Reply With Quote
when did i about obama? lol this subforum is terrible
when did i about obama? lol this subforum is terrible
The corps and capitalists know they already own the "business friendly" Repugs (eg, Boner is telling the ABA lobbyists to keep fighting against all regulation of the financial sector), who are in the minority in both chambers, so they are pouring in the 100 of $Ms to buy Dems. duh.
Dems need two more votes. 1 more after 10 central.
Boutons, are you Spursdynasty?
Oh brother, the latest flip vote is laying it on hardcore. Down to 1 vote.
lol its hilarious, yet pathetic watching these Democrats sellout. many of the ones who originally said that they were voting no on the bill are holding out until the last couple of days in order to receive a sweetheart deal.
you mean sweetheart deals that go on all of the time? or are you playing dumb again?
Isn't that the American way?
Politicians cannot sell out.
They are politicians.
Yeah, it's just healthcare.
these deals have been going on for generations so stop acting like this Congress invented it.
Why Democrats Are Fighting for a Republican Health Plan
Friday 19 March 2010
by: E.J. Dionne Jr., Op-Ed
Washington - Here is the ultimate paradox of the Great Health Care Showdown: Congress will divide along partisan lines to pass a Republican version of health care reform, and Republicans will vote against it.
Yes, Democrats have rallied behind a bill that Republicans -- or at least large numbers of them -- should love. It is built on a series of principles that Republicans espoused for years.
Republicans have said that they do not want to destroy the private insurance market. This bill not only preserves that market but strengthens it by bringing in 32 million new customers. The plan before Congress does not call for a government "takeover" of health care. It provides subsidies so more people can buy private insurance.
Republicans always say they are against "socialized medicine." Not only is this bill nothing like a "single-payer" health system along Canadian or British lines. It doesn't even include the "public option" that would have allowed people voluntarily to buy their insurance from the government. The single-payer idea fell by the wayside long ago, and supporters of the public option -- sadly, from my point of view -- lost out last December.
They'll be back, of course. The newly pragmatic Rep. Dennis Kucinich was right to say that this is just the first step in a long process. We will see if this market-based system works. If it doesn't, single-payer plans and public options will look more attractive.
Republican reform advocates have long called for a better insurance market. Our current system provides individuals with little market power in the purchase of health insurance. As a result, they typically pay exorbitant premiums. The new insurance exchanges will pool individuals together and give them a fighting chance at a fair shake.
Republicans now say they hate the mandate that requires everyone to buy insurance. But an individual mandate was hailed as a form of "personal responsibility" by no less a conservative Republican than Mitt Romney. He was proud of the mandate, and also proud of the insurance exchange idea, known in Massachusetts as "The Health Connector" (the idea itself came from the conservative Heritage foundation). Romney had a right to be proud. As governor of Massachusetts in 2006, he signed a bill that is the closest thing there is to a model for what the Democrats are proposing.
Don't believe me on this? On The Wall Street Journal's opinion page earlier this week, Grace-Marie Turner -- criticizing Romney from the right, it should be said -- noted the startling similarities between the plan he approved and the one President Obama is fighting for.
"Both have an individual mandate requiring most residents to have health insurance or pay a penalty," she wrote. "Most businesses are required to participate or pay a fine. Both rely on government-designed purchasing exchanges that also provide a platform to control private health insurance. Many of the uninsured are covered through Medicaid expansion and others receive subsidies for highly prescriptive policies. And the apparatus requires a plethora of new government boards and agencies."
She added: "While it's true that the liberal Massachusetts Legislature did turn Mr. Romney's plan to the left, his claims that his plan is 'entirely different' will not stand up to the intense scrutiny of a presidential campaign, especially a primary challenge."
What does it tell us that Republicans are now opposing a bill rooted in so many of their own principles? Why has it fallen to Democrats to push the thing through?
The obvious lesson is that the balance of opinion in the Republican Party has swung far to the right of where it used to be. Republicans once believed in market-based government solutions. Now they are su ious of government solutions altogether. That's true even in an area such as health care where government, through Medicare and Medicaid, already plays a necessarily large role.
As for the Democrats, they have been both pragmatic and moderate, despite all the claims that this plan is "left wing" or "socialist." It is neither.
You could argue that Democrats have learned from Republicans. Some might say that Democrats have been less than true to their principles.
But there is a simpler conclusion: Democrats, including President Obama, are so anxious to get everyone health insurance that they are more than willing to try a market-based system and hope it works. It's a shame the Republicans can no longer take "yes" for an answer.
E.J. Dionne's e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.
(c) 2010, Washington Post Writers Group
In his speech this morning Obama repeatedly referenced the vote that would take place this weekend. Which means they have the votes.
Final bill on display 72 hours starting Thursday,
vote is Sunday, at earliest.
As I said earlier, this is very probably how DK got convinced to vote yes.
