Scott Brown's Victory!

[2win]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Massachusetts is the first step to show the boot to the socialists -Obama and his cronies!
We still have a chance for anesthesia, medicine and USA.
Congrats again!!!

 

[ymgc]

Big ups to everybody in my home state of Massachusetts for doing the right thing. Looks like they didn't need my absentee ballot after all 🙂

 

[notinkansas]

I tried to find an ACORN member to register me to vote in MA (I've never lived there). Glad to know Scott Brown didn't need my help after all!

 

[SleepIsGood]

This is likely the greatest news for MEDICINE in the last 1 year or so.

This should also be a lesson to the Democrats (Obama, Pelosi, and Reid) that people DO NOT WANT universal healthcare. Where else can this be more true...Massachusetts...home of the late Ted Kennedy and the only state with 'universal healthcare'. Americans that have universal healthcare are REJECTING it...the funny part is that these are die hard democrats!

The GOP's picking up momentum! I'm definitely donating a few more dollars to them after they've pulled this one through...You guys should too!

If the House Democrats now try to 'ram' the Senate HealthCare bill, the American people should reject each member that votes for the bill. The sneaky dems are already trying to get this bill passed before Scott Brown is officially sworn in...snakes, they should be shameful!

 

[EternalMD]

As the comic book guy from The Simpson's said "there is no emoticon to describe what i am feeling right now"

👍👍👍

 

[periopdoc]

I don't understand what everyone is getting so excited about. This is only a minor speed bump. One of two things can/ will happen at this point. Either the house adopts the Senate version of the bill without amendment (bypassing any further votes in the Senate), or they Dems use reconciliation to pass key portions of the bill without fear of filibuster.

Now the former will likely result in the defeat of a few key democrats while the latter could result in much broader losses due to likely voter disdain for reconciliation type tactics.

for a great, quick look at the possible next step have a look at this short article.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-does-reconciliation-work-in-congress-2010-1

- pod

 

[2win]

I don't understand what everyone is getting so excited about. This is only a minor speed bump. One of two things can/ will happen at this point. Either the house adopts the Senate version of the bill without amendment (bypassing any further votes in the Senate), or they Dems use reconciliation to pass key portions of the bill without fear of filibuster.

Now the former will likely result in the defeat of a few key democrats while the latter could result in much broader losses due to likely voter disdain for reconciliation type tactics.

for a great, quick look at the possible next step have a look at this short article.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-does-reconciliation-work-in-congress-2010-1

- pod

That's easy - we are excited because we know that "the people" don't want the new healthcare bill, they don't agree with the "liberal" politics.
That's a huge victory!
I am waiting the rest of the country in the fall.
We'll see then!

 

[WNT Signaling]

Who wouldn't want to vote for this?

 

[periopdoc]

That's easy - we are excited because we know that "the people" don't want the new healthcare bill, they don't agree with the "liberal" politics.
That's a huge victory!
I am waiting the rest of the country in the fall.
We'll see then!

OR at least 52% don't (granted we are talking about 52% of the most liberal leaning people in the country). I am just worried that we are going to give up the fight now. I have already had multiple text messages from friends about how anesthesia has been saved. I am hopeful that the Democrats will take the message to heart that their political future will be bleak if they ram the healthcare bill through without bipartisan support, but my hope is likely misplaced.

- pod

 

[SleepIsGood]

OR at least 52% don't (granted we are talking about 52% of the most liberal leaning people in the country). I am just worried that we are going to give up the fight now. I have already had multiple text messages from friends about how anesthesia has been saved. I am hopeful that the Democrats will take the message to heart that their political future will be bleak if they ram the healthcare bill through without bipartisan support, but my hope is likely misplaced.

- pod

I hear you brother...we need to continue the fight! We need to donate money and effort to the GOP and our ASAPAC...next thing we need to do is thwart the CRNA movement.

 

[deleted126335]

This is likely the greatest news for MEDICINE in the last 1 year or so.

