Lou Dobbs Thinks Baucus Selling Out to the Insurance Industry With the $3800 Fee is "Authoritarian"
If it weren't Lou Dobbs saying it and knowing he always likes to take a shot at the Obama administration ever since the black man got elected and his brain exploded, I'd almost be inclined to agree with Dobbs on this one. I don't think it's "authoritarian" to want everyone to have to pay into a system that makes sure everyone is covered and has health insurance of some sort. I do agree that what Baucus is proposing looks like nothing less than making sure all of us are going to pay into the health insurance industry monopoly whether we like it or not with no assurance they're not going to still rip everyone off on premiums since there is not at least a public option in his plan.
And why in the hell is Baucus at this late date still pretending that any Republicans are going to vote for any of this? They already had the Democrats take all of their amendments and then still said they wouldn't vote for what the Democrats compromised on with the bill.
All I can say is, let me in a poker game with any of these guys since I'd go home with a pocket full of money. Never show your hand or let the other person call your bluff until you have to. And as a twenty some year union member, I can also say that the Democrats obviously haven't learned what the term "bargaining in good faith" means. They could use a few of our Business Reps showing them how not to be played for suckers when you negotiate.
I'm not sure just what Max Baucus' game is here, but I've grown tired of it. He's had months to get something done and what he's come out with is a sell out to the insurance industry. I hope to hell the Progressive Causus in the House isn't going to stand for this.
And surprise, surprise it turns out that "just when you thought the Baucus revolving door couldn’t spin faster: the Senate staffer responsible for devising the tax policies at the heart of the Baucus plan is a former lobbyist for health insurance and pharmaceutical interests, including an insurance industry front group".
Color me not shocked. Obama needs to decide which side he's on in this debate whether he cares about keeping his base. As John has said, he's going to lose the left if he sells us out.
Transcript below the fold.
BASH: [O]f that so-called gang of six meeting. The bipartisan negotiators who have been meeting for months and months and the reason is because they know full well that the White House simply doesn't think that they're going to get a deal, that the Republicans, especially two Republicans you see on the screen there, Charles Grassley and Mike Enzi, they simply don't think at the White House that they're going to at the end of the day sign on to a bipartisan plan. That is why Max Baucus, the chairman, came out and told us this afternoon that he is giving them until 10:00 tomorrow morning to come back with counter proposals and that he hopes to decide whether or not they can go forward with this bipartisan deal by tomorrow afternoon. Listen to what Max Baucus said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D), MONTANA: (INAUDIBLE) a lot of this comes down to political...
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Senator, is there...
BAUCUS: I'm just hopeful that when the president gives his statement tomorrow night that that's going to help move all forward and (INAUDIBLE). The rubber is starting to meet the road here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: Now Lou, this is the 18-page proposal of what Senator Baucus sent around to that -- five other senators. He did it over the holiday weekend and that's what they were discussing in the meeting today. And I can go over for you some so of the highlights that both -- many of these senators do see as points of compromise.
First and foremost, that public option is not in this. Instead, it is -- there are nonprofit, so-called cooperatives that would take effect. There's no employer mandate, no mandate from employers to give their employees coverage except that there is a penalty for companies that have 50 or more employees if they don't give their employees coverage.
There is a mandate for individuals. All individuals in this country to get health insurance coverage. Now for people at or above the -- right above the poverty level, they will get subsidies for the government. But if not, if just for example, a family of four making $66,000 a year, if they don't have health insurance coverage, they would be fined a penalty of $3,800 if they don't have health insurance coverage. Those are some of examples of what's in this proposal. I can tell you that one of the Republicans, Olympia Snowe, just told our Ted Barrett that she doesn't think that they can get a deal by tomorrow night. If that's the case, Max Baucus might move on without the Republicans. We'll see.
DOBBS: Well move on without the Republicans, how about the rest of the country? When you start fining people $3,800 in this country, Dana, for not having health care insurance, I mean, that takes on certain -- well, authoritarian tones, does it not?
BASH: Well that's certainly what we heard from Republicans who are not in this -- in this meeting today. John McCain went to the senator floor and blasted that idea. We haven't heard very much from the negotiators on that. We're waiting to hear what they say, whether or not they can sign onto this.
DOBBS: I don't understand something. Perhaps you can sort it out for us. Max Baucus set a 10:00 a.m. deadline tomorrow?
BASH: 10:00 a.m. deadline tomorrow for...