Reid Promises Separate Public Option Vote In Next Few Months
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0...tml?view=print
Do it well before Nov, and all the lib s and independents who have been discouraged by lack of public option, to say nothing of the ACORN millions and millions of poor Latinos, will vote DEM heavily in November.
Then the NRA/Miltiamen/teabaggers can start bombing and shooting up the country, watering the Tree of Libertee.
When the public option was announced as dead, the for-profit insurance company stocks ed.
Will they crater this afternoon and Monday as the public option returns as real compe ion to their monopoly-exempt gouging?
Next up, remove the AMA-imposed limit on doctors training (aka restraining supply to inflate the price in the face of inelastic demand). America is badly under doctored, esp in rural areas.
Single-buyer/single-payer is certainly in the same trajectory, and will force BigPharma's rip-off prices way down in USA where they are when BigPharma sells the same drugs outside of USA to single-buyer national health systems.
Grayson Pushes Public Option On His Own Terms
Congressman Alan Grayson (D) Fla. has been waging his own war on the
health insurance industry by proposing a straightforward public option plan through the existing Medicare network. But in contrast to the 2000+ page proposal endorsed by the president, Grayson's bill is a robust 4 pages.
Grayson proposes to extend Medicare benefits to anyone from birth to age 64 with a simple 'buy-in.' In a recent interview, Grayson was emphatic in how this plan compares to Obama's, as well as the single-payer plan recommended by the group Physicians for A National Health Plan.
"The president's plan is lacking a public option, and this is a public option. This would be a wonderful supplement to the president's plan, but it also stands on its own," he said.
In fact, the short le of H.R. 4789 is listed as the "Public Option Act," or the "Medicare You Can Buy Into Act."
According to the congressman, the medicare buy-in will generate the same cost savings of any large group using already existing Medicare networks of providers and hospitals. Consequently, this introduces an element of compe ion in a market saturated by a handful of private insurers who now have close to a de facto monopoly.
"This will enormously help people who live in areas of the country where only one or two private insurance companies have 80% of the market or more," said Grayson. "It improves on the president's plan by taking existing valuable resources in the Medicare provider network and opening it up to 6/8 of the population that cannot benefit from it."
Grayson also points out that this bill forbids any discrimination based on preexisting conditions or gender differences, as exists now in our for profit system. The only distinction in price would be based on 6 age cohorts, ranging from birth to age 64, which reflects the reality of medical care provision costs.
The practice of policy rescission is a particularly sore point to Grayson and would be illegal. Grayson explained that far too many people discover this rescission practice after its too late.
"The problem with private health insurance is that you can get all the care you need, providing you don't need it," said Grayson.
Grayson also attributes this practice to the profit motive and asserts that private insurers have a 'conflict of interest,' which makes them a poor choice for the administration of medical care.
As for the comparison to single payer systems, Grayson explained that the medicare buy-in provides the same services, it is merely the method of payment which differs.
When asked if he would back a bill establishing the right of individual states to create their own single-payer state-wide system, Grayson explained that the Senate bill already provides for this tool.
When asked if he would back an alternative plan to cut spending in areas such as defense and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to transfer those monies to domestic needs such as a single-payer system, Grayson's response was direct:
"I've said a million times that I think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have to end. We have to take care of ourselves, and when I say we have to take care of ourselves, I meant that our health care, education, roads, bridges, our human needs. I'm not saying that we should end the war for the purpose of enacting single-payer. I think we should end the war for the purpose of eliminating the headlock that the military-industrial-complex has on America and meeting our human needs."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0...tml?view=print
===========
This guy seems to have his head screwed on pretty good, and is really trying push America forward. He's the one who said the Repugs reform plan was "get sick and die early". Give 'em and send them to .
Compare with retrogressive, consitipated conservatives who think the status quo is just great.
Seriously Buttons. Is Spursdynasty another troll of yours?
Last edited by jack sommerset; 03-19-2010 at 05:50 PM.
Faux News just twitted...
http://twitter.com/foxnews/statuses/10744206000BREAKING: Dems appear to reach magic 216 vote number, putting them in position to pass health care bill
Serious, Jack, GFY
Bad news for america. The saga goes on.............
I don't believe u buttons
No worries. The supreme court will rule the rule they are using uncons utional in the manner they are using it.
I don't think so.
Good news is America will win in the end killing the health care bill, the supreme court will stop this crazy ass political process that Obama SWORE he would never be apart of on his watch (I give Obama credit, he showed how ugly politics are by anyones standards) but it will take getting rid of the dems who allowed this bull that kept us hostage for 13 months and eventually passing it. Obama is right when he said this is why we have elections. November he will be reminded of that.
Well, the rule will be uncons utional if:
1) the senate changes the bill in any way.
2) any of the bill is changes by conference reports not yet voted on.
Both houses have to vote on the same bill with no changes to what they vote on, else it's uncons utional. Any change requires another vote.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
