« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Rolling the Liberals in the House — Updated with a summary & link to the Cantor Whip Count Memo (a must read)

When Lee Stranahan, an uninsured father and Huffington Post blogger, who supported President Obama, made calls and worked to elect him launches a youtube video attack on the Trillion Dollar President that chronicles how Obama (in his own words) has violated his promise of not taxing the middle class, violated the promise of allowing you to keep your plan if you like it, and violated his promise not to make a deal with the drug companies — things have gotten really bad. The video below is worth watching.

Combined with the White House’s sudden urgency on completing their informal, secret non-conference (thank you Senator DeMint) it is clear the health bill is in a heap of trouble. What will happen next depends on whether there is some I’ll-shoot-the-hostage-if-my-demands-are-not-met-leadership, by the House liberals.

(If you have not seen the “charming liar” attack on Obama for reneging on his health care transparency promises or his drug company promises, pls click here. It is well worth it.)

From Ben Pershing, in the Washington Post:

“Liberals are particularly worried that Obama has indicated to negotiators that he wants to preserve the so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health plans, a provision that is included in the Senate bill but not the House measure. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said several members spoke out on the subject during Thursday’s call.

“That position is going to be difficult in the House, and the White House needs to reconcile that,” Grijalva said in an interview. On that tax and a host of other issues, he added, “merely to rubberstamp what the Senate does is not enough.”

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) has enlisted 190 House Democrats to sign a letter declaring their opposition to the tax, which has also been fiercely criticized by labor unions — some of whose members would be exposed to the tax — and by other skeptics who fear the tax could hurt the middle class.”

The real question is, who cares?

The White House believes the liberals (just like Senators Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu, Webb and others) will roll over and vote yes.

For all the liberals pounding on the bill or on this provision or that provision — the only question that matters is: will the liberals vote NO if they do not get their principles they believe so strongly included in the bill?

If they do not have the courage or the belief in their principles to vote NO on a bill that shreds them, then who cares that there are 190 Democratic Representative’s signatures on a letter to the Speaker? The Speaker and the White House only care about one thing, will you vote yes? Or will you vote no?

No one believes the liberals will vote NO, everyone believes they will cave and vote YES in the hours and minutes before the vote, despite the fact that the liberals are given the short end of the stick every time on issue after issue: abortion, public option, Medicare buy-in, banning illegals from getting benefits, imposing a mandate to force Americans to buy insurance from private insurers, taxing health care plans, especially the rich union ones.

They will be asked, “Do you want to destroy the Obama Presidency?” Are you going to vote “against your President?” Or, “are you going to kill health care reform?” as if they solely are responsible for the bill’s content?

So, the liberals — unless they play some very uncharacteristic and serious hardball — will not get what they want out of the secret, informal, non-conference, simply because — unlike Senator Lieberman — no one believes they will vote NO. Therefore, the White House can give liberals the middle finger and force them to sign-off on the Senate bill — at no cost.

Here is what one liberal blogger is writing in one of the liberal’s top websites:

“I asked Grijalva [Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus] whether the White House’s support for the Senate health care bill’s excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” insurance policies is compatible with his promise on the campaign.

“No, it’s not,” Grijalva said. This is very dangerous territory for the White House. When you have a Democratic congressman saying that the President is advocating raising taxes on the middle class, that’s fodder for campaign commercials against every member of Congress who votes for the health care bill, and against the President himself.”

Clearly, this is but one of many campaign pledges President Obama has broken about health care, but what are the liberals going to do about it? If history is any guide, they will beat their chests about their concerns, get rolled and fold like a house of cards.

Until one liberal who has the back-bone and the courage to say I will be the vote that kills the bill — and the credibility to tell the President and Speaker the same when they come calling or when the White House and the House Leadership put the screws to force them to change their vote — expect more of the same — the liberals get rolled, and then vote Yes. (This is called leadership.)

There is a credible argument to be made that if they did issue a credible threat, that the White House would cave. But in order for it to be credible, the Speaker and the White House would have to know for certain those threatening to vote no, would vote no — just like they knew Stupak’s gang would vote no and just like they knew Senator Lieberman would vote no. House liberals will have to convince the leadership that they are not only willing to take the bill hostage, but shoot-it-in-the head if their demands are not met.

But, we are no where near that point now. The liberals have not even said they will vote no — let alone stand up to the pressure that will be brought to bear if they do say they will vote no. Bottom line, do the liberals have any serious leadership in their ranks that will do the things necessary to win?

Is there a Jane Hamsher or a Lee Stranahan in the House?

If not, the liberals should stop wondering why they keep being rolled and ignored.

This is the link to the Cantor memo released this morning, that details a comprehensive whip count in the House. The memo deals with only the issue of abortion, the budget and Medicare Advantage — none of the issues of concerns detailed in this post. Even with only these issues, Cantor is at 37 NO votes — four short of the needed 41.

Essentially, the bottom line is that if the progressives/liberals post even a handful of votes against the bill, then it likely dies in the House.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • barbs003

    January 19, 2010, get the vote out for Brown for MA US Senate.

    • Dan Perrin

      and therein would be the death of ObamaCare

  • bk

    While there were a couple of Dems who it seemed like refused to violate their principles (Stupak and Lieberman), in general it seems there were a chorus of Dems across the spectrum from far left libs like Sanders and Slaughter to various so-called moderates who were saying, “Man this bill SUCKS … but I’m voting for it anyway.”

    If Sanders is willing to vote for a no-public-option bill and Slaughter is willing to vote for a no-abortion-loophole bill under the “we have to pass SOMEthing” approach, then my fear is that all the libs will continue to roll over and whine whine whine whine whine whine and then vote yea.

    That leaves it up to the moderates who’ve done the same so far, and will be under huge pressure not to change an earlier yea to a nay. “Are you willing to be the ONE Democrat who joins the satanic obstructionist GOP in killing health care?”

    • Dan Perrin

      the liberals will not stand up for their principles and either kill it or

      b) be credible enough to force changes?

      • bk

        I don’t see anything that makes me think that will change.

        The only hope it seems to me is that Cao and enough of Stupak’s group or Lieberman will stick to their guns to kill it, assuming they are not offset by flip-flops in the other direction.

        My gut feel says this:
        1) Will any liberals who voted yes before vote no later? I suspect not. The more shrill they become the more you can be sure they’ll vote yes.
        2) Will any Dems who voted no before vote yes later? There could be a few in the House (e.g. if they don’t care about abortion but don’t want a public option, they might vote for the Senate version). And who knows about a goofball like Kucinich.
        3) Will any moderates who voted yes before vote no later? There could be some in the House if abortion is allowed or there could be Lieberman in the Senate if the public option returns.

