Reply With Quote
this country is ed.
Looks like the Democrats have finally had enough of the party of NO!
Harkin: No place for GOP at Senate health-bill table
By Tom Beaumont • [email protected] • October 1, 2009
LinkIowa Sen. Tom Harkin said today Republicans will not be at the table when the Senate merges the health-care bills from two committees before sending one to the floor.
Harkin, a Democrat and chairman of one of the committees, also said any bill that passes Congress will include a government-run insurance option for Americans to buy.
“We will have a bill on the president’s desk before Christmas, a health-reform bill. It will have a lot of good stuff in it. It will have a lot of prevention and wellness programs in there that I’ve been fighting for,” Harkin told reporters in a morning conference call. “And it will have a public option.”
“The question of if it doesn’t isn’t even an option,” he added.
Harkin was elected chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee this month after the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. Harkin had a lead role in writing prevention language in the health-care bill passed by that panel in July.
Asked whether Republicans would be at the table when Harkin’s committee’s bill is merged with legislation pending in the Senate Finance Committee, Harkin said no.
“No, this will be a proposal by the Democrats to bring a bill on the floor. And that’s what I have said before, that the people of this country — I keep saying — the people of this country pretty overwhelmingly elected Barack Obama last fall and to make changes,” he said. “The people of this country overwhelmingly elected Democrats to the House and Senate.”
“We should be proposing the changes to be made,” he added.
Let's hope Harkin keeps his word..
this country is ed.
Wow. Freezing the GOP out of reconciliation and adding public option back in. Bold.
Leaky drawers in 3, 2, 1...
Meh... when is Harkin up for re-election? I bet it's not in 10 or even in 12. Wait for the elections in VA and NJ; if things don't go well for Democrats, you'll see how many of them are willing to go the "I'm a proud liberal" route before Christmas.
Btw, I think he's giving a strong ammunition to the Republicans, with the "the people of this country pretty overwhelmingly elected Barack Obama last fall" reasoning. The bi-partisanship stuff was a very big part of the Obama/Dem platform. Very easy grounds to play the victim here.
Like I keep saying, if the democrats keep up their tactics, the public will have a severe backlash against them in 2010!
you should get the unions involved.
......and you owe us money.
If the Democrats kept this up, they wouldn't need lobbyist money to get re-elected..
That 2nd point might be valid had the GOP not been playing victim the day after the November elections. The Tea Parties and Town Halls of 09 are all beautiful examples of this.
I think the reason nothing substantial has been done so far is just because the Democrats have been catering to the fear of our point. Enough is enough, they got elected to govern so its about time they got down to do some governing.
Yep...there's no bipartisanship with Republicans...they want to stall everything till 2010 and hope they win back either house of Congress...obstructionist...either version (house/Senate) of the health-care proposal will likely wind up costing more than is projected, but health-care costs can also spiral out of control too...families are paying anywhere from $1200 - $800 per month and Ins. companies hold virtual monopolies in states, keeping compe ion, that free-market Republican worship, locked out...I think the reason nothing substantial has been done so far is just because the Democrats have been catering to the fear of our point. Enough is enough, they got elected to govern so its about time they got down to do some governing.
1 results for: desperate“No, this will be a proposal by the Democrats to bring a bill on the floor. And that’s what I have said before, that the people of this country — I keep saying — the people of this country pretty overwhelmingly elected Barack Obama last fall and to make changes,” he said. “The people of this country overwhelmingly elected Democrats to the House and Senate.”
desperate | adjective Main Entry: desperate!des-p(u-)rut
Pronunciation: \ ˈdes-p(ə-)rət, -pərt \
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin desperatus, past participle of desperare
Date: 15th century
Results
1 having lost hope - a spirit crying for relief b. giving no ground for hope 2 moved by despair - victims made by abuse b. involving or employing extreme measures in an attempt to escape defeat or frustration - made a leap for the rope
..it's a crisis...and all the GOP wants to do is stall, stall, stall....