This should also be a lesson to the Democrats (Obama, Pelosi, and Reid) that people DO NOT WANT universal healthcare. Where else can this be more true...Massachusetts...home of the late Ted Kennedy and the only state with 'universal healthcare'. Americans that have universal healthcare are REJECTING it...the funny part is that these are die hard democrats!

The GOP's picking up momentum! I'm definitely donating a few more dollars to them after they've pulled this one through...You guys should too!

If the House Democrats now try to 'ram' the Senate HealthCare bill, the American people should reject each member that votes for the bill. The sneaky dems are already trying to get this bill passed before Scott Brown is officially sworn in...snakes, they should be shameful!

Obama is to be congratulated and thanked. One year ago he had sky high approval ratings, a super majority in the senate and a significant majority in the house. There was talk that he would do for the Democrats what Reagan did for Republicans. People were leaving the Republican party in droves.

In a single year he has single handedly revitalized the Republican party. Who would have thought that this senate seat would go Republican a mere year ago?
Thank you Mr. President.

 

[ProRealDoc]

I hear you brother...we need to continue the fight! We need to donate money and effort to the GOP and our ASAPAC...next thing we need to do is thwart the CRNA movement.

👍

 

[amyl]

hopefully, the beginning of the end.

 

[starsop93]

I disagree with most of you on just about everything. Nonetheless, a bad night for the Democrats.

Americans DO want universal health care. They want single-payer national health insurance, which hasn't even been debated. The Democrats have failed to give it to them which is why they are pissed. Unfortunately, that's not the message that's going to get out after this.

Also Massachusetts is really not that liberal.

 

[somedumbDO]

I disagree with most of you on just about everything. Nonetheless, a bad night for the Democrats.

Americans DO want universal health care. They want single-payer national health insurance, which hasn't even been debated. The Democrats have failed to give it to them which is why they are pissed. Unfortunately, that's not the message that's going to get out after this.

Also Massachusetts is really not that liberal.

Disillusioned much??😱

 

[GoodmanBrown]

Now the former will likely result in the defeat of a few key democrats while the latter could result in much broader losses due to likely voter disdain for reconciliation type tactics.

for a great, quick look at the possible next step have a look at this short article.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-does-reconciliation-work-in-congress-2010-1

- pod

Interesting article, pod. I haven't heard anything recently about the "nuclear option" where Dems change the Senate floor rules such that only a majority or 55 votes or whatever is needed to end debate on the floor. Reps threatened to use it when Bush was in office because Democrats were blocking judicial nominees, but the Gang of 8 hashed things out. Any thoughts on if this will come into play? I feel like the backlash would be great if it happened.

I disagree with most of you on just about everything. Nonetheless, a bad night for the Democrats.

Americans DO want universal health care. They want single-payer national health insurance, which hasn't even been debated. The Democrats have failed to give it to them which is why they are pissed. Unfortunately, that's not the message that's going to get out after this.

Also Massachusetts is really not that liberal.

Americans kinda DID want universal health care. At the beginning of the reform process, most Americans agreed that extra government involvement was okay if it lowered premiums and increased access. Mentioning taxes, obviously, made most pretty skittish though. However, polling clearly shows that at this point, most Americans have negative feelings about health care reform.

Honestly, I don't even feel much rancor toward the Democrats. Politics in America is so polarized right now that it was practically a foregone conclusion that the reform would end up being the vitriol-spewing circus it has become. One can daydream about politicians working together to enact bipartisan legislation free from the influence of big business lobbies and scare tactics, but this is America, right?

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

I disagree with most of you on just about everything. Nonetheless, a bad night for the Democrats.

Americans DO want universal health care. They want single-payer national health insurance, which hasn't even been debated. The Democrats have failed to give it to them which is why they are pissed. Unfortunately, that's not the message that's going to get out after this.

Also Massachusetts is really not that liberal.

Then why did they a vote a republican in? Because they are more likely to deliver that?

 

[GoodmanBrown]

Obama is to be congratulated and thanked. One year ago he had sky high approval ratings, a super majority in the senate and a significant majority in the house. There was talk that he would do for the Democrats what Reagan did for Republicans. People were leaving the Republican party in droves.