DOBBS: And the president doesn't speak until tomorrow evening at that joint session. And he says he needs Obama to help move forward any possible compromise, but he's got a deadline that will take place hours before the president speaks. Sort that out for us.
BASH: Sure, what he said is that he wants the other senators to come back with their problems with this. He insisted there were only four or five major issues and that the group is going to meet again tomorrow afternoon. He didn't lay down a line to say absolutely we're going to you know make or break this before the president's speech, but he absolutely is using the, you know the deadline of the president having a speech in the hopes of moving this group along.
He's not wedded to you know to saying we're going to fish or cut bait, to use his words, by tomorrow night, but he certainly is trying to put the pressure on big time because he knows the pressure is on him because the White House simply doesn't think that this is the forum for the health care proposal that the White House can ultimately sign on for. He wants to prove them wrong because he has been working for months and months to get this bipartisan deal.
Dobb's is just another big racist, bat-shit stupid Reslug.
I have started a new political party and a new progressive movement together. We can destroy the conservative power structure in congress and advance a progressive agenda. Please visit the web site http://democratz.org and sign those petitions.
Oh geez,I 've cleaned better looking things scraping off the soles of my shoes.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
That jowly ponce is still on teevee?
who the hell they think they're going to get to collect that $3,800. Blackwater/XE? They might be great at raping and murdering innocent people but I don't think even they can get blood from a stone.
I know the answer. The health insurance companies. If you don't buy your own insurance, the government will force you to subsidize insurance coverage for someone else. Look at it this way: If you do not pay, your taxes are raised. Is this legal? Is it constitutional? Is it moral? If within a relatively short period of time, the prediction that 41% of your income (doesn't really matter if it's gross or net) goes to cover health care expenses, what will your standard of living be then? Eat and be warm in the winter, or die. Your choices. Do the math. BTW, I have decided to rebrand Blackwater/Xe. I think "Blackheart" is more appropriate.
Max Baucus - work???? Now THAT'S funny!
buy health insurance you may or may not use with the threat of fines all being monitored by the IRS via your tax returns with the threat of jail isn't authoritarian?
LOL sheesh. (I'm not defending Dobbs I don't like him)
Precisely the reason we need at the minimum:
HR 676, single payer. No profit motive, no profit in the denial of care for those citizens who need the care.
Get the Wall Street crooks as far away from health care as is possible.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
What a shame the words "Single Payer" will not come out of Obama's mouth tonight with his speech.
But it sure will be interesting to watch the upcoming debate on Single Payer and the Conyers/Weiner amendment to H.R. 3200...
And the vote will be interesting too.
I say all those voting "Nay" should be targeted for being run against next year. BY INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES!!!!
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
... the "public" option is as of now, literally tailored for the insurance companies.
I expect Obama to wax poetic about this new and "improved" public option.
Obama gets to still pretend he is a populist, the Blue Dogs get their re-election coffers refilled, and the GOP get to whip up their base with their kabuki antics.
Win-win for most people in DC, not much will change. In fact, I am willing to bet Obama gives exactly ZERO specifics on which plan and what parts of the plan he does support. I am also willing to bet he will throw a couple of stern words to the insurance industry, but again without any specifics on which actions he is going to take to make them accountable at all.
Here are some things that will most definitively not be mentioned tonight: Single payer, universal coverage from cradle to grave, a real patients' bill of rights, insurance co-payment caps, rescinding the current anti-trust exceptions for insurance companies, regulation, etc.
If I say that I don't give a damn about what Lou thinks about anything, whould that be so wrong?
As for who has put what into which bill, maybe we'll have a better idea after tonight. Right now I'm trying to avoid hearing any speculation from the talking heads about what will be said tonight and just waiting at this point with my fingers crossed.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Lets see what Obama has to say.
..isn't thrown under the bus!
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
and sell us a gold plated dog turd.
pls delete
Pfizer, the world's largest drug maker, has been fined a record $2.3 billion dollars as a civil and criminal — yes, that's criminal, as in fraud — penalty for promoting prescription drugs with the subtlety of the Russian mafia. It's the fourth time in a decade Pfizer's been called on the carpet. And these are the people into whose tender mercies Congress and the White House would deliver us?
The fines are in lieu of criminal prosecution.
Without the prospect of the Corporation Officers going to jail, the fines are just the cost of doing business.
