So if Coakley loses in Mass.

[hkruss]

Will that stop the health care bill?

Another question. What if the voting results are so close that they have to have a re-count? The reason I ask, is that I heard one talk show host say that if Brown(?) appears to have won, Coakley can demand a re-count which could delay him from being certified the winner until after the health care vote thus keeping his crucial vote from possibly stopping this nonsense. I understand that obama wants the vote passed and signed before the State of the Union Address, which, I think, is Feb. 2nd.
If Coakley wins by a small margin, I expect Brown will call for a re-count. While this would only delay the date of the health care vote, at least it would deny obama the satisfaction of gloating about it being passed in the State of the Union Address. Small satisfaction for us, I know. But I don't want to give them ANYTHING without a struggle!!!

I know most of you guys are up on this way more than I am, so I would really like to hear you discuss any ramifications of what I posted above. Thanks.

(By the way, I refuse to capitalize obama's name. Just my silly little way of showing my displeasure and complete lack of respect for this disgrace of a "leader").


.

[artabr]

Originally Posted by hkruss

(By the way, I refuse to capitalize obama's name. Just my silly little way of showing my displeasure and complete lack of respect for this disgrace of a "leader").


.

I just call him "the one" in the smallest font that I have readily available.

I hope that I'm wrong, and it's kinda starting to sound like I am, but I don't think we can stop it. The Dems are so dead set to pass this, no matter what their constituents say, that they'll pass it.
I'm just scared that some of the idiot's on the right vote it in.

If they do, there will be hell to pay.



Art

[hogger129]

He (Brown) won't lose.

[henry77]

Originally Posted by hogger129

He (Brown) won't lose.

I sure hope that you are correct. That is the change that we need.

[jim brady]

I don't know about "Brown can't lose". The Liberals have a whole bunch of money and the entire Media in their pocket (except maybe Fox News). On top of that, he seems to be an intelligent guy with decent values. That is always a 'political career ender' these days. He's still serving in the Reserves, I think. See how fast they send him packing back to the mid-east.
Just hope that this guy can beat the entrenched Liberals. I doubt it, but it would be nice. If he wins you know the Liberals are gonna change the rules AGAIN to stop him from voting against obamacare.
That other fella? I just call him 'the great one'. Katie Couric, Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw can't be wrong. Besides -HE thinks he IS the great one.

[artabr]

Hey, Jim Brady. You and one of my uncles share the same name.


I'm starting to feel a little better about Brown's chances to win. I just finished reading a story & some comments on Coakley.
In the link below is a story from a liberal reporter at the Boston Globe, a hugh lib paper.
The pro Brown comments are probably running better than 10 to 1 in his favor.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas..._in_a_spinout/



Art Brady

[flintlock]

There was some talk in the local papers about the Massachusetts secretary of state saying that it could take 10 to 15 days to certify a win by Scott Brown. The "health care" folks would then have a window to rush something through. I really hope he wins though.

[Double D]

Again I take you back to the Al Frankin takeover which was extreemly illegal. He lost fair and square and they "came up with" the votes needed to put him in office. It is worthy of jail time for everyone involved. I am hoping that Mr. Brown is wearing protection. These dems are wacked out and would resort to any measure to keep him out of there. Remember, it is the mob that is running washington, and its all heavily funded by George Soros.

[K. Eisenhauer]

According to an article on CCN.com some of the Dems have reported that they'll vote no if Brown wins and they try and push the bill through while delaying Brown's Certification. They're afraid of the public backlash. Lets hope it's true.

[Terry_P]

According to Mass law the interim appointment ends on election day. They can delay all they want but the interim appointment would not be able to vote after tomorrow. I don't blame the Massachusetts people when you look at the history. When a Republican governor was in office the state legislature changed the law so the governor could not appoint a replacement to a potential opening when Kerry was running for President in 2004. Five years later with a liberal democrat as governor they reinstste the law to allow him to appoint an interim replacement. I imagine the people are really fed up with the underhandness of a supermajority. The teaparty movement ran an ad on Fox this morning for Brown. Hopefully he will win and help derail this nonsense now.