In a single year he has single handedly revitalized the Republican party. Who would have thought that this senate seat would go Republican a mere year ago?
Thank you Mr. President.

Has Obama really done this? I mean, he's honestly taken a pretty hands off approach to the health care reform. I suppose he's the one who pushed it in the first place, so you can say that he caused the general issue to be so important.

Won't argue at all that he's revitalized the Republican party. However, Obama as a president is still pretty popular. Usually it's Congress that gets the main focus of hate by Americans. And it's always the other congressmen who are the problem. Not my congressmen; I like them.

 

[pie944]

This is change I can believe in

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

Has Obama really done this? I mean, he's honestly taken a pretty hands off approach to the health care reform. I suppose he's the one who pushed it in the first place, so you can say that he caused the general issue to be so important.

Won't argue at all that he's revitalized the Republican party. However, Obama as a president is still pretty popular. Usually it's Congress that gets the main focus of hate by Americans. And it's always the other congressmen who are the problem. Not my congressmen; I like them.

Pretty popular.

 

[starsop93]

Then why did they a vote a republican in? Because they are more likely to deliver that?

Massachusetts residents already have universal health care.

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

Massachusetts residents already have universal health care.

Well it can't be both. "We already have universal health care in our state, but we want to get rid of the democrat (and replace her with a republican) because she is not giving us universal health care!"

 

[Pilot Doc]

Also Massachusetts is really not that liberal.

Compared to what other group of voters in US Senate elections?

 

[amyl]

Also Massachusetts is really not that liberal.

i guess not compared to the late ted kennedy but otherwise pretty liberal.

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

Compared to what other group of voters in US Senate elections?

Compared to Oliver Stone or maybe Susan Sarandon?

 

[nlfru]

I disagree with most of you on just about everything. Nonetheless, a bad night for the Democrats.

Americans DO want universal health care. They want single-payer national health insurance, which hasn't even been debated. The Democrats have failed to give it to them which is why they are pissed. Unfortunately, that's not the message that's going to get out after this.

Also Massachusetts is really not that liberal.

Thanks for letting us know what Americans want. It was hard to figure out exactly what we want with all of those polls stating exactly the opposite of what you say. But things are now so much clearer since you know that we want universal health care and uncle sam to run it. I look forward to dying while waiting months for a CT scan and being in pain while waiting for any sort of access to care at all. Where are all of the Canadians going to go now that we ALL want their great system?

 

[deleted126335]

Has Obama really done this? I mean, he's honestly taken a pretty hands off approach to the health care reform. I suppose he's the one who pushed it in the first place, so you can say that he caused the general issue to be so important.

Won't argue at all that he's revitalized the Republican party. However, Obama as a president is still pretty popular. Usually it's Congress that gets the main focus of hate by Americans. And it's always the other congressmen who are the problem. Not my congressmen; I like them.

He personally popular. His policies are not.

 

[Matty44]

He personally popular. His policies are not.

Because we know him personally? The only thing 99.999% of the population knows about Obama is his policies...what do you mean? People like his nice smile?

 

[switching2gas]

Americans DO want universal health care. They want single-payer national health insurance, which hasn't even been debated. The Democrats have failed to give it to them which is why they are pissed. Unfortunately, that's not the message that's going to get out after this.

This is how the Dems alienated themselves from people. They say that they know what the Americans want. They insist it, even in the face of polls that suggest otherwise. People voted for Obama because they wanted a change, not because an overwhelming majority of Americans wanted government-run health care. Perhaps at the time he was elected, 50% of Americans thought they did. But now that they have seen the process it would take to allow that to happen, and have been told of the drastic increases in spending, they are no longer so keen. 90% of Americans are happy with their insurance... how can you still say Americans want government-run insurance when that is so clearly not the case at the present time?

This is why I think Nancy Pelosi is an arrogant, pig-headed leader. She has already said that she will, for all intents and purposes, push something through regardless of what people in Massachusetts just showed her. She is drunk on her own power and is in no way a true representative of the people.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

He personally popular. His policies are not.