The Corporation passes those fines on to its
suckerscustomers.statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
And, they are tax deductible.
to be hit with a $3,800 dollar penalty. I don't think there should be any penalty. If they choose to opt out and something happens to them, no bailouts or BKs. They would have to pay the debt if it takes them the rest of there lives. There should be exceptions for those with low incomes. Every other major industrialized nation has universal coverage. We should be able to come up with something better than this.
Quotes like these crack me up.
"he's going to lose the left if he sells us out."
Exactly where are the leftist voters going to go? More to the left?
Who are they going to vote for?
Make a 3rd party?
Split the vote on the left guaranteeing ppl like Cheney can run the country indefinitely?
Look north of the border and learn something.
On the left, you have the green party, the NDP, the liberal party and the bloc quebecois. On the right side, the conservatives. The conservatives, with roughly 36% of the popular vote are on the cusp of forming a majority government while 64% of Canadians are against the conservative mantra.
So exactly how is Obama going to lose the left? How will the far left will further their cause by getting the republicans elected?
screw it I ain't voting no more it's a waste of time?
Whether wasting a vote on a 3rd party or not voting at all, the end result is the same.
Let the wingnuts form a 3rd party...
The Party of Power and Privilege, (PPP) has two factions, the Right Wing and the Ultra Right Wing.
Take your pick.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
votes that'll give them access to federal campaign funds. Which would make a huge difference for the next electoral cycle.
... with attitudes like yours we'll keep on getting stuck with the same bullsh*t over and over and over and over and over and over... I guess that is the point, right?
The fascist infiltrated the republican party. We need to take over the democratic party.
Take it over. Run primaries against every single one of these crooked charlatans.
You cannot form a 3rd party on the left, with or without federal funding without a reciprocated split on the right.
Trust me, if you split the vote on the left, the same bullsh*t will be replaced with bullsh*t that would make the last 8 yrs look like a great time.
You have to see beyond the tip of your own nose. If you split the left vote, you destroy the left vote.
Seriously Tyler, take 5 minutes out of your life and look up the current political break down in Canada. You have many flavors of center left politics in Canada and one nasty flavor on the right. The result is that 4 candidates, with their federal funding split the moderate vote among themselves and the one right wing candidate strolls into parliament practically uncontested.
... do not lecture me about politics. In Canada a presidency absolute power has not. The conservatives in both houses are also checked at the same 1/3 minority, so sure they have the presidency... but they can't effect diddly squat because they don't have the votes in the houses to pass legislation.
What you propose is miopic to the extreme, what I propose actually takes into account the fact that change (esp. political one) takes time. And you need to build an actual representation.
The Dems are, for all intents and purposes, a center right party. Why the f*ck would a leftist want to bother supporting such a platform?
If the Dems what my liberal vote, they can get it the old fashion way: by earning it. Why the f*ck would I have to work to earn the Dem's ear? That is like being a whore, and having to pay for the screw.
Is that what passes for political acumen these days? Preserve the status quo and hope things change?
You're just taking your ball and going home. Forget all the other analogies.
I am still here.I take you have no response whatsoever to what I just said in my earlier post.
LOL.
Tyler,
You want to debate, fine. I didn't realise there was anything in your post that really warranted debate.
We don't have a president in Canada, we have something more powerful. A parliamentary majority can pass anything into law. The Canadian senate are a bunch of unelected windbags that are essentially a waste of time. Even if it came to debate, it is heavily slanted to the liberal side. Finally, the governor general, the real head of state has one job, to pick up a pen and sign laws. For the GG to do anything else, the Canadian constitution would be in tatters.
On your side, we've seen how powerless a president can be if he doesn't hold the senate and the house (Clinton). You can veto anything but you can't ram anything down anyone's throat either.
You act as though the political spectrum was not a relative object. You can pretend the absolute left exists in the US but it does not. When I refer to the left, I refer to the left that exists. Perhaps compared to Canada, the democrats are right of center but they are your option at this time.
So imagine someone named "Taylor Durdan" suddenly snapped because the democrats were not doing their job and through miraculous fund raising and charisma, formed a party with a mandate on the absolute left. Best case for the next 10-15 years would be to siphon enough votes from the democrats to elect a republican candidate. (a la Nader)
You can call the dems a center-right party but that's just sour grapes on your part. You don't agree with how Baucus and the insurance lobby are hi-jacking the healthcare debate but you can't declare the democrats center right. They are trying to enact healthcare reform, they enforce R v W, they blocked social security privatization. Perhaps not left enough but you exaggerate.
