Does it really take that much effort and staffers to expand SCHIP?

his mane is thinning because they had to shave the back of his head for the brain surgery.

'means to pass a bill' is pretty fucking vague

Is Kennedy going to the wall for the McDermont proposal, a different form of single payer, Edward's plan. Will the bill even be UHC?

Don't worry. It'll be -- whatever it is -- killed off by 40 Republican Senators, secure in the knowledge that they'll never need it, and that their seats are safe, because they know that any health care plan, broad or narrow, means taking money from white people and giving it to dark people, and that ain't gonna happen.

Social Security only passed because it was the depths of a Depression, and domestics and farm workers were carefully excluded.

Medicare passed because any actuary in 1965 would tell you colored folk didn't live long enough to collect it.

And Medicaid and AFDC/TANF are the lineal descendants of Depression-era legislation.

We're not broke enough, desperate enough, hurting enough, to get a broad-based health care system.

[stepping agilily over the dog turds of negativism above].

I like the sound of the Ted Kennedy Universal Right to Healthcare Implementation Act. (2009). It may be incremental over time, but the goal should be right in the title.

I rarely hope for miracles or transformative laws, but for Ted's sake, as well as the nation's citizens, making this happen should be in our top priorities. Perhaps the gods will give him the strength and lifespan to make this happen.

HUGE MISTAKE for the Democrats. Tonight was a downright bore.

I can here those bitter clingers all over Ohio, PA, Virginia, etc. saying , 'Not Ted Kennedy again, those Democrats will never change'.

The Kennedys' may give Chris Mathews and Olbermann a woody everytime they see them, but America is sooo over them.

Just shows how out of touch the old guard really is in the Democrat party.

And di anyone ask how many houses the Kennedys' own?

Unlike others, I am more concerned about fixing our healthcare system than Kennedy getting a valedictory.

Senator Kennedy, regardless of how concerned he is with his personal legacy, would think calling a UHC bill the Ted Kennedy Universal Right to Healthcare Implementation Act a really stupid idea and would eschew all credit if that is what was needed to get a universal health care passed.

because they know that any health care plan, broad or narrow, means taking money from white people and giving it to dark people, and that ain't gonna happen.

Sheesh. You think anybody opposed to wealth redistribution would be okay with it if it meant taking money from white people and giving it to other white people?

The thing us folks on the right don't like is the whole "taking money" from me and then giving it to anybody else, period. Make of that what you will, but there aren't qualifiers. I'm not cool with you raising my taxes because the money will only being going to white folks.

Medicare passed because black people weren't supposed to collect it? Really? There's a transcript from congress where, during the debate, this was pointed out? TV commercial? Promotional literature? Or all the white people "just knew somehow". Because they all had an actuary in the family that made sure to tell them. Seriously? This is really how you actually think it really happened?

We're not broke enough, desperate enough, hurting enough, to get a broad-based health care system.

This part I agree with. Scarily. And until we either raise taxes enough to kill the economy, or over-regulate the market sufficiently to kill the economy, I don't think we will be.

Still, I know lots of folks who want single-payer healthcare, or something like it. Apparently, they have an amazing ability to separate their experience at the DMV (or the government's excellent work pre-9/11, or the rumored corruption at the Department of Homeland Security, or the "success" of the Iraq War, or FEMA's great work after Katrina) from the kind of management they want for their healthcare.

BTW, I think it would have been crazy for the Democrats not to have Ted Kennedy speak. Yes, he owns houses he could fit most of McCain's houses inside of, but that ain't going to come up, and he's the Old Lion of the Democrat party. Why wouldn't he speak?

Best of luck to him on Operation Healthcare Freedom. The government does such a great job at things like spreading democracy and fixing poverty. War on Poverty? LBJ could land on the carrier now, and declare "Mission Accomplished". The government is better at everything.

Government healthcare is good enough for John McCain, Kevin. It's the only kind of insurance he's ever had.

Kennedy isn't going to pass anything b/c of the guaranteed obstruction he'll see. We'll pass a health bill and what it looks like will depend on how hard we want to work on it. It's that simple.

Kevin S. Willis is a marvelous example of just why it is that we are the only advanced industrial society without universal health care.

stunningly enough, kevin s. willis, i am already familiar with exactly how well the private sector handles health care: doctors are never, ever on time for your appointment; if you want to dispute a bill, you have to spend hours and hours on the phone looking for the right person and filling in the right forms; errors are made right and left in hospitals; necessary treatments are denied by faceless bureaucrats; the absence of any centralized record-keeping harms health outcomes in a variety of ways; and on and on and on.

not to mention how much more of gdp we spend on health care without any noticeable superiority in health outcomes.

in comparison, the dmv operates swimmingly: i go in, i stand in line for a few minutes, i pay my fee, i get my license renwed.

i'll take that interaction any time.

