Republicans in Democratic Clothing

[sealybobo]

How come the GOP got what they wanted done and we can't? Our agenda has more public support than the GOP agenda had, yet they got it done and we can't? Want me to admit that Democrats are no better than Republicans? I will. 103 of them are not.

Here they are: Blue Dog Coalition Members

But on health care reform, the Blue Dog Democrats are ready to derail vital desperately needed changes in our failing health care system.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) isn't the Blue Dog that normally comes up in these battles. Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson are the usual suspects. But Baucus, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, has the spotlight on him in this health care battle.

And the news isn't encouraging. From the Billings Gazette:

In the past six years, nearly one-fourth of every dime raised by the Montana Democrat and his political action committee has come from groups and individuals associated with drug companies, insurers, hospitals, medical supply firms, health service companies and other health professionals.

The total is $3.4 million from January 2003 through 2008.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=108

And so why does Harry Reed have Max Baucus heading healthcare reform?

It's one thing to not be in favor of single-payer, but when a Democratic chair works this hard to not even let their voices be heard, something is seriously wrong.

The milquetoast theme continues with former Blue Dogs. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, President Obama's first choice for Health and Human Services, being behind a watered-down plan that offers insurance pools from states (the vast majority of which are severely broke), not the federal government.

Blue Dogs are afraid of significant change of any kind. If we drifted in the same sort of direction, they would be happy.

And that might have worked in 1968 or 1977. But in 2009, there are big holes in what we do as a society. Change was what people voted for in 2008, and these Blue Dogs don't want change.

The Republicans don't want change, and they are certainly fighting health care reform. But their biases, odd as they are, are a known quantity.

But the biases of the Blue Dogs -- we don't want to make significant change -- are much harder to battle. Certainly those who live in Montana (Baucus), Landrieu (Louisiana), and Indiana (Bayh) would certainly benefit from a greatly improved health care system. But their representatives aren't always listening.

As bad as things were in 1994, we are at a point where no reform or watered-down reform may be just as dangerous as the status quo. So how do progressives fight this battle with those wearing Ds on their theoretical caps?

What are your thoughts? Give me some insight about how to score political points with this group? Compromise on other issues? Intimidation? Go over their heads?

 

[editec]

Blue Dog Dems, much like those moderate Republicans some call RINOs are fearful that we'll throw the baby out with the bath, Sealy.

Yes, they want solutions.

No, they are not willing to sign onto every solution presented if they think that the solution could have blowback that is worse than the problem they're seeking to solve.

They might be wrong, some of them might be motivated by campiagn financers, some of them might be out and out political whores, but they're still Democrats.

What do do with them?

Convince them, bribe them or intimidate them with public opinion.

You know, politics as usual.

 

[Annie]

Then again, their concerns might reflect the truth on the ground?
Twin Threat: Jobless Rate, Deficit - WSJ.com

Twin Threat: Jobless Rate, Deficit
By JONATHAN WEISMAN

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama faces a dilemma as he fights the recession: The public identifies both rising unemployment and soaring budget deficits as its top policy concerns -- but fixing one could worsen the other.

Mr. Obama can ill afford to lose public support on the cusp of the biggest political fights of his presidency, over health care, energy and financial reregulation. Three separate polls this week, including one from the Wall Street Journal/NBC News, have raised red flags at the White House that the president, though still personally popular, is losing some ground with the public on his economic policies.

Officials concede there is little the president can do to please everyone, given the economic Catch-22. If he heeds concerns on the deficit and pulls back on economic stimulus, he risks choking off the "green shoots" of what may be a fledgling recovery.

Mr. Obama said this week that he expects the unemployment rate to reach 10% this year. Without sustained stimulus spending, it could move even higher heading into next year's midterm congressional elections. Rising joblessness could trigger pressure for another injection of spending or tax cuts beyond the billions of dollars already spent.

Yet the sustained push -- even without another fiscal stimulus plan -- threatens to push the budget deficit over the $2 trillion mark, a percentage of the economy unmatched since World War II.

