Archive for Friday, November 6, 2009

A rush job

Members of Congress are preparing to vote on major health care legislation before fully examining its impact on the nation.

November 6, 2009


Democratic members of Congress, with the urging and arm-twisting of President Obama, are pushing for a rare Saturday vote in the U.S. House of Representatives to approve the House version of a new national health care policy. It’s a rush-rush job that they hope will be the first step in forcing a dangerous, costly, unclear and deceitful health care plan down the throats of the American public.

The bill, which takes close to 2,000 pages to detail, was drafted in secrecy and has been revised time and time again. It is not a bipartisan effort, and a large number of House members have no idea what is in the bill or the “costs” to individuals as well as to the public. The Obama administration is not shooting straight with the public on the true cost of the plan.

There is no question that Obama and his inner circle are intent on changing and gaining control of one-sixth of this nation’s economy with a strategic plan to use this legislation to gain a foothold to pursue even wider changes in the traditional American way and lifestyle. As Obama told an audience a few days before the November 2008 election, they were only five days away from bringing about a fundamental change in America. What does it take for Americans to realize how Obama intends to change their country?

Obama and his aides are quick to say the American Medical Association endorses their plan, but they fail to note that the AMA represents only a fraction of American doctors.

How can elected lawmakers vote on such an important bill and not know what all it contains, such fundamental issues as how much it will cost and how it will impact health care in the United States? How can they vote on it when they have not read the entire bill?

Doesn’t the country deserve better from its elected officials? If, indeed, the bill is passed, voters should remember those votes when these men and women seek re-election.


just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

Even when writing anonymously, Dolph's style is unmistakable.

I give you a D+ this time around, Dolph.

WilburM 6 years ago

This editorial comes right out of Newt Gingrich's rhetoric from Wednesday. And it's partially correct. But to think that this is just a rush job shows almost a total lack of sophistication. This bill has gone through the regular legislative process in FIVE congressional committees, for well over a year. And the various concepts have been in play for decades. All major legislation that addresses complicated subject areas ends up being lengthy and complex. One may disagree with that, but it's the truth. And to downplay the support of the AMA is facile; to say nothing of the support of those radical groups such as the AARP and Big Pharma.

This is a flawed bill, no question. But htat is the nature of the legislative process in the US, and the political process generally. Aswe found with Social Security and Medicare, getting core principles established in legisalation means that they can be built upon and improved. We're a better, healthier, more stable society because of SS and Medicare. And we're the only industrialized nation that does no have universal coverage. This bill -- imperfect as it may be -- is a big step on the path to universal coverage and the control of health care costs (which are mind-numbing). What's keeping this bill from easy adoption is therequirement of getting 60 votes in the Senate -- which rests on nothing but tradition. The voters spoke in2008; the result should be legislation, which the parties can then argue about in 2010 and beyond. That's politics, and how we govern ourselves.

Flap Doodle 6 years ago

Pelosi says, "Don't read it, just vote for it. The midterm elections are a year away. The stupid voters will never remember anything for that long."

james bush 6 years ago

Be careful what we wish for..........Obama may be skillful enough to mislead people to put his ACORN/SOROS people in charge when we kick out Pelosi and Reid.

jackie 6 years ago

Didnt these same idiots endorse the McCain/Palin ticket? Just disgusting. Shame on the LJW. Shame.

MeAndFannieLou 6 years ago

The PATRIOT Act, the rush to invade Iraq, and the Great Bailout were rush jobs. Nobody does rush jobs like the GOP.

Richard Heckler 6 years ago

Healthcare Savings for Healthier Cities

For far too long, rising healthcare costs have drained local and state budgets of the resources they need to rebuild, renovate and restore the vitality of their communities.

• Our employees are paying more in premiums, co-pays and deductibles, yet too many are denied needed care.

• Increasing health benefits costs—averaging 11% a year since 1999—consume city and county budgets, leaving more and more of our residents uninsured. (Currently, 48 million Americans lack health insurance.)

• Tax revenues cannot fill the gap, especially during an economic downturn.

• As state and local government debt increases, bond ratings go down.

• With state and local coffers bleeding, residents face cuts in needed services such as police and fire pro- tection, medical services for the uninsured, parks and recreation.

The passage of HR 676—Improved Medicare-for-All—is a win-win situation. It could transform this bleak picture, providing guaranteed health care for all while helping financially-strapped state and local governments find new monies to underwrite growing challenges. Indeed, estimates show that they could realize at least $70 billion in annual health care savings.

Rebuild 30,000 lane miles of road?
Build 560,000 units of affordable housing?
Hire 1 million teachers, firefighters, police and other critical employees?
Renovate 7,000 schools?

National Health Insurance

Doctors for Single Payer

Unions for HR 676

Organizations and Government Bodies Endorsing HR 676

MeAndFannieLou 6 years ago

Maybe the GOP would prefer a secret 1am vote over a rare Saturday vote?

MeAndFannieLou 6 years ago

So why does the GOP think the Democrats should be bipartisan? Just curious.

jaywalker 6 years ago

From what I understand, even if all our politicos were to read this thing, only a couple would be able to understand it. I've read a couple of pages. It's like trying to translate Greek.

mr_right_wing 6 years ago

If this proposed health control covered Obama and all of Washington it would have my full support.

But it doesn't, does it? Can it be such a wonderful idea if our politicians just want to pass it, but want no part of it for themselves and their families??

mrw says "stop and think for just 5 minutes liberals!"

notajayhawk 6 years ago

WilburM (Anonymous) says…

"But to think that this is just a rush job shows almost a total lack of sophistication. This bill has gone through the regular legislative process in FIVE congressional committees, for well over a year."

Oh, Wilburrrrrrrrr. Speaking of a lack of sophistication...

The point isn't how long it took to craft this 2,000 page monstrosity, Wilbur. Now that we have it in its final form, when do the people - you know, the citizens, the populace, you and I, the folks that have to live with it - when do we have the opportunity to read it, analyze it, digest it, and let our lawmakers know where we stand on it? Oh, that's right, our opinion doesn't matter to the weasel-in-chief:

"Participants also said Obama had referred to this week's shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, in which 13 people were killed. His remarks put in perspective that the hardships soldiers endure for the country are "what sacrifice really is," as opposed to "casting a vote that might lose an election for you," said Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J."

In other words, Obama just told the House of Representatives to ignore the people who sent them there to represent THEIR wishes and to make him look good.

If this is such a fantastic bill that was decades in the making, Wilbur, what's wrong with taking even a few days to analyze it before voting?

notajayhawk 6 years ago

Or maybe this was the reason for the rush job:

"The result produced plenty of ill will, but it was hardly the only major problem with the bill. Pelosi and other leaders knew that support for it had been waning all week. Any further delay could cripple their efforts. So they pressed ahead with a bill that no one loved but almost everyone still believed in. "

Commenting has been disabled for this item.