're doing is arguing against (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:35:54 AM EST
    the party system. I should be able to vote for any Democrat in a federal election and expect that, whatever he believes, a Democratic majority in the House or the Senate will not facilitate policies out of line with mainstream Democratic principles. If I can't have that confidence, then I will be more more selective in how I vote every November.

    Parent
    Not at all (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:43:38 AM EST
    "party system" is not synonymous with "parliamentary system."

    Parent
    Yes, very much so (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:45:44 AM EST
    Democrats are always telling us how much it matters who's in charge in Washington. That was the signature argument of the 2006 election. But you're saying that it really doesn't matter much at all.

    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 12:01:23 PM EST
    Not saying that in the slightest, just to clarify for anyone who might be misled.  It makes a HUGE difference.

    What you are saying, it seems to me, is that if anti-choice Democrats are allowed to get a vote on an anti-choice amendment, then that's it, we might as well let the Republicans run the chamber.  Again, I think you're just getting carried away with the hyperbole.

    Parent

    No, I'm saying that (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 12:06:27 PM EST
    Democratic leadership should never facilitate consideration of a bill or amendment opposed by a majority of the caucus. This is a great example of why that is a good policy.

    Parent
    But is it acceptable to treat women of (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:20:41 AM EST
    child-bearing age as second class citizens?

    Parent
    Yup. (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:33:54 AM EST
    Haven't you noticed?

    Parent
    Aw geez (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:33:57 AM EST
    Now because I have a particular opinion regarding the procedural rules Democrats should follow in order to maintain a functional caucus, I guess I'm insufficiently committed to women's rights.  Sometimes I forget what it's like to hang out in the ultra-pure world of liberal politics, so I have to thank my friends for reminding me.

    I think your real beef, though, is with Nancy Pelosi, who obviously is one of the greatest enemies anywhere of women's rights for supporting this rule that andgarden dislikes.

    Parent

    Until I learn something different, I'm pegging (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:42:55 AM EST
    this one on Obama, who sd. no fed. funding in HCR for abortions.  

    Parent
    Say it ain't so (none / 0) (#51)
    by cawaltz on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 03:58:42 PM EST
    and I heard he was Superfeminist, at least that was how he was packaged.

    Parent
    B.S. (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:11:38 AM EST


    Parent
    I'm thinking the comment is referring (none / 0) (#74)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:46:48 AM EST
    to the magazine cover with O exposing his t-shirt with "This is what a feminist looks like" on it.


    Parent
    It is indisputable (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:42:36 AM EST
    that my preferred rules would foreclose on this amendment being allowed a floor vote, except in the context of a motion to recommit  (which would have to be offered by a Republican). It is not a question of "purity" to object to that. It's a binary question of who you respect more: your base or the "moderates."

    Parent
    False choice IMO (none / 0) (#32)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:44:29 AM EST


    Parent
    In this case, no (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:47:30 AM EST
    The Speaker can either respect the majority of Democrats and represent them or not.

    Parent
    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by trillian on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:21:28 AM EST
    Since when have so called "moderates" been treated like second-class citizens?

    They are the kings and queens of the party.

    DFHs have to defer to them on pretty much everything.....which is why we never get any robust progressive legislation.

    Parent

    Interesting diary (none / 0) (#13)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:12:44 AM EST
    about what's really in HR 676.

    Parent
    There's no way (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 12:48:27 PM EST
    A more liberal Dem will oust Stupak in a primary, short of a complete meltdown.  He represents Northern Michigan and the UP - pretty conservative areas of the state.  Lots of rural area - where they are "bitter" and "cling to their guns".

    Parent
    It takes more than Stupak (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 01:42:11 PM EST


    Parent
    My guess is (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 02:01:40 PM EST
    Those conservative Dems (for the most part) were elected for a reason - they are palatable enough to those holding some conservative views.  I don't see too many Blue Dogs and moderates being primaried to more liberal candidates.  

    Parent
    NARAL (none / 0) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 12:56:02 PM EST
    crickets

    Parent
    Check your pocket for those cricket sounds (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ellie on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    Then get the facts and take action.

    It's probably easier just to slam NARAL for everything in the "women's aisle" of human rights. However, if you're not going to affirmatively join the fight for reproductive rights and sexual health, then at the very least don't sling mud at people who ARE doing something.

    Parent

    Is it fair to say, though, that unless (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 04:22:54 PM EST
    one happened to go to the NARAL site, one would not necessarily know what - or if - NARAL was doing with respect to the Stupak amendment?

    Or that, unless one was a member of NARAL and got an e-mail, one would have no idea there was any pushback going on?