[jim brady]

I have heard a lot about how the Liberals are affraid of voter back-lash. I don't think this is true. They act as if there will be no accountability for all of the outrageous things they are pulling.
As far as any of the Democrats voting 'No' - don't count on it. They had even Fox News fooled on that one. Remember how the 'moderate' Joe Lieberman was going to cast his vote against obamacare? How did he really end up voteing? Also the votes that were bribed for? They got away with that, too. They will all march in lock-step when it comes to a vote.
If I lived in Mass, I'd vote for Brown. Problem is that the political machine in Boston is just as corrupt as the one in Chicago. I think the 'fix' is already in for Coakley.

[keepitlow]

It's all BS. It is all about ego's. No one ever asks if the bill is good or bad for the Us of A. It is all about one party fighting the other one. Sick state of affairs.

Employers are starting to cut spouses and children from the employees med coverage and are only covering the actual worker. Companies are decreasing coverage to keep their bills down. Companies are letting go of full timers to replace them with part timers to cutout benefits offered.

The trend with healthcare benefits has been steadily declining. A friend told me 2 years ago they med pay went from no ded with a $10 co pay to $20 co pay and $750 ded. This year it was $20 co pay and $2000 ded. Next year they are talking about med pay for actual employees and not covering the family members and/ or a $5000 ded.

Here is a glimpse of you future...

"Kaiser forecast that the yearly family premium for health insurance could reach $30,803.00 in ten years if the 8.7% annual increase of the previous 10 years were to continue."

http://www.kff.org/pullingittogether/091509_altman.cfm

And lets go out a further 10 years. Now, the average premium is $70,939.00 per year at an 8.7% annual increase. Would you like to be forced under penalty of law to pay a $70,000 a year bill?

Some of you say that is ridiculous?

Well, why so?

If it has happened on a continual and regular year in - year out basis for decades...what will stop it? Are healthcare costs suddenly frozen for all of eternity?

Once healthcare insure is mandated under penalty of law, they will really start raping you and the public my friend. They will have a captive audience.

Let me tell you how one of the proposals would have affected our family. When the original proposal to jail those without healthcare was dropped, they decided to fine familles $3800 for not buying healthcare. The proposed fine they mandate on the uninsured would make it a decision of whether to pay my $345 a month house payment or pay Obama's fine.

If I pay the fine, the bank takes back the house. And if I refuse to pay his fine, I'll still lose my house to the IRS? Either way we are out in the street.

[jim brady]

One thing Fox News pointed out is really important. This whole thing is un-constitutional, and with the first challenge, the whole thing could fall on it's tail. I think what they were driving at is the BASIC POINT of there is NO WHERE in the U.S. Conststitution that allows for the government to mandate the purchase of ANYTHING.

The U.S. Supreme Court can only rule on challenges to the Constitution, and at this point, no law has been made, so no one has been prosecuted under this law. The first time someone is fined for not buying this 'insurance', that person can then challenge the law all the way to the Supreme Court.

I agree with all of you who say this is BS. These greedy SOBs are determined to "Fundamentally Change America". What the hell is WRONG with America? I happen to love our country. It's not perfect, but damn close to it. Just wish these jerks would move to Cuba or China if they don't like it here.

[hogger129]

Originally Posted by jim brady

One thing Fox News pointed out is really important. This whole thing is un-constitutional, and with the first challenge, the whole thing could fall on it's tail. I think what they were driving at is the BASIC POINT of there is NO WHERE in the U.S. Conststitution that allows for the government to mandate the purchase of ANYTHING.

Isn't forcing people to buy health insurance an infringement of the Freedom of Choice? Don't you have the right to choose not to buy health insurance? I hope someday one of the Tea Party people become President and do what is right and what is American for a change instead of these liberal commies and liars.