Nine months since the election, almost 3 million votes cast, after weeks of recounts and months of court appeals involving 10 judges, 142 witnesses, over $13 million in legal fees, and 56,217 comments, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided in favor of Al Franken and declared him winner of the election. Within moments after the decision, Norm Coleman offered a concession.
Minnesota finally gets a full complement of Congressional representatives; and the Democrats, with Arlen Specter’s recent defection, have a filibuster-proof Senate majority.
One would think the way is clear for a run of progressive legislation without Republican obstruction. But the Democrats are a fractious bunch, and Octopus is a pessimist.
Will the Democrats mess up a golden opportunity? Or will we finally get a decent alternative energy bill, universal healthcare reform, and more?
Your thoughts.
The Republicans refused the Presidents hand of bi-partisanship the first day he was in office.
ReplyDeleteThey offered a joke of an alternative for the financial bill.
They offered a joke of an alternative for the Health Care bill.
They sent their bigoted spokesmen out to cry racist, socialist, and fear to the American people.
The President should pass all his legislative agenda with his majority Congress, and let the voters ask their Republicans why they did not offer any serious opposition legislation, for a debate.
Actually, remember the Republican "alternative budget" proposal? The one with no numbers?
ReplyDeleteAt least Franken admitted to being a comedian.
Will the American majority get what it voted for?
ReplyDeleteSad to say, here is my prediction: Not as long as Harry Reid is the majority leader.
I hope I'm wrong.
"Will the Democrats mess up a golden opportunity? Or will we finally get a decent alternative energy bill, universal healthcare reform, and more?"
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem with an alternative energy bill as long as it is realistic and doesn't cost us out the wazoo. I simply can't afford anymore! Finding alternative energy and getting us off of the dependence of the Arabs is crucial, so I hope something reasonable can be put into motion.
I am with you on health care reform and any reasonable republican, conservative, etc should see the need for it. That doesn't mean that I want total government control either. Although I admit I don't have it, there has to be a plan out there that we all can live with.
I am glad it's finally settled (the election) although I don't think much of the man himself, but that's just my opinion of him.
I truly hope that democrats don't use this advantage to ram every little thing down the republican's throat just because they can. The government is supposed to balance itself out and to have total control whether republican or democrat can be dangerous.
So, now the democrats have a filabuster proof majority...
ReplyDeleteDo you really think that all of the sudden the influence of special interests and lobbyists is going to wane?
Such an idealist!
TAO, I have no illusions about lobbyists and the influence of their money. As the center of power shifts, the Democrats will attract those special interests and morph back into Republicans. The default state of the human species: Chicanery and corruption.
ReplyDelete"The default state of the human species: Chicanery and corruption."
ReplyDeleteDon't forget stupidity, arrogance and dementia, to name but a few.
I'm finding it hard to have any hope and almost as hard to care any more. I'm tired of the trolls calling me names, tired of endless psychotic ravings about Michael Jackson and the bottomless tar pit of popular culture.
I'm sure there were Romans having optimistic discussions in 414 and I'm afraid I'm just as foolish when I dare hope for anything.
Capt. Fogg, things were in MUCH better shape when the dinosaurs were in charge. True, there was that asteroid impact that we failed to deal with thanks to bureaucratic bungling and short-sightedness, but ....
ReplyDeleteWish I felt that the changes in health care would be more thoroughgoing, but the vibe I get presently is that we will get insufficient incremental change. Better than nothing and perhaps a base upon which further improvements may be built, but not enough for millions of people who need relief and security right away.
