There’s such a heated political environment this season.  Everyone is concerned about the Democrats losing Congress.  There is pressure on both sides of the debate in an extremely crucial non presidential election year.  All of the candidates are hard at work pushing advertisements about how great they’ll be  in office and all of the good things they plan to do when they get there.

Wait no they aren’t.  Everyone seems to have cut out the bull shit and instead are busy slamming the opposition relentlessly.  I complained to my wife about these ads and told her I’m going to make a list of and simply not vote for anyone running the ads.  She pointed out that the candidates don’t run the ads, it’s other groups running them on behalf.  While this is true, why do you think these ads run in the first place?  The group says “hey, we’ll donate some money to your campaign,” meanwhile the politician says “no wait, instead run these ads”.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter if they are directly supporting these ads or not.  They are still offensive.  Offensive to the people supporting them and offensive to the people watching them.  Is this how we really want to elect our politicians?  Based on who can piss all over the opposition the most?  Maybe these people need to wake up and actually listen to the public.  I constantly hear complaints about how everyone is sick of the government and sick of these idiot politicians.  Part of the reason is they are sick of this bull shit political bickering.

Fortunately there’s a third factor that’s cropping up more and more.  The third part.  The two primary parties are so preoccupied with telling us out lame the other side is that everyone seems to be completely ignoring the third party.  While I don’t particularly support the Tea Party, They seem to be the stronger contender for taking a few spots from the Democrats and Republicans, and i hope they succeed.  If only so people will maybe wake up to the fact that we don’t have to have two parties and we don’t have to stick with what obviously isn’t working worth shit.

There are some other issues to consider here.  It’s my belief that ultimately these ads are terrible for television.  They are offensive to watch, which turns off viewers.  They also tend to preempt regular advertising, which irritates the normal non-election season advertisers.  Sure, you end up with a great month but it would be interesting to see how it affects the long term advertisers as well as how the viewing habits of people are during October.

There is a video floating around the internet lately that you may have seen where a Congressman “attacks” a student reporter and demands to know “Who Are you?”.  In case you haven’t seen it, here’s a link. 

This is not the first of these sorts of videos to go around.  Nor will it likely be the last in this world of citizen Journalists and bloggers.  I’m not here today to discuss this video or who is right or wrong in the video, what I am here to discuss is this video in the sense of it’s “type”.

Many people will agree that the mainstream news on the cable channels tends to be somewhat mediocre, full of pointless paranoia and alarmism with little actual digging into the details of even the most important stories.  One Sided tends to be the term applied.  Bloggers take these stories and try to dig a bit deeper sometimes, or at the very least, they will question some aspect of what is being reported to possibly suggest an alternative viewpoint.  This is great except when the blogger or Independent news source starts pushing the same sort of paranoia and anger fueled type of news that they show contempt towards cable news outlets for.

Like the video above.  Taken at face value, assuming honesty on the part of these “students” the Congressman is clearly a bully and a jerk.  However there are too many unknown facts at work for a true judgment to be made.  For example, why is it so terrible that these students can’t let the guy know what they are really doing?  They claim “Students working on a project”. 

What kind of project? 

What school?

The students don’t provide any of this information.  The Congressman is not required to respond to any of their questions either.  These are people who receive death threats and get harassed by nut jobs pretty regularly, what makes these students any different if they can’t or are unwilling to back up their story.  Even if they said “Hi, we’re students working on a Journalism project for the University of Whatever”, that cordial greeting will go a lot farther in getting a response than the ambush style of “We’re students, why do you need to know more, PS answer our question, answer our question.”

Which brings up the other questionable part of the video.  This clip is almost totally out of context.  For all we know these students have been harassing this poor senator as he walked down the street for an hour.  It’s one thing to keep a straight face and look the other way but there’s a point when people just break from harassment.  This may have been the main goal all along even. 

1) Find some Congressperson

2) Harass him endlessly with vague questions he won’t want to answer

3) Wait for him to explode at you and yell at you (or worse)

4) Post it online for kicks and hits!

Yet people circulate these sorts of videos constantly, out of context with no back story.  I’m not saying that it’s not possible it’s what it seems to be, nor am I supporting the manhandling of this student, I’m just suggesting that even if a story of video comes from some independent “non biased” source it should still be questioned.