So yes, you are upset because this party does not meet your exact political ideals but to walk away from the dems, is to take your ball and go home.
Under your scenario, the 3rd party being a true left party will only draw voters from the democrats. Given that the US is more or less a 54%-46% swing either way, a credible option on the left would allow the republicans to retake both the senate and congress.
If you want to vote for a credible leftist party, you have to either shift the democrats more to the right, or hope that the republicans split their vote with a right wing party.
When I think of independents that have been able to get elected, they tend to be either a bit too left for the republicans (Ventura) or a bit too right for the dems (Leiberman, Sanders). To propose candidates that would draw zero votes from the center right only helps the right wing cause.
Finally, don't paint me into a corner saying I'm pro-status quo just because I don't want to give away an election to the republicans. I think the democrats that fail in this debate should face primaries. Instead of taking your ball and going home, you fight for your party and put forth a candidate that reflects ideals from the left.
Seriously.
For a person on such a trip of condescension, I would suggest you brush up on your American politics. If you consider Sanders, a self described socialist, to be "too right" for the Dems... that makes much of your political "insight" kind of worthless, if not downright laughable.
What you are proposing is exactly the Dem party line for the better part of the past 3 decades. End result? The policies of the past Dem president, Clinton, ended up being for the most part to the right of Nixon's. I don't believe in placebo effect, and the same disasterous policies under the GOP don not become suddenly more palatable because they have a Dem seal of approval to them.
Tyler, you're cherry picking a detail on Sanders while ignoring the point. I repeat, if you siphon votes from the democratic candidate, how does that not benefit the republican candidate in the bigger picture. How is that going to fly in Ohio? Also, how many voter bases match up with Vermont? It has to be one of the more left leaning states in the union.
Explain to me how the system would be better by handing the next election to the republicans?
Also, shouldn't we both be taking issue with Baucus?
remain constant in number, and their percentages fixed.
I am not interested in the voters who would vote Dem no matter what, or GOP no matter what. Each represent around 20% of 50-odd % of the population. So basically 25% of the overall voting public are either loyal Dems or GOPers. That leaves 25% swing voters, and 50% of people who do not vote because, among other things, there is absolutely no political platform which interests them enough to show up to the voting booth.
Frankly, focusing on that 75% of the voting public seems far more reasonable, than continue doing the same sh*t over and over again.
Honestly, the definition of insanity applies to the current status quo: doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different result. I am done with that, and I am not interested in listening to the same "fear" message of "the Republicans are coming, the republicans are coming." I am tired of being a liberal, and not only get thrown under the bus by the Dems... but to get their failure blamed one me if I dare vote with my conscience for the political party/platform which I really want/support.
This whole blaming the victim is getting seriously tiresome. And BTW Sanders is quite a basic item of knowledge. I wasn't cherry picking, but simply pointing out that getting that wrong makes your credibility a bit shakier when it comes to more complex political estimations.
Again, nothing is stopping the Dems from getting my vote by simply earning it. What a concept, eh?
The point isn't about Sanders, it's about whether 3 party systems work. So if you want to focus on the fact that a Canadian goofed on the political leanings on a senator from vermont, and ignore the argument, fine. If you want to distract, go ahead. It seems to be something you're good at.
You bury yourself with your own argument Tyler. Instead of looking at a fantasy where uninterested voters show up at the polls by the millions, lets look at some historical facts.
When Perot ran on a right of center ticket, Clinton won. Perot more than making up the margin of victory.
When Nader ran on a left of center platform, Bush won by a fraction. Ever wonder how those 8 years would have been under Gore?
In Canada, you have a conservative government sitting on the cusp of a majority despite being only representing 34% of the vote because the left vote is split.
Another example. Jean Chretien (you may have heard of him) used to have a friend run against him in the federal elections in Shawinigan. His friend's job was to repeat every argument made by his credible opponent conservative opponent. On election night, Chretien would win because the vote on the right was split.
So since we're talking about insanity, why would breaking away from the democratic party, and form your own left of center party do anything different this time?
Finally, just push for democratic candidates that are closer to your ideals. You can call yourself an idealist but if your actions cause right wing rule, you're not seeing the bigger picture at all.
It comes down to money and not ideology.
