Final Senate healthcare bill released by Reid in drive for 60

[darrels joy]

Sorry but it just seems to be getting worse.

The huge bill is being ammended every day.

The Senate rules are changed by Reid an Biden.

Here in Nevada, we are being bombarded by back-to-back commercials in support of the legislation by people that are going to make money from it and it isn't even finished being written.

The bill, whatever is in it, will be passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve.

All the talk just seems to be stuff on the record for the next election without any real impact on the vote total.

I'll keep sending in my objections.

Joy

[darrels joy]

We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws. Senate Sets Up Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare



The Senate Democrats declare a super-majority of senators will be needed to overrule any regulation imposed by the Death Panels
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Monday, December 21st at 10:15PM EST
94 Comments

If ever the people of the United States rise up and fight over passage of Obamacare, Harry Reid must be remembered as the man who sacrificed the dignity of his office for a few pieces of silver. The rules of fair play that have kept the basic integrity of the Republic alive have died with Harry Reid. Reid has slipped in a provision into the health care legislation prohibiting future Congresses from changing any regulations imposed on Americans by the Independent Medicare [note: originally referred to as "medical"] Advisory Boards, which are commonly called the “Death Panels.”

It was Reid leading the Democrats who ignored 200 years of Senate precedents to rule that Senator Sanders could withdraw his amendment while it was being read.

It was Reid leading the Democrats who has determined again and again over the past few days that hundreds of years of accumulated Senate parliamentary rulings have no bearing on the health care vote.

On December 21, 2009, however, Harry Reid sold out the Republic in toto.
Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.

To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.

Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.

Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.

Senator Jim DeMint confronted the Democrats over Reid’s language. In the past, the Senate Parliamentarian has repeatedly determined that any legislation that also changes the internal standing rules of the Senate must have a two-thirds vote to pass because to change Senate rules, a two-thirds vote is required. Today, the Senate President, acting on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, ruled that these rules changes are actually just procedural changes and, despite what the actual words of the legislation say, are not rules changes. Therefore, a two-thirds vote is not needed in contravention to longstanding Senate precedent.

How is that constitutional? It is just like the filibuster. Only 51 votes are needed to pass the amendments, but internally, the Senate is deciding that it will not consider certain business. The Supreme Court is quite clear that it won’t meddle with the internal operations of the House and Senate.

To get around the prohibition on considering amendments to that particular subsection of the health care legislation, the Senate must get two-thirds of the Senate to agree to waive the rule. In other words, it will take a super-majority of the people the citizens of our Republican elected to overrule a regulation imposed by a group of faceless bureaucrats and bean counters.

Here is the transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President:

DEMINT: But, Mr. President, as the chair has confirmed, Rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. Let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of the Senate.

It is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the Reid substitute. . . . These provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth.”

The Senate President disagreed and said it was a change in procedure, not a change in rules, therefore the Senate precedent that a two-thirds vote is required to change the rules of the Senate does not apply.

Senator DeMint responded:

DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.
DEMINT: then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.

That’s right. When confronted with the facts, the Senate Democrats ran for cover. The Senate Democrats are ignoring the constitution, the law, and their own rules to pass Obamacare.

To quote the Declaration of Indepedence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is one of those causes. When the men and women who run this nation, which is supposedly a nation of laws not men, choose to ignore the laws and bribe the men, the people cannot be blamed for wanting to dissolve political bands connecting them to that government.

For your edification, the full transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President is presented, unedited, below the fold.