        So if the far left who was in the bag stays in the bag, and Snowe doesn’t flip to offset a Lieberman flip, then we have to hope there are either a) a couple more Dems plus Cao in group 3) than there are Dems in group 2) in the House or b) Lieberman kills it in the Senate.

        • bk

          The House lefties may try to get a public option back in. Even if that fails I suspect they will still vote for it, but if successful in the House they lose Lieberman when it get backs to the Senate.

          Whatever other changes the House lefties want to add are pretty meaningless I think, because a) I doubt they pass and b) I doubt they change votes in either direction anyway in either chamber.

          But if Stupak tries to get his language added back in and fails, then that’s a big deal as it WILL change some votes. It MIGHT die in the House in that case.

          As to the odds of the Senate version passing in the House with NO changes, that depends on Stupak’s group. If several of them hold firm, it will die unless there are more flops than flips.

          If it makes it out of the House with the ONLY change being to add Stupak, then I suspect it passes as is in the Senate.

          If it makes it out of the House with a public option, then it depends on Lieberman in the Senate.

          My head is spinning. :-)

  • Darin_H

    Making yet another liberal into a conservative? Not yet, but it’s a start.

    • Dan Perrin

      has got to be dizzying for them.

      Let’s hope they get some determined clarity.

  • davidstone

    And they were never going to. And you know what? That is how it should be. The left will approach this fight for their progressive principles the same approach they use when fighting for American principles abroad and with national security – caving in, negotiating, appeasement, etc.

    The only way to stop the left’s policies from being implemented is beating them at the ballot box. And the only way to do that is that when we gain control (which we will again shortly) we need to govern effectively by our conservative principles so we do not lose. Depending on the left beating themselves is no strategy to depend on. WE need to beat them and we do that by running strong campaigns, putting genuine conservatives in office, and then governing effectively. Hopefully, we will get another chance starting 2011.

    • Dan Perrin

      will stand up for their principles?

      Sounds like most people believe that, including the Chief of Staff of the White House.

      They can and will be rolled.

  • izoneguy

    I know Lee Stranahan – for him to produce that video is a shocking thing – problem is – elections have consequences.

    The libs are waking up to this fact.

    One sure way to stop this is to get Scott Brown elected….

    Go to Lee’s video and comment that a vote for Scott Brown can stop ObamaCare dead in it’s tracks….
    The Obama Presidency is already destroyed….
    If he signs this crappy “health insurance reform” bill into law it
    will destroy the country…..

    Too many libs still think they are getting free insurance & free healthcare. They will not!! As a matter of fact they will be fined if they
    don’t have “acceptable” coverage.
    Don’t pay the fine or BUY insurance – go directly to jail.
    The IRS will be checking on this every year….

    Maybe C-Span can broadcast the carnage that will follow?

    • Dan Perrin

      to see that video and his conclusions.

      At least he is thinking clearly.

    • David123

      because a vote for Scott Brown is a vote for checks and ballances.

      Scott Brown will represent the people of Massachussetts in the Senate instead of representing/rubber stamping Harry Reid in the Senate.

      Of course conservatives should vote for Scott Brown as well.

  • izoneguy

    The Risk of Catastrophic Victory
    Obama is in the midst of one. Can the GOP avert one of their own?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704130904574644701673362182.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

    Passage of the health-care bill will be, for the administration, a catastrophic victory. If it is voted through in time for the State of the Union Address, as President Obama hopes, half the chamber will rise to their feet and cheer. They will be cheering their own demise.

    If health care does not pass, it will also be a disaster, but only for the administration, not the country. Critics will say, “You didn’t even waste our time successfully.”

    What a blunder this thing has been, win or lose, what a miscalculation on the part of the president. The administration misjudged the mood and the moment. Mr. Obama ran, won, was sworn in and began his work under the spirit of 2008?expansive, part dreamy and part hubristic. But as soon as he was inaugurated ,the president ran into the spirit of 2009?more dug in, more anxious, more bottom-line?and didn’t notice. At the exact moment the public was announcing it worried about jobs first and debt and deficits second, the administration decided to devote its first year to health care, which no one was talking about. The great recession changed everything, but not right away.

    • davidstone

      Sure, he eventually takes the hill…

      But it costs him the war.

      • Dan Perrin

        he cares about — and Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid too.

        • dwander

          I don’t believe Speaker Pelosi will be gone or lose the Speaker chair. On the other hand, I do believe you are right that Senator Reid will lose his job due to his closeness to Pelosi.

          There is still not enough voters awakened by the actions of the dems to affect actual change. We will have more of the same but they may be forced to actually work with the republicans in order to attempt to accomplish something.

          • Dan Perrin

            at what is happening to Nelson.

            The Speaker will lose her job.

          • dwander

            I don’t see how that happens unless she upsets enough democrats to unseat her for another.

            My viewing of the polls don’t leave me to believe that the republicans take back the house. If they do, I will be extremely excited and do hope that they actually elect some real conservative leadership for the speaker.

            I do believe that if the democrats don’t change their tactics that there is a very real probability that the house will change in the 2012 election. I hope they don’t wake up before then.

          • gemimail

            Al-2, AZ-1,5,8, CA-11, CO-4, CT-4, FL-8,22, GA-8, ID-1, KS-3, LA-3, ME-1, MD-1, MI-7,9, MS-1, NV-3, NH-1,2, NJ-3, NM-2, NY-20,23,24,29, NC-8, OH-15,16, PA-3,4,10,11, TN-6, TX-17, VA-2,5 WA-3, and WI-8.

            That comes to 41 seats and control. In case we miss a few of these, here are the backups: VA-11, NM-1, TX-23, NY-25, PA-7,8,12, IA-3, HI-1, and FL-24.

          • dwander

            I hope you are right but that seems awful optimistic.

          • gemimail

            http://www.marstonchronicles.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=296&Itemid=1130

          • dwander

            Dan,

            After last night, I now believe you are right! Unbelievable what is going on!

            Thanks,

    • Dan Perrin

      thanks for sharing.

  • Brian Hibbert

    Can we all tell Mr. Stranahan “I told you so.” at this point? Or should we let The Won keep disappointing him more and more with each passing day?

    Anyone who paid ANY attention to BO’s past and compared with his campaign rhetoric would have easily seen this one coming. The Hope and Change mantra was just a slogan. There will be CHANGE, but not so much HOPE.