"Traditionally people haven't paid enough attention to the looming fiscal crisis in this country, so people seem to be waking up," said R. Glenn Hubbard, who was chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers when President George W. Bush pressed forward with tax cuts in the face of rising deficits. "The issue the administration faces here is a trade-off between short-term [spending] to fix the economy and long-term deficit control."

In a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released this week, 58% said the president and Congress should worry more about keeping the budget deficit down, even though such action may mean a longer recession and slower recovery. Just 35% said they favored boosting the economy, even though it might mean larger budget deficits.

Democrats are more evenly split, with 50% favoring boosting the economy, and 42% urging a deficit focus, while Republicans are overwhelmingly more concerned about the red ink.

White House officials are more closely watching independents. By 2 to 1, that politically pivotal group would rather see the White House and Congress bring the deficit under control....

 

[Political Junky]

How come the GOP got what they wanted done and we can't? Our agenda has more public support than the GOP agenda had, yet they got it done and we can't? Want me to admit that Democrats are no better than Republicans? I will. 103 of them are not.

Here they are: Blue Dog Coalition Members

But on health care reform, the Blue Dog Democrats are ready to derail vital desperately needed changes in our failing health care system.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) isn't the Blue Dog that normally comes up in these battles. Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson are the usual suspects. But Baucus, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, has the spotlight on him in this health care battle.

And the news isn't encouraging. From the Billings Gazette:

In the past six years, nearly one-fourth of every dime raised by the Montana Democrat and his political action committee has come from groups and individuals associated with drug companies, insurers, hospitals, medical supply firms, health service companies and other health professionals.

The total is $3.4 million from January 2003 through 2008.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=108

And so why does Harry Reed have Max Baucus heading healthcare reform?

It's one thing to not be in favor of single-payer, but when a Democratic chair works this hard to not even let their voices be heard, something is seriously wrong.

The milquetoast theme continues with former Blue Dogs. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, President Obama's first choice for Health and Human Services, being behind a watered-down plan that offers insurance pools from states (the vast majority of which are severely broke), not the federal government.

Blue Dogs are afraid of significant change of any kind. If we drifted in the same sort of direction, they would be happy.

And that might have worked in 1968 or 1977. But in 2009, there are big holes in what we do as a society. Change was what people voted for in 2008, and these Blue Dogs don't want change.

The Republicans don't want change, and they are certainly fighting health care reform. But their biases, odd as they are, are a known quantity.

But the biases of the Blue Dogs -- we don't want to make significant change -- are much harder to battle. Certainly those who live in Montana (Baucus), Landrieu (Louisiana), and Indiana (Bayh) would certainly benefit from a greatly improved health care system. But their representatives aren't always listening.

As bad as things were in 1994, we are at a point where no reform or watered-down reform may be just as dangerous as the status quo. So how do progressives fight this battle with those wearing Ds on their theoretical caps?

What are your thoughts? Give me some insight about how to score political points with this group? Compromise on other issues? Intimidation? Go over their heads?

Absolutely right, Baucus is a DINO, along with other Blue Dogs.

 

[sealybobo]

Then again, their concerns might reflect the truth on the ground?
Twin Threat: Jobless Rate, Deficit - WSJ.com

Twin Threat: Jobless Rate, Deficit
By JONATHAN WEISMAN

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama faces a dilemma as he fights the recession: The public identifies both rising unemployment and soaring budget deficits as its top policy concerns -- but fixing one could worsen the other.

Mr. Obama can ill afford to lose public support on the cusp of the biggest political fights of his presidency, over health care, energy and financial reregulation. Three separate polls this week, including one from the Wall Street Journal/NBC News, have raised red flags at the White House that the president, though still personally popular, is losing some ground with the public on his economic policies.

Officials concede there is little the president can do to please everyone, given the economic Catch-22. If he heeds concerns on the deficit and pulls back on economic stimulus, he risks choking off the "green shoots" of what may be a fledgling recovery.

Mr. Obama said this week that he expects the unemployment rate to reach 10% this year. Without sustained stimulus spending, it could move even higher heading into next year's midterm congressional elections. Rising joblessness could trigger pressure for another injection of spending or tax cuts beyond the billions of dollars already spent.