Good point. Should have made myself clearer.

Because we know him personally? The only thing 99.999% of the population knows about Obama is his policies...what do you mean? People like his nice smile?

Pretty much, yeah. Even at the end of W's presidency, when pretty much everyone hated his leadership, most Americans still said he seemed like a guy they would enjoy having a beer with.

Since John F. Kennedy's presidential campaign, it's always about the smile.

 

[Matty44]

But does that have anything to do with how people vote and which policies they get behind? I think Peyton Manning would be a great guy to get a beer with, but I would never vote for him.

 

[The Z]

This is why I think Nancy Pelosi is an arrogant, pig-headed leader. She has already said that she will, for all intents and purposes, push something through regardless of what people in Massachusetts just showed her. She is drunk on her own power and is in no way a true representative of the people.

This morning I woke up to see Scott Brown won on the news and I was like, "cool." Then I saw the message by Nancy Pelosi and I thought this same exact thing.

Because we know him personally? The only thing 99.999% of the population knows about Obama is his policies...what do you mean? People like his nice smile?

No offense to anyone, but I have went on some of my black friends Facebook pages (and it's more likely on females pages) and under "political views" it says "OBAMA!!!!." First, that is not a "political view," but I really do question why they like OBAMA!!! so much. If was was 18 at the time of the election I would have voted for him. Today, I would never do such a thing. I was Democrat. Not anymore.

 

[deleted126335]

But does that have anything to do with how people vote and which policies they get behind? I think Peyton Manning would be a great guy to get a beer with, but I would never vote for him.

YES it does. As far as Peyton Manning goes... Jesse Ventura, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Al Franken.... is it really so hard to believe? It is amazing what people choose to care about. Particularly in the voting booth.

 

[Matty44]

Ya know, unfortunately I have to agree with you now that I think about it. I'm so used to discussing political issues with other people, both liberals and conservatives, who are actually informed and have substantive opinions that I sometimes forget that there's always going to be some ignorant person out there voting on skin color, or personality, or smile....or skin color...to cancel out my vote.

 

[racerx]

Ya know, unfortunately I have to agree with you now that I think about it. I'm so used to discussing political issues with other people, both liberals and conservatives, who are actually informed and have substantive opinions that I sometimes forget that there's always going to be some ignorant person out there voting on skin color, or personality, or smile....or skin color...to cancel out my vote.

Ah yes, the "Cult of Personality" voters. It can be discouraging to think they're canceling out your vote. However, I prefer to think I'm canceling out their vote.

 

[starsop93]

Well it can't be both. "We already have universal health care in our state, but we want to get rid of the democrat (and replace her with a republican) because she is not giving us universal health care!"

That's the point! They already have it and like it. They were frightened that their tax money would then go to weaker states to support their poor tax base (likely to occur) and ultimately weaken their health system. I'm curious if Brown is against universal health care in Massachusetts if he's against it nationally?

At one point the public option had a near 70% approval rating. That's what I mean about universal health care being popular. Of course that goes down once the nuts and bolts are discussed, but the lies spouted by the Republicans and the spinelessness of the Democrats were much more damaging.

Most of my practice is Medicare, Medicaid and uninsured. I see on a daily basis how terrible the uninsured have it and how relatively good the patients on Medicare have it. I would personally like to get paid, even if it's less than ideal, for all my anesthetics, but I'm not about to refuse care to do that.

Anyway, this is peanuts compared to the disastrous decision by the Supreme Court today which will strip most of us of any ability to influence politics again. There is no way the lobbies for physicians will ever be able to keep up with the insurance, device, and corporate lobbies after this. George W. Bush... the gift that keeps on giving...

 

[amyl]

americans want it because it sounds great.... universal health care... for everyone... yeah!!!

when they find out that that doesn't mean carte blanche best of everything for everybody at whatever doctor you want whenever you want something, then... not so much. so you ask people, do you want universal health care, yes or no? they all say yes, of course. but when you ask do you want your taxes to go up for it, do you want the government to decide about treatments, etc. then they are like no way. ask a simple question: do you want health care? and you get a simple answer, yes..... but the devil is in the details....