    • tay123

      Tell that to the people of Denmark, I think they were named the happiest people on the Earth. They live in a socialist country.

      • Brian Hibbert

        MY point was that WE said Obama would not make the US into the socialist paradise that the Lefties think it’s going to get.

        Are you saying he has or will?

        By the way, happiness is a matter of being content with what you have or with your current situation. If the Danes really are the happiest on earth it’s because they have learned this truth, not because of their government. A government (whether Socialist or Free) cannot make you happy. Only YOU can make you happy.

      • izoneguy

        tay123 – you really need to stop using Google as a reference source.

        Many leftists often point to the “superiority” of Scandinavian “socialism.”,

        http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5616.aspx

        Furthermore, Scandinavian nations are not nearly as socialist as leftists claim they are. Although the United States ranks higher than these nations on the Index of Economic Freedom, Scandinavian nations are more free in several decisive areas. Denmark has greater business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom while having comparable property rights and trade freedom scores to the U.S.

      • Achance

        In the other one, you’re giving us the WWJD routine. Does your mother know you’re on the computer?

    • Dan Perrin

      They are admitting they made a mistake.

      Let us be gracious in that.

  • jtkell100

    The unreadable socialist, so-called Health Care Bill that is before congress is designed to destroy the U.S. constitution and take away our liberties. It wil decimate Medicare and our present Health Care System, which happens to be the best in the world. It will bankrupt every state in the union. If you have a Mother, Father, brother, Sister,Children, Grandchildren, Friends and Neighbors vote for Scott Brown allow everyone to live in freedom as we have in the past. Health care can be improved but you do not have to destroy our way of life to do it. The people in charge of this country now are not Democrats, Republicans or Independents. They have an agenda that is not in the best interest of free people as we have always enjoyed. Give Scott Brown a chance to save this country. Should this bill pass our life as we have known it will be over forever. THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE

    • Dan Perrin

      status of the United States…

  • erod

    right now I am of the firm opinion that we are going to get Obamacare and I am focusing my efforts on how we can roll this back by campaigning for conservatives so we can turn the tide in 2010 and 2012. So I’m inviting you to play devil’s advocate, if you wish.

    Let’s say this thing passes both houses and becomes law.

    What do you think the next step would be for the GOP and conservatives? Can we roll back the really ugly portions (individual insurance mandates, jail time, rationing high taxes, etc.) of this bill in the future and still somewhat salvage our health care? What would be the proper steps to doing this if it passes and do you think it’s likely to happen?

    • Dan Perrin

      any, 10 or 20 no votes if they do not get their demands met?

      If they can, ObamaCare dies.

      Do they have the leadership?

      I think, for the record, the repeal the bill effort will look a like surrender once or if it dies.

      I would wait.

  • erod

    right now I am of the firm opinion that we are going to get Obamacare and I am focusing my efforts on how we can roll this back by campaigning for conservatives so we can turn the tide in 2010 and 2012. So I’m inviting you to play devil’s advocate, if you wish.

    Let’s say this thing passes both houses and becomes law.

    What do you think the next step would be for the GOP and conservatives? Can we roll back the really ugly portions (individual insurance mandates, jail time, rationing high taxes, etc.) of this bill in the future and still somewhat salvage our health care? What would be the proper steps to doing this if it passes and do you think it’s likely to happen?

    • Dan Perrin

      n/t

  • Power_Pro

    “Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday told her caucus she would not let the House be forced into signing off on the Senate?s healthcare bill.

    Pelosi spent two hours addressing her Caucus via conference call on Thursday for the first time since she agreed to let the Senate bill serve as the vehicle for delivering a congressional health reform bill to the White House.

    But Pelosi insisted from the onset that the House would not simply accept the Senate bill, despite the extremely fragile coalition that allowed a bill to emerge from the Senate.”

    ?She answered questions about whether the White House wants just the Senate bill,? a senior Democratic aide said after the call. ?The Speaker said that is not going to happen. We are going to negotiate a final bill.?
    “Pelosi took no policy stances beyond those she has made publicly, aides and sources on the call said. She declared earlier this week that a final bill must only meet her ?AAA? affordability, accountability and accessibility test.

    Instead, she and other House leaders used Thursday?s call to lay out all of the issues that must be addressed, and to let members air their concerns about Senate provisions that are gaining momentum, including a state-based public insurance exchange, rather than a national, government-run ?public option? like the one written into the House bill.

    A so-called ?public option? is seen as having almost zero chance of surviving in Senate.

    At the same time, Pelosi told House liberals that the public option was still among the items under consideration by House, Senate and White House policy staff working on merging the two bills.

    Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a member of the House Progressive Caucus, said she came away with the assurance that the public option was ?still part of the discussion.?

    ?For a number of people, it was important to have the public option discussed,? Schakowsky said after calling in from her Congressional office in Washington. ?There?s a sense of satisfaction that the things we worked so hard for in the House bill are still part of the discussion.?

    Schakowsky said there were no ultimatums offered on the public option or other issues.

    She and other Democrats described the tone of the call as patient, probative and cordial ? a stark departure from where House Democrats were a month-and-a-half ago.

    ?This wasn?t about people showing signs or their cards or their positions or anything else,? Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.) said. ?It was just a conversation. It wasn?t about trying to ferret out people?s concessions or positions.?

    House Democrats will caucus again on Tuesday, and on Wednesday they begin their three-day ?Issues Conference,? where they will hear from Obama directly.

    Many members are awaiting guidance from the president, and there is a hope that he will help the two chambers clear their remaining hurdles.

    Talk of meeting in the middle on certain areas was already permeating some of the policy discussions on Thursday.”

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/74879-pelosi-vows-to-defend-house-health-reform-positions

    //

    So is this true or is Pelosi just trying to keep her Progressives in line?

    • Power_Pro
      • Dan Perrin

        actually believe the Speaker when she says the public option is still the table.

        Which table?

        The autopsy table?

    • Dan Perrin

      story and link

      Thanks.

  • http://www.thehayride.com MacAoidh

    They’re not liberals in any meaningful sense, in that there is no liberty to be found in any of their policies.

    I know it seems like a petty thing, but we have allowed these people to corrupt the language for their ends far too long. If anyone should have the mantle of liberalism, it’s US.

    We can call these people leftists, statists or progressives. Calling them liberals is engaging in euphemism and paying them a compliment they don’t deserve.

    • GT350

      I have no qualms with “Statists” or “Leftists”, but I really like the “Liberals” name. It has historical significance.

