Originally Posted by ijusluvit

The "deceptive high-handedness" wouldn't be the label the Republicans give the process. That would be embarrassing because they have used the same procedure almost one hundred times. Instead, they call it the "Slaughter Solution", named after that feisty old congresswoman from upstate NY who will not give up on a health care reform.


I really do think it's amazing that folks can have such diametrically opposing views. I believe the currently proposed law, (which successfully drops the outrageous 'Cornhusker Kickback'), is as monumentally important as social security, veteran's benefits laws and the 14th amendment. All make it possible for the unlucky and disadvantaged to obtain some level of financial or legal subsistence.
No, I'm not happy that Louisiana may get an extra 300 mil, but 30 million people can obtain non-emergency health care, there will be some controls on insurance companies, especially protecting people from being arbitrarily denied coverage, and some of the costs will be borne by those who can most afford it. Despite the fact that they vote the negative bloc the Republicans do not deny we need to do this. They just want to do it when they feel good and ready.


With all the posturing and drama about the Slaughter Solution, some pundits are even saying that to finalize health care reform this way would be political suicide for the Democrats in November. While I think it's almost certain Americans will do what they always do and resoundingly reelect incumbents, maybe getting rid of all the incumbents would be the best possible result of using the Slaughter Solution.