A comment - republished as a "guest post." It is for thinking persons like Janet that I have not simply barred comments.

Most comments have been from numbskulls, or for all I know one anonymous numbskull [or jokester, being provocative], but when thoughtful things emerge it reassures me that moderating comments instead of shutting them down entirely is best. Below the dotted line, the guest statement. And remember, it was thinking at a point in time before Ben Nelson's buyout. May Nebraska and Louisiana ever prosper, they have secured something out of the entire situation where many more lost a lot, etc.

..................
I have somewhat mixed emotions on this but lean toward, kill the bill. I understand what it's like to not have insurance. I have a safety net when I say kill it so its easy for me to say. Paul Krugman had this editorial about "just pass it, we'll fix it later BS. The letter is not Krugman's usually well thought out argument, he goes back and forth, do it, don't do it. Hostage taker payment, better than what we've had.

When Medicare Part D was passed, this was the same logic. It is corrupt logic! That was a sell out of epic proportions. Give seniors pharmaceutical coverage but hey, don't allow price negotiation on the biggest customer base in the world and jack the prices up 30% right before the program starts.

Clinton is very responsible for the economy now, plus the Republican congress that allowed for usuary laws and regulations to be repealed plus NAFTA. He's saying "just pass it, we'll fix it later". I won't listen to a darn thing he says, can't stand to look at him, nor will I "listen" to the bozo's that say "just pass it". It is a massive giveaway. Insurance stocks are up tremendously, take a look at this: Health care's healthy decade: Corporate America's profit powerhouse seems poised to keep its model intact

By Russ Britt, MarketWatch Nov. 19, 2009

Now, when you look at "required" insurance (or have a fine), "can't afford" $12-18,000 a year family premiums when you make $40,000, (our average wage), have limits annually on care cost, mandatory vacinations, etc., etc., I say kill the beast because this is worse for Americans than it is better. Put the Blue Dogs back in their original party and call congress what it is, Republican! You know darn well understand that when the heat gets turned up, those Blue Dogs are going to hop back into the party of the right again. How's that for opinion today!

Gee, I feel better! Got that off my chest.

................
Thank you, Janet. We all benefit from having it said, Janet. Now we can only hope that reconciliation improves things. Fat chance, eh?

True about Clinton. His M.O. was to steal the GOP agenda, and thus get corporate and media backing in order to leave the GOP with only the bible-beaters; but in doing that he sold his soul and the soul of the Democratic party to the devil. That is why I could not envision his spouse as fit for the Whitehouse - independent of gender issues and any estrangement from the meanderanderings - the two are peas in a pod on policy and humaneness. "The Clintons," is the term, and it's been justified.

That is why I favored Obama, as the one choice from two allowed people by the Party, and I had misgivings from the start over the rock-star event packaging, the press love, and promises of change.

That's been a big falsehood, hasn't it?

I would say from Reagan onward there's been continuity you can count on - fleecing of the sheep, with their bleating approvingly, and it is sickening. Obama so far has just been one guy in the parade. And those getting fleeced - most deserve it. As long as they can gas the Chevey, they are happy unless the local football team loses - but they get over it. Happy sheep are --- sheep. Kept for the fleecing.

Perhaps saying from Nixon onward is a truer span; from Grant onward possibly.

J.P. Morgan is laughing in his marble mausoleum. For thinking people without massive wealth, it is heartbreaking to see this nation as it is because of what it could be.

________UPDATE________
Two comments so far on this post. One showing why I am tempted to bar comments, the other showing why I do not. Comments are moderated. Some I publish, some I reject. Overly offensive name calling, or extreme stupidity gets blocked. Moderate stupidity has generally not been rejected. Advertisements, or political candidate stuff is not published if anonymous. Somebody from a campaign office could abuse anonymity, etc.

_______FURTHER UPDATE_______
Sibel Edmonds has two posts; here and here; the first dealing with the two party vexation Janet's comment mentions, in terms of "wasting a vote;" the second dealing with two sides of the same coin - aka consistency you can count on in contexts beyond some that other Crabgrass posts have examined. Edmonds is well known in whistleblower contexts and by the ACLU. Comments to both posts are worth reading.