At the cost of trillions of dollars. There are now 37 states that might try to block the mandate though, so maybe they can win back their rights and cripple this bill. Who knows?So far from ideal.
Ah well, let's look on the bright side. At least 31 million more Americans will be insured. Well, when the bill comes into effect.
Hopefully. Another issue though is that their ideas on how to create jobs are probably going to be different than mine
. November 2010 needs to get here faster.
I suppose they're paralysed, though, by lobbyists, special interests and Republicans, eh?
Republicans? The GOP all voted against the bill.I know, they should have destroyed the current system first.
We'll see where this goes with a good majority of the states considering action against the mandate (and of course the 2010 elections right around the corner.)
Well that's how it always is. You vote for something you want and against something you don't. The criticism of calling the GOP "the party of no" is just uncalled for because in the same sense those voting for it could be called "the group of yes." It is not a party-conspiracy to just down-vote the bills, it is a conscious decision based on what they want done and what they believe in. Every Congressman voted "yes" to go to Afghanistan after 9/11 (right so in my opinion)- under this sort of thinking, they should have been criticized for that too (which most people would agree is ridiculous.)
There was no official one plan. Also, a lot of their ideas were based around market growth, which is not easily projected and usually just ignored when counting the people who will be insured after passage as it is often indirectly that people would get the insurance.
For the record, I wasn't accusing you of that
- your rhetoric just seemed very similar to those who keep saying that.
