I see that the GOP is already using HCR to beat Dems over the head with in campaign ads.

[phantom power]

From AZ campaign ad: "<Dem candidates> voted *with* Nanci Pelosi to pass Obamacare, raising your taxes!"

Dunno, anybody else seeing ads like that elsewhere?

[AlinPA]

1. Toomey (R) running for senate has been running them non-stop here in W. PA.

[rfranklin]

2. Saw a letter to the editor in my local paper along those lines...

They are talking about things that haven't even happened yet. A lot of conjecture, etc.

But it makes me think that it wasn't even worth the fight consedering what we got.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. I think it was worth it

I don't believe there are very many people who really, honestly want to go back to the way things were and, in fact, will want and demand more as time goes by. Unfortunately, due to the delay in implementation, it will be difficult for people to see the full benefits of the legislation but I'm doubtful that people are incensed enough about the changes that HAVE taken effect that they are either going to keep people in office or are going to throw people out of office simply over HCR. There isn't even enough support/agreement among Republicans about how to approach the new law (let alone alternative ideas).

[Dark]

6. It depends on where you live.

In Cincy, Driehaus the dem is toast because of it. But that fucking moron deserves to go. He got on board with that guy from Iowa complaining about HCR funding abortions. They bitched about it, and Obama gave them an executive order. They said "OK, now it's fine."

Problem is, these idiots didn't realize that when you bring up abortion, you pretty much paint yourself into a corner. When he voted for it, the prolifers here said they felt betrayed - because of Driehaus et al. and their claim that it would fund abortion.

It's illogical, saying we believe driehaus' first statement and then not his second. But he deserves to get burned for trying to exploit abortion for political gain.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. My point is hereby conceded

I forgot that rational debates over national policy were impossible nowadays, particularly when you bring in hot-button issues like abortion. :banghead: "Blue Dogs" like Driehaus didn't do themselves (or their constituents) any favors by dragging abortion into the HCR debate.

[Raspberry]

8. I think people are angry about the WAY it was done

Such major legislation, and it was passed through bribes and procedural tricks. If the R's had done the same with reforming Social Security (for instance,) everyone on this board would be flipping out. That's the way the majority of people feel about this.

It was not a good way to do it. Much better would have been to try to increase support from the people.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. Oh you mean, how it was passed with MAJORITY SUPPORT in Congress

through a constitutional procedure known as.......reconciliation?

If the Rethugs had done something similar with SS through reconciliation, yeah, I imagine that we'd all be upset and fuming that it was done but it wouldn't have been because they did something illegal and/or unconstitutional like what they did when they were doing "Medicare Reform". :puke:

:wtf:

"increase support from the people?" We might've been waiting for Godot given the solid block of Rethug opposition despite every attempt to work with them.

Epic Fail :eyes:

[Raspberry]

10. Reconciliation

was the wrong way to do something this big. If they couldn't get it through regular channels, then maybe it shouldn't have been done.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. The only reason that it had to be done that way

is because of solid GOP obstruction- plus the fact that we lost Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts. Are you honestly suggesting that we should've not done HCR via reconciliation because we could *only* get 59% of the US Senate to support it and not the "new normal" vote passage threshhold of 60%????

REALLY????

:wtf:

There was NOTHING better or different that could've been negotiated/agreed to regarding HCR that the Republicans would've ever agreed to or supported and they weren't even being honest about why they were opposing it and were terribly distorting and twisting it around to try and make it into "Obama's waterloo". At that point, I say that the Democrats were fully justified and correct in using whatever constitutional means were available to pass HCR.

[Raspberry]

12. Scott Brown won

ONLY because he campaigned on a promise to stop healthcare. He got donations from all across the country. My boss, here in Michigan, contributed. It was pretty clear that this was something the people did not want. They still oppose it. If the people were that strongly opposed to it, it probably shouldn't have happened.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. He won for a bunch of reasons.

HCR might've been one of them but Coakley ran a bad campaign whose basic message was that we were entitled to that seat since it had been Kennedy's before he passed. Brown was also somewhat of a "novelty" candidate as well that the corporate mediawhores gave a lot of (unwarranted) time and coverage to, which further helped his prospects.

In regards to the polls of which you speak, people opposed to HCR (what was being proposed at the time) weren't necessarily opponents of HCR per se but felt that it needed to go further (i.e. public option, single payer).

If I may ask, is there some reason that you are being so tenacious about suggesting that HCR "probably shouldn't have happened?" :shrug:

[Tippy]

3. Every day...and every where....

[Xipe Totec]

4. As if facts would have matered to them