Budget Passes House, Senate With No GOP Votes

The House and Senate have given President Obama the budget he asked for Thursday, voting along partisan lines for different versions of the roughly $3.6 trillion plan that includes a deficit of $1.2 trillion.

No Republicans backed the budget plan, which ramps up domestic spending, increases taxes on the wealthy and funds Obama's ambitious health care, energy and education proposals. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was not apologizing for the breakdown of bipartisanship.

"The American people want us to find our common ground where we can, but they did not send us here to split the difference," Pelosi said of the budget, which won House approval in a 233-196 vote. "They want real change, and we have come here to make a difference."

While the budget was dismissed as a "road map to disaster" by House Republican leader John Boehner, of Ohio, it also disappointed liberals who wanted to see less defense spending and more investment in economic and social renewal at home.

After progressive alternatives advanced by California Democrats Barbara Lee and members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Lynn Woolsey and members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus were dismissed by margins of 318-113 and 348-84, respectively, the House rejected Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan's tax-cuts-for-the-rich plan on a 293-137 split. (Thirty-eight Republicans, 21 percent of the party's House caucus, joined 255 Democrats in voting "no" on Ryan's plan.)

In the final vote on the budget, all 233 supporters of the budget were Democrats.

Of the 196 "nays," 176 came from Republicans and twenty from Democrats.

Most of the dissenting Democrats were southern and western members of the conservative "Blue Dog" grouping. But one of the House's most progressive members, Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich, also voted "no."

Said Kucinich: This budget is a statement of principles for the upcoming year, and I cannot accept it in its entirety. I will not vote for a budget that ties military spending to the operational funding of our government. This year, the budget includes $130 billion for war funding. The Washington Post reports today another 10,000 troops may be sent to Afghanistan, bringing our total number of troops there to as much as 78,000 by 2010 –- a more than 100 percent increase from today's troop levels. This budget is a plan that authorizes the expansion of the war. I simply cannot endorse a budget or a plan that sends more of our brave men and women to Afghanistan, a conflict which has the potential to become this generation's Vietnam."

In the Senate, the vote was 55-43, with no Republicans voting in favor and two Democrats, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Evan Bayh of Indiana, voting against it.

The House and Senate versions are different enough so that the two versions will have to be reconciled.

Lawmakers will try to work out their differences later this month after returning from a two-week break that begins April 6.

That won't happen until later in April, after a House-Senate conference committee reconciles the two bills.

Comments (62)

1. Said Kucinich: "I simply cannot endorse a budget or a plan that sends more of our brave men and women to Afghanistan, a conflict which has the potential to become this generation's Vietnam."

   I just wonder if Dennis K. thinks "our brave men and women" should only be sent to SAFE places.....like Hawaii, to guard the beaches......to Hilton Head, to guard the golf course......to Key West, to guard the FL lobsters.........if not the "Good War", where else?

   Posted by Happy at 04/02/2009 @ 10:39pm

2. Yeah, the stock market got a bit giddy today from an important change from FASB for sure......passage of this $1.2 Trillion DEFICIT budget, will remind the market tomorrow.......there is no free lunch!

   Posted by Happy at 04/02/2009 @ 10:44pm

3. Hmmm... 56% Yes and 46% NO including 20 Demoncrats is no overwhelming approval in the house on approving anything!

   Posted by comancheamerican at 04/02/2009 @ 11:46pm

4. I do wish Nancy Pelosi would stop speaking for me. She knows nothing of what "the American people want" She was well aware of what was going on during the Bush Administration and gave tacit approval to it, then tried to at like America's indignant savior when it all came out. She's a hypocrite.

   And Kucinich- He just needs to go away.

   Posted by william.harry13 at 04/03/2009 @ 06:26am

5. Related to budgets is fixing health care. Here is a brilliant solution. I'd be interest to hear your compliants.

   http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles /2009/04/a_threeway_fix_for_health_refo.html

   Do yourself a favor: Take 3 or 4 minutes to read this article.

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/03/2009 @ 07:59am

6. "Thirty-eight Republicans, 21 percent of the party's House caucus, joined 255 Democrats in voting "no" on Ryan's plan."