————————————————————————————-
7:30 PM
PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR. DEMINT
not. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. demint: mr. president?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the senator from south carolina.
DEMINT
mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for ten minutes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
without objection.
DEMINT
parliamentary inquiry, mr. president. does rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate provide that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting?
7:31 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
it does.
DEMINT
further parliamentary inquiry. is it also the case that on numerous occasions, the senate has required a two-thirds cloture vote on bills that combine amendments to senate rules with other legislative provisions that do not amend the rules?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
that would require a two-thirds vote.
DEMINT
i have numerous examples here. we did it twice this year on senate bill 2349 and i could read those but i’ll spare the chair all of these. i’m just trying to get at a concern we have here. am i correct that with respect to these bills, there was a combination of legislative provision and rules changes and the chair ruled that because they were — and i’m referring, mr. chairman, to the — earlier this year, those he
referred to where we required the two-thirds cloture. am i correct on these previous bills that with respect to the bills, there was a combination of legislative provisions and rules changes and the chair ruled that because there were rules changes, a two-thirds vote was required?
7:32 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
if there were changes to the standing rules of the senate, a two-thirds vote would have been required to invoke cloture.
DEMINT
i thank the chair. mr. president, am i also correct that the senate has required a two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills where the amendments combine legislative provisions
and rules changes?
i have a number of references on bills that this was done if there’s any question, and i have given them to the parliamentarian for consideration. is there an answer? i mean, i know that there have been amendments to bills that we required two-thirds because they include rule changes. i just wanted to get a confirmation from our parliamentarian. is that, in fact, the case, where two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills have been required to have a two-thirds vote because
there were rules changes included in them?
7:34 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the chair would like to check that for a future answer.
DEMINT
okay. i believe the parliamentarian does have some of the references of times this has been done. we’re quite certain it has. but, mr. president, as the chair has confirmed, rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of
the senate. it is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the reid substitute. these provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth. again, i’ll skip over some examples but let me read a few of these provisions that amend the senate rules which are contained in section 3403 of the reid substitute. it’s section d, titled referral. the legislation introduced
under this paragraph shall be referred to the presiding officers of the prospective houses, to the committee on finance in the senate, and to the committee on energy and commerce, and the committee on ways and means in the house of representatives. the bill creates out of whole cloth a new rule that this specific bill must be referred to the senate finance committee. another example under section c, titled “committee jurisdiction.” and it references rule here. “notwithstanding
rule 15 of the standing rules of the senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph a may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the committee on finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection c-3. clearly a rule change. so there’s no pretense that this bill is being referred under the rules of the committee of jurisdiction. and now it is allowing the finance committee to add whatever matter it wants to the
bill, regardless of any rules regarding committee jurisdiction. and of good measure, the bill even specifically states that it is amending rule 15. let me just skip over a number of other examples referring to rules just to try to get to the — the point here. because it goes on and on, and i’ve got pages here. but there’s one provision that i found particularly troubling and it’s under section c, titled “limitations on changes to
this subsection.” and i quote — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” this is not legislation. it’s not law. this is a rule change. it’s a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. i’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate
rule. i don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses. mr. president, therefore, i would like to propound a parliamentary inquiry to the chair. does section 3403 of this
bill propose amendments to the standing rules of the standing rules of the senate? and further parliamentary inquiry. does the inclusion of these proposed amendments to the senate rules mean that the bill requires two-thirds present and voting to invoke cloture?
7:38 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the section of the proposed legislation addressed by the senator is not — does not amend the standing rules. the standing rules of the senate.
DEMINT
okay. mr. president –
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
and, therefore, its inclusion does not affect the number of votes required to invoke cloture.
DEMINT
mr. president, is the chair aware of any precedent where the senate created a new law and in doing so created a new rule — and i’m quoting from our bill — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change the law.” is the chair aware that we have ever put this type of binding legislation on future congresses in a bill?
7:39 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
it is quite common to do that.
DEMINT
i would ask the chair to get those references, if the parliamentarian would, to us. mr. president, another parliamentary inquiry. if this new law will operate as a senate rule, making it out of order for senators to propose amendments to repeal or amend it it — i’ve been in congress 11 years. i have not ever heard of an amendment being called out of order because it changes something that was done before. you know, how is that different from the types of senate rule making for which our predecessors in their wisdom provided a two-thirds cloture vote?
this seems to be a redefinition of words in my mind. mr. president, it’s clear that the parliamentarian is — is going to redefine words, as i’m afraid he has done as part of this process before, but this is truly historic, that we have included rules changes in legislation. we have included rules changes in this legislation yet we’re ignoring a rule that requires a two-thirds cloture vote to pass it. i believe that
it’s unconstitutional. it subverts the principles that — i believe it subverts the principles that we’ve operated under and it’s very obvious to everyone that it does change a rule. mr. president, it’s clear that our rules mean nothing if we can redefine the words that we use in them. and i yield the floor.
7:40 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the chair will note that it is quite common to include provisions affecting senate procedure in legislation.
7:41 PM
DEMINT
is there a difference between senate procedures and rules?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
yes.
DEMINT
and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
that is correct.
DEMINT
then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/1...eal-obamacare/

