Feingold one of few who claims to read entire reform bill

[a kennedy]

WASHINGTON (WXOW) - Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold gained some notoriety this week in connection with the debate over health care reform.

Feingold supports the bill and was among those from both parties who were asked by reporters yesterday whether they read the bill before their vote. He was the only one of those asked who said he had read the entire bill, which runs about 2,000 pages.

As reported on ABC World News last night, few senators stuck around as the Senate Secretary read the entire bill.

<http://www.wxow.com/global/story.asp?s=11721130>

[Le Taz Hot]

1. And yet he voted "yes."

As did my formerly-beloved Barbara Boxer. (sigh) I'm done with the lot of them.

[el_bryanto]

3. Do you think he did it for malicious or corrupt reasons?

[Le Taz Hot]

6. No. I believe he believes that it will be "fixed"

in committee. I don't share his faith.

[el_bryanto]

10. So you are saying his judgment on this matter is impaired

Has he become an idiot recently?

To clarify, I'm not saying it's wrong to disagree with a senator even a senator you respect - you might well be right and he wrong. But it seems a bit of a jump to get from that to "I'm done with him"

Bryant

[Le Taz Hot]

12. In full disclosure

I was done with the Democratic Party in 2004 but I held out that there were still some progressives left to give me some hope. IMO, a progressive would never have voted for this POS.

I'm not saying his judgment is impaired and I'm not sure where you got that word (nor the "idiot" word for that matter), I'm just saying I think he is horribly wrong. Ultimately, the truth will be borne out when Obama signs this "Mandated Insurance with No Public Option" bill. I happen to think it will be his undoing.

[HereSince1628]

11. IIRC He hopes the final bill will be better than that from the senate

and he sees the senate bill as providing somethings that will be improvements.

He also thinks Obama's team flat out failed the effort for real reform via public option.

I'd characterize my senator's reaction as one of disappointment and grudging acceptance.

I don't doubt that he read the bill. He also seems to be the only senator that read the entire P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.

[Windy]

14. I'm curious....did YOU read the bill?

You can at Senate.gov. They even have a handy dandy search feature. I have spent significant time reading the bill and its not the dog that people here are saying it is.

I will anxiously await tweaking in conference and a review of the final bill submission...

I suggest you read it also.

[Beetwasher]

28. Not Only Is It NOT A Dog

It's a pretty damn solid foundation that will lay the groundwork and build the infrastructure and systems necessary to transform Health Care provision in this country.

Feingold supports it because he knows this. It is a significant, monumental piece of progressive legislation.

[laughingliberal]

29. I've read it. I also read every bill that came out of every comittee

And I have come to a different conclusion than you. But I read with a vast knowledge of how some of the policies which look like they will help actually get translated in practice. I am deeply concerned about the bill.

[Captain Hilts]

4. If Feingold and Whitehouse are 'for' it, then I am too. Ouch!

[Captain Hilts]

5. Here you go...

[Le Taz Hot]

7. Thanks!

It's like lookin' in a mirror, I tell ya! :evilgrin:

[Captain Hilts]

8. Friends call me 'Taz'!

[Le Taz Hot]

9. My B.F.F.'s favorite quote about me:

"What she lacks in height she makes up for in attitude." What can I say, it is the wonder that is me. :evilgrin:

[Captain Hilts]

19. Same here. I earned mine while room mates saw me tearing up phonebooks when

I found out a jerk was getting more scholarship money than I.

Yeah, I'm short, but I can be mean...

Kinda like:

[WeDidIt]

2. And he still supports it. n/t

[HughMoran]

15. That is notable

It was my first thought.

[Ozymanithrax]

13. I think Feingold is an incrementalist...

who knows that the bill is much better than the status quo and will be made better over time.

[WeDidIt]

16. But whiny people who have no experience with how politics works WANT IT ALL NOW!!!

The whiniest of the whiny poutraged people are precisely what is meant by the term "instant gratification society".

They are a direct example of that shortcoming in our current culture.