   21% of House Repubs voting against tax cuts?!??!??!??!?

   Hmmmmmm....how does one explain that?

   Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 08:04am

7. Posted by snowball666 at 04/03/2009 @ 08:24am

   Thank you

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/03/2009 @ 08:33am

8. Posted by snowball666 at 04/03/2009 @ 08:30am

   I didn't read the 18-page diatribe, but I think I'm familiar with the woman who sued. At issue was her ability to make dicisions about her care. If she chose to pay for the experimental drugs on her own, the British NHS decreed that she would no longer be eleible for any benefits under the national plan.

   Either she got exactly the same as everybody else or she got nothing at all from the government plan.

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/03/2009 @ 08:42am

9. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/03/2009 @ 07:59am

   Durwood, I read it. I agree with it for the most part. Like the article says, health care for everyone. You've got to figure that the wealthy will get the top of the line medical care no matter what kind of system we have in place, so they aren't the problem. It's retired people and uninsured people and people with lousy insurance policies who get poor medical care.

   I also agree that some patients bleed the system dry. Take, for example, someone who has terminal cancer. Operating on them may extend their life by 3 to 6 months or could kill them. Not operating on them won't extend their life, but at the same time doesn't cause an immediate risk of death either. Stuff like that needs to be taken into account. Quality of life etc.

   But, I'd rather see everyone have some basic health coverage. I was in the military. The healthcare you receive there is marginal at best, but, it's better than nothing. They have limits to what they can do, but for the most part the medical and dental care seems to work. There's no reason we couldn't implement a similar system for folks wishing to use a system like that.

   If doctors think a ceiling is placed on their wages in a system like that, then by all means let them go to the private market and compete for the rich folks' money. That catch is that they had better be damn good at their job or they won't have any patients. That is actually closer to real market competition than what we have today. I won't even get into the cost of pharmaceuticals, hospital care and insurance.

   A basic federal coverage for all citizens wishing to take part would be fine with me. Something is better than nothing which 45 million people now have for medical care.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/03/2009 @ 08:59am

10. "Thirty-eight Republicans, 21 percent of the party's House caucus, joined 255 Democrats in voting "no" on Ryan's plan."

    21% of House Repubs voting against tax cuts?!??!??!??!?

    Hmmmmmm....how does one explain that?

    Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 08:04am

    They are either liberals, idiots, or both.

    Although at least they had enough sense not to vote for this budget that is heading the US for bankruptcy.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 09:04am

11. COMRADES!!!...is GREAT DAY in PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF AMERIKA!!!!! We will soon have the Money the People need to make.....Improvements. Thank you for your Cooperation...We will be back soon. COMMISSAR GEITHNER has opened an account for your Money. SECRETARY PELOSI will now be Registrar of Voters. We Will be in touch. As you know, we always think only of the PEOPLE!!!!!

    FreedomRanger

    Posted by FreedomRanger at 04/03/2009 @ 09:10am

12. Posted by snowball666 at 04/03/2009 @ 08:24am | ignore this person | warn this person

    the vast majority of a person's health expenditures come in the last year or two of their life.

    you are obviously a young person. now look into your grandma's eyes and say that an extra year or six months of life for her is a luxury we can't afford.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 09:16am

13. Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 09:04am

    "They are either liberals, idiots, or both."

    That's an interesting question, actually. Is it possible to be a liberal and NOT be an idiot? Certainly, you don't have to be an idiot to be a liberal, but it sure helps. But empirical evidence suggests that in fact, not all liberals are idiots.

    Actually, I have friends who are liberals AND who are quite intelligent. They're just indoctrinated and abysmally ignorant of economics and hard science. Also, it seems that most people who get their livelihood from the government (i.e., taxpayers, ie., 'rich people', or who have nothing and want somebody to give them a handout, are liberals. So there's a strong component of self-interest in being a liberal as well.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/03/2009 @ 09:22am

14. you are obviously a young person. now look into your grandma's eyes and say that an extra year or six months of life for her is a luxury we can't afford.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 09:16am

    Fair enough Emile. But, if, and only if, the persons quality of life is going to be degraded to the point where they'll be alive but in pain and on meds so strong they don't know who the hell they are, what's the point?