There seems to be a subtle push by a decent number of people in the government and the “Old Media” against the so called “New Media”.  There have been numerous cases popping up questioning the validity of Bloggers and Independent News sites in general.  I have written previously about how the internet is giving rise as a new sort of printing press, where anyone can voice their opinions and anyone can listen easily, cheaply, often freely.

As mentioned in that article, the more easily disseminated information flow and easier access to a collective thought process makes people less easily controlled.  I’m not talking about some conspiracy theory based “”Make the population all sheeple so we can tax them and enslave them”.  I mean even a basic style of say, “control via advertising”.  A company could push the old model of press releases and commercials to push say, a new hamburger, but if the bloggers of the world go out and spread the message that the burger tastes like ass and is over priced, that marketing tactic will fail.

There is also the side of the issue where Politicians are suddenly more accountable.  There isn’t any “pay off the local paper to keep the slip ups quiet”.  It’s all posted on Youtube within minutes.  Politicians do stupid or shady things, some independent journalist can easily get the message out.  Now I do agree somewhat there there is a lot of “out of context” or even worse “blatantly provoked” responses being pushed, but there is something to be said about people who push one image when they clearly end up being another.

Finally we have the old school print media.  Readership is declining for magazines and newspapers.  Television viewing is on the decline.  These industries blame the internet and the new media.  They struggle to keep up and stay relevant.  The realities is there are a myriad of other factors that are causing the decline in both of these industries.  There’s enough that I could do a whole article on each Television, Print, and Radio individually, but it can be summed up by "laziness”.  That is to say, these industries were the monopoly behemoths with a strangle hold over their respective industries.  Sure there is internal competition, but there is still a huge cost barrier in all of these areas keeping the average person and their views out.  The internet has changed this.  Anyone can make a “video series” easily and syndicate it to Youtube.  Independent artists and podcasters can make a decent living without the help of radio or the record industry,  “Print” can quickly be achieved with a laptop and a free blog account.  These independent sources don’t subscribe to the model that you have to make a zillion dollars to be successful.  They also don’t subscribe to the idea of the middle man fluff.  This makes them quick, easily adaptable, and able to survive easily on “breadcrumbs”.

So these old industries fight back the best way they know how to.  They lobby for laws.  They lobby for laws, which benefit the makers of laws just as much as it benefits themselves.  A Michigan senator wants to license Journalists, to help push the idea of trustworthiness.  .While there isn’t much support for the bill, it’s something that can set a seed of thought in others and gain support with the proper coercion..

[State Sen. Bruce Patterson] told FoxNews.com that some reporters covering state politics don’t know what they’re talking about and they’re working for publications he’s never heard of, so he wants to install a process that’ll help him and the general public figure out which reporters to trust.

While this seems innocent enough, the promoted litmus test contains the extremely ambiguous qualification of "Good moral character” and demonstrate they have industry “ethics standards acceptable to the board.”.  As the article points out, the bill could easily lead to abuse by politicians and other outlets in promoting a preferred viewpoint to the population.

So where do you turn when you can’t get support in a bill that would help to discredit dissenters?  Perhaps a better plan is to simply turn to the old tried and true method of the money-wall barrier.  The FTC is now proposing a tax on independent news websites.  The best analogy I’ve heard for this is “Taxing cars to save horses”.  This speaks loads to just how much the online “blogosphere” is changing the way people receive news and information.  There has already been a push by the associated press to prevent bloggers from linking to and quoting their stories, now there are rumor of a tax for doing this same action.  It’s unclear from this article how the tax would be figured, though one version suggests attaching it to portable “New Media” style devices such as iPhones and Laptops. 

The bureaucracy sees it as a problem that the Internet has introduced a wealth of information options to consumers, forcing media companies to adapt and experiment to meet changing market needs. FTC’s policy staff fears this new reality.

There’s the joke of the situation though,  “forcing media to adapt and experiment”.  God forbid we have any sort of change or innovation in the market?  We should just keep everything the way it is now, forever.

There is a tremendous problem going on with the news cycle.  The world has developed a severe case of ADD when it comes to following up on news stories and topics.  We move on almost immediately to the “next big story” completely oblivious to the holes still needing to be filled in the last big press push.

There are two major factors I see causing this problem. Firstly, is the internet.  Secondly, are cable news channels trying to keep up with the internet.

The internet is lightning fast.  With mechanisms such as Twitter, people can be connected and start getting reports of crisis and disaster all over the world before any other news source.  This sparks an awareness level.  There’s not much detail there and it can be hard to follow.  Hashtags can help but there’s often inconsistency in how people use this system. 