If a left winger, I mean a real one, even a socialist, came along with one billion dollars the race could be won.
The fact is, we have had nearly one hundred years of corporate propaganda.
A real fight would show that underneath it all, a large percentage, maybe even a majority would vote left.
You would only need a plurality.
The Democrats and the Republicans are two factions of the same party,
THE PARTY OF POWER AND PRIVILEGE.
May they go to hell tout suite.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
... but that does not excuse the fact that people need to organize if they want any meaningful change to be implemented.
And honestly, the left in this country has done a piss poor job in that regard. Pathetic even...
I don't disagree entirely but Nader alone did much better than the Greens combined. The makes your point and provides the exception at the same time.
The Democrats have done their dirty work on Nader but even without that I doubt if he will run again, he is getting to be too old.
Money and organization are both essential.
I believe that there are enough people in the country for a leftist to win.
It would be an irony to say that you must have lots of television time.
And yet, the people are plugged into that, it is the medium of indoctrination. It is the medium of propaganda.
The Democrats used it skillfully, that is why they won the election and the Cannes award.
It is a fact of the sickness of our situation.
Maybe the internet is enough of a game changer, if it stays neutral.
It almost comes down to this: you cannot liberate the people from the inverted totalitarian propaganda grips of the Corporations without using the same propaganda tools.
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe ten million (or some such number) foot soldiers going door to door could do it.
I am all ears to the possibilities.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
How many billionaire socialists are there?
How many billionaire socialists are electable?
Please explain how the third party politicians in the House and Senate got there then! The voters CAN elect third party candidates if they get their shit together. It HAS been done!
We're not exactly overrun with 3rd party politicians in either chamber.
In Minnesota.
He ran as an rebellious Independent and split just enough voters away from the Republicans and Democrats to win a victory.
I'll never forget the giant blame game that was coming out of the Republicans and Democrats mouths when that upset occurred.
The same thing could happen on a national level WITH THE RIGHT CANDIDATE.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Closest we came was Ross Perot. Only thing I see close right now is someone like Bloomberg. I don't see anything left of Obama with standing to run an independent national campaign.
Ross Perot was not a socialist, he didn't play one on TV.
He didn't even play a left winger.
His entire purpose, because he hated Bush, was to cut him off at the knees and he did it.
It gave us Clinton.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
... closer than Perot.
He started late and created his own party at that.
It can be done. It is a matter of money.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
George Soros has the money, he just has the wrong birth certificate.
But why should we only look to benign fat cats. The FEW that there are.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
"Exactly where are the leftist voters going to go? More to the left?
Who are they going to vote for? ... So exactly how is Obama going to lose the left? How will the far left will further their cause by getting the republicans elected?"
This kind of stuff is why you get disenchanted leftists. People don't like having their votes taken for granted. Leftists might just think "Screw you" and stay at home on election day, as per Evet's comment.
As for forming a third party, don't dismiss that idea just yet. When the leftists CCF (Co-Operative Federation) started up in Canada back in the 1930s, a lot of people thought they'd never get anywhere either. (The CCF changed its name to New Democratic Party [NDP] in the 1960s.) The CCF eventually formed government in the province of Saskatchewan, and the NDP forms provincial governments pretty regularly.
Although the CCF-NDP has never been elected to power federally, it's had a lot of influence. If it wasn't for those "radical and crazy" socialists, Canada wouldn't have Medicare or a lot of other social programs.
Hey, if Jesse Ventura can get elected as an Independent Governor, anything is possible.
Any person making comments like "he's going to lose the left if he sells us out" are already disenchanted.
True, the NDP tend to do well provicially but those are not 3 party races. You also omit to point out that the CCF was a regional party that targeted farmers. Imagine the shock that they were able to win Saskatchewan during the great depression...
I think there has been cases made that Tommy Douglas won many of the battles leading to modern medicare but it was a liberal MAJORITY that passed the law.
Jesse Ventura makes my point thank you very much. You had a candidate on the left (dem), on the right (rep), and one a bit all over the place (Ventura). Since the vote was split 3 ways, someone was elected on less than 40% of the vote.
If you split the vote on the left...who do you think benefits?
What's possible is different from what's likely. Wasn't McCain/Obama something like 47%/52% ? Not a whole lot of play in those numbers for a 3rd party. Presidents can win on a plurality. Bush won Florida by a plurality in 2000. We have Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito right now. You want number 5?