    The other thing is keeping people alive who've been comatose for years. The right to lifers think that society is obliged to pay to keep that person alive even with no brain activity yet the same people would deny medical care to a 6 year old child just because his/her parents lost their jobs and couldn't afford medical insurance.

    Somewhere along the way, we are going to have to apply some common sense and handle things in case by case situations versus blanket solutions to very complex problems which is what we do today.

    In short, if Joe Blow's grandmother may extend her life and she and her doctor think the added pain and suffering she'll endure to extend her life outweigh a sooner death, then by all means let the grandma have the procedure.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/03/2009 @ 09:30am

15. you are obviously a young person. now look into your grandma's eyes and say that an extra year or six months of life for her is a luxury we can't afford.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 09:16am

    1. We have no constitutional authority to be doing so in the first place.

    2. This attitude that one has a right to defy nature and live beyond one's natural years is simply man trying to be G-d.

    When it's your time, people need to just die thankful for the years they were given.

    I have it in my living will that no medical attention beyond simple daily needs may be given me if I have a serious illness or disease.

    To do otherwise is arrogance.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 09:31am

16. Is it possible to be pontificus and NOT be an idiot?

    nah

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 10:00am

17. What the hell? Are anti and snowball sort of agreeing with each other in a round about way or do I need to lay off the cold medication?

    Posted by Misheley at 04/03/2009 @ 10:01am

18. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/03/2009 @ 09:30am | ignore this person | warn this person

    don't talk to me about Joe Blow's grandmother. talk to me about yours.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 10:03am

19. They're just indoctrinated and abysmally ignorant of economics and hard science.----Posted by pontificus at 04/03/2009 @ 09:22am

    Sort of like saying you "clearly remember" something....and then it being nearly completely wrong?

    Or predicting a "major landslide" and it turns out to be a 10 million vote defeat?

    And then claiming that the Market started to tank when it "became apparent" that the guy you predicted would lose, was "going to win"?

    THAT kind of indoctrination and abysmal ignorance?

    Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 10:05am

20. Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 09:04am

    "ignorance or liberalism", Larry...

    why would they do such a thing, if tax cuts are so popular?!??!??

    Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 10:06am

21. Posted by comancheamerican at 04/02/2009 @ 11:46pm

    Hey RIO!

    "Safe to say Stevens would be in the Senate now if not for a trial result that Justice said this week should be discarded... That's something. Not the revival of a career-Stevens is 85-but some satisfaction in that the people who prosecuted him are eating crow now." The Oklahoman

    Crow tastes pretty good! Sorta like filet mignon!

    Posted by Benchrest at 04/03/2009 @ 10:21am

22. this does not mean Stevens was innocent.

    Alaska has the correct number of senators now, there will be no backsies.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 10:35am

23. I have it in my living will that no medical attention beyond simple daily needs may be given me if I have a serious illness or disease. To do otherwise is arrogance.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 09:31am

    i disagree.

    life is excellent, timony geithner notwithstanding.

    see, <i>entropy</i>IS the disease which ultimately kills us.

    (no offense, karma)

    and so, when you choose to eat well you are taking the means necessary to fight that unstoppable tide.

    so if the doc says, you need to take this pill or die,

    ¿isn't that the same as eating a nice ripe tomato?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/03/2009 @ 11:27am

24. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 09:31am </i>

    Anti, what's the standard for defying nature? Is it any interference with the "natural course of events"? What principled line can you draw that separates extensions of life with, well, medicine? Is medicine defying God? What about just helping someone out when they would otherwise have died?

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/03/2009 @ 11:39am

25. don't talk to me about Joe Blow's grandmother. talk to me about yours.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 10:03am

    Both of my grandmothers have been dead for sometime. Once again, if it was my grandmother, I wouldn't want to see her live in extreme pain just to stay alive for another 6 months if she was going to be in extreme pain the entire time and not be able to enjoy the added 6 months.

    I've almost died in a hospital when I was 20 via a drainage tube running into my chest. It hurt like hell and I would have gladly blown my own head off if someone had given me the opportunity. From that perspective, if you aren't going to get better, and the pain won't go away, it's better to die.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/03/2009 @ 11:43am

26. "extreme pain "

    this is addressed with morphine.