Yet the sustained push -- even without another fiscal stimulus plan -- threatens to push the budget deficit over the $2 trillion mark, a percentage of the economy unmatched since World War II.

"Traditionally people haven't paid enough attention to the looming fiscal crisis in this country, so people seem to be waking up," said R. Glenn Hubbard, who was chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers when President George W. Bush pressed forward with tax cuts in the face of rising deficits. "The issue the administration faces here is a trade-off between short-term [spending] to fix the economy and long-term deficit control."

In a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released this week, 58% said the president and Congress should worry more about keeping the budget deficit down, even though such action may mean a longer recession and slower recovery. Just 35% said they favored boosting the economy, even though it might mean larger budget deficits.

Democrats are more evenly split, with 50% favoring boosting the economy, and 42% urging a deficit focus, while Republicans are overwhelmingly more concerned about the red ink.

White House officials are more closely watching independents. By 2 to 1, that politically pivotal group would rather see the White House and Congress bring the deficit under control....

I read it and I want to call BULLSHIT!! The publics biggest concern is souring budget deficits? Since when? Who put that in our heads as a top concern? Oh yea, the Republicans, who when they were in charge said deficits don't matter.

Your just tea bagging Obama. We won, get over it. It is our agenda. If the GOP won, they would have pushed forward their agenda and it would have cost just as much.

And I've been showing you, THE PUBLIC, all week that the Federal Reserve loaned out $9 trillion in just 8 months, STARTING LAST YEAR BEFORE OBAMA EVEN WON, and none of you give a fuck. So that article is misleading. It is telling us what our biggest concerns are.

My biggest concerns are jobs/wages/the economy. Healthcare is costing us too much of our GDP. It needs to be reformed. Blue Dogs are nothing more than Republicans in Democratic clothing and you know it. The people in their states want healthcare reform too. The only difference is their states generally vote GOP. So it is easier for the lobbyists to corrupt them than it is to corrupt a progressive.

 

[Annie]

Then again, their concerns might reflect the truth on the ground?
Twin Threat: Jobless Rate, Deficit - WSJ.com

Twin Threat: Jobless Rate, Deficit
By JONATHAN WEISMAN

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama faces a dilemma as he fights the recession: The public identifies both rising unemployment and soaring budget deficits as its top policy concerns -- but fixing one could worsen the other.

Mr. Obama can ill afford to lose public support on the cusp of the biggest political fights of his presidency, over health care, energy and financial reregulation. Three separate polls this week, including one from the Wall Street Journal/NBC News, have raised red flags at the White House that the president, though still personally popular, is losing some ground with the public on his economic policies.

Officials concede there is little the president can do to please everyone, given the economic Catch-22. If he heeds concerns on the deficit and pulls back on economic stimulus, he risks choking off the "green shoots" of what may be a fledgling recovery.

Mr. Obama said this week that he expects the unemployment rate to reach 10% this year. Without sustained stimulus spending, it could move even higher heading into next year's midterm congressional elections. Rising joblessness could trigger pressure for another injection of spending or tax cuts beyond the billions of dollars already spent.

Yet the sustained push -- even without another fiscal stimulus plan -- threatens to push the budget deficit over the $2 trillion mark, a percentage of the economy unmatched since World War II.

"Traditionally people haven't paid enough attention to the looming fiscal crisis in this country, so people seem to be waking up," said R. Glenn Hubbard, who was chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers when President George W. Bush pressed forward with tax cuts in the face of rising deficits. "The issue the administration faces here is a trade-off between short-term [spending] to fix the economy and long-term deficit control."

In a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released this week, 58% said the president and Congress should worry more about keeping the budget deficit down, even though such action may mean a longer recession and slower recovery. Just 35% said they favored boosting the economy, even though it might mean larger budget deficits.

Democrats are more evenly split, with 50% favoring boosting the economy, and 42% urging a deficit focus, while Republicans are overwhelmingly more concerned about the red ink.

White House officials are more closely watching independents. By 2 to 1, that politically pivotal group would rather see the White House and Congress bring the deficit under control....