 

[digitlnoize]

Anyway, this is peanuts compared to the disastrous decision by the Supreme Court today

For those wondering, here's a random article about today's Supreme Court decision: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-...-finance-analysis22-2010jan22,0,7041058.story

Anyone see Wall-E? We're headed towards President "Buy-N-Large CEO" pretty quick, huh? Maybe Bill Gates will run...

 

[GoodmanBrown]

For those wondering, here's a random article about today's Supreme Court decision: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-...-finance-analysis22-2010jan22,0,7041058.story

Anyone see Wall-E? We're headed towards President "Buy-N-Large CEO" pretty quick, huh? Maybe Bill Gates will run...

Yeah, this is the most f****** sad Supreme Court decision of my lifetime, I think. I'm seriously worried about how this bodes for the U.S. in the long-term. I predict that in the next 2-3 years we fall considerably lower on the Corruption Perceptions Index. In 10-15 years, it will be entirely justified. In 25-50 years, we'll be the new Italy or worse.

 

[Eta Carinae]

Yeah, this is the most f****** sad Supreme Court decision of my lifetime, I think. I'm seriously worried about how this bodes for the U.S. in the long-term. I predict that in the next 2-3 years we fall considerably lower on the Corruption Perceptions Index. In 10-15 years, it will be entirely justified. In 25-50 years, we'll be the new Italy or worse.

Thanks Bush, I see your trail of destruction continues to burn posthumously

 

[usnavdoc]

Thanks Bush, I see your trail of destruction continues to burn posthumouslyQUOTE]

So how does this have anything to do with former president Bush?

 

[Eta Carinae]

Thanks Bush, I see your trail of destruction continues to burn posthumously

So how does this have anything to do with former president Bush?

So Bush appointed current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts, probably the most activist conservative supreme court justice in history (hence installing a conservative supreme court majority), and thanks to Bush's 5-4 Conservative Justice majority, the ruling banning restrictions on corporate spending to influence election outcomes has been reversed.

The vote was split 5-4, you'll never guess along what dividing line.

Oh if anyone's having kids right now out there, just tattoo their foreheads at birth, "Property of JPMorgan Chase" because they're going to be SLAVES to the will of behemoth corporations.

 

[usnavdoc]

So Bush appointed current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts, probably the most activist conservative supreme court justice in history (hence installing a conservative supreme court majority), and thanks to Bush's 5-4 Conservative Justice majority, the ruling banning restrictions on corporate spending to influence election outcomes has been reversed.

The vote was split 5-4, you'll never guess along what dividing line.

Oh if anyone's having kids right now out there, just tattoo their foreheads at birth, "Property of JPMorgan Chase" because they're going to be SLAVES to the will of behemoth corporations.

And Stevens who was nominated by Gerald Ford(republican) chaired the opposition. Not exactly party lines like you suggest.

Also Bush senior and Reagan nominated the other Justices who voted for this ruling. Do you equally blame them.

Bush did plenty of things I would consider wrong but at some point you people need to let it go. Why dont you actually blame the Justices who voted instead of the former president who nominated them? Im sure they are all intelligent enough to make their own decisions.

What this really boils down to is how you see the constitution. B/c from a purely constitutional stand point I can understand the decision.

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

So Bush appointed current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts, probably the most activist conservative supreme court justice in history (hence installing a conservative supreme court majority), and thanks to Bush's 5-4 Conservative Justice majority, the ruling banning restrictions on corporate spending to influence election outcomes has been reversed.

The vote was split 5-4, you'll never guess along what dividing line.

Oh if anyone's having kids right now out there, just tattoo their foreheads at birth, "Property of JPMorgan Chase" because they're going to be SLAVES to the will of behemoth corporations.

As usual, there are those who consider Kennedy the 5th "conservative" on the court. Rediculous.

It's 4/4/ and 1 wildcard.