      By the end of Carter era, the term had become synonimous with “fiscally irresponsible and weak on defense”. Reagan turned the term “Liberal” into an epithet.

      The libs themselves knew it was poison. They spent nearly two decades running from the term. They came up with “Progressives” as a replacement, to evoke a sense of progress and forward thinking.

      From NYT’s coverage of 1988 race GHWB vs Dukakis:

      Mr. Dukakis’s embrace of the label ”liberal” reverses a long effort to avoid it. Two weeks ago, he chided Mr. Bush for the frequency with which the Vice President has used the word liberal to describe him, saying in their second debate, ”If I had a dollar, George, for every time you used that label, I’d qualify for one of those tax breaks for the rich that you want to give away.”

      • Brian Hibbert

        There are many people who look up the word liberal and think that when we apply it today it really means (from dictionary.com):

        “4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
        5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
        6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
        7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
        8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
        9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor. ”

        When all of THOSE meanings are polar opposites from the current actions of people who are called liberals.

        The definition that applies is currently “2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.”

        This confusion leads people astray. The people we call liberals are really progressives, statists, communists and fascists (to varying degrees).

        The traditional liberals are actually people like Milton Friedman who the current liberals love to hate.

        • GT350

          Maybe I’m getting old and pining for the good ol’ days.

          Regardless of dictionary definitions, I remember when “Pinko Liberal” was about the nastiest epithet you could hurl at someone. It really shut up the lefties when I was in college and thereafter during the late ’80′s, ’90′s, early 00′s. Somehow the term has come back to some respectability, I guess. Sigh….

          On the positive side, Barack is doing his best to destroy Liberal credibility again. That will be his legacy, along with a $2 Trillion deficit and a wounded US economy.

        • Dan Perrin

          progressive statists?

        • chbroussard

          neither is the word “gay.” When you hear that word, you don’t automatically think of being happy. You think of a homosexual. Same with the word liberal. You hear the word and immediately think of people like Pelosi and Reid. LIbs have tried to change wording because a lot of it is a turnoff to lots of people. So pro-abortion is now pro-choice. Terrorism is now man-made disasters. Global warming is now climate change. I say keep the liberal label. It seems to work pretty well. I don’t see any Democrats running for office calling themselves the most “liberal” candidate, unlike Republicans who are continually in a mud fight trying to portray themselves as the most conservative candidate.

        • Menlo

          It’s been said many times on here that they are quite regressive and certainly anything but progressive.

          How could anyone find that description appropriate?

    • Dan Perrin

      really I seem to think progressives is better, but am still unclear

      • erod

        You know like the ones McBane fought in the Simpsons. jk

      • erod

        You know like the ones McBane fought in the Simpsons. jk

  • louisiana

    of Israel, “pick up your shovel, mount your asses & camels, and I will lead you to the promised land”. Nearly 75 yrs. ago, Roosevelt said, “Lay down your shovels, sit on you ***es, & light up a camel, this is the promised land”.
    Now Obama has stolen your shovel, taxed your ***es, raised the price of camels, and mortgaged the promised land.
    Thought this joke was right on target.
    I, for one, cannot see the libs making the unions angry. I look for them to make some type of concessions to them.

  • tay123

    Why is it okay to put a price on human suffering? Why is it okay for some Americans to have health care but not all Americans? Why is it okay for 45 thousand Americans to die every year for lack of health insurance? For years I have not been blessed with a job that offered health insurance or even the chance to buy into a plan. Now their are no jobs that will offer anything. I now have a heart condition, do I feed my kids or buy medication for my self. Their is no help out there for people who work, I have been told I am not poor enough to qualify for anything. So I guess 16 thousand a year is a good income. Do you really think Jesus would go along with what’s happening to people? I know what I have learned from my King James Bible, ya know the word in red, LOVE ONE ANOTHER, FEED THE POOR, HEAL THE SICK!!!!!!!!! Their has to be a way!!!!!!! I have tried to post a comment at least 3 times, lets see if you’ll post this one.

    • erod

      would allow for the funding of abortions to kill babies? Sit on a death panel and decide who gets to live and die? Do you think he would hand out painkillers instead of life saving medication to people who are “unworthy” of proper medical treatment?

      Just remember when you become too old or too much of a burden or cost to this government they’re going to cut you off. Maybe they’ll give you some pain pills and send you home to die. I’m sorry for your situation there definitely needs to be reform, but a total takeover and welfare state is not what I or the majority of Americans want.

      • tay123

        already laws on the books that say federal money cannot be used to pay for abortions, because of people like you, funding of abortions is not going to happen, and that’s a good thing, believe it or not I am pro life. The death panel stuff is propaganda, I know this because I read the house bill, ya that’s right I spent 4 days reading it. Health insurance company’s already cut people off because they cut into their profits. But I must say when an older person is on Medicare ( a government run health care system) they are not cut off. Please don’t try to speak for the majority of Americans, you can’t , neither can I and I don’t try. I speak only for myself. I for one want the system the United Kingdom has, yep single payer, I know first hand how well it works, I lived there for awhile and it was a wonderful thing to behold. Unlike some people I would not mind paying higher taxes tor everyone to have equal access to a basic human right. No one should suffer because of money. Health care is also breaking the backs of many employers, company’s are going out of business because of heath care cost. Let’s just take the profit out of the equation, maybe more people will live.

        • janis

          You can’t even troll well.

          • erod

            I am so sick of “pro lifers” (and I use that term very loosely) like you who continue to vote these pro choice scumbags in. Obama is so pro choice that he voted for a policy that let infants die in abortion clinics in IL if they survived an abortion. It was only after his departure from the IL chamber that both Democrats and Republicans in a bi-partisan effort were able to pass legislation that overturned that disastrous practice. That president of yours is so pro death that he endorses infanticide. So don’t give me this malarkey that you’re pro life if you support this guy and voted for him; you’re pro-choice as far as I’m concerned.

            But I must say when an older person is on Medicare ( a government run health care system) they are not cut off.

            Just wait till they gut the program, specifically Medicare Advantage which is going to get canned. Then we’ll see how efficiently Medicare is running. And how are they going to pay for seniors? health care if they don’t have the funds for it? Seems like they’ll be put into an inferior health plan with limited benefits and limited funding which leads to what Tay 123? In a nutshell, it will lead to rationing, by government bureaucrats because they have to limit costs of the program.

            Please don?t try to speak for the majority of Americans, you can?t , neither can I and I don?t try.