I know people have come up with clips here and there, but whenever I was listening to Obama, he was promising to cover the uninsured, and pay for it by cutting federal spending elsewhere. I never heard anything specific out of him about cost control. For that, you needed Kucinich.
I and others have derided single-issue gun advocates in the past, stating that they voted against their economic interests due to their obsession with a single issue. I don't think we should make the same mistake.
We have to hit the corporate owned politicians in the primaries. That's the only place where I see any likelihood of success. And even there, things are going to be problematic, because the Supreme Court may declare the corporations can spend unlimited money in political campaigns, which will serve to return the Republican party to the corporate interests, away from the flat earth society, and keep the Democrat party firmly under corporate control.
Their coup de grace will be to end net neutrality to squelch opposition to the corporate dogma.
will be checking out the Green Party and Independents. Bernie Sanders is an Inde, which makes me think maybe it's a decent party. We'll see. Some Progressives will sit and complain, others will take effective action. The Status Quo cannot be maintained much longer, no matter how much dirty money Wall Street gives to politicians.
A STRONG third party can have a LOT of influence on the other two. The Dems & Rupug will be vying for votes from the 3rd party. Kind of like the way Elizabeth I played Spain & France off one another. It probably wouldn't be too difficult: Both parties are filled with and run by idiots.
Give me a break. No Republican will be soliciting votes from the Green party, or some of these other left parties. Instead, look for the Republicans to finance these parties.
They already own the GOP. And most of the DEMS. Face it.
Maybe the real debate that should be taking place is campaign finance reform?
Once you take care of that one, maybe the special interests wont own your government.
Once that is taken care of, maybe you'll be able to enact real change?
I don't think the recipients of this "lobbying/bribery" are going to reform their cash flow. It's going to take new people. However, I don't think the 3rd party is the way to go. My feeling is that the primary is the most viable avenue of attack.
Remember....
United, we are one.
Divided, we are done.
are those who are benefiting from the way it is now? If you have any ideas about this, do tell.
he's lost me. When the only substantive difference that I can see between Obama and a typical GOPer is in the rhetoric they deploy, and nothing else, it really makes no difference if I sit it out or vote third party. We're going to end up getting screwed regardless. Maybe if the Democrats lose, it might serve to remind them of what they are supposed to stand for. But then again, I no longer believe that they actually give a shit if they lose, since the Democrats and the Republicans seem to both serve either themselves or the same masters. Those masters are not the People.
This is a one party state and I am beginning to believe that America is now a failed state.
!
supposed to be free?
That's not really the subject now is it?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
it's a derivative. And exotic financial instrument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-d5x-CiTUs
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Is the fact that today is 9/9/09 mean
That the Anti-Christ is doing handsprings?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
the last PDB Bush got before 9/11.
9-11-11 for some numerology.
on 6/6/6, now did it?
dear sen baucus,
the health profiteers want to take a moment to thank max baucus and his work to stymie meaningful reform.
senator baucus, we couldn't have kept making 30% profit off of the sick children without your help. the check is in the mail.
signed,
the health insurance cabal
owned lock stock and barrel by the Health Care Pirates.
makes it crystal clear that the two parties are a sham. They have both been thoroughly corrupted. Baucus has been paid to do what he can to torpedo any real reform. There is only one party: the Corporate Party, and they are in control. With the Supreme Court poised to vitiate what little campaign finance law we currently have the system will be fully in corporate hands.
I had some hope that Obama would change things up but at this point I am disgusted and feel betrayed by him and I feel he's just another bought out politician. I'm holding on to a very small thread and will listen to his speech tonight with great interest.
Hold you powder there, partner. Let's let the dust settle before we start firing in every direction. We don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot just yet.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
reasonably argued that the Supreme Court is not corrupt (at least the majority), not when they give out rulings that so blatantly work for the corruption and undermining of our democratic system of government.
since they can no longer be counted upon to fulfill their constitutional role, the only fix is going to be found in new amendments to the constitution. I can think of 4 or 5 new amendments that would thwart a corrupt court, strip corporations and other entities of personhood, mandate federal financing of all elections, ban congress from conducting any of it's business with the public in any other mode than by petitions and public hearings, and an amendment to reserve our most harsh and draconian punishments for holders of the public trust who betray their trusts and those who corrupted them. Without amendments, we're toast. The nation will stumble to an end as a failed state.