[darrels joy]

YouTube- DeMint Challenges Democrats on Rules...

exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/sen...leadership.htm

President of the Senate Joseph R. Biden, Jr. U.S. Vice President

[darrels joy]

Sebelius: Everyone will pay into abortion-coverage fund

posted at 10:12 am on December 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey


What constitutes the notion of “public funds”? If the government forces us to pay into a fund, and then controls the distribution of those funds, are those funds not “public”? Morgen at Verum Serum catches a portion of an interview between HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and BlogHer interviewer Morra Aarons-Mele yesterday, in which Sebelius praises the abortion-funding language in the Reid bill, as it maintains a flow of funds for abortion coverage that everyone — and she means everyone — supplies:

SEBELIUS: And I would say that the Senate language, which was negotiated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, who are very strong defenders of women’s health services and choices for women, take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak amendment, and I think do a good job making sure there are choices for women, making sure there are going to be some plan options, and making sure that while public funds aren’t used, we are not isolating, discriminating against, or invading the privacy rights of women. That would be an accounting procedure, but everybody in the exchange would do the same thing, whether you’re male or female, whether you’re 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund, and it would not be earmarked for anything, it would be a separate account that everyone in the exchange would pay.

BLOGHER: It’s a bit confusing, but …

SEBELIUS: Okay. It is a bit confusing, but it’s really an accounting that would apply across the board and not just to women, and certainly not just to women who want to choose abortion coverage.

BLOGHER: Oh, that’s good, that’s good.

It’s only confusing if you bought Ben Nelson’s dodge that Reid had changed the abortion-funding language in any significant way. If the government forces it citizens to pay into premium exchanges and then controls the distribution of that money, then it becomes a public fund in any interpretation. That’s especially true if its intent is to be a slush fund for bureaucrats to apply to whatever purpose they see fit.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/2...coverage-fund/

[BLUEHAWK]

Jaysus!!!!

Originally Posted by darrels joy

[indent]sebelius: And i would say that the senate language, which was negotiated by senators barbara boxer and patty murray, who are very strong defenders of women’s health services and choices for women, take a big step forward from where the house left it with the stupak amendment, and i think do a good job making sure there are choices for women, making sure there are going to be some plan options, and making sure that while public funds aren’t used, we are not isolating, discriminating against, or invading the privacy rights of women. that would be an accounting procedure, but everybody in the exchange would do the same thing, whether you’re male or female, whether you’re 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund, and it would not be earmarked for anything, it would be a separate account that everyone in the exchange would pay.

[SuperScout]

If Reid the pimp prays to Jesus every night, it's not the same Jesus that I pray to, as Reid is a mormon. Having studied the mormon religion, I can make that claim without fear of contradiction. How can any man claim to be a Christian, as the mormons claim, yet still approve of partial birth abortions?

[BLUEHAWK]

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 17 mins ago as of 1220 23 Dec 09:

WASHINGTON – Exultant Senate Democrats prepared to deliver a Christmas Eve win to President Barack Obama with passage of landmark health care legislation that would extend coverage to 30 million Americans.

Powerless to stop it, Republicans stepped up their attacks, contending the sweeping bill threatened to harm Medicare and add billions to the deficit.

"Tomorrow the Senate will vote on a bill that makes a bad situation worse," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said on the Senate floor Wednesday, the 24th day of debate on the 10-year, nearly $1 trillion bill. "This bill slid rapidly down the slippery slope to more and more government control of health care."