            I just didn’t pull that out of the air go check this http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
            As you can see the “reform” your messiah is advocating is not too popular right now, therefore the majority of people oppose it. Just like the polls indicated that the majority of the people did not like George W. Bush at the end of his term. Oh, but you wouldn?t argue that fact now would you Tay?

            Unlike some people I would not mind paying higher taxes for everyone to have equal access to a basic human right.

            You’re hardly paying as it is, people like you hardly pay any taxes, so when it comes time to foot the money for this bill, people like you won’t be paying much at all. And I know how it’s like; I’m currently a new grad working part time earning $15,000 a year with no health care, I barely pay any taxes. But, in the future it will be people like me who have families and will have to pay an estimated $15,000 a year to foot this bill, so you can sit on your lazy bum and enjoy your meager benefits and inferior care.

            Go away troll.

          • erod

            I am so sick of “pro lifers” (and I use that term very loosely) like you who continue to vote these pro choice scumbags in. Obama is so pro choice that he voted for a policy that let infants die in abortion clinics in IL if they survived an abortion. It was only after his departure from the IL chamber that both Democrats and Republicans in a bi-partisan effort were able to pass legislation that overturned that disastrous practice. That president of yours is so pro death that he endorses infanticide. So don’t give me this malarkey that you’re pro life if you support this guy and voted for him; you’re pro-choice as far as I’m concerned.

            But I must say when an older person is on Medicare ( a government run health care system) they are not cut off.

            Just wait till they gut the program, specifically Medicare Advantage which is going to get canned. Then we’ll see how efficiently Medicare is running. And how are they going to pay for seniors? health care if they don’t have the funds for it? Seems like they’ll be put into an inferior health plan with limited benefits and limited funding which leads to what Tay 123? In a nutshell, it will lead to rationing, by government bureaucrats because they have to limit costs of the program.

            Please don?t try to speak for the majority of Americans, you can?t , neither can I and I don?t try.

            I just didn’t pull that out of the air go check this http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
            As you can see the “reform” your messiah is advocating is not too popular right now, therefore the majority of people oppose it. Just like the polls indicated that the majority of the people did not like George W. Bush at the end of his term. Oh, but you wouldn?t argue that fact now would you Tay?

            Unlike some people I would not mind paying higher taxes for everyone to have equal access to a basic human right.

            You’re hardly paying as it is, people like you hardly pay any taxes, so when it comes time to foot the money for this bill, people like you won’t be paying much at all. And I know how it’s like; I’m currently a new grad working part time earning $15,000 a year with no health care, I barely pay any taxes. But, in the future it will be people like me who have families and will have to pay an estimated $15,000 a year to foot this bill, so you can sit on your lazy bum and enjoy your meager benefits and inferior care.

            Go away troll.

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          It is the result of someone else’s labor. Expropriating that labor is a form of slavery.

        • Aaron Gardner

          Bottom line, your agenda is not our agenda. We are not here to debate your agenda. Your agenda leads to tyranny, and your are either too ignorant to realize it, or just posting here in bad faith. I am pretty sure it is the latter.

          Also if healthcare is a basic human right and must therefore be provided by the gov’t to the people, then why are we not issued firearms at birth?

        • JadedByPolitics

          The Commission in the bill now go back and read it again….TOOL!

        • mbecker908

          if you love the UK health care system so much, move back there. Or Canada. Or Cuba.

          Oh, and if you support the Democratic Party in the US you cannot be “pro-life”. You can, however, be certified as an idiot.

    • izoneguy

      Over 40,000 people per year die in auto accidents.
      I am sure many of those folks had health insurance.

      45,000 uninsured deaths?

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/45000_uninsured_deaths_just_mo.html

      As many Americans die needlessly under government-managed health care each year as folks who supposedly die from lack of health insurance.

      Yet Democrats, and their media sock puppets, have shamelessly exploited highly questionable estimates of uninsured deaths as agitprop to shoehorn the entire population into just such a government-run health care system — on steroids.

      They cite an exaggerated claim that 45,000 Americans die each year because they don’t have health insurance. That figure comes from a study funded by your federal tax dollars, even though it was recently distributed to the media by Physicians for a National Health Program, a fringe, pro single-payer group based in Chicago, the report’s release scheduled to sway the healthcare debate.

      By contrast, a comprehensive study of over 35,000,000 — yes, that’s million — acute care records over a recent three-year period concludes that preventable medical mistakes actually cause a similar number of deaths in the government-run Medicare program. The sixth annual HealthGrades Patient Safety in American Hospital Study examined records “among Medicare patients at virtually all of the nation’s 5,000 non-federal hospitals” from 2005-2007 and determined that over 92,000 deaths were attributable to medical errors, about the same as the average estimate in the uninsured study.

      Further, the report noted that mistakes which could harm a patient are only reported 73% of the time and concluded that their figures “likely represent a fraction of the number of avoidable patient safety deaths and associated costs.”

      Another recently released study by HealthGrades concludes that “224,537 Medicare lives could have potentially been saved during 2006 through 2008″ if all hospitals across the country had performed at the quality of care levels of its top-ranked facilities.

      Yet why aren’t the Democrat demagogues braying about a “holocaust” in government-run Medicare, as they did about the inflated uninsured deaths figure? Are they going to admit that it is really their plan, not the Republicans’, to let people “die quickly”?

      And where is the media coverage? Why did they lap up the uninsured deaths Kool-Aid, while ignoring the other two studies?

      The Democrats and their Brownshirts in the media have shamelessly, irresponsibly used the hyperbolic 45,000 uninsured deaths estimate like a truncheon, to cow their opponents, even as they ignore the potentially much more deadly consequences of Obamacare.

      So, if ObamaCare gets passed – look for deaths to increase.
      I think I would rather be uninsured than “covered” with something
      as crappy as ObamaCare.

      White House Claim of 46 Million Uninsured ‘Americans’ Includes Almost 10 Million Foreigners

      http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/49586

      Obama is waging a war against churches and other outreach
      organizations that could help people. What would Jesus think about that?

    • Achance

      If you’re only making $16K a year and want to make more, you need to develop some skills. $16K is about the minimum wage for a fulltime job in most western or northeastern states, and in most of those states would qualify you for a good bit of their social welfare program. But anyway, you probably don’t care to hear any of that because I’m reasonably certain you’re simply being a troll and you think it is just so kewl to ask us what Jesus would go along with.

      • tay123

        LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

        • Achance
    • Aaron Gardner

      Instead spend your time in fervent prayer.