    I think that's what people are reacting to - the lack of noise in the public arena, no apparent use of the media to get the message out, etc.

    When you combine that with some rather questionable endorsements of candidates who did not appear to have as reliably pro-choice a position and record as many of us would have liked, it adds up to some skepticism about the strength and focus of NARAL's efforts.

    Don't get me wrong - I'm glad they're doing something in the fight, but there's also an element - for me - of closing the barn door after the horses have left the barn.

    Parent

    As fair as saying that if you want the TV on ... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ellie on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 04:38:46 PM EST
    ... you have to turn on the TV.

    There's a double standard in place for reproductive rights and sexual health, in that affirmative spokespeople and activists are granted even LESS access to the forum than anti-war voices, when it mattered, or liberal voices today.

    The fauxgressive representation doesn't count: they've backburnered reproductive rights to the extent that they'd rather raise funds for anti-choice Dems -- cause, huzzah, the Dems will then have majorities and the White House! -- than affirmatively support protecting reproductive rights and sexual health.

    cf getting behind DINOs who, once in, promulgated protecting fertilized eggs.

    Human Rights Watch and activists like NARAL, Planned Parenthood and the Guttmacher Institute are doing their jobs.

    The Dems aren't doing theirs and too many men on "our" side simply don't give a sh!t. Before HRC, they'd rather complain that "women's" issues were a burden on the Dems.

    Parent

    The women's groups checked out (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by cawaltz on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 05:57:39 PM EST
    All that was required was to get a (D) in the White House. Heck, he didn't even have to be a (D) that was on the record as being pro choice, present was good enough.

    Come to think of it that is pretty much what NOW and NARAL have been reduced to simply being "present" rather than rocking the boat and getting heard. Sad.

    Parent

    No, elected parties need to do their jobs ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ellie on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 02:08:30 PM EST
    ... ie, uphold the Constitution and maybe give a good gawd d@mn when over half the population is subject to extra-judicial persecution.

    You're slamming the wrong straw(wo)man here.

    The last witch hunt on NARAL and those selfish "single" issue voters who encumbered the Dems by opposing that wonderful, reliable, D-uber-alles Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Joseph I. Lieberman) is barely cold.

    Parent

    Not sure what you mean (none / 0) (#48)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 03:18:35 PM EST
    NARAL didn't oppose Joe Lieberman, NARAL supported him, best that I can remember.

    Parent
    cf Lord Cheetoh's monthly man-periods (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ellie on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 03:26:06 PM EST
    ... complaining about it.

    Parent
    I don't even mean that (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:00:45 AM EST
    What I mean is that they were unable to convince leadership that they'd scuttle the bill if the Stupak amendment passes.

    Parent
    I rhink you can not have (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:03:11 AM EST
    2 lines in the sand on these things.

    I would hope that the public option line in the sand now remains firm.

    In a way, it seems to me, Stupak strengthens the Progressive Block hand.

    Parent

    Stupak amendment+consequences (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 03:36:27 PM EST
    For a number of reasons, I agree with BTD that the Stupak amendment may well strengthen liberal/progressive hand.  Particularly in the long run. While it may not be a popular thing to say among many of my friends, the agreement involving the Council of Catholic Bishops effectively silences a portion of the right wing's wedge issue politics with Catholics.  Read the letter (on Politico) from the Bishops--complimenting the Speaker et al on the agreement and the general healthcare plan (while also pushing for additional openness & compassion for illegal immigrants.) In a practical sense, that supporting statement neutralizes the political practices of the right cum certain conservative bishops and the pressure on the Catholic vote. From a broader perspective, it also shows that it is possible to reach incremental agreement in almost any area to further a general good such as expanded health care coverage. Face it: Neither pure side of the polarized abortion debate could see their position advance without the give & take of traditional political compromise.  And, finally: I understand that the funding bar does not apply in the case of rape, incest, and to protect the health of the mother; nor is one precluded from obtaining separate and independent coverage with your own money. If it takes compromise to advance this legislation, I support this accounting separation rather than fall on my sword or something similar.  To me, the goal has always been the movement toward universal healthcare that simultaneously lowers costs and prohibits unconscionable insurance practices of which we are all now so painfully aware. As history indicates, the opportunity for this kind of change in healthcare does not happen very often. We might wish or dream that it does...but, look at the record.

    Parent
    Is it still expansion if the coverage is (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 04:35:06 PM EST
    going to be cut or limited for women?