Just out of curiousity, where did those numbers originate? Something seems wrong here. Nothing I have heard matched numbers like that. This sounds like something the republicans tossed out to try to muddy the waters.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Any Senator that blocks or votes against healthcare should face a primary challenge and the DNC should be guaranteeing that to the voters.
Thought that merited repeating. Is anyone listening?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
...there are always the die hards. ...The ones who still love Chimpy are called "twenty eight percenters"
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
?
I worked my ass off for Obama. House parties, writing checks etc.
I've been kicked in the teeth for the last time by the Democratic Party.
I'm dumping the abusive "husband" and moving on...
Not sure just where to yet. I'm not sure I trust The Green Party.
It sure does feel hopeless. Yet just like the wife who leaves the abusive husband, it sure will feel liberating to not support policies that I so vehemently oppose.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
.. independent moderate swing voters like myself. I voted for Obama out of a usually red southern state.
Many of us are ex-Republican (myself included), we run socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
Coverage for all, regardless of plan, is socially liberal.
Single-payer would have been the most fiscally responsible.
I'm seeing neither. Public Option is a weak compromise, if he can't even go that far, he is very far from my position.
Quote: "Only in a fantasy capital like Washington could Sunday morning talk shows become the high church of conventional wisdom, with partisan shills treated as holy men whose gospel of prosperity always seems to boil down to lower taxes for the rich."
Just got the WalMart ad. Everything in it is pet products. What are they trying to tell us?
overworked, debt-ridden Americans teetering on the edge of financial insolvency.
Bon apetit! You won't be able to afford food once you are forced to give all of your hard earned money to a for profit health insurance company. Alpo....yum.....
Wow, you must be doing pretty well. Kal Kan is about the best we can afford.But, the taste is just like the smell...delicious!
Here I come!
I'd rather teach English and work as a nurse in a clinic caring for the poor and have decent government sponsored health care for all and live in a modest house than ever give one red cent to a for-profit corporation who cares nothing for me or my state of health.
F 'em.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
be healthy when you have to eat them." Most of your money will be taken from you for mandatory health care coverage, so them hamsters and gerbils will start looking tasty.
We all know you would have to be an idiot to go up against congressman Weiner in regards to healthcare reform. You can add another idiot to the pile, Neal Cavuto just had the congressman on his show and now Neal too is sporting the bruise of a shoe on his ass.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Fed survey shows U.S. recession may be over AP – 13 mins ago
we’re the children of Barnum and Bailey, our founding con men.
Unbelievable.
the 54-year-old CEO urged everyone to become organ donors.
$3.4 billion (2009)
Wonder if he has "health insurance".
the conveyor belt profit confiscating centers other wise referred to as "Hospitals" the bottom 99% have to rely on.
of what purpose is it to force people to buy health insurance? are there any other countries that do that?
fat and happy what other purpose would there be?
... in the form of taxes, which last time I checked are mandatory and not optional.
Not necessarily the same though...
indeed, in the form of taxes. but that eliminates the middle man. isn't forcing people to buy it an insurance lobby dream come true? forcing people to give them money?
.
Mandatory health care insurance in its current private incarnation, puts the burden on the victims, not the criminals.
Obama would be nuts to consider something similar to the Romneycare in Mass. Although I would not put it past DC politicians to think that the current health care crisis is due because people don't want to get coverage just because.
"Obama needs to decide which side he's on in this debate whether he cares about keeping his base. As John has said, he's going to lose the left if he sells us out."
What a crock of malarkey.
SUre, Obama HAS to do this or that - fine - but threatening with whatever is a weak proposition.
It is the same as an "or else" as in "he'd better do so-and-so or else . . ."
Keep on preaching about how all the left will abandon him and THEN expect him to do exactly what YOU want?
Really?
A weaker more petulant argument cannot be made.
In every election there is a best candidate. Once elected the best candidate may or may not do EXACTLY what YOU think is best.
People will work hard to get the best candidate elected in the next election.
Do you suppose you are speaking for me too as I'm on the left? Maybe you should check yourself before you wreck yourself with stupid assumtions about "The Left" like we are all in lock step with the likes of petulant children making hollopw threats about next election?
Count me and all adults out of your threatville.
You sound like whiny children . . .
"Obama better _______ or I'll hold my breath until my face turns blue and this time I'll really do it!"
lollers!
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
and condescending, Right?
oh the irony...
