Constructive problem solving????

Whom is Lou Dobbs kidding. He's a bigoted ignoramus and lacks the wisdom or intelligence to solve any of the problems facing us - Forget any nothing of being constructive.

The cheapest alternative would be to allow anybody, individual or corporation, to buy insurance from Medicare. But do we have enough votes in the Senate for that? And we need to clarify what we mean by "number of votes." Do we mean a 51 vote majority. (or 50 vote majority with Biden casting the deciding vote) or do we mean a 60 vote majority in order to get it on the floor to debate.

We need to get health care reform passed and do what is necessary to get that bill passed.

If we have a majority of 50 votes or more, we need to resort to the nuclear option in the Senate. Let's just take the House bill, cancel the Senate bills, and have a straight up and down vote on the House Bill. No debate.*

Those of us who want change need to get to work. The tea baggers are ahead of us in terms or organizing.

I will point out that the stakes are high. According to a study by the Harvard University medical School, 45,000 people die because of inadequate medical care. Millions of people with health insurance will be denied coverage whenever they become seriously ill. We cannot afford to wait.

Yes, we can weep and gnash our teeth about the Stupak amendment, but will the amendment bring votes to heatlh care reform. Will the Catholic Church support health care reform?

That's the bottom line.

Face it. The forces favoring pro-Choice are fighting a losing battle, and there is too much in health care reform to toss it under the bus. Right now the Democratic party as well as the Obama administration is being judged by the "results" they produce and right now those "results" have been pretty miserable.

If we can pass health care reform without the Stupak amendment, fine. But if we must include the Stupak Amendemnt to pass health care reform, that that's a trade off we must accept.

Pro-Choice forces must find a different battle ground. They must work to eliminate the Hyde Amendment. I might add that if you go to any Catholic church service, you will find that the majority of congregants are women. Until the pro-choice movement can get women to abandon the Catholic Church en masse, they need to be accept the current poison pill as a fact of life.

While I am happy that the health care bill passed the House, I am worried about the Senate. Because of Joe Lieberman, we do not have a filibuster-proof Senate. Therefore, the Democrats need to resort to the nuclear option. No debate - just a straight up and down vote.

I'd also urge that the Obama Administration resort to the nuclear option for all other important legislation. Simply draft legislation in the House, send it to the Senate with an approval with an up and down vote. (We can also do it the opposite way - as in the Boxer-Kerry bill.) Deny the Senate the privilege to debate - which is a waste of tax payer money - and restore that privilege only when the Senate votes to eliminate the filibuster forever.

Progressives and liberals need to demand a change in Senate rules. Then and only then will we get the Senate to follow the wishes of the people - and not the lobbyists

Why must we say either/r? Why can't the public have the choice between non-profit cooperatives and a public option.

When I started teaching for LAUSD, I chose a non-profit helath insurance company. It was bought by Blue Cross and Blue Cross later decided to become pro-profit. Right now Blue Cross is suing the state of Maine for the right to raise its rates by 18.5% and right now insurance companies are fighting health care reform by threatening to raise rates. Does this bode well for non-profit cooperatives?

Non-profits might work in Germany simply because Germans have a different culture than the US. The idea of CEO's making multi-million dollar salaries does not exist in Germany.Nor do private health insurance companies spend millions of dollars on lobbyists and campaign contributions.

Non-profit coops are doomed in this country. If we want to try them, fine, but let's have a public option as well.

P.S. The Senators who are opposed to a public option are getting millions of dollars in campaign contributions from private health insurance companies. They love non-profit coops because they can still get the millions of dollars. Non-profit coops will simply raise their rates, like for profit insurance companies.