I read it and I want to call BULLSHIT!! The publics biggest concern is souring budget deficits? Since when? Who put that in our heads as a top concern? Oh yea, the Republicans, who when they were in charge said deficits don't matter.

Your just tea bagging Obama. We won, get over it. It is our agenda. If the GOP won, they would have pushed forward their agenda and it would have cost just as much.

And I've been showing you, THE PUBLIC, all week that the Federal Reserve loaned out $9 trillion in just 8 months, STARTING LAST YEAR BEFORE OBAMA EVEN WON, and none of you give a fuck. So that article is misleading. It is telling us what our biggest concerns are.

My biggest concerns are jobs/wages/the economy. Healthcare is costing us too much of our GDP. It needs to be reformed. Blue Dogs are nothing more than Republicans in Democratic clothing and you know it. The people in their states want healthcare reform too. The only difference is their states generally vote GOP. So it is easier for the lobbyists to corrupt them than it is to corrupt a progressive.

You may rant all you like. You can ignore what's before you. However, the administration and Congress will not, because they are always running for the next election.

 

[sealybobo]

Then again, their concerns might reflect the truth on the ground?
Twin Threat: Jobless Rate, Deficit - WSJ.com

I read it and I want to call BULLSHIT!! The publics biggest concern is souring budget deficits? Since when? Who put that in our heads as a top concern? Oh yea, the Republicans, who when they were in charge said deficits don't matter.

Your just tea bagging Obama. We won, get over it. It is our agenda. If the GOP won, they would have pushed forward their agenda and it would have cost just as much.

And I've been showing you, THE PUBLIC, all week that the Federal Reserve loaned out $9 trillion in just 8 months, STARTING LAST YEAR BEFORE OBAMA EVEN WON, and none of you give a fuck. So that article is misleading. It is telling us what our biggest concerns are.

My biggest concerns are jobs/wages/the economy. Healthcare is costing us too much of our GDP. It needs to be reformed. Blue Dogs are nothing more than Republicans in Democratic clothing and you know it. The people in their states want healthcare reform too. The only difference is their states generally vote GOP. So it is easier for the lobbyists to corrupt them than it is to corrupt a progressive.

You may rant all you like. You can ignore what's before you. However, the administration and Congress will not, because they are always running for the next election.

The GOP didn't care. They pushed their agenda thru depite what the public wanted. Most of the time the public didn't even know what was actually going on. The public only knows what the media tells them. And apparently, according to you and your sources, the deficit is now top on the publics agenda. Liberal media my ass.

And the insurance companies will invest millions to defeat you if you vote against them. I know this is how corporations/lobbyists control policy. They use carrots and sticks.

And the public is so easily manipulated through the corporate media. Look at you. I show you that the bankers took $9 trillion from you and you are crying about Obama's $1 trillion dollar plans.

One Penny Sheet » Federal Reserve Cannot Account for $9 Trillion video

 

[sealybobo]

Then again, their concerns might reflect the truth on the ground?
Twin Threat: Jobless Rate, Deficit - WSJ.com

I read it and I want to call BULLSHIT!! The publics biggest concern is souring budget deficits? Since when? Who put that in our heads as a top concern? Oh yea, the Republicans, who when they were in charge said deficits don't matter.

Your just tea bagging Obama. We won, get over it. It is our agenda. If the GOP won, they would have pushed forward their agenda and it would have cost just as much.

And I've been showing you, THE PUBLIC, all week that the Federal Reserve loaned out $9 trillion in just 8 months, STARTING LAST YEAR BEFORE OBAMA EVEN WON, and none of you give a fuck. So that article is misleading. It is telling us what our biggest concerns are.

My biggest concerns are jobs/wages/the economy. Healthcare is costing us too much of our GDP. It needs to be reformed. Blue Dogs are nothing more than Republicans in Democratic clothing and you know it. The people in their states want healthcare reform too. The only difference is their states generally vote GOP. So it is easier for the lobbyists to corrupt them than it is to corrupt a progressive.

You may rant all you like. You can ignore what's before you. However, the administration and Congress will not, because they are always running for the next election.