Democrats begged to differ. "Senate Democrats are poised to pass historic health reform legislation on Thursday that will extend affordable, quality coverage to millions of Americans in a fiscally responsible way. Our bill saves lives, saves money and saves Medicare," Senate leaders said in a statement.

At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs declared, "Health care reform is not a matter of if, health care reform now is a matter of when."

Obama himself said the Senate legislation accomplishes 95 percent of what he wanted. "Every single criteria for reform I put forward is in this bill," the president told The Washington Post.

But even if the Senate approves the legislation, it can't go to Obama for his signature until Congress resolves differences between the House and Senate versions. Some of them are contentious — especially stricter provisions in the House against using taxpayer money to pay for abortion coverage and the House's income tax increase for high-earning Americans.

Before the final Senate vote, Democrats must get past the last procedural hurdle Wednesday afternoon and put up 60 votes for the last time to cut off debate on the legislation. The 58 Senate Democrats and two independents have held together on two previous 60-vote tallies over the past several days against united GOP opposition.

Democrats are also expected to turn back points of order raised against the bill by Republicans, including one questioning the constitutionality of requiring most every American to buy health insurance. Final passage on the legislation is set for 8 a.m. Thursday — Christmas Eve.

That's 11 hours earlier than originally scheduled, thanks to a deal between Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Republicans had been threatening to use all the time available to them, which would have kept the Senate in session late into the night before Christmas. But bad weather is forecast for later in the week, senators and aides are eager to get home to their families, and the outcome is preordained after Reid struck the final deals over the weekend to get his caucus.

Republicans are keeping up their complaints about the special deals some Democratic senators got.

South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, a candidate for governor, said he and his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington state — all Republicans — are jointly taking a look at whether the special provisions for Nebraska and other states are constitutional. The federal government is picking up the full tab for an expansion of Medicaid in Nebraska, where conservative Sen. Ben Nelson provided Democrats their crucial 60th vote.

"These negotiations on their face appear to be a form of vote buying paid for by taxpayers," McMaster said.

Nelson vigorously defended the provision Tuesday, contending he didn't seek any special carve-out for Nebraska and hoped all states would get the same help.

Republicans are just seeking "an opportunity to mislead and distort," Nelson contended.
Despite the differences, the House and Senate bills have much in common. Each costs around $1 trillion over 10 years and installs new requirements for nearly all Americans to buy insurance, providing subsidies to help lower-income people do so. They're paid for by a combination of tax and fee increases and cuts in projected Medicare spending.

Unpopular insurance company practices such as denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions would be banned, and uninsured or self-employed Americans would shop for insurance in new marketplaces called exchanges.

[retiredac]

Remember the movie "Trading Places" with Eddie Murphy? That movie reminds me of what's going on in Congress these days.

The scene could go like this: Obama and some of his pals from Chicago are in a private bathroom. In their conversation, the topic of corruption comes up and even though they both feel the entire Congress is corrupt, the thought is, how can it be proven beyond reasonable doubt?

So, they decide to take an issue that has failed in the pass - healthcare. They'll fill the bill up with 2500 pages of pork and very little to do with improving the healthcare system. They finalize the terms and the size of the bet - $1.00.

And that's were we are. If a senator (s) threaten to de-rail the bill, just bribe them and they'll come around.

Just my thoughts,

Jim

[darrels joy]

Voters Frown on Health Plan Details - Abortion, Proof of Citizenship, Public Option



Thursday, December 24, 2009

Senate Democrats are celebrating this morning for passing their version of health care reform, but voters still don’t like much of what they see.

At the start of the week, 41% of voters nationwide were in favor of the health care bill, but 55% were opposed. This is the fifth straight week with support for the legislation between 38% and 41%. Rasmussen Report is continuing to track support for the plan on a weekly basis and will have new numbers on Monday morning. Part of the opposition comes from a general skepticism about Congress, rather than specific policy issues.

But there are specific policy issues that also raise challenges as the Democrats try to pass a final version of this legislation in early 2010.

Fifty-four percent (54%) say taxpayer-funded health insurance should be prohibited from covering abortions, up six points from September. The House version of the legislation includes such a prohibition, but the Senate version does not.