We’ll run through a hypothetical situation throughout this column.  Let’s say there is a huge Earthquake in Los Angeles.  People start tweeting about how the ground is shaking or maybe a building next door has started to collapse.  Others tweet bout how they have found shelter in a certain area.  The mainstream news begins to pick up on this story.

LA is a big city so there are reporters about pretty quickly.  We start to get breaking news coverage about the quake seeping into television programming.  Newspapers run stories online since they won’t print a new paper copy until tomorrow morning.  Reports start flowing about shelters and rescue efforts a few hours later as things calm down a bit. 

Then, later that evening, a prominent politician dies when his plane fails and he crashes into a mountain.  Suddenly, no one cares any more about the Earthquake.  Coverage is still there but now it’s in half hour updates as the news focuses on this plane crash.

Questions come in about the safety record of the plane, there is suspicions of sabotage as this politician was a prominent supporter of a critical bill.

The next morning a war breaks out between two nations and there is a huge push from Washington to send troops to support one side or the other.  Now no one cares about the Earthquake or the investigations into the death of the Politician.

Some people would call this a conspiracy.  The war was a staged effort by some massive shadow group known as THEM in an effort to cover up the death of the Politician.  Or possibly even to cover up the actions of some other event all together.

The reality is, it’s all just a huge ratings grab.  CNN, FOX News, all want to get the eyeballs of the public, so they all cover the same stories ad nauseum.  If people want Earthquake news, they’ll get Earthquake news, if they want war news, they’ll get war news.  The real question is, who determines what the people want?  No one wants to chance missing out so they all dog pile onto every new event as  it occurs.

Let’s look out a week after our hypothetical news cycle.  Now all the news cares about is the scandal between two celebrity couples or how there’s potential racism going on inside a big city police department.  People in LA may still be without power and those two countries are now lobbing rockets at each other but we don’t care, we’ve moved on.

The information is still out there on these stories, most often online.  The problem is, it’s buried deep beneath a sea of more recent stories.  Or it’s been researched by some small website that gathers maybe 1000 visitors a month.  The other issue is that some of this research into older news stories is picked up by people who see conspiracy around every corner.

Some blogger on “thecoverup.com” researching the death of the Politician in his plane is likely only every going to conclude foul play.  Even if he actually could afford the time, cost, and effort to go to the crash site and somehow managed to get in to inspect the plane himself and to question those who worked on the plane, that is, if he actually did some real investigating, he’s still likely only looking for the conspiracy angle.

Thus, as mainstream media has been caught up with ratings and flash, the obscure-stream media tends to be caught up in the glam of “everyone’s out to get you”.

In the end, it all just comes down to a numbers game.  No one has time to do real research and everyone has their own bias.  It’s easy to armchair quarterback the news but what happens where there’s no real good news to watch?

In the Homeland Security Appropriations bill we will take up next week, we will appropriate $860 million for this needless, useless agency. This money is a total waste: $860 million for people to sit on airplanes and simply fly back and forth, back and forth. What a cushy, easy job.

And listen to this paragraph from a front-page story in the USA Today last November: “Since 9/11, more than three dozen Federal air marshals have been charged with crimes, and hundreds more have been accused of misconduct. Cases range from drunken driving and domestic violence to aiding a human-trafficking ring and trying to smuggle explosives from Afghanistan.”

Actually, there have been many more arrests of Federal air marshals than that story reported, quite a few for felony offenses. In fact, more air marshals have been arrested than the number of people arrested by air marshals.

Full Transcript

I do have one initial complaint about this report.  They mention problems with these guys involving alcohol and domestic violence, etc.  These are not actions that directly relate tot he job of being an Air Marshal.  It’s not like say, these guys are beating up their wives while on the planes or anything.  I’m not supporting it, It’s just a bit misleading.  One could probably make the same point for say, the military, or the police force in some cities.  The reality is, arguing that more cops in City X are arrested for domestic violence would make the point of questionable usefulness than this argument since part of the job of a cop is to prevent domestic violence.

An air marshal only has to prevent violence on or involving the plane.

Still, one could argue that despite the high cost “per arrest” these Marshals, the presence of them has prevented many other incidents.  Unfortunately this isn’t an easily calculated statistic.  How do you count “potential” terror attacks?   Especially when you have people who think everyone is a potential terrorist running around?