    I just find there to be something ludicrous about thinking women who are not currently insured because they cannot afford it will be able to come up with the cash for premiums to cover this "special" area.  And someone is going to have to explain to me why it's a good thing that insurance companies will not be required to cover birth control and gynecological wellness visits, other than Pap smears and mammograms - but they will be required to cover Christian Science healing visits.

    I'm pretty opposed to my gender-related health being considered subject to incrementalism, but men's health not.  Why are men the baseline - with coverage for their equipment - but women treated as if we chose our special equipment and therefore have to pay for our equipment-related needs?

    And frankly, the Catholic Church needs to butt out of women's health issues - they have no business even attempting to affect what I or any other women should or must be entitled to in this area.

    Parent

    I understand your very real concerns, Anne (4.00 / 3) (#58)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 04:55:47 PM EST
    Please understand that my concerns are real and heartfelt as well. I am essentially an incrementalist and negotiator by nature. I want to expand health care, and this bill strongly moves in that direction. We have a long way to go...but, it is often a chimera to think that we can get everything we want. People's level of what is acceptable compromise usually will differ (especially in such important areas.) In my mind, because the compromise here does not make the situation any worse than the still effective Hyde Amendment while it also moves so many components of healthcare forward, I support the posture of the House bill.

    Parent
    No, christine, it really doesn't (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 05:19:49 PM EST
    "strongly" move toward the expansion of health care; it's more like it moves strongly toward an expansion of health insurance - and these are not the same thing. Worse, it doesn't expand coverage for women, it contracts it, and call me crazy, but I think that's the wrong direction for incrementalism.

    The Democrats didn't even start this process from a position of strength, but from some weak, mushy, milquetoast middle ground that they have slowly, and incrementally, weakened even further.  They started with oatmeal and managed to make it even more bland - that's just pathetic.

    And the weakening is not over, not by a long shot.

    Parent

    What I don't understand (none / 0) (#68)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 06:13:42 PM EST
    is why you want to give up this "increment."

    Where, then, is the line in the sand for a Democrat and feminist?

    Is there a line in the sand for you?  If not this one, then . . . which one?!

    Parent

    Then face it -- (4.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 04:33:23 PM EST
    you disagree with the Democratic Party platform.

    As long as you're saying you're not a Dem, of course, that's fine.

    Parent

    Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 04:48:07 PM EST
    I've been a Democrat--active, contributor, fundraiser, party officeholder all at various times for 40 years. I am also a feminist(towit: being nameed as the first woman in several court and executive branch positions in the federal government way back when; representing women in discrimination cases; often speaking at a number of political functions at different times in my life. As an attorney, I believe in reaching agreements that work as much as possible--to that end, my specialty became negotiation of civil matters, etc. What does it all mean? It means that I do not hold with "all or nothing" one- issue politics. When I have to decide what is more important to me, I find a way to get there. As I said: In this case the goal is healthcare reform--moving it all forward--today.  Not at some theoretical time that doesn't seem to arrive, but NOW. Thanks.

    Parent
    Oh, I tend to vote Dem, too (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 06:08:42 PM EST
    but so do a lot of people at times, it seems, who don't know what the Democratic platform says.  How could they, when Dems in power act like Repubs?

    As for feminism, as well you know, it is the belief that all ought to be treated equally, regardless of gender.  And an activist feminist acts on that belief.  And especially about reproductive rights.

    But then, a lot of people tend to be feminist at times, too. . . .

    Parent

    I've been a feminist all my life (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 08:43:18 PM EST
    It is sad to feel that I have to defend myself on this when (ironically)my positions were often regarded as too liberal or too out there or too...you get the point. Well, my point is that even blogs have a tendency to pigeonhole when we don't use the appropriate phraseology. (Actually, Cream City, I've often agreed with comments you have made and I have read in the "lurking mode." But, I really hope that we can hear what we are saying without typecasting. Believe me, I've been there. And, I assume that you have been too.) Believe me, I'm a battle-scarred Democrat from the late '60s and following. It may be that my resolution technique is different. For what it is worth, I do believe that the political philosopher Saul Alinsky has a very helpful approach to movement politics.

    Parent
    I understand the past tense (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:31:31 PM EST
    but in the present tense, this is not a feminist stance.  I have been in the fight as long as you have, and I respect and appreciate those who won in the past with us.

    The difference is that you don't see today's actions as a loss pushing us back to the past.

    Look at it this way:  Every "increment" is someone's uterus.  Or, today, your "increment" is millions and millions of uteruses.

    Parent

    You're just fabulous! (none / 0) (#59)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 04:57:17 PM EST
    You know, one of my four legged babies is named DINO.  It's a name that I've carried down through generations of having dachshunds as family pets.  I never thought of the political connotation of the name.  However, you should.

