3 Democrats Could Block Health Bill

[Jon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/health/policy/18senate.html

Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas

That's my hometown girl. She's facing a tough re-election, and she actually seems to be responding to public outcries against this health bill. I'm glad we have at least three Senators who're listening, and I'm proud to know one of them personally.

 

[Oddball]

Good deal.

 

[Claudette]

Absolutely a good deal. Its nice to see a few of our elected officals have a brain or mayby its self preservation. Either way. Hope they can block this BS bill.

 

[obama2ndterm]

Three of the poorest states in the country, who need health care the most. Yep vote against it that makes sense, for a moron from one of those stupid areas!

 

[obama2ndterm]

Defeat this ****'
Followers of Jill Richardson's La Vida Locavore essential blog on all things related to food and food policies were already warned 2 weeks ago that one of the worst possible Democrats who could get control of the Senate Agriculture Committee, was likely to move in. And sure enough AgriBusiness lobbyists were popping champagne bottles up and down K Street yesterday before Obama's speech. They were toasting their gal Blanche. Yes, Blanche Lincoln, the senior senator from Arkansas-- and one of the half dozen most richly bribed members of the Senate by AgriBusiness-- along with John McCain (R-AZ), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Miss McConnell (R-KY), Pat Roberts (R-KS), and outgoing committee chair Tom Harkin (D-IA). Lincoln has taken in $1,530,236 from these corrupt special interests and no one in history has served their anti-consumer demands more slavishly than she. As you can see from the pattern of giving (below) in the current cycle, they probably had a good idea that Blanche could be ascending to a place where she could help them even more:

 

[xsited1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/health/policy/18senate.html

Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas

That's my hometown girl. She's facing a tough re-election, and she actually seems to be responding to public outcries against this health bill. I'm glad we have at least three Senators who're listening, and I'm proud to know one of them personally.

She was on the Dave Elswick show on KARN the other day. He asked her about a free market solution to health care and she believes the government is required. When he pointed out that a big problem with health care today is that government has placed too many rules and regulations on it thus increasing costs, she didn't believe him. To her, government is the answer. She doesn't understand Economics 101.

 

[Toronado3800]

She doesn't understand Economics 101.

Poor grammar.

Should say, "she disagrees with me or has a different opinion on Economics 101"

 

[Chris]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/health/policy/18senate.html

Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas

That's my hometown girl. She's facing a tough re-election, and she actually seems to be responding to public outcries against this health bill. I'm glad we have at least three Senators who're listening, and I'm proud to know one of them personally.

She was on the Dave Elswick show on KARN the other day. He asked her about a free market solution to health care and she believes the government is required. When he pointed out that a big problem with health care today is that government has placed too many rules and regulations on it thus increasing costs, she didn't believe him. To her, government is the answer. She doesn't understand Economics 101.

Every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

You don't understand economics.

 

[Jon]

Every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

You don't understand economics.

And you don't understand politics, because you still seem to think this bill will actually do anything to reduce costs to those who actually PAY for health care, when all indicators say otherwise. What this bill does is provide cheap alternatives to people who currently don't pay (meaning, now they have to pay to get something, they can just pay a little less to get a little less), it also provides more free services to people who are unable to pay anything (guess who pays for that? those of us who already pay), and it will increase costs to those of us who are already paying (especially those of us that pay for GOOD health care). On top of that, it also makes not having insurance a crime.

 

[Chris]

Every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

You don't understand economics.

And you don't understand politics, because you still seem to think this bill will actually do anything to reduce costs to those who actually PAY for health care, when all indicators say otherwise. What this bill does is provide cheap alternatives to people who currently don't pay (meaning, now they have to pay to get something, they can just pay a little less to get a little less), it also provides more free services to people who are unable to pay anything (guess who pays for that? those of us who already pay), and it will increase costs to those of us who are already paying (especially those of us that pay for GOOD health care). On top of that, it also makes not having insurance a crime.

The bill hasn't passed yet.

