Friday, January 15th
My former college roommate from Boston sent me the following update on the Brown race:
(He's asked for anonymity........Not for his comments, he just doesn't want anyone to know he ever roomed with me!)
Still too early so I reserve my right to modify, but here is prediction: Brown 51 Coakley 47 (2% for Kennedy- no relation). You'll be happy to know that my wife and I are both voting for Brown. I do not recall such anger and eagerness to send a message as I sense now. The blogs/commentary are 90% for Brown as is talk radio and many Dems. According to polling, independents are for Brown by a wide margin. Would be a stunning shocker and could still turn (Dems are in a panic and will pull out all stops) but there you have it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
(Fromt he comments section of the Boston Globe - "The Scott heard round the world" - that's perfect!)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(Thanks to my brother Jack for the head's up on this).
Slipped into page 1020 of the Senate Health Care bill is section 3403. This section deals with the creation of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board. This entity would have sole discretion over prices paid to physicians, treatments allowed, and policies permitted under Medicare provided plans (of course, the bill also greatly expands the number of people covered under Medicare - further enhancing the powers of this new entity).
But here is what's so troubling: The language of this section includes the following sentence, "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”
Get that? This language would make any change to the Ind. Medicare Adv. Board illegal! Thus creating an entity that could never be changed by future elected leaders. Not now......Not ever.
Clearly, the only way this type of language is even allowable is if it's part of a constitutional amendment.
But why let the constitution get in the way, when you are trying to create something that the people don't want!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...and courtesy of my brother-in-law, Dennis, who forwarded me the following item:
Key Congressional Democrats, along with Pres. Obama, held a nearly day-long session yesterday to negotiate a joint healthcare reform legislation package with the aim of submitting a final plan to the Congressional Budget Office early next week. Negotiations are expected to continue today.
In a joint statement, Pres. Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the group had made "significant progress in bridging the remaining gaps between the two health insurance reform bills."
CBO analysis is expected to take at least a week, making it unlikely that the bill would be pushed through both the House and Senate and on to Pres. Obama before his State of the Union address planned for early February.
Slipped into page 1020 of the Senate Health Care bill is section 3403. This section deals with the creation of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board. This entity would have sole discretion over prices paid to physicians, treatments allowed, and policies permitted under Medicare provided plans (of course, the bill also greatly expands the number of people covered under Medicare - further enhancing the powers of this new entity).
But here is what's so troubling: The language of this section includes the following sentence, "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”
Get that? This language would make any change to the Ind. Medicare Adv. Board illegal! Thus creating an entity that could never be changed by future elected leaders. Not now......Not ever.
Clearly, the only way this type of language is even allowable is if it's part of a constitutional amendment.
But why let the constitution get in the way, when you are trying to create something that the people don't want!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...and courtesy of my brother-in-law, Dennis, who forwarded me the following item:
Key Congressional Democrats, along with Pres. Obama, held a nearly day-long session yesterday to negotiate a joint healthcare reform legislation package with the aim of submitting a final plan to the Congressional Budget Office early next week. Negotiations are expected to continue today.
In a joint statement, Pres. Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the group had made "significant progress in bridging the remaining gaps between the two health insurance reform bills."
CBO analysis is expected to take at least a week, making it unlikely that the bill would be pushed through both the House and Senate and on to Pres. Obama before his State of the Union address planned for early February.
UPDATE: Late last night the White House reached an agreement with Unions that their health care plans would not be taxed, unlike non-union workers. The risk for the White House is that a provision like this will likely lose a Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) vote. And, in the senate, there's not one vote to spare.
We'll see how much the results of Tuesday's Senate race might impact all of this.
We'll see how much the results of Tuesday's Senate race might impact all of this.
Check out Coakley's latest statements:
http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/14/martha-coakley-devout-catholics-probably-shouldnt-/
Reply to this