September 30, 2009
Congress's Secret Plan to Pass Obamacare
by Brian Darling
President Obama and Congress seem intent on passing comprehensive health care reform, even though polls suggest it is unpopular with the American people. And despite the potential political risks to moderate Democrats, the President and left-wing leadership in Congress are determined to pass the measure using a rare parliamentary procedure.
The Senate plans to attach Obamacare to a House-passed non-healthcare bill. Ironically, nobody knows what that legislation looks like, because it has not yet been written. Yet many members plan to rubber-stamp Obamacare without reading or understanding the bill.
The Senate Finance Committee worked furiously last week to mark up a "conceptual framework" of health care reform. The committee actually rejected an amendment by Sen. Jim Bunning (R.-Ky.) to mandate that the bill text and a final cost analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) be publicly available at least 72 hours before the Finance Committee votes on final passage.
The following four-step scenario describes one way liberals plan to work the rules in their favor to get Obamacare through the Senate:
Step 1: The Senate Finance Committee must first approve the marked-up version of Sen. Max Baucus' (D.-Mont.) conceptual framework. Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) can say that two Senate Committees have passed a health care bill, which will allow him to take extraordinary steps to get the bill on the Senate floor.
During the mark-up last week, members had difficulty offering amendments and trying to make constructive changed because they lacked actual legislative text and Baucus made unilateral last minute changes. For example, the AP reported that "under pressure from fellow Democrats, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee decided to commit an additional $50 billion over a decade toward making insurance more affordable for working-class families."
Step 2: Sen. Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which passed on a party-line vote in July.
Usually, a bill is voted out of committee, and then the Senate takes up the final product of the committee so that all 100 senators can have a hand in the process. With some help from the Obama administration, Reid will decide what aspects of the HELP and Finance Committee bills to keep.
Step 3: Now, Obamacare will be ready to hitch a ride on an unrelated bill from the House. Sen. Reid will move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. This bill was passed by the House in the wake of the AIG bonus controversy and is currently sitting on the Senate Legislative Calendar.
The move to proceed needs 60 votes to start debate. After the motion is approved, Sen. Reid will offer Obamacare as a complete subs ute to the unrelated House-passed bill. This means that the entire healthcare reform effort will be included as an amendment to a TARP bill that has been collecting dust in the Senate for months.
Step 4: For this strategy to work, the proponents would need to hold together the liberal caucus of 58 Democrats (including Paul Kirk who was named last Thursday to replace Sen. Kennedy), and the two Independent senators (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont). These members will have to all hold hands and vote against any filibuster. Once the Senate takes up the bill, only a simple majority of members will be needed for passage. It's possible one of the endangered moderate Democrats, such as Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), could vote to stop a filibuster then vote against Obamacare so as not to offend angry cons uents.
Once the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the House, all the House would have to do is pass the bill without changes and President Obama will be presented with his health care reform measure. If this plan does not work, the Senate and House leadership may go back to considering using reconciliation to pass the legislation.
Adopting this secret plan will not strike most Americans as a transparent, bipartisan, effective way to change how millions of Americans get their health care.
It's not a crisis. Do you believe everything by the M$M's?
"considering using reconciliation"
Like the Repugs did to pass dubya's tax cut bill.
One smash-mouth deserves another in return. yay!
Kill some ass, Dems. The Repugs are NEVER gonna play ball, and everybody knows it.
Now, with the stock prices of the health insurance companies crater Friday, just as they rose earlier on earlier rumors in their favor?
I think their appeal would be quite broader and more convincing if such a drastic move was made.
I don't even believe Harkin believes his own words though. This stuff may excite hardcore liberals, but there aren't enough hardcore liberals in Nevada to re-elect Reid.
Let's not get panties in a wad just yet....Democratic law-makers have made promises before...
Here's some more Dem kickass of the Repugs:
3 Important Lessons Dems Should Learn From Grayson
By Chris Bowers, Open Left
Posted on October 1, 2009, Printed on October 1, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/htt...ft.com/143035/
Usually when Republicans and conservative media join together to throw a coordinated hissy fit against something "outrageous" a Democrat has said, it resulted in apologies (John Kerry in 2006), resignations (Van Jones) and public condemnations in Congress (MoveOn.org). Yesterday, however, Republicans actually backed down from their hissy fit when Rep. Alan Grayson stood up to them. Even as Grayson intensified his rhetoric, Republicans withdrew their resolution to condemn him on the House floor.
