Question by karen star: How would “reconciliation” work in the current health care debate?
I have read about filibuster, and recall some filibusters from days past, the gang of 14, and so on, but can someone explain this in simple terms for me? (Wiki articles were not particularly helpful, so just a clear explanation will be good.) I’m not looking for partisan bickering, but for simple direct explanation of the process. Thanks, in advance, for civility.

Best answer:

Answer by titou
How about “rehabilitation”? After all, the requisite for any recovery is first admitting that there is a real problem. To hear the politicians and insurance companies, as well as some health-care professionals who know which side their bread is buttered on — you’d think that what is called for in the catastrophic US health-care industry (sic) is just some fine tuning. As someone experienced with the phenomenon, I can tell you it rings like an alcoholic explaining and adjusting his drinking habit. I’ve even heard the claim that “We have the best health care in the world.”!
Right. And my drinking is OK because it’s top shelf.

ENOUGH verbiage and self-promotion in the guise of negotiation. This sophomoric nonsense has led too often to the logical conclusion: “The operation was a success, but the patient died.” No exaggeration: that is exactly what happened to my own mother. Diagnosed with Stage 3 metastatic breast cancer, such was the juggernaut of bureaucratic red-tape and protocol (not to mention physicians and hospitals lining their pockets and covering their own asses) that by the time anyone got around to actually helping her, she was dead.

What do you think? Answer below!