      Or stop asking asking for miracles. Your choice.

    • Composer_Man

      You say: “Their [sic] is no help out there for people who work…”

      I assume you mean there is no GOVERNMENT help out there for people who work. Setting aside whether that is actually true or not, I assure you there is an abundance of “help” in the world for people who truly seek it.

      Without casting aspersions on you in particular, I will say that the reason many of us here reject the underlying concept of this “health reform” bill (and, indeed, most welfare) is that (a) the people asking for it do not want help, they want a handout, (b) it is wrong – morally wrong – to take something that rightfully belongs to one person, and give it to someone else, and (c) redistribution by force is not Christian charity, it is tyranny.

      • dwander

        Great way to put that!

        Thanks

    • Brian Hibbert

      Here’s how it goes:

      You: I’m pregnant and I have a pain in my abdomen. I would like a Doctor to look at it.

      Gov official: Take a number and wait your turn.

      You: I’ve been waiting 2 hours, can I see a Doctor?

      Gov official: Look I told you, wait your turn. If you want a doctor to see you, sit down and shut up.

      You: I’m REALLY in pain, Can someone give me something for the pain?

      Gov official: We’re busy. The doctor will get to you when it’s your turn.

      Another patient: This person’s really hurting, Can you please get someone to help.

      Gov official: It’s none of your business. If YOU want to see a doctor, you better stay out of it.

      You:

      • Brian Hibbert

        You: Go home, stop at a pharmacy for over the counter pain reliever. Then have a miss carriage.

        That’s a real story of how people are dealt with by government run hospitals.

        It’s not the type of health care I want. Nor do I consider it compassionate.

    • penguin2

      $!6,000 a yr. and children and a heart condition….There isn’t a state in the Union, that doesn’t seek to rescue people just like you, if you were for real. They advertise all the time to add members to the Medicaid, SCHIP (for the children), SSI/disability etc.

      Jesus expected us to be charitable with our own goods, not my neighbors. That is called stealing, and He did not advocate that.
      But as Achance said already, you are just a troll. We are not sympathetic to lies here.

      • tay123

        have health care, I don’t qualify. I am for real. But I guess you’ve never been without. I’m not looking for sympathy from you or anyone else. Just telling the truth, and it is the truth.

        • penguin2

          I will tell you as a RN, your plight just doesn’t ring true because I know of numerous aids out there regarding medication help. Your local pharmacy has drug companies in their database that aid those without insurance, your physician or other health care provider gets loads of free samples, that they are generous with. If you income is that low for a family of three or four, you do qualify for Medicaid, as in my reference to every state in the Union has something to assist you. Frequent visits to the ER usually end up in referrals to further assistance. Free assistance. And as far as feeding your children, with that income, food stamp eligibility is there.

          Now I would not believe you if you say you do not want government assistance because your whole post was about how bad we are for not supporting taking from us to give to those that need. Via the government. Have you checked in with churches and other religious groups, free clinics are run by many, or they put you in touch with those that can help you.

          I’ve spent the time noting what is available for you and yours. The problem, too many things you said, just sound like you looked up every little thing that could be wrong, and blamed it on the lack of a complete Socialist society. If you really believe having Socialized Medicine will solve all of your problems, please don’t. You will be an even smaller human being among the masses for any kind of aid. It is called rationing.

          And you have no idea how many of us here truly know what is it to be without….

        • aesthete

          as has my family. Trust me when I tell you, there is both government and private assistance in abundance out there for people just like you. Walk into the doors of any church, synagogue, or mosque, and you’ll find people who have funds set aside for their members, and even for people who aren’t associated with them and just need help. My mom’s a nurse, and she can tell you stories about poor people who act as if they’re entitled to healthcare, and who have government assistance.

          Also, if your only concern is for the poor, why don’t you just reform/expand Medicaid, instead of wrecking the entire medical care industry with damaging regulations? Oh, I remember: because you’re either too dishonest or stupid to keep track of whether you want to gouge the evil health insurance industry, “make healthcare affordable for the middle class”, or help (ostensibly) poor people.

    • janis

      How did you think you were going to feed and clothe them? What kind of housing did you think you could provide for them with that kind of money? Birth control costs considerably less than any of those things, and, if you were not going to make a decent living that would provide for you alone, why on earth would you bring children into your life without thinking of their welfare first?

      It’s not our job to finance your lifestyle choices, you know. And how come you have a heart condition? Overweight? Smoke? High cholesterol and no exercise? Diabetic?

      All Americans have access to health care. Not all Americans have access to health insurance. Big difference. As for your co-opting Jesus to whine about health insurance, He said, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and render unto God that which is God’s.” Health insurance doesn’t belong to either one of them, it’s supposed to be a private citizen’s choice and responsibility. Jesus also said that is was our responsibility to help our fellow man, not our mandate to shove our hands in our fellow man’s pocket and rob him of his earnings to benefit others.

      • nivlem

        “What the hell were they thinking….’
        I have faced it with my own children. They have children before they could provide for them, and then they come to us to bail them out……
        I am sorry,…children are not puppies. They are a long term commitment. The outcome of this child reflects on who you are – not the number of children…
        a reality they don’t seem to conact with at a young age. Then it becomes our problem.

    • DefendUSA

      45,000 people die because they don’t have health insurance? Let’s try that one, again.
      You have two people. Both overweight and both smoke. One has insurance and one does not. Both of them die. Why did the man with insurance not make it? Why did the one who didn’t have insurance die? Short answer: Habits can kill. Your predisposition to some diseases can kill you. Not having insurance won’t be the sole reason you die. Do you see that?

      You people who think the government plan is going to solve all of your problems are mistaken. You want a guarantee from a health catastrophe that cannot be given. It will be nice to have insurance, but it will not save you.

      • nivlem

        I just don’t buy it.
        Sorry, I had an alcoholic friend that had a seriuos sinus infection he could have
        easily treated, but instead of addressing it, he ended up dying at the young age of 55.
        The unfortunate thing, is that a small cyst, became a major problem and cost taxpayers close to a million dollars. Not bee cause he couldn’t afford to see an Urgent Care, but he “couldn’t waste his time”.
        Many will say he could not afford insurance, funny…..he had is chair he sat in at Hooters with his name on it…
        It had always been a priority issue for the majority of the uninsured. The environment for our nation has led them to know they will be taken care of.
        Unfortunately, they are right.

