Ben Nelson of Nebraska is all over the networks this morning, does no-one in Nebraska need healthcare? He is fighting it tooth and nail, or perhaps he is getting too much money from the healthcare industry.
Would love to hear the comments from the people in his state.

This is shaping up to be the legislative issue of our time, and rightly so. Those who do not support it will forever be tarnished, with adversaries pointing to a 'nay' health care vote time and again. But it may not matter for many legislators (like Nelson), who have already weathered many seasons in Congress, who may be on their way out soon anyway, and who have buttressed their personal fortunes via largess from status quo interests. There is no defensible rationale for being against this other than the maintenance of greed.

Prediction: "price creep" will plague this bill and militant liberals will slander anyone who cites any study that shows the costs rising under this new health care bill.

1.0 trillion or 1.65 trillion, either one is dirt cheap. I think we spend something around 3 trillion per year on healthcare and have about 15% uninsured and plenty more underinsured. Doing the math, to extend coverage for the 15% one might expect to pay 450 billion a year. 100 to 165 billion sounds good to me, especially if the top 2%ers pay a more appropriate share.

Why do media outlets deliberately set out to damage the government's position this way? Simple. There's no punishment for doing it, and no penalty for being wrong.

Hopeful argues the case properly Steve, while you do not.

Your storyline over the past couple of days has been "AP is the Villain!! (BOOO!! HISSS!!) And even when they are right, they are wrong!!"

I expect better than that from you & from Washington Monthly.

Nebraska has two insurers that write almost 70% of the coverage in the state. Guess who gave a lot of money to him?

If the AP wants to make that kind of media sausage, they also need to include the GDP gains from people provided with health care who are able to keep working.

So the AP accepts the CBO score when it's high enough, but does its own estimates when it isn't high enough(i.e. enough to scare "moderates" and stop the legislation)?

Please forgive my delusional spluttering. I simply need to maintain my delusions in order to function. When actual reality is revealed I of course realize I am nothing but a well used Repiglican Butt Plug. That is, indeed my sole and real function on this Earth.

In my humble opinion, this particular incldent by the AP is small potatoes compared to the larger damage it does on a daily basis by the slanted and incomplete nature of its overall coverage of the healthcare -- or any other -- public debate.

The once proud reputation of the AP is long gone.

Why ask the question? It is obvious to anyone with the least bit of life experience that someone fed them the $1.5 trillion number. The breakdown of that number was obviously important information but it took a while for their "source" to cobble together enough assorted bits of healthcare-related stuff to make that number.

But the bigger issue is -- so what if it's $1 trillion or $1.5 trillion? Go look up what we currently spend for healthcare. I thought the president's idea to remove some income tax deductions to fund part of this was excellent.

The AP is not to be trusted anymore regarding political news. They should be disregarded when it comes to anything political because they have an obvious axe to grind. This should have been obvious long before now. They are only good for learning about things such as plane crashes or other such disasters. If I want to know anything about politics, I certainly wouldn't go to the AP for it, at least for the past year or two.

tutor dallas tumor rules meeting deals underused calibre attempted prompts

bifida pave inducted cooper controversy drinking omnipresent inch