Hi dummy. Here is a list of Democrats who are acting just like Republicans. They are going to try to block healthcare reform. Some of them probably feel safe like they can get away with it. Maybe they are popular back home or they aren't up for re election in 2010. This is a great website: OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting

You almost can't argue with it. Well you're a girl so you can argue anything.

But you think these Democrats are looking out for us or do you think they are the ones that the healthcare insurance giants/bankers/robber barons have purchased? You righties need to either learn how things work or wake up to the fantasy that it benefits you. No chance. Are you rich? If you are, at least let us know because then you should be voting GOP. But chances are you are like the rest of the righties on USMB. Bunch of broke asses who only THINK they belong in the GOP.

Max Baucus (D-MT) chairs the Senate Finance Committee, which plays a huge role with health reform legislation. He has frequently dismissed the importance of a public option, saying, "There's an awful lot more here than the public option," [1] and, "We can achieve the objective [of health care reform] without it." [2] When his committee's draft plan came out, the Washington Post's Ezra Klein reported, "There's no public plan mentioned anywhere in the document." [3]

When asked on Fox News about the public option, Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) replied, "I'm agnostic on that." [1] In another interview, he used right-wing talking points to stoke fears of "socialized medicine." [2]

Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) is the architect of the "co-op" plan, a watered-down "alternative" for the public option. He explicitly used right-wing frames in promoting the measure, saying that "the co-op structure has some appeal because it's not government control." [1]

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said on CNN on June 21, “I don’t know that [Obama] has the votes right now." She said she was most concerned about the "cost" of a public option. [1]

While Senator John Kerry (D-MA) has said in public that he supports a public option, the Huffington Post reports that "In a closed-door meeting of Senate Finance Committee Democratic members and their staff Wednesday evening, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) suggested that if the committee bill didn't have enough votes for a public option it include a ten-year delay between passage of health care reform and the implementation of a public option."[1]

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) has said: "No, I'm not open to it. I'm not open to a public option. ... I will remain open to a compromise, a full compromise. Public option is not something that I support. I don't think it's the right way to go." [1]

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has made no bones about his opposition to the public option. Lieberman point blank told a Bloomberg News reporter: "I don't favor a public option, and I don't favor a public option because I think there's plenty of competition in the private insurance market."[1]

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) not only opposes the public option, but Congressional Quarterly reports that the "inclusion of a public plan in legislation [is] a 'deal-breaker' for him." The same article reports on his plotting to "assemble a coalition of like-minded centrists opposed to the creation of a public plan." [1]

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The administration is OVER REACHING to where Moderates, who more closely represent Americans in general, are recalcitrant. So, blame the radical agenda, not the folks who oppose it, no matter their stripe. Live with the fact that the Marks are starting to get wise to the con.

 

[Maple]

Thank God for the blue dog democrats, the dems could pass health care without one single republican vote in the congress and the senate, dems hold the majority in both houses.

Everyone agrees that health care needs to be reformed, even conservative repubs, we just do not want a single payer system that is inefficient, would cause rationing and be way, way too expensive to all tax payers. We also realize that it is not just going to be the rich who pay for this, it will be all of us, including the middle class.

9 out of 10 people who have health insurance like the plan they are on. This plan would force all of us to join the national one. Private companies can not compete with the government, as government does not have to show a profit, they just print or borrow more money when they need it. Private companies can not do that.

The government would impose a fine on business of an 8% payroll tax should they not cover their employee's insurance cost. Employers already pay more than that for their employee's health benefit. They would gladly dump this benefit and pay the 8% forcing millions onto the Obama plan.

In one of the amendments it is written that a new hire can not sign up for their employer's insurance coverage after the national one is in place. They will be forced to go on the national plan and thereby signal an end to all private insurance carriers.

This problem does have solutions and Republicans HAVE brought these up, but with dems in charge of everything, these solutions have been totally ignored.

Also consider the 8% payroll tax that will be imposed on small business, business's across America will have to pay this tax, causing even more lay-offs. It's a job killer.

Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy. Obama wants to rush this through, just like he did the stimulus bill, which by the way is NOT working, before the August recess. I think that this reform is important, but I would rather they get it right than to be fast about it.