As a former Kennedy Intern and current Obama guy, I watched the speech, and cried, and cried. I'm excited for the staff to pick that fight, and to go after it--they're some of the smartest and most talented people I know, and among the least selfish.

I wish them the best of luck.

Kevin, you fucking idiot, the government takes money from you and gives it to other people already--big government and rich fat cats. Wake up, you dipshit, government is going to fuck you over, big corporations will and are. It's not the 19th century anymore, government should be harnassed to enhance your quality of life rather than feared; while the rich and their corporate bottomlines should be of great concern.

Kevin, you fucking idiot,

Dude, you've won me over already.

the government takes money from you and gives it to other people already--big government and rich fat cats

Um, duh. And it's this same government you want to turn our healthcare system over to. "But this time, they'll be good. I know they will. This time they'll do it right."

Okee-dokee. If you say so.

Wake up, you dipshit, government is going to fuck you over

We seem to agree an awful lot, here. Or was that a typo? I've done that.

Hmm. Who runs the evil corporations? Hmm. Fallible, petty, vain, greed, vainglorious human beings. Who runs the government? All-knowing robots? Angels? Nope, human beings again. Why corporate bureaucracy is evil and untrustworthy (agreed), but the leviathan, instransigent bureaucracy of the government is "good" is beyond me. They are made out of the exact same stuff, only the government has the power of legal enforcement (and utter lack of transparency) behind it. Oh, that makes them better.

And, you know, even if Obama wins, Republicans are going to be in the Whitehouse again. It will happen. And when it does . . . won't they abuse the government? Trade healthcare for oil? Come on, think long term, here.

"Rumbling bass"? Ted Kennedy's speaking voice is clearly a tenor -- he just looks like he should have a bass voice.

Kevin S. Willis is a marvelous example of just why it is that we are the only advanced industrial society without universal health care.

Well, bully for me!

stunningly enough, kevin s. willis, i am already familiar with exactly how well the private sector handles health care: doctors are never, ever on time for your appointment; if you want to dispute a bill, you have to spend hours and hours on the phone looking for the right person and filling in the right forms; errors are made right and left in hospitals; necessary treatments are denied by faceless bureaucrats

And the government is going to improve on that? Do it better? Really?

I've dealt with private sector healthcare aplenty, and--unsurprisingly--I get the very best service from some of the smallest practices. Larger hospitals are problematic, and my experience in the emergency room has been uniformly bad. Well, I say that, it's been all right, with some good doctors, but getting to someone seems to take forever. But the government is going to make that go faster? Is going to improve on that?

I've never had any trouble with BlueCross/BlueShield. Actually, have had very positive experiences overall. While my father-in-law was sick, and afte he passed away, all the problems were with dealing with the government in regards to a variety of issues. In any case, I'm not convinced the experience of universal healthcare is going to be universally improved. I expect it to get worse. Maybe it won't. But I'm pretty sure it will. The answer to faceless bureacrats and intractable bureaucracy is not to increase the number of faceless bureaucrats involved and have them work for the government.

in comparison, the dmv operates swimmingly: i go in, i stand in line for a few minutes, i pay my fee, i get my license renwed.

I want to go to your DMV.

I will say that people's mileage will vary under any system. I've met folks who have praised Canada's healthcare and Britain's healthcare to the heavens. I've also met people who have compared it being in a gulag, or going to a morgue for "healthcare".

I remain dubious.

The fundamental question underlying health care in America should be: is health care a right or a privilege?

At the moment, we have nearly 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance. In many cases, this means they have to put off basic preventive care so that they can afford the basics--shelter, food, clothing, etc. Yes, they have the right to emergency "stabilizing" care should the need arise, but I think it should be pretty obvious to anyone familiar with the health care system that spending a few dollars on basic prevention--routine checkups, immunizations, and the like--would save a lot more money in health care costs downstream.

I don't find myself completely on board with the notion that the government should completely subsidize all health care--in particular, end-of-life care could be a major problem, particularly with advancing technology. But I believe that there's a minimum standard of care--as I mentioned above, making sure that small problems don't become bigger problems--that should be a "right" for all people living in this country, and we need to find a way to provide it.

If Teddy was an R he would have gone to prison for killing Mary Jo Kopechne and we wouldn't have to put up with his blather.

Whatever he was in his youth (other than a killer) he has become a reactionary late in life.

Can anyone here remember his rage over the very idea that "chicken pluckers" might make a fraction of the living wage?

DXM: "We're not broke enough, desperate enough, hurting enough, to get a broad-based health care system."

Shut down the PC that is obviously given you a bad case of societal myopia and get around a bit more.

There is a genuine current of general angst regarding Health Care out there in the real world waiting for your observation.

The time is now. It WILL happen. How well it will happen is the only remaining question.

Peter Schaeffer: "Whatever he was in his youth (other than a killer) he has become a reactionary late in life."

Brazenly cheap shot at a dieing man. Shame on you.

Trying to kill a political legend, are you?