Here's what one dino thinks about health insurance, with care taken at the outset to say that there are doubtlessly some fine people working in the industry at all levels. But here goes: those who oppose reform and a public option might do well to reflect on just how much, or how little, they trust their insurance company not to cut them off in a serious health crisis by using some loophole in the policy fine print. Perhaps those who have insurance through their employer don't fear this (getting the "run-around" would probably be their greater fear, or being denied coverage for certain treatments), but anybody who has an individual-subscriber policy would have to be nuts to trust them. We have all heard of "rescission" as a way of improving the bottom line. In the midst of civilized life, it seems, we have a system that isn't too far removed from Tennyson's "nature, red in tooth and claw." Anyone who thinks private insurance is more efficient than "the guv'mint" or that it offers consumers more "choices" is under the deadly spell of ideological bunkum.
I suggest that those who think rescission is a minor detail or a fluke are mistaken: it is the essence of the system we're dealing with, a system run at least in part by people who have evidently forgotten that commerce is an honorable calling. Rescission is what some insurers do when they think nobody's looking, when they're confident that those whom they deny cannot fight back and those who should be making them do right are instead in their pocket. And what people do when nobody's looking is a big part of who they are, n'est-ce pas? If what's being sold is "a promise of security in a crisis" (isn't that what insurance amounts to?) how can dropping someone during such a crisis, or refusing vital care, not constitute fraud? I am for changing the system to ensure that everyone is covered, whether by a public entity or by appropriately monitored private entities. Good health care is expensive, but there's hardly anything more important than knowing that if you or someone you care about becomes gravely ill, care will be both available and very good.
I think the Democrats' falling under the influence of special interests, while it will certainly happen, is not the immediate concern. The bigger issue is that they are a bunch of spineless morons (particularly Harry Reid, Green Eagle). This one additional seat isn't going to make a difference; the notion of a 60-seat, filibuster-crushing, Democratic powerhouse is a myth - the Democratic Party is and will continue to be a fairly divided party, and there is nothing even close to a guarantee that they can stop a filibuster. The Democrats haven't shown much initiative in the past, and unless Franken suddenly gives the Dems a backbone (or strikes so much fear into his opponents that they fail to show up for votes), the same will be true now.
ReplyDeleteThe Senate doesn't really need more Democrats. It needs more progressives.
If it hadn't been for Obama I would have moved myself into the Independent column a long time ago. Even with Obama's leadership, the Dems are still lost. Sort of pathetic really.
Brian, I can ditto much of what you said:
ReplyDeleteSpecial interests – check!
Spineless – check!
60 seat majority – check (Baucus, Bayh, Lieberman, Nelson, and Specter are not exactly the most reliable of Democrats)!
Independent column – check (8pus is registered as an independent)!
If Obama had lost the election, I had seriously contemplated moving to Europe, Andromeda, or the Crab Nebula (cephalopods have a special craving for crustaceans). Lucky for me, Obama won, and I get to keep the condo for at least a few more years.
Bloggingdino, please don’t blame yourself for that asteroid. No amount of bureaucratic bungling could possibly compare with Katrina.
About insurance rescission, the most common practice is called “Balance Billing.” Definition: Your in-network doctor charges you a co-pay per terms of contract, submits the balance of the bill to your insurance company (but receives less than his/her fee for services performed), and decides to bill you for the un-reimbursed balance.
This practice is illegal. If any readers here have experienced this, write a letter to your doctor and insurance company accusing them of engaging in “Balance Billing.” Since consumers are unaware that this practice is illegal, health providers can gouge with impunity. Knowing about this scam gives you more than a fighting chance to avoid paying these bills. You can, for instance, report them to the Banking and Insurance Commission of your state, or the Federal equivalent thereof.
But wouldn't that be socialism?
ReplyDeleteOcto,
ReplyDeleteYes, I've seen this practice you mention -- not carried out but in a form suggesting that if the discrepancy between one's bill and what the insurer wants to pay is "excessive" or some other similar word, you can make arrangements to pay. Which of course negates the whole point of being "in-network." Glad to hear that it is illegal, as it should be.
Capt. Fogg, if you meant my post re socialism -- as Marx would say, "yes, that is precisely what we intend to do."
I'm really just mocking the all purpose response to anything progressive.
ReplyDelete