Fourteen percent (14%) of U.S. voters say health insurance paid for or subsidized with government funding should be required to cover abortions.
Twenty-nine percent (29%) say the legislation should have no requirements one way or the other.

On another hot-button topic, 87% believe that before anyone receives government health care subsidies, they should be required to prove they are legally in the United States. President Obama and congressional Democrats insist the health care plan will not cover illegal immigrants, the legislation does not require proof of citizenship for those seeking taxpayer-funded health care help.

Only eight percent (8%) of voters oppose the requirement for proving that recipients of health care subsidies prove they are in the country legally.
Public attitudes on this point have changed little since September.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls).

Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

A commentary by Michael Barone notes that it been more than 150 years since such significant but unpopular legislation was passed through Congress on a partisan basis. The political ramifications in 1854 were so significant that it led to the creation of a new political party, the Republican Party. Ultimately, the Kansas-Nebraska Act also played a key role in the run-up to the Civil War.

The so-called “public option” is not in the Senate bill that passed early this morning, but liberal Democrats in the House, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are hoping for at least some modified version of government-backed health insurance to compete with private insurers. However, it is not likely to be included due to the fierce opposition of some Senate Democrats. If even one Democrat in the Senate votes against the bill, it will not pass without Republican support.

Forty percent (40%) of voters now favor the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan. But 48% oppose such an option.

However, 63% of voters say it is more important to guarantee that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage than it is to give consumers the choice of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option. Thirty percent (30%) think the “public option” is more important. These numbers are unchanged from early October.

While advocates of the public option believe it will increase the range of choices offered to individuals, the president has acknowledged that it could have the opposite impact. By creating a “public option,” there is a risk that companies may dump their existing employee health coverage because it’s cheaper to pay the fine for not having such coverage than it is to pay their current share of the workers’ health insurance.

Voters have consistently sent mixed signals about the creation of a “public option,” but opposition grows dramatically if it threatens to force them to change health insurance coverage. Most Democrats, however, favor a “public option” and believe the creation of such an option is more important than guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their existing health insurance coverage. Most Republicans and unaffiliateds disagree.

Sixty percent (60%) believe passage of the health care legislation will increase the deficit. That’s likely to be one reason why 57% say it would be better to pass no health care reform bill this year than to pass the plan currently being considered by Congress.

So given the level of overall public opposition, why do congressional Democrats keep pushing ahead? Because while Republicans voters not affiliated with either party rate deficit cutting as the president’s number one priority, Democrats think health care reform is more important.

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Republicans and 57% of unaffiliated voters say health insurance paid for or subsidized with government funding should be prohibited from covering abortions. Democrats are more closely divided on the question, with 48% saying the health care bill should have no requirements concerning abortions.

One thing is not in doubt, though: Voters are closely following the health care debate. Ninety-two percent (92%) say they are following news stories about the legislation being considered by Congress at least somewhat closely. That includes 61% who are following very closely. A mere three percent (3%) say they are not following the news about this legislation at all.

The health care bill is one factor creating a challenging mid-term election cycle for Democrats. Several Democrats in the House have announced that they are retiring rather than running again next year, and one Democratic congressman has changed parties. The bill also seems to be taking an early toll on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s chances for reelection. The Nevada Democrat now trails three potential GOP challengers in a state where opposition to the plan has been stronger than in other parts of the country.

Democratic incumbents also trail in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, North Dakota and Colorado. Other states featuring potentially competitive races include Illinois, Ohio and Missouri.

Republicans enjoy a modest lead on the Generic Congressional Ballot and their advantage has grown while the health care debate has played out.
The debate over health care reform also has dragged down Obama’s ratings in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._public_option

[retiredac]

January 19th is a big date for the healthcare bill. Why?

Ted Kennedy's seat is up to a general election on this date. If the Republican wins the seat, the Democratic majority goes bye bye in the Senate. If it a close race and the Republican loses, it may be a early indicator to all the Senators who's elections are up in 2010, that this Country does NOT want their healthcare bill.