Post #42953 by onepoorguy on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (57)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 2

There was a ton of arm-twisting that had to happen just to get what they were able to pass through, and very little of it was "easy peasy."

Wow. It was so recent, and the revisionism is already in-place on the right.

As I recall, the Senate vote was strictly on party lines. Not one Rep voted for it, even after getting a LOT of concessions. Dems probably should have voted on a bill that didn't have concessions, as the end result would have been the same.

In fact, it might have been better since there were several Dems who defected in the House, making that vote closer than it otherwise might have been. A quick check says 34 Dems voted against it. I know at least one Dem (whose name I forget) was in the pocket of insurance companies, so he was a "nay". Probably some of the others, too. I wonder how many voted against it because there was no public option.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (57)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.