The public option is what is needed to start in the right direction. If the bill requires people to buy insurance from for profit companies, then that is the worst of both worlds.

 

[Jon]

The bill hasn't passed yet.

All but passed.

The public option is what is needed to start in the right direction. If the bill requires people to buy insurance from for profit companies, then that is the worst of both worlds.

No, there is much more that is needed to start in the right direction. Measures should be taken that actually reduce medical expenses, including tort/litigation reform.

What this bill does is force people to engage in what is supposed to be a FREE market economy. For those that don't want to participate, they are punished with fines. For those that do participate, they are forced to pay more to fund coverage for those that can't afford it. With bills like this coming out of the Senate, it almost makes one want to quit their job and jump on the gravy train.

 

[Chris]

The bill hasn't passed yet.

All but passed.

The public option is what is needed to start in the right direction. If the bill requires people to buy insurance from for profit companies, then that is the worst of both worlds.

No, there is much more that is needed to start in the right direction. Measures should be taken that actually reduce medical expenses, including tort/litigation reform.

What this bill does is force people to engage in what is supposed to be a FREE market economy. For those that don't want to participate, they are punished with fines. For those that do participate, they are forced to pay more to fund coverage for those that can't afford it. With bills like this coming out of the Senate, it almost makes one want to quit their job and jump on the gravy train.

I agree with you about tort reform. But if we had national health insurance people would be less inclined to sue, because healthcare expenses would not drive millions into bankruptcy.

And the free market will not take care of sick people.

It is our responsibility as a nation to take care of the old and the sick.

 

[Toronado3800]

I'm forced by the government to pay money to be hooked up to water service at my house and to have a septic tank that meets all kinds of standards. I could care less if my turds collect at the bottom of my hill. Because of some generally accepted view of "public good" folks are FORCED to pay for sewage systems though, and we all agree with that.

Now these ridiculous healthcare costs are a new thing. Most folks will want the latest procedure to extend our lives and with increasing frequency that is past the age where we are willing to work. Something about being old makes ppl want to retire. I don't get it.

Oh, and no one who supports "free markets" and the rights of ppl to live out of government oppression supports limits on their rights to sue for malpractice, right? Seems contradictory even if it does put doctors out of business, I mean the market will find its natural level without big government controls, right?

 

[xsited1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/health/policy/18senate.html



That's my hometown girl. She's facing a tough re-election, and she actually seems to be responding to public outcries against this health bill. I'm glad we have at least three Senators who're listening, and I'm proud to know one of them personally.

She was on the Dave Elswick show on KARN the other day. He asked her about a free market solution to health care and she believes the government is required. When he pointed out that a big problem with health care today is that government has placed too many rules and regulations on it thus increasing costs, she didn't believe him. To her, government is the answer. She doesn't understand Economics 101.

Every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

You don't understand economics.

It's impossible to explain to an idiot why they are wrong, so I'll just explain it for anyone who thinks you might be right. Yes, we do pay more in America for health care. One big reason is because we require more. Another big reason is because the government has so many rules and regulations that the free market is virtually non-existent. If we want to be a socialist country which rations healthcare, fine, but we'll have to burn the Constitution. I realize that's what many people want like yourself, but it's not what our Founders fought for. If you want to be a collectivist, you should move to a country like Sweden.

 

[Political Junky]

As I understand it, Lincoln is not doing the bidding of her constituents, but lining her own coffers.

 

[Jon]

It is our responsibility as a nation to take care of the old and the sick.

I disagree.

 

[Jon]

As I understand it, Lincoln is not doing the bidding of her constituents, but lining her own coffers.

And for that, she will be voted out of office next year. She sealed her own fate.

 

[Jon]

But if we had national health insurance people would be less inclined to sue, because healthcare expenses would not drive millions into bankruptcy.

People don't sue because their medical bills cost so much. They sue because it's so easy to do and can make you rich overnight. As long as ambulance chasers exist, medical expenses will continue to rise. As long as expenses rise, even the cheapest insurance won't save anyone from going bankrupt.