    "it's better to die"

    you can say this about yourself, but never, NEVER about another person.

    the grandmother thing was just an example. feel free to substitute mom, dad, your spouse, if any.

    come back to me on this when you have watched any of the above draw their last breath..

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 11:57am

27. Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 09:16am

    What most people under 50 do not understand is how the wisdom of many years is so much more easily passed down after that event when an elder might have died but did not. It would be better if we simply lived with our parents to the end of their lives, instead of needing a medical emergency to bring us back together. Nevertheless I am grateful for that second chance, however expensive it may be, because the payoff is so much more valuable.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 04/03/2009 @ 11:59am

28. Kind of funny to read antisocialist saying he'll take no extreme medical care, thank you.

    Wasn't he clinically dead and then revived once?

    Posted by MyParadigm at 04/03/2009 @ 12:02pm

29. Anti, what's the standard for defying nature? Is it any interference with the "natural course of events"? What principled line can you draw that separates extensions of life with, well, medicine? Is medicine defying God? What about just helping someone out when they would otherwise have died?

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/03/2009 @ 11:39am

    I don't take prescription drugs.

    First aid is not the same as taking the extraordinary measures of organ replacements or cancer surgery.

    I am not addicted to this world and this life as many here are.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 12:03pm

30. Posted by MyParadigm at 04/03/2009 @ 12:02pm

    Also, odd to hear a Religious Rightie sound like a proponent of euthenasia!

    (I'm sure he doesn't mean that...does he?)

    Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 12:04pm

31. Posted by MyParadigm at 04/03/2009 @ 12:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    that is false bravado on the satanic preacher's part. just wait till he gets the terminal diagnosis, as most of us will.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 12:12pm

32. Kind of funny to read antisocialist saying he'll take no extreme medical care, thank you.

    Wasn't he clinically dead and then revived once?

    Posted by MyParadigm at 04/03/2009 @ 12:02pm

    The hospital provided no medical attention. I revived without them. I was on a slab in the hospital morgue.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 12:12pm

33. "No Republicans backed the budget plan"

    "Said Kucinich: This budget is a statement of principles for the upcoming year, and I cannot accept it in its entirety. I will not vote for a budget that ties military spending to the operational funding of our government."

    and yet it passed nonetheless. perhaps dennis and the republicans can go share an ice cream...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/03/2009 @ 12:21pm

34. With the exception of Kucinich, who has always displayed an interest in nationalism over parochial interests, I find the vote totally predictable. The vote breaks down into corporate mouth pieces doing the bidding of their plutocratic overlords and those truly interested in saving what is left of the America left to us by the sweat equity of our parents. The Republicans and their lap dog Democrats are at such a loss at how to cover their idiotic history of failed ideas that they are willing to burn the country rather than admit that Alzheimer's and anti protectionism and rising boats are not viable economic theories. When we have to go, hat in hand, to borrow money from a communist country, China, it is time to rethink our strategies. We can't re-educate people to replace a job at GM for a greeter job at WalMart. By the way, 90 senators voted for Gramm-Leach-Bliley, 1999, the major reason that they also voted for TARP, to cover their stupid tracks. Here is another BIG LIE, you are going to hear that the last great depression was caused by protectionism. The only people who should believe that, are high school freshmen. While on the subject of education don't believe the bull scat you hear about education, and the drop out rate is a direct result of poverty and lack of funding. You want a world class education, Pay for it. Most of the prescription of the present administration are trite and purely cosmetic.

    Posted by julien38 at 04/03/2009 @ 12:23pm

35. but larry,

    isn't a demonic purge of the same medical urgence as a somethingoctopy?

    you have no qualms against said interventions....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/03/2009 @ 12:24pm

36. and yet it passed nonetheless. perhaps dennis and the republicans can go share an ice cream...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/03/2009 @ 12:21pm

    perhaps mr. kucinich is trying to reflect the will of his constituents, however quixotic that quest may be.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/03/2009 @ 12:26pm

37. You want a world class education, Pay for it.

    exactly. that is what the big corporations do to educate their employees.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 12:30pm

38. "When we have to go, hat in hand, to borrow money from a communist country, China, it is time to rethink our strategies."