Still, to push for the idea of suspending this service, aren’t we already going through enough pain and suffering before boarding these planes?  If the naked body scanners and x-ray conveyor belts are truly effective, why do we need an armed guard sitting on the plane as well?

He does make a good point about the true success of the 9/11 terror attacks.  I’ve believe for a while that the point wasn’t to destroy buildings, it was obviously meant to cause TERROR.  Hence the word TERRORism.  Now we all live in a panic state of fear, not necessarily fear from random al Qaeda jihadists but fear of our own government.  Fear that we aren’t in control. Fear that we need to “look over our shoulder” constantly..

And this is why the terrorists won a long time ago….

WASHINGTON — Two weeks after President Barack Obama signed the big health care overhaul into law, Americans are struggling to understand how — and when — the sweeping measure will affect them.

Questions reflecting confusion have flooded insurance companies, doctors’ offices, human resources departments and business groups.

“They’re saying, ‘Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?’ ” said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com. The California-based company sells coverage from 185 health insurance carriers in 50 states.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/06/91696/health-care-overhaul-spawns-mass.html#ixzz0kc8SKeLT

Sorry folks, you were suckered.  You were tricked into thinking you were getting “free Government Healthcare” which, by the way, wouldn’t really be a terrible idea.  Don’t get me wrong, I support the idea of better Healthcare for everyone.

But the recent ObamaCare bill isn’t going to be what the people want, or even what they think it is.  Instead of Government based coverage for everyone you’re basically getting a system that will end up subsidizing the Insurance industry by forcing everyone to get insurance whether they need it or not.  You’re still going to be paying too much for services and surgery, it’s just now you also get to pay for Insurance you may not want, need, or be able to afford.

So hey, it’s ok isn’t it?  They told you it was going to be great!  There were a few guys out there telling you “write your congress person” and “don’t let it pass” but they are just crazy guys ranting about whatever for ratings right?  They don’t know what they are talking about right?  They are all just “evil republicans” jealous of the democrat’s in power or crazy Tea Partiers.  We should all just trust in Obama because he talks nice and has a good smile.  Also we can’t hate him because people will claim we’re just racist against the first minority president.

Besides, he told us we’d get free Healthcare!  Well didn’t he?  We know he said it somewhere, or was that just media hype and confusion.  Does anyone even really know what’s in this Healthcare bill? Do we need to know?  Our congress people all know, they know what’s good for us don’t they?  We voted them in didn’t we? Well, not all of us voted,. that would require we take time out to care and think and leave the house on voting day.

Sort of like how writing letters is a good idea but we should leave it to someone else.  These congress people are much too busy to read *my* letter, and surely someone else who is more able then I will make a stand right? Besides Tiger Woods is screwing some prostitute and Sandra Bullock wants to kill her Nazi Ex Boyfriend.  That’s WAY more important than some bill in congress.

Besides, those guys in Washington know what they are doing, they care about us, we voted for them after all…. they care… right?

So, I’m listening to the radio over the weekend.  I hear an Ad Council PSA for Water conservation.  We’ve got to save our water, it’ll run out, prices will go up due to shortages, all that sort of thing.

Then, a few minutes later there is a CNN news donut with the following report.

Water Bills Go Up As Usage Drops

Many water utilities are raising rates because water use is down, in part because manufacturers have closed or are cutting back, tourism has fallen and the real estate market is in the doldrums.

Ok, wait a minute, so people are using less water, now the rates are going up.  Meanwhile, there is someone pushing the idea that using more water will cause the rates to go up!

So which is it?  I should probably point out that the planet has more Water on it than anything else.  Yeah, a lot of it needs treatment since it’s ocean water, but in general, it never really goes anywhere.  Things (plants, animals) consume it, then they expel it.  Much of the treatment happens naturally though weather cycles and such.

Another angle here, PSAs are often not paid for by the industry in question but instead by Non Profits with agendas of their own.  Some do-gooders get the bright idea that we all need to reduce our water usage because they dislike the idea of using recycled piss water even though Nature takes care of this on it’s own anyway, so they run some PSAs and push a campaign to get everyone to conserve.  Next thing you know, the industry itself isn’t making any money anymore.

Water seems to be one area where Supply and Demand just doesn’t work.  There’s an essentially infinite supply and an equally infinite demand.