There were several important differences between this and most of the other attacks from the Republican manufactured outrage machine. Other Democrats in Congress could stand to learn from them:
- Grayson specifically chose to use rhetoric that echoed earlier rhetoric used by many prominent Republicans. Lesson: Throwing Republican rhetoric back at them can potentially be more effective then just condemning Republican rhetoric.
- Too often, Democrats allow policy discussions to be derailed by Republican rhetorical excess. By contrast, Grayson used his rhetorical moment to shift to a policy argument about tens of thousands of people dying from lack of health insurance. Lesson: rhetorical moments like these can allow you to control the debate, as Republicans long ago learned
- Many Democrats in congress are oblivious to the existence of the progressive netroots or even progressive media. As such, they think no one will be around to support them if they pick a fight like this. Alan Grayson, by contrast, hired Matt Stoller, thus making his office more aware of the netroots than anyone else in Congress. His non-apology yesterday was targeted directly at the progressive netroots, and earned him $100,000. Further, progressive media like the Huffington Post and the Daily Show immediately produced reams of quotes and video showing Republicans using the same sort of rhetoric over the summer. Lesson: If you want to pick a fight, and if you understand the medium, progressive media and the progressive netroots can help you.
It is a landmark moment for a freshman Democrat from a marginal, R+2 district to win a rhetorical fight with the Republican smear machine like this. Hopefully, it will become a teachable moment for other Democrats in Congress.
Ouch..
I'm not so sure the first point is true. I do think that long term a bad health care bill could be good or bad depending on how it turns out, but I definitely believe in the short run being able to point to it and show that they got it done is important. The long run is more important on whether or not it actually works.
Public opinion shows that more Americans - by a large margin - view the democrats as the party that is working towards bipartisanship. The GOP really does a have a problem with being currently branded the party of no. If health care reform gets done without them I believe they will regret missing the boat.
Now, I don't necessarily disagree with your 2nd point. The supposed party of our Marxist president has proven time and time again it is anything but progressive. I'm not holding my breath on this getting done in that manner but we'll see how affective Emanuel and Obama are at working over the people that are supposedly on their side.
Ouch!
Here's the Orlando Sentinel (endorsed Kerry, Obama) editorial today:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,2183574.storyGrayson's bombast
U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, the first-term Democrat from Orlando, already has a well-deserved reputation for overheated rhetoric. But he outdid himself Tuesday night when he declared — on the floor of the House — that the "Republican plan" for health care was for Americans to not get sick, or to "die quickly" if they do.
There is no place in a congressional debate for this kind of hyperbolic, hyperpartisan attack. It's toxic. Mr. Grayson owes the House a sincere apology.
But is it any surprise that pugnacious Democrats like Mr. Grayson are fighting back in the escalating war of words of health-care reform? Some Republicans, after all, have been hurling their own over-the-top charges at Democrats for weeks, like accusing them of favoring "death panels" to deny care to the elderly and disabled. Republican Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite of Brooksville said on the House floor that the Democrats' health bill "essentially said to America's seniors: Drop dead."
A pox on both their houses.
We understand the mounting frustration among Democrats who are convinced that Republicans have no goal other than torpedoing health-care reform. That doesn't mean, however, that there can be no reasonable objections to the approach favored by leading Democrats and the president. The right way to sort it all out is with a robust but respectful debate.
Mr. Grayson actually has a pretty good grasp of health-care issues. That makes his histrionics on the House floor even less excusable. He knows better.
A slash-and-burn approach to debate on both sides will doom any hope for bipartisan reform.
That stuff just don't sell outside the "progressive netroots".
Eh, If it lights a fire under Democrat ass's, it's a gamble well-played....guy could have kept his mouth shut and bank-rolled to another election...
I'm not buying it. Results sell more than anything, and getting health care legislation is the bottom line. No one will care how it gets done if it gets done.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