    Posted by julien38 at 04/03/2009 @ 12:23pm

    why do you think bush invested so much goodwill stuff in africa?

    the next great frontier in the ponzi scheme...

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/03/2009 @ 12:31pm

39. and yet it passed nonetheless. perhaps dennis and the republicans can go share an ice cream... Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/03/2009 @ 12:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Dennis had the advantage of knowing his vote would not sink the bill. that makes voting your conscience much much easier.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 12:33pm

40. you can say this about yourself, but never, NEVER about another person.

    the grandmother thing was just an example. feel free to substitute mom, dad, your spouse, if any.

    come back to me on this when you have watched any of the above draw their last breath..

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 11:57am

    Emile, I agree. I mentioned ealier that the decision should rest between the patient and their doctor. I'll go one step further, the doctors only job in this would be to articulate to the best of their ability what state the person would most likely come out of a treatment and what kind of pain and medications they'd have to endure.

    My cousin died of muscular dystrophy. His diaphram stopped moving and he suffocated to death. Watching him sit in that chair and slowly drift to a certain end was horrible, not just for him, but all parties involved. When I think about him now, I try to think of him when he could walk, play and live a semi-normal childhood. I know this sounds mellow dramatic, but I have watched family (direct and indirect) die. Death sucks but unfortunately it's part of life.

    I don't know if you know who Dr. Weil is, but he's got some pretty good outlooks on longevity, health and death. His ideal person has relatively good health most of the way through their life via good diet and exercise, and when they go on the decline towards death, they do it in a rapid almost verticle decline versus a long drawn out death.

    My guess is that he's seen a lot more death than you and I combined being a doctor and all.

    Of course nobody wants to see a loved one die, anytime. The question was how much is too much. My bosses father recently died. The man decided himself that going through the pain wasn't worth it anymore.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/03/2009 @ 12:33pm

41. You want a world class education, Pay for it.

    Posted by at 04/03/2009 @ 12:30pm

    well, with a good dsl link, you can do pretty well if you're curious.

    depends what you want to learn, i guess.

    going to some spensive school sure would be fun, though..

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/03/2009 @ 12:34pm

42. I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that the drop out rate in White plains New York and in the Hampton's is near zero. What is the drop out rate at Sidwell Friends, or Nueva Day School? Folks get off of the couch turn off the television and demand more from our politicians. Our kids' futures are at stake. I still believe that, in spite of the fact that they are owned by corporations, that these boys and girls really want to do the right thing, most of them anyway.

    Posted by julien38 at 04/03/2009 @ 12:44pm

43. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/03/2009 @ 12:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    the discussion was about the cost of medical care. it is in this context I made my remarks.

    the question is should cost be a factor?

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 12:57pm

44. I was on a slab in the hospital morgue.-----Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 12:12pm

    You mean, sort of like you were in a tomb and rose from the dead?

    Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 12:58pm

45. You mean, sort of like you were in a tomb and rose from the dead?

    Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 12:58pm

    No, you know my story as I've told it before.

    I was dead on the scene of a motorcycle accident. I met a witness to the accident about 6 years ago.

    I was taken to a county hospital. pronounced dead and placed in the hospital morgue on a slab (guerney). I came back approx 5 1/2-6 hrs after the accident. One of the key evidences was that they didn't treat my wounds which started bleeding when I my restarted.

    You may believe it or not, but it happened and as I said, I've met a witness who saw me laying dead in the street and the ambulance driver told her I was dead.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 1:06pm

46. Posted by frosty zoom at 04/03/2009 @ 12:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    i agree. i like the guy.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/03/2009 @ 1:08pm

47. Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 1:06pm

    You were pronounced dead....were you dead? Or just resting?

    Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 1:12pm

48. You were pronounced dead....were you dead? Or just resting?

    Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 1:12pm

    you try resting 5 1/2-6 hours with no heartbeat.