One of my main issues with the whole Heathcare Reform Bill is with the Mandate of Coverage.  That is, everyone is required to have Healthcare coverage.  While I have in the past suggested that I would end up being forced to pay for insurance even though i personally don’t believe I need it, this argument is likely false since currently I already qualify for government covered healthcare due to my family income.  I am not sure yet if those requirements are going to change under this new plan.  The point is, my issue with this part of the reform really isn’t something that likely even affects me in the first place.

I will add though that despite this coverage, I never go tot he doctor and i don’t have any prescription medication.  Basically, I don’t use it.  If i get sick, i spend a day or two sleeping until I feel better.  I very rarely get sick and it doesn’t ever last long.  it is my belief that my policy against over medicating has helped my immune system become naturally stronger.  Just as working out your muscles make them stronger, letting your immune system get a work out makes it better able to fight infection. The best I ever take is NyQuill, and mostly because it’ll put me to sleep and clear up my sinuses.  I also feel that the doctors of this worl have better things to do than have me whine about how my nose is congested or my throat hurts,

I still don’t believe everyone should be required to carry Health insurance.  There have been some arguments in the past about how “People without insurance drive up the cost for others”.  I really fail to see how this argument works.  I heard this argument accompanied with the idea that when an uninsured person goes to the emergency room, then others have to foot the bill.  No, the person foots the bill.  Sort of like getting car repairs.  The doctor will tally up the charges then sends the uninsured person a bill.  They can arrange payments or just pay it off.  Simple.

Then there is the push to force the younger, healthier, generation of people less likely to have insurance into being forced to carry.  The idea is basically, to subsidize the elderly.  The young people pay in but they are much less likely to cash out.  So the insurance companies can use this extra income to better distribute the overall cost across all of the people lowering the insurance costs for older people who likely live on a smaller fixed income.  As noble as this seems, there are many much better ways to decrease the cost of medical care.  This subsidy isn’t even likely to work in the long run. Sure, we’ll initially get a token drop initially but what’s more likely to happen is that rates overall for everyone will simply go up.  Also the margin of difference will be as close as possible to the supposed limit of 4x the cost for the elderly vs. the young, i can pretty much guarantee that.  And that’s not saying the young will end up with cheaper rates, that’s saying the elderly will still be over-charged.

So what’s a better method to reduce costs?  How about better regulation of pharmaceutical companies and pointless lawsuits over everything.  Pharmaceutical companies often push doctors to prescribe their drugs through various forms of gifts and kickbacks.  This means many unnecessary sales of drugs that must be paid for by the insurance companies.  It also goes against the idea that sometimes you just need to let your body heal itself naturally.  Antibiotics are so overused that they are losing their potency as infectious diseases become resistant.  I’m not saying every drug is unnecessary, I’m saying that sometimes all we really need for our cold is a bowl of chicken soup and a good nap.  Also, as unpleasant as it is, vomiting when sick is actually good for you.  It’s part of your body’s way of expelling things that it doesn’t like.

Then there are drugs for the mind.  Drugs that help keep us “mentally right”.  Of all of the medical industries in the world, this one is the biggest scam ever.  Have you ever really listened to the commercials for depression drugs?  The “symptoms” of depression are 90% things that occur to everyone 90% of the time.  They often contradict each other in the same list in order to help cover everyone.  The whole point is to convince people that “hey, i might be depressed, I should get some Symbalta/whatever.”  Guess what, everyone feels down sometimes.  That doesn’t mean you need to keep yourself doped up one drugs constantly to fix some “problem”.  Chances are you just need an outlet for your irritations and anger to keep yourself balanced.  I recommend blogging personally.

I mentioned above the other issue with healthcare cost being needless lawsuits.  A recent (4-5 weeks ago) episode of NoAgenda had commentary from a doctor about how a girl had been brought in for an injury and the doctor did not feel that a CAT scan or x-ray were necessary to diagnose any issues after examining her.  The father said that if the doctor did not perform these tests that he would sue the doctor if any problems came in.  The doctor’s response was essentially “Why would I recommend against this, there’s no loss to me, I get paid more for the added procedure, and I eliminate the the threat of a potential lawsuit”.  Though he also pointed out that the radiation, though minor, could cause long term damage to the girl.  On the other hand, it would be far enough in the future he’d never end up being liable for the damages.