[katkat]

18. WeDidIt

Thanks for your offer to pay the premiums for all those now legally required to buy insurance they can't afford. :sarcasm:

[Ozymanithrax]

25. That comment is inaccurate. Medicaid will cover a lot more people, everywhere...

Many of those people unable to afford it will be covered by medicaid, and that comes directly out of my taxes, so you are welcome.

[Ozymanithrax]

20. There is a "Queen school" of thought involved...

I Want It All

But a lot of it is based on a belief that a Corporotocracy rules the universe and all but the bravest Senators and Congressmen led by Kucinich will roll over for the corporation.

[laughingliberal]

30. There is a lot of territory between what this bill offers and 'everything now'

Accepting we are not likely to get everything now does not mean this was the right way to begin.

[C_Lawyer09]

23. From what wellspring flows "your get better over time" faith?

I'm not being sarcastic, just curious. I know that three strikes drug laws have not gotten better over time, although most that signed the bill into law, now acknowledge it as awful legislation. What was made better about No Child Left Behind? Lastly, if you or anybody knows, why do the portions of the bill that actually help poor people, not take affect until 2013? Again, not trying to be argumentative, if you have some justification, lay it on me.

[Ozymanithrax]

26. I've posted this elsewhere, but, here it is again.

The Constitution was a piece of trash when they passed it without a bill or rights and as a shrine for slavery. Twenty-seven incremental steps later, it is much better, though still lacking.

Only male white land owners could vote when the great American Experiment was started. Jacksonian Democracy allowed all male white men to vote. Then they allowed women. People of color were brought in. Took a lot of increments to get there.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was weak. But they improved it in in 65, and with title IX in the 70's. Legislation requiring the handicapped to be treated fairly improved upon it.

Medicare and Medicaid have both been improved upon, several times.

Every significant piece of progressive legislation in our history has started weak and passed through a series of incremental improvements.

When I grew up in the 60's, anyone caught performing a homosexual act was beaten, arrested, beaten, charged, beaten convicted, and sent to prison where they would be beaten. We have a long way to go before GLBT's enjoy the same rights as heterosexual people, but steps have been made to protect them. They can no longer be tossed in jail because they do it differently. Even in Texas they stuck down laws against gays. We are fighting to get them the right to marry and live in the same kind of shitty relationships that the rest of the citizenry enjoy. I suspect it will take about a decade before we are there.

History teaches me to be an incrementalist. Being a progressive, I believe in working for progress. Being a realist, I accept that progress is slow.

[Beetwasher]

27. Keep Up The Good Fight!

It's good to see the posts of the folks who "get it". :thumbsup:

[laughingliberal]

31. Ah, all of your examples of items which improved over time had one thing in common

They started out going in the right direction. We have established that you and I will not agree on this but I maintain this bill puts us further down the road in the wrong direction and it will be hard to turn it back.

[Ozymanithrax]

33. A bill that expands Medicaid...

Subsidizes insurance for people who don't qualify for medicaid...
Ends the use of pre-existing conditions...

and many other things, is moving in the right direction.

We will simpy have to agree to disagree.

[C_Lawyer09]

32. Sounds reasonable

Thanks for spending the time in answering my question, pretty cool last sentence to summarize as well.

[katkat]

17. committee

How does the committee stuff work - after the committee does something to get the House and Senate bills in some identical form, how many votes are needed to pass it in each chamber, a simple majority? Or 60 in the Senate?

And how much adjusting can they do to what it contains?

[WeDidIt]

21. A simple up or down vote in the House

In the Senate, debate begins anew and a cloture vote is required prior to the final up or down vote. No amendments can be offered so there is just debate, cloture, and the vote.

Really, this shit was covered in my 7th grade Civics course. Why people don't know this shit, but still claim to be activists, is beyond me.

[katkat]

22. WeDidIt

Thank you for your courteous reply. Sure to encourage others to ask questions.

Ah, I see you're a fan of Rahm. That explains everything.

[C_Lawyer09]

24. Maybe because you are much smarter and aware

than anybody else on du! Are you kidding me? Sorry to burst your bubble there superstar, but not everybody has a photographic memory for that which was learned in 7th grade. Maybe activists should be required to pass an activism test? Your self important arrogance is repulsive. Maybe in the future you can think about respectfully answering the question without the judgement.