    • janis

      And a whole host of other peculiar websites? For someone who’s so concerned about the lives of his children, you sure do waste a lot of time playing around on the ‘net. And, seriously, you’ve “been drawing since you were 11 months old”? So what. So have both my grandkids.

      So maybe that’s your problem. You’ve not very good at your career choice.

      • aesthete

        I don’t see why his career choice, which has a small % of success, is my problem.

    • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

      it helps society? You see, there is an iron law of economics: if you tax something, or make it hard to obtain, then you will get less of it. But is you subsidize it and make it easy, then you will get more of it.

      So if you are in a tough place for being poor, then you will work your ass off to gain the skills needed to increase your status. But if society makes it easy on you by giving out handouts then there will be no incentive to work hard and better yourself. In fact just the opposite, there will be an incentive to just get by and try to game the system for all you can get out of it.

      That is precisely why the “war on Poverty was a huge failure and why poor people in America overwhelmingly are involved in substance abuse, petty criminality, and apathy.

      I want less poverty not more, So I don’t want to subsidize it.

    • Third Street

      I can sympathize with yuour plight. Two years ago I experienced spontaneous decapatation of several of my limbs and my job as a paperclip reallocasion specialist did not provide me health insurance and so I was forced to choose betwean the weekly ration of Alpo for my 27 kids and the purchase of a neadle and thread to sew myself back togethar!!!!! Two years later everything works okay and I can get around but I still have pain that would not be there if we had followed the teachings of JESUS and given HEALTH CARE to everybody!!!!!! WHY ARE THESE AWFUL RETHUGLICANS AGAINST JESUS?!?!?!?

      WHAR IS THE COMPASSION?????

      • Vegas_Rick
      • Repair_Man_Jack

        Awesome, Dude

    • Vegas_Rick

      Perhaps spending your time trying to figure out a way to increase your cash flow might provide a better return on time invested.

    • aesthete

      You sure do love shoving Jesus into the debate (without context or understanding, no less).

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    >>>>Why is it okay to put a price on human suffering?

    A failure to do so will leave you unable to estimate how much is required to get rid of it.

    >>>>Why is it okay for some Americans to have health care but not all Americans?

    Because healthcare results from another person’s labor. In Alabama, where I live, many people were forced to provide their labor to others without consent. it was called slavery and I’m profoundly greatful that our nation evolved and ended the practice.

    >>>>Why is it okay for 45 thousand Americans to die every year for lack of health insurance?

    Nobody can possibly die from a lack of insurance. Your logic has veered into fallacy land.

    >>>>Do you really think Jesus would go along with what?s happening to people?

    If I had to make a teleological estimate, I imagine he would take one look at how Harry Reid ran the US Senate and announce that he intended to come quickly. Let’s hope, for both of our sakes, he doesn’t spend too much of his spare time on the current state of the USA.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      I must repeat this mantra until I commit it to memory…

    • Dan Perrin

      Perfect.

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        I’m just one of God’s Little Rays of Sunshine. :)

  • izoneguy

    Economist Was Under Contract With HHS While Touting Health Reform Bill

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/08/economist-contract-health-department-touting-reform/

    MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, one of the leading academic defenders of health care reform, is taking heat for failing to disclose consistently that he was under contract with the Department of Health and Human Services while he was touting the Democrats’ health proposals in the media.

    Gruber, according to federal government documents, is under a $297,600 contract until next month to provide “technical assistance” in evaluating health care reform proposals. He was under a $95,000 HHS contract before that.

    But while he was being paid to provide his services to HHS, he was also fending off health care reform critics in the media. Gruber was one of the prominent analysts to rebut an insurance industry report from PricewaterhouseCoopers in October saying premiums would shoot up if a health care bill passes. And he has recently written columns defending specific provisions in the House and Senate bills, particularly the “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans.

    The liberal base of the Democratic Party is widely opposed to that tax, out of fear that it will cut into union benefits — which may explain why the first criticism of Gruber came out of liberal blogs.

    “I have never seen it disclosed that he was a paid consultant to the Obama administration,” a blogger for Firedoglake wrote Friday morning. “For months I have been angry with Gruber because I thought he was simply an exaggerator whose dangerous love of the spotlight was hurting the efforts of progressives to make sure the Senate bill adopted more progressive cost control solutions. … Now it is clear something much more sinister was at play.”

    • Dan Perrin

      – big time, which is another log on the elitist, insider health care bill the left hates.

  • The_Rebel

    wants the cadillac tax on high cost health plans, then we can expect that the House and Senate health care plan will fall into that category.

    Can we have someone from the MSM please ask him that?

    • Dan Perrin

      where will the left and the unions be on the final vote, and where will the House be and where will the bill be — no one knows.

      But, like the Cantor memo explains, even a small variance in the liberal/progressive vote — if a dozen or so or even half a dozen vote no — then the bill is done.

      • davidstone

        Pelosi had no cushion on her 220 house vote. I will bet she did and gave permission to some to vote no. Second, we are assuming those that voted no on the house bill will also hate the senate bill.

        If several no votes become yes due to cusion or liking the senate bill better than the house bill, that increases the number of lefties we have to pull in to vote no.

        • Dan Perrin

          defections from NO to YES.

          You should review it in detail.

          The problem is those NO to YES will pay a huge price — like Sen. Nelson is paying now.

  • JadedByPolitics

    I look forward to the union leaders having their members come after them with pitchforks and FIRE after they get that first paycheck with their “new” and “improved” benefit deduction! There really is no other group so DESERVING of being ROLLED then the unions!

    • Dan Perrin

      health coverage, and now those are being taxed by the Trillion dollar president.

    • Vegas_Rick
    • Achance

      that has an employer, union, or retirement plan provided health insurance plan is going to get hit unless they put some sort of geographical differential scheme in the legislation. The last figures I saw would hit any good plan in the West Coast and Alaska, the upper Mid-West, and the Northeast.

      The State of Alaska contributes about $1000/mth. for each of us which will add $24K/yr. in taxable income or on the other scheme about $200/mth. each taxable at as much as 40%. Plus, since it is all handled through the State’s retirement plan administrators there is no way for us to get out of one of them – we would be fine without the double coverage – or to do anything to offset the earnings and taxes.

      I paid serious money every month for over twenty years and my wife for over thirty years for that coverage and now the communist SOB is essentially going to render it worthless. And my union dominated Retirees Association is BACKING commiecare.

      • Dan Perrin

        and Obama is breaking his tax promise and hurting his allies.

        As Vegas_Rick said.