 

[Eta Carinae]

And Stevens who was nominated by Gerald Ford(republican) chaired the opposition. Not exactly party lines like you suggest.

No, was not suggesting division along party lines. In matters of law, particularly where the supreme court is concerned, its judicial philosophy that is usually the dividing factor. Judges are identified and appointed according to their legal philosophies- Conservative or Liberal.

While the appointment of conservative vs. Liberal supreme court justices usually follows party lines, this is not always the case.

So what I was referring to was Judicial philosophy, not party lines. Party lines are more applicable to congress.

Why dont you actually blame the Justices who voted instead of the former president who nominated them? Im sure they are all intelligent enough to make their own decisions.

Because the Judicial philosophy of a nominee is usually well known prior to nomination. In fact, it is the singular identifying factor upon which appointments are made. The only exception would be Sotomayor, whose philosophy is not yet well established, although there are speculations of liberal leanings.

What this really boils down to is how you see the constitution. B/c from a purely constitutional stand point I can understand the decision.

1. If it were a clear cut case of applying the constitution, there should have been resounding, unanimous consent.

2. The underlying argument (and the reason for the "liberal" dissention) is that the status and appropriations pertaining to personhood cannot apply to corporations. Free speech, then, being one of the protections of the constitution granted to individuals, should not apply to corporations.

3. If the constitution/the law in general were so blindly applicable, there would be no need for judges/justices.
For instance (and an overly simplistic example I know), murder is criminal, however in the case of self-defense particularly in the protection of the powerless/helpless (children) the full measure of the law may not be applicable.
In the same vein, a common sense approach to the law, on a case-by-case basis, instead of a thoughtless principle-based one is necessary.

Justices are appointed to protect our freedoms, not to hand them over to corporations.

 

[Eta Carinae]

As usual, there are those who consider Kennedy the 5th "conservative" on the court. Rediculous.

It's 4/4/ and 1 wildcard.

Kennedy is not only conservative, he's actually going down in history as one of the 10 most conservative supreme court justices in the US supreme court history from 1937-2006.

5-4 split.

 

[Eta Carinae]

Originally Posted by usnavdoc
And Stevens who was nominated by Gerald Ford(republican) chaired the opposition. Not exactly party lines like you suggest.

Pardon the verbosity. In a family of attorneys including grandps, mother and sister, debates like this go on all the time.

 

[Eta Carinae]

Also Bush senior and Reagan nominated the other Justices who voted for this ruling. Do you equally blame them.

Why dont you actually blame the Justices who voted instead of the former president who nominated them? Im sure they are all intelligent enough to make their own decisions.
.

Furthermore, I hold Bush accountable because, according to Richard Posner, a judge who sits on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and William Landes, a law professor at the University of Chicago,

4 of the 5 most conservative judges to EVER sit on the supreme court are currently seated. 2 of the 4 were Bush jr's appointees.

So Bush alone is responsible for appointing 2 of the 5 most conservative supreme court justices in US history. That's quite a record.

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

Kennedy is not only conservative, he's actually going down in history as one of the 10 most conservative supreme court justices in the US supreme court history from 1937-2006.

5-4 split.

The very way the question is asked in this report is why many of us on the right claim a left leaning media bias. Why did they try to identify most conservative vs least conservative? The answer is simple: "liberal" is considered "normative." The media cannot even use the word "liberal" because it's like saying "normal" to them.

You will never find a media survey asking about liberal tendencies, because to them, you cannot be too far left. Only conservatives have to account for their agenda.

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

I just decided to do a little math on the "10 most conservative" justice silliness, and of course the devil is in the details.

How many justices have served in this pool (since 1937 that is)=35.

How many of them served very short terms (<6 years)=6

How many left, in reality? 29. So, even if I accept what TWO left-leaning legal scholars think about the topic of who is "most conservative"--to be in the "top 10" of a group of about 30, is not exactly significant.

Imagine, if you will a person boasting "I gradauted in the 66th percentile of my high school gradauting class of 30 people!"

Like I said. Rediculous.