This could all be done through legislation with private insurance carriers, we don't need and I certainly do not want the government running anything else. They already run Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and all are bankrupt.

 

[Skull Pilot]

My biggest concerns are jobs/wages/the economy. Healthcare is costing us too much of our GDP. It needs to be reformed. Blue Dogs are nothing more than Republicans in Democratic clothing and you know it. The people in their states want healthcare reform too. The only difference is their states generally vote GOP. So it is easier for the lobbyists to corrupt them than it is to corrupt a progressive.

if you think 17% of GDP on health care is too much to spend, how do you feel about Obama and his policies bringing our debt up to 80% of GDP over the next 10 years?

PolitiFact | Judd Gregg says Obama's budget drives national debt to 80 percent of GDP

If you have to pick your battle, health care for the actual 8-10 million uninsured is NOT the choice you should be making.

 

[sealybobo]

The administration is OVER REACHING to where Moderates, who more closely represent Americans in general, are recalcitrant. So, blame the radical agenda, not the folks who oppose it, no matter their stripe. Live with the fact that the Marks are starting to get wise to the con.

RADICAL like reducing the out of control costs and covering everyone?

It was radical to give every kid schooling too, but liberals got it done.

The only one's recalculating are the Dems who have taken money from the healthcare companies.

Don't ever say you want campaign finance reform and don't ever complain that the system is corrupt. You love it that way. You think it benefits you. Are you rich?

You just don't want your insurance to be fucked with. You're greedy. Trust me, 10 years, you won't be able to afford it either. Unless you are rich. Are you?

 

[sealybobo]

My biggest concerns are jobs/wages/the economy. Healthcare is costing us too much of our GDP. It needs to be reformed. Blue Dogs are nothing more than Republicans in Democratic clothing and you know it. The people in their states want healthcare reform too. The only difference is their states generally vote GOP. So it is easier for the lobbyists to corrupt them than it is to corrupt a progressive.

if you think 17% of GDP on health care is too much to spend, how do you feel about Obama and his policies bringing our debt up to 80% of GDP over the next 10 years?

PolitiFact | Judd Gregg says Obama's budget drives national debt to 80 percent of GDP

If you have to pick your battle, health care for the actual 8-10 million uninsured is NOT the choice you should be making.

National debt and Healthcare are two different things.

 

[GHook93]

Correct me if I am wrong, but they were elected representatives of the USA, not of the Democratic party! If they don't agree with the bill or law then they should vote with their judgment not just blindly conform to their party! One of my favorite Republicans Mark Kirk does that on abortion!

Sillybozo when are you going to learn that Pelosi policy to bully Demcrats into conformity is just plain wrong!

 

[Skull Pilot]

My biggest concerns are jobs/wages/the economy. Healthcare is costing us too much of our GDP. It needs to be reformed. Blue Dogs are nothing more than Republicans in Democratic clothing and you know it. The people in their states want healthcare reform too. The only difference is their states generally vote GOP. So it is easier for the lobbyists to corrupt them than it is to corrupt a progressive.

if you think 17% of GDP on health care is too much to spend, how do you feel about Obama and his policies bringing our debt up to 80% of GDP over the next 10 years?

PolitiFact | Judd Gregg says Obama's budget drives national debt to 80 percent of GDP

If you have to pick your battle, health care for the actual 8-10 million uninsured is NOT the choice you should be making.

National debt and Healthcare are two different things.

If you're worried about "jobs, wages and the economy" as you say you are then spending 80% of GDP on debt is much worse than spending 17% of GDP on health care.

Debt does not create growth and therefore jobs health care does.

 

[sealybobo]

Correct me if I am wrong, but they were elected representatives of the USA, not of the Democratic party! If they don't agree with the bill or law then they should vote with their judgment not just blindly conform to their party! One of my favorite Republicans Mark Kirk does that on abortion!

Sillybozo when are you going to learn that Pelosi policy to bully Demcrats into conformity is just plain wrong!

Then the lobbyists can't/won't lose. At least not on healthcare reform. They beat Bill Clinton back in the 90's and look at how much their costs went up.