      • The_Rebel

        to those high-end plans of the beautiful people, i.e., our Senators and Representatives. This point needs to be shouted from the microphones on a daily basis. They need to be shamed into either covering themselves under these odious rules, or killing the health care reform bill.

  • renny

    whom we all love to hate for being a RINO, but she said the package was too high a tax on the middle class and she would not vote for another entitlement deal when the two biggies we already have (Medicare and Soc. Sec.) are in so much financial trouble.

    Say what you will, she at least, and Collins, stood with the Reps. and voted “NO.” If Lieberman had not really ever been going to have voted for the bill, he could have voted NO on the first cloture vote to start *debate.* That would have ended it all in the Sen.

    Nothing seems to be able to stop this enormous stupidity the Dems. are driving themselves into. And no, no one has the guts to stand up and say, NO, this has gone far enough and the people are against it and the unions are against it and we should quit the whole thing. They are lemmings insisting on running off the cliff.

    • Dan Perrin

      being signed into law, mainly because of Obama’s stupidity.

  • barry915barry

    If this bill passes, the Left WILL get their single payer system.

    Stated Nancy Pelosi at a Dec. 10,2009 news conference: “…We believe… that the public option is the best way to hold insurance companies honest — to keep them honest and also to increase competition.”

    From a WSJ.com article dated 4/4/09:
    “…that same bank is begging to give the money back(TARP)….But the Obama team says no,…. The bank has also been threatened with “adverse” consequences…”

    Even the Mayo clinic sees the writing on the wall. “Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) — The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little.” This is just the first step in a revenue source drying up.

    While Mr. Stranahan thinks this is a windfall for “big pharma” (presumably because of the “deal” they cut with Obama and the provision requiring citizens to buy insurance), he is mistaken.
    The Dems will simply continue to move the goal posts. Insurance companies CAN NOT make a DECENT profit if they have to insure pre-existing conditions, and still be considered AFFORDABLE by some bureaucrat or “gov”t panel” (yes, I know they are redundant!) They will simply come to the conclusion the the insurance companies are charging too much, and with the help of their lapdog media, tell the people the GOV”T needs to step in and save the day.

    I believe, Dan, that the far left is entrenched enough (in the federal bureaucracy) that they can make this happen. They will simply have it regardless. A Nancy Pelosi stated, “There are other ways to achieve that (the public option). I believe that this bill starts an inevitable slide towards the single payer option.
    I do not believe the far left is being rolled. I think they are strategically calculating that once people have something they won’t give it back. I also think that the “caddy tax” is really a non-issue because the private sector is less than 8% unionized, with only 12.4% unionization overall.

    I think that the total cost issue (if money spent IS an issue for Dems) and the pro-life angle are the two BEST ways to stop this bill. I believe another possible way is to win the PR battle of medicare and have seniors voices be heard(AARP position makes it tougher). Rasmussen polls state they are the group most opposed to this bill.

    It is NOT about the liberals being rolled, it is the so called Blue Dogs and moderate who are being trampled and stiff armed (bought). Barry

  • Achance

    by ’12 as the cost of their purchased or employer/union/retirement provided plans skyrocket and their tax burden increases. It won’t matter what you consider yourself to be politically, D, R, or I if your families health insurance costs are going up by hundreds of dollars a month and you are being taxed on your HI too, You’ll take any line thrown to you.

  • louisiana

    for my inheiritance. I’m sure they would approve. I would make some phone calls, but I don’t think my southern twang would help convince any MA voter to vote for Brown.

  • ogee

    Urgent! Please Read. Gov will have real time access to everyone’s bank account. That means you too obots.
    Below is a letter sent by Indianapolis anesthesiologist, Dr. Stephen E. Frazer, to Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN):
    Senator Bayh,
    As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the health care bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government?s proposed involvement in the patient-physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is DANGEROUS and certainly not helpful in designing a health care system that works for all.
    Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our health care system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress WILL BE A DISASTER IF PASSED.
    I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill.
    You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens? READ THESE CAREFULLY AND JUST IMAGINE WHAT COULD RESULT ???..
    Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!
    Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.
    Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!
    Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have NO choice!
    Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens???.. illegal or otherwise.
    Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals? finances & a ?National ID Health card? WILL be issued!
    Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have DIRECT ACCESS to your bank accounts for ELECTIVE funds transfer.
    Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).
    Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the ?Exchange.?
    Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans?The Govt WILL ration your health care!
    Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)
    Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps) to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.
    Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans.
    (AARP members ? your health care WILL be rationed!)
    Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. ( NO choice.)
    Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No ?judicial review? against Govt monopoly.
    Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/American Medical Association ? The Govt WILL TELL YOU what salary you can make.
    Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)
    Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees AND their families. (Employees shouldn?t get excited about this employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense) UNSUSTAINABLE.
    Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll!
    (See the last comment in parenthesis.)
    Page 150 Lines 9-13:A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn?t provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.
    Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn?t have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.
    Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is EXEMPT from individual taxes.
    (Americans will pay.)
    Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. WILL HAVE ACCESS to ALL Americans? finances and personal records.
    Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: ?The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.?
    (Yes, it really says that!) Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors.
    (Low-income and the poor are affected.)
    Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn?t matter what specialty you have trained yourself in ? you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that?s not Socialism!)
    Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor?s time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally ? the value of humans.)
    Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for ?private? HC industries.
    Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.
    Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS ? Cancer patients ? welcome to rationing!
    Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e? re-admissions).
    Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission ? the Govt will penalize you.
    Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)
    Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)
    Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)
    Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of 2 outcome-based measures? (HC the way they want ? rationing.)
    Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)
    Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of ?special needs people!? Unbelievable!
    Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a ?Tele-Health Advisory Committee.? (Can you say HC by phone?)
    Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates ?Advance-Care Planning Consult.? (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)
    Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it?s mandatory!)
    Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an ?approved? list of end-of-life resources; guiding you in death. (Also called ?assisted suicide.?)
    Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on ?end-of-life.? (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)
    Page 429 Lines 1-9: An ?advanced-care planning consultant? will be used frequently as a patient?s health deteriorates.
    Page 429 Lines 10-12: An ?advanced care consultation? may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans.. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)
    Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. (I wouldn?t want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)
    Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again ? no choice!)
    Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)
    Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy.
    (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)
    Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.
    Senator, I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.
    Furthermore, if you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor-patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election.
    Respectfully,
    Stephen E. Fraser, MD
    Dear Reader, I urge you to use the power that you were born with (and the power that may soon be taken away) and circulate this letter to as many people as you can reach. The ?Power of the People? can stop this from happening to us, our parents, our grandparents, our children, and to following generations.