This is the sort of pressure faced by our healthcare system’s employees.  When a doctor can be held liable for birth defects of a baby, defects that likely couldn’t even be predicted and even more likely were caused by either genetics or something the mother had done (like unnecessary CAT scans), then we are working with a broken system.  When a doctor can be held liable for looking out for the long term interest of a patient vs the short term panic, then the system is broken.  I believe this is also part of why medication is over prescribed.  Better to give some treatment than none at all, you might get sued.  Even if the doctor wins the suit there is still an exorbitant cost involved with time and money to work through a legal system that’s designed to work in favor of those with money to burn.

One last note, back to the issue of required carry.  You could equate this to auto insurance, after all, you’re required to carry auto insurance if you drive right?  The thing is, you have the option to not drive if you so choose.  You don’t have the option to not live.  Ok, technically you DO have that option but what kind of a choice is that really?

I am not opposed to healthcare reform, or the idea of a government run healthcare system, I simply feel that this new law is going about things in a manner that, in the end, is going to do more harm than good.

Just another reason to be careful what you share on your social networking websites.  The government has released a document detailing how they use some of these sites to track people.

http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2010/03/17/17readwriteweb-how-us-government-spies-use-facebook-53046.html

The DoJ presentation describes Facebook as much more co-operative with law enforcement requests for user information than Twitter and MySpace are. It also explains to officers what the advantages of going undercover on social networking sites are. The EFF posted IRS training documents for using various internet tools as well, including Google Street View, but those were much tamer than the Justice file.

Of course is there really that much to be alarmed about?  Firstly, chances are, anything that could be discovered via Facebook, the government already knows.  at least as far as personal information goes.

Secondly, if you happen to actually be a criminal and on Facebook, I would really hope you’re not stupid enough to post secret details of your plans on your Facebook page, even if you’ve set things to be “private” or “friends only”.  Additionally, hypothetically, you’re using Facebook to get together with your gang buddies and you’re planning some sort of spree or even just maybe a Sweet 16 party for your daughter or something, I really hope you’re not ALSO stupid enough to friend RANDOM PEOPLE.

I can see the conversation now…

Gang Boss: “The cops have discovered our secret plot!  Who let them into the secret Facebook page!”

Gansta: “Sorry, my bad, SexyBitch14 said she would give us nuddie pics if i let her join.”

Anyway, this brings up a better point.  Which is, what is the point?  Do we really think that these people are going to be posting their secret criminal plans online in this manner?  Of course, some of the people who pull this sort of crazy crap are pretty idiotic to begin with so who knows,  It just might work.

Something else of note…

As social networks go, LinkedIn’s “use for criminal communications appears limited” the document says. You don’t say. LinkedIn can be useful in finding expert witnesses, however.

LinkedIn seems to be more of an online resume than a social network.  So what, you skim looking for profiles with things like ‘

Skills: Sniper Rifle, 500 yards, throat slitting, drug running…

Previous Employers: 1998-2005: The Mafia, 2005-2007: McDonald’s, 2007-Current: Yakuza

Give me a break….

Via Geeksugar…

Be sure to tell your family and friends, Congress is doing it’s best to piss all over the constitutional law making progress and the voice of the people in general.

Basically, the house is trying to put up some blatant smoke and mirrors to vote on the Senate Healthcare Bill without actually voting on it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503742.html

Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers “deem” the health-care bill to be passed.

Basically they vote of if it passed or not.  Not to pass it, but if it passed.  The main reason for this is that the bill itself will never pass.  It’s extremely unpopular all around.  No one wants to have their name down for a yes vote because they all have the sense to know that the thing is a train wreck in the making.  Meanwhile there is excessive pressure from those in charge to pass SOMETHING.

I’m still not sure why there is such a rush to ramrod this thing through.  The only thing I can figure is that the longer they wait, the more people will realize that the whole plan is going to cost everyone a ton of money in taxes and whatnot without actually solving the inherent problems with the healthcare system as a whole (insurance companies and pharmacy companies scamming people with price gouging on over priced drugs).

There is also the part where Obama has promised this package constantly and even with a guaranteed win all around with Democrat control everywhere in the government, they still managed to screw up passing this Bill.  Essentially Obama NEEDS this to pass in order to help save face.  Especially after that previous blatant lie that everyone was talking about a few months ago.

So, since they know they can’t pass this bill with normal procedures, they will circumvent the rules and requirements, making up procedure as they go to fake pass a bill that, while good in idea, is so full of BS and hidden agenda that it’ll be terrible for all those involved.