Get ready. Unless you are richer than I thought, soon you won't be able to afford it either. Healthcare, at least good healthcare, will only be for the rich. The poor, YOU, will go to the free clinics.

Or, you'll go bankrupt from your health. Shit, everyone will if FOR PROFITS win this. Because we will all get old and healthcare will be so expensive, everyone will have to basically sell their homes in order to pay for assisted living. So much for the home you spent 30 years paying off. Shit, why did you even bother. You could have retired broke and they would have taken care of you. Just at a cheaper retirement home. A socialized one. One that many/most of us will end up in. A shit hole. Think Walter Reed.

Its coming. And you think you are rich enough that this won't hurt you?

 

[sealybobo]

if you think 17% of GDP on health care is too much to spend, how do you feel about Obama and his policies bringing our debt up to 80% of GDP over the next 10 years?

PolitiFact | Judd Gregg says Obama's budget drives national debt to 80 percent of GDP

If you have to pick your battle, health care for the actual 8-10 million uninsured is NOT the choice you should be making.

National debt and Healthcare are two different things.

If you're worried about "jobs, wages and the economy" as you say you are then spending 80% of GDP on debt is much worse than spending 17% of GDP on health care.

Debt does not create growth and therefore jobs health care does.

Should have thought about that before Bush doubled the debt. And the money he spent is gone. You either don't know how things work, don't know what you are talking about, or you are lying.

Did you hear about the bridge collapse in Michigan? Long story short, is that America, greatest country in the world, is a joke compared to new up and coming countries who's infrastructure is modern/updated.

You should have tea bagged Bush and the GOP, but instead you only teabag Dems, which is wrong on so many levels.

I can't even begin to explain just how wrong your post is.

Healthcare does create jobs. Good jobs too. Doctors, nurses, etc. The jobs you are protecting are CEO's. Funny you understand Ford can't pay $30 hr and compete but insurance companies can afford millions to ceo's?

You are such a hypocrite. Now you are worried about jobs? Fuck that! They can find work in other industries. Go retrain themselves.

 

[GHook93]

Correct me if I am wrong, but they were elected representatives of the USA, not of the Democratic party! If they don't agree with the bill or law then they should vote with their judgment not just blindly conform to their party! One of my favorite Republicans Mark Kirk does that on abortion!

Sillybozo when are you going to learn that Pelosi policy to bully Demcrats into conformity is just plain wrong!

Then the lobbyists can't/won't lose. At least not on healthcare reform. They beat Bill Clinton back in the 90's and look at how much their costs went up.

Get ready. Unless you are richer than I thought, soon you won't be able to afford it either. Healthcare, at least good healthcare, will only be for the rich. The poor, YOU, will go to the free clinics.

Or, you'll go bankrupt from your health. Shit, everyone will if FOR PROFITS win this. Because we will all get old and healthcare will be so expensive, everyone will have to basically sell their homes in order to pay for assisted living. So much for the home you spent 30 years paying off. Shit, why did you even bother. You could have retired broke and they would have taken care of you. Just at a cheaper retirement home. A socialized one. One that many/most of us will end up in. A shit hole. Think Walter Reed.

Its coming. And you think you are rich enough that this won't hurt you?

Most people right or left agree something drastic needs to be done with healthcare!

 

[sealybobo]

Correct me if I am wrong, but they were elected representatives of the USA, not of the Democratic party! If they don't agree with the bill or law then they should vote with their judgment not just blindly conform to their party! One of my favorite Republicans Mark Kirk does that on abortion!

Sillybozo when are you going to learn that Pelosi policy to bully Demcrats into conformity is just plain wrong!

Their constituents favor a public option.

Health insurance companies are spending $1.5 million a day lobbying against a public option in the current health-care debate.

Seventy-two percent of Americans favor a public option.

Our federally elected officials have government health insurance yet seem hesitant to offer a government plan to their constituents. Why? Health insurance companies are spending $1.5 million a day lobbying against a public option.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I don't know. Just a guess but maybe there are some Democrats that are smarter than the other Democrats. Maybe they are just shy and don't want others to know that they can think for themselves... Like I said though, just a guess...