    I was in a room with about 6 other dead bodies as I remember it. It was seperated in another room near the emergency room.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 1:16pm

49. so if the doc says, you need to take this pill or die, ¿isn't that the same as eating a nice ripe tomato? Posted by frosty zoom at 04/03/2009 @ 11:27am | ignore this person | warn this person

    just impossibly stupid.

    I try to read you once in a while. then you go and post such shit, and off you go again to ignoresville.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 1:21pm

50. Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 1:16pm

    Okay, so you were dead...and rose from the "grave" (slab, whatever).

    Were there two women waiting outside the door of the morgue and the attendents had vanished?

    Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 2:03pm

51. "you try resting 5 1/2-6 hours with no heartbeat."

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 1:16pm

    You had a heartbeat.

    no heartbeat x 5 minutes = BrainDEATH. (The only exception is severe hypothermia) PERIOD.

    Posted by Benchrest at 04/03/2009 @ 3:02pm

52. no heartbeat x 5 minutes = BrainDEATH. (The only exception is severe hypothermia) PERIOD.

    Posted by Benchrest at 04/03/2009 @ 3:02pm

    You weren't there. I was pronounced dead and was tagged accordingly.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 3:26pm

53. no heartbeat x 5 minutes = BrainDEATH.

    Posted by Benchrest at 04/03/2009 @ 3:02pm

    Bench, That could explain quite a bit. LOL Sorry Liv, couldn't resist that one.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/03/2009 @ 3:26pm

54. the laws of nature evidently do not apply to the satanic preacher.

    5-6 hours no heartbeat? why it's a resurrection.

    notachance. he's lying.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 4:04pm

55. six hours no heartbeat=rigor mortis

    Rigor mortis refers to the state of a body after death, in which the muscles become stiff. It commences after around 3 hours, reaching maximum stiffness after 12 hours, and gradually dissipates until approximately 72 hours after death. Rigor mortis occurs due to changes in the physiology of muscles when aerobic respiration ceases.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 4:07pm

56. notachance. he's lying.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 4:04pm

    like most things in life, you are ignorant of anything thats not in your own little world.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 4:21pm

57. BTW, for the skeptics

    It matters not to me whether you believe what happened to me or not. Mine is one of many instances where this has happened.

    Your problem lies in your reaction which is to deny the G-d who gives and controls life

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 4:25pm

58. This discussion of end-of-life care is really important. It's horrifying how many billions of dollars are spent in prolonging lives that nobody wants, that impoverish and stress the families, that greatly increase the total of suffering in the world for no good reason.

    I personally know three families in this situation now - a relative was "saved" (not resuscitated, but given long, intensive treatment in an ICU)against their will, brought back in a totally dependent, miserable state, and now require all their families' spare money and time just to exist in pain.

    Emile, your line about "wait until it's your grandmother" is BS. I've gone through this with my father and my grandmother. My wife and I have very strict living wills. It's loving to look in your relative's eyes and say "goodbye." It's not loving to keep them around in expensive misery.

    I never thought I'd agree with AS. I never will again, probably, but he and Wolfgang and Snowball are dead right on this one.

    Posted by DavidSpero at 04/04/2009 @ 12:49pm

59. but given long, intensive treatment in an ICU)against their will,

    this is the bull shit. against their will? whattacrock. and the pain thing is usually addressed with morphine.

    you seem to want to limit the intensive care of OTHER people because of cost.

    it's like with abortion. don't like abortions? don't have one. but don't you dare try to force your personal choice on everyone else.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/04/2009 @ 1:35pm

60. one more thing. it was I who raised this topic in the first place.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/04/2009 @ 1:36pm

61. Posted by snowball666 at 04/04/2009 @ 3:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    this is unnecessarily unkind.

    I raised the fact that the majority of a person's health care expenditures occur in the last two years of their lives.

    who is going to say that we should cut down on that cost?

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/04/2009 @ 4:19pm

62. I am talking about specific cases of terminally ill patients who consciously desire to end their lives or live in hospice care instead of on a morphine drip with whatever care their family can afford.

    this is really a separate discussion.

    there are many morphine derivatives. I believe that most pain can be managed, but I don't have enough info to make a certain statement.

    the discussion I brought forward was the idea of limiting or rationing care.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/04/2009 @ 10:16pm