The president hasn't lost me yet either. I have a list of things I wish he would do, but I know it's not about what is best for me but what is best and feasible for the whole country. No way in hell that I would cast a vote that would even give the slightest chance of having four or eight more years like the previous eight. I don't think the country could hold up under another time like that.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
and idolatry and say . . "Sorry I tried".
So you are saying that I idolize the President? Sorry, you must be looking around in someone else's head because you didn't find that in mine. My attention span is long enough to recall other presidents and the disaster they left our country in when they left the oval office. I do not believe that is the intent of this president.
I do believe that there are people out there who depend on complaining and being angry to get through the day.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
are you saying there is no way to hold the president accountable? if there are enough people who feel "or else" then there will be a primary challenge against the president.
BIMBO plan. Big Insurance Monopoly Bail Out.
hit's the fan. Kind of like what Bush did for his pals in energy and housing.
You don't eat them, you don't make deals with them. You don't try to teach them to sing.
Forcing anyone to pay for health care is a crime Heather, it is the antithesis of civilized behavior. It promotes horrible behavior. It promotes disease both physical and mental due to stress, It allows drug companies to advertise crap and make you afraid you have a terrible disease that in many cases does not even exist. It is the tool of numerous industries that have purchased our congress and we have seen the results now for decades.
Forcing someone to pay for a right? That's cruel and inhuman. We have to destroy the ability to corrupt, and we need to do it now.
...just wait til we have sunk to the point, in another 10 -20 years, where they make your next of kin pay for the bullet that they shoot you with.
Brain? What brain?
He didn't have one in 2003, when I quit listening to the corporate porker, and I can't believe he grew one in the intervening six years.
don't belong in Congress. They belong in prison.
Chuck Todd just said he didn't expect this crap from Baucus to be considered in the speech tonight. Sounds like it's a non-starter.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
it does.
it's not popular. They're not stupid, just bought and paid for.
Does it really matter except to those that actually think LouLou has something to say...which seems to be fewer and fewer by the day...Pretty soon he'll have to team up with beck and hannratty to have a one member audience over at Cluster-Fox where they talk to themselves more than broadcast.....What a circular firing squad that is...LouLou would fit in right in over there...All bluster - no (NONE) substance...
There's really two issues at play here, (1.) covering the uninsured, and (2.) cost reform. I hope at the very least, that we walk away from this round with coverage for the uninsured, as opposed to walking away empty handed.
That's because, with the ever increasing percentage of GDP that health care is consuming, to the extent cost issues aren't dealt with, the sooner they'll boomerang right back to being a top issue. When Bill Clinton spoke of health care Aug, 2008, he cited 16% of GDP. Now, I hear 17% of GDP. It's a lot higher than when Hillary tried to enact health reform, so if costs aren't dealt with, the issue isn't going to disappear.
So, I wonder what I'm going to hear tonight. I'm assuming it's going to be another lame assed speech centering on bipartisanship. We're going to hear the corporate Democrat presentation, followed by the Corporate Republican presentation, and listen to the news media calling it a dichotomy. It's a false dichotomy, yet again, a show dichotomy.
This is what I'd like to hear. Something like Obama saying that Democrats are trying to help the 50 million people with no health insurance, but Republicans would rather that these people CAN DIE, just like when they opposed Medicare, preferring that the elderly can JUST DIE.
At any rate, I'd like to hear a rebuttal from Kucinich, or Nader.
Just watched the CBS nightly news, and Katie says Republicans and Democrats are in 80% agreement on the health reform, only disagreeing on the public option, and a few other things. And Obama is expected to say that the public option is still negotiable. So, where's the dichotomy?
The real dichotomy is HR3200 versus HR676. Of course, we're not going to see that dichotomy, because the Fourth Estate is up to their eyeballs in collusion with the health corporations. There really isn't any difference in the presentation of this issue, and Fourth Estate marketing that led us into the Iraq war.
...is our national health in the hands of the finance committee and any Republicans? None of the social fabric in place in this country was ever supported by the Republicans, social security - medicare, and never will. Eff em.
Does anyone watch this elmer fudd?
He has one mission...to bad mouth the illegal immigrants in this country. Not enough to make him even relevant in todays political scene.
No more than a loser. Can't even call him a "has been", cause he never was.
You're busted, Max. Your cover is blown. Go home to the GOP.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/22794/p...
we do..
namely..high priced lobbyists..
Comments are closed on this entry