    Parent
    Ah yes of course (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 05:02:53 PM EST
    Its chitown. (No--I doubt that either of us is very fabulous.  But, we don't need to be cute or cutting--just honest.)

    Parent
    Your honesty is blantant and painful. (none / 0) (#61)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 05:04:47 PM EST
    Who are you trying to convince on this site?

    Parent
    Not you (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 05:16:57 PM EST
    You appear to be in it for argument, not colloquy, chitown. Perhaps, I'm wrong, but we seem to have different approaches. Lets just leave it at that if that is offensive to you. BTW, the head of the Democratic Progressive Congress just gave remarks during the debate strongly supporting the bill from a practical standpoint of what it means for the not-so-privileged, and the real improvement that the bill means for many working mothers, etc.  I do not believe that she is a DINO. People can differ without being called names.

    Parent
    Ah! No name calling. (none / 0) (#65)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 05:21:01 PM EST
    Just rational discourse.  Need I remind you of your attempt(s) at discourse, let alone your singular viewpoints?

    Parent
    Un...believable (none / 0) (#7)
    by trillian on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:01:12 AM EST
    Dday has more

    Parent
    I wonder if this is constitutional or not. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Radix on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 12:45:57 PM EST
    Can congress forbid a person, companies are persons, from participating in a government program, if said person, company, has not violated any laws? This seems an awful lot like a Bill of Attainder here.

    I just got an email (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 05:20:20 PM EST
    that Booman has a diary up crying about getting the health-care bill that he fought for.  I haven't read it yet.  Reluctant to do so.  Wish he would just go away.

    C-SPAN is fun (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:53:35 AM EST
    The Republicans are playing procedural games.

    Hoping you and others will live blog. (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:57:55 AM EST
    Must listen to KUSC FM opera show.  Priorities.

    Parent
    I turned it off (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:00:04 AM EST
    I've seen this movie before, and I have other work to do.

    Parent
    I'm with you. For my health (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:33:05 AM EST
    -- since I sure can't count on the Democrats to take care of me -- I am heading outdoors to our last great day here in the heartland, as the temp heads toward 70 degrees.  And it's sunny!  We never got a good October, we have had too much Novemberish weather already, and I am going to go commune with the eternal verities of nature -- lots of leaves to be raked by the pickup deadline next week -- rather than wring my hands anymore about the lack of verities among so-called liberals who care more about self-preservation than about preserving the legal rights of more than half of Americans.

    The health care "debate" was decided a year ago at the polls -- or even many months before that in the primaries.  And I'm too old to keep fighting for the clinics.  I don't need abortion rights anymore.  My daughters might, so I will work to keep building a savings account not only to get me good health care as Medicare is cut back but also to get my daughters across the nearby border, if need be . . .  until they and the rest of their generation wake up and grow up and learn how to research how to vote rather than get all caught up in voting "cool."

    Congress and the White House are making me sick.  So I will follow the CDC advice to avoid catching their disease.  I wash my hands of them!

    Parent

    DFARv.W. (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:39:11 AM EST


    Parent
    Help? DFAR (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 04:37:31 PM EST
    means don't fall on a rake?  I didn't.  It fell on me.  That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

    Great fun getting our new family member out there with us, as she comes from a land with few deciduous trees.  The fall color has been great this year, but now she sees the down side when all that color comes down on the ground. . . .   But she also found out that piles of leaves are fun!

    Last winter, she got to make her first "snow angels."  Today, tossing around in the piles, she said she was making "leaf angels." :-)

    Parent

    "Don't forget about Roe v. Wade." (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:13:19 AM EST
    This is why we were supposed to vote for Obama v. McCain.  And I did.  Look where that got me.  

    "Leaf Angels."  Perfect.

    Parent

    Why do these people waste (none / 0) (#30)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:42:57 AM EST
    the little 60 seconds they get to speak with an opening statement thanking everyone for letting them step up to the podium, being in attendance, and/or working so hard?
    Do insurers currently cover cost of (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 12:13:16 PM EST
    abortion?  Does Medicaid?

    Re Medicaid, here is the answer: depends. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 12:28:52 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    Thanks for providing that link (none / 0) (#69)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 06:30:08 PM EST
    It's very helpful to know the historical facts. I aim to use them with my congressional representatives.

    Parent
    Don't know about Mediciad, (none / 0) (#38)
    by Radix on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 12:27:48 PM EST
    but most employer based insurance covers it or can cover it. Private insurance companies don't have moral compasses guiding them, just profit.

    Parent
    House Health Care Debate | 74 comments (74 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment