GOP: Liberal agenda put ahead of country
Democrats just don’t get the election message from voters and are pushing a liberal, big-government agenda at their party’s peril, Republican officials said Sunday as they predicted a political price after the majority’s victory on health care.
The Democratic-controlled House narrowly approved a health care bill Saturday night, with 39 Democrats voting against it and a single Republican voting in its favor.
Democrats argue that the races in Virginia and New Jersey turned on state issues rather than national concerns. They say victories in House races in New York and California are evidence that voters support their efforts to overhaul the nation’s health care system. Both Democrats elected to the House on Tuesday voted for the health care bill.
Washington — The glow from a health care triumph faded quickly for President Barack Obama on Sunday as Democrats realized the bill they fought so hard to pass in the House has nowhere to go in the Senate.
Speaking from the Rose Garden about 14 hours after the late Saturday vote, Obama urged senators to be like runners on a relay team and “take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people.”
The problem is that the Senate won’t run with it. The government health insurance plan included in the House bill is unacceptable to a few Democratic moderates who hold the balance of power in the Senate.
If a government plan is part of the deal, “as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome GOP filibusters.
“The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said dismissively.
Democrats did not line up to challenge him. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has yet to schedule floor debate and hinted last week that senators may not be able to finish health care this year.
Nonetheless, the House vote provided an important lesson in how to succeed with less-than-perfect party unity, and one that Senate Democrats may be able to adapt. House Democrats overcame their own divisions and broke an impasse that threatened the bill after liberals grudgingly accepted tougher restrictions on abortion funding, as abortion opponents demanded.
In Senate, the stumbling block is the idea of the government competing with private insurers. Liberals may have to accept a deal without a public plan to keep the legislation alive. As in the House, the compromise appears to be to the right of the political spectrum.
Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who voted for a version of the Senate bill in committee, has given the Democrats a possible way out. She’s proposing to allow a government plan as a last resort, if after a few years premiums keep escalating and local health insurance markets remain in the grip of a few big companies. This is the “trigger” option.
That approach appeals to moderates such as Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. “If the private market fails to reform, there would be a fallback position,” Landrieu said last week. “It should be triggered by choice and affordability, not by political whim.”
Lieberman said he opposes the public plan because it could become a huge and costly entitlement program. “I believe the debt can break America and send us into a recession that’s worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today,” he said.
For now, Reid is trying to find the votes for a different approach: a government plan that states could opt out of.
The Senate is not likely to jump ahead this week on health care. Reid will keep meeting with senators to see if he can work out a political formula that will give him not only the 60 votes needed to begin debate, but the 60 needed to shut off discussion and bring the bill to a final vote.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
“as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman,
Translation-- Lieberman has has an obligation to his benefactors with Big Health to make an even bigger joke of healthcare reform, transferring even more taxpayer and premium dollars into Big Health's coffers.
AreUNorml (anonymous) says…
but at least Nancy Pelosi got to feel important for a brief moment.
cowboy (anonymous) says…
Admin will begin to bring out the big stick to get the votes , strip Liarman of his committee chair and have primary challengers for those who won't fall into line. time to open up a barrel of whupa$$ on these demopublicans.
parrothead8 (anonymous) says…
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
I'll bet though that bozo has no problem with senators (and Al Gore) being the benefactors of “Big Green”, transferring even more taxpayer dollars into “Big Green's” coffers, do you Bozo?
I'll bet Tom had no problem with our former President, Vice-President, and many of their buddies in the Cabinet, Senate, and House legislating to ensure the continued success of "Big Oil" while they were also also benefactors of the same.
tbaker (anonymous) says…
The Obama care plan will collect taxes for four or five years before they begin paying benefits. I wonder...where will this money go in the mean time? Into some lock-box perhaps? Someone give me an example of a "lock-box" congress HASN'T robbed.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Someone give me an example of a “lock-box” congress HASN'T robbed."
But robbed on whose behalf? Almost always on the behalf of large campaign contributors, who also almost always happen to be the largest corporations in the world.
The problem isn't government programs, per se. The problem is that our government, and its programs, are wholly corrupted by Big Money of one sort or another, and Big Health is a prime example.
G_E (anonymous) says…
"They plan on taking over every aspect of our lives–plain and simple."
Oh noez! You discovered our ~super sekrit evil librul plan~!!
...But seriously, Repubs, learn the definition of "socialism."
tbaker (anonymous) says…
Bozo says: "But robbed on whose behalf?"
Does it matter? With a tiny few exceptions, members of congress care only about themselves. What external force may be at work is irrelevant. At the end of the day they are motivated by personal self-interest. If they weren't; if they were honorable people who sincerely believed they were our servants, then all the special interests in the world couldn't corrupt them. Your post offers one of the best examples I've ever read that explains why we should repeal the 17th amendment.
Since 1936 the American people have stood idly by and allowed congress to ignore their constitutionally prescribed role. Since they can decide for themselves what "in the general welfare" means, they can tax, and spend, and create and grow ever-more government without constraint. Since they can do whatever they want, they have access to an ocean of (our) money and it has hopelessly corrupted them.
How corrupt are they? 1% of Americans have a net worth over a million dollars. 44% of congress has a net worth over a million dollars. The median income of the house of representatives is $622,000. The estimated U.S. median income for 4-person families is $70,354. The median net worth of senators is $1.9 million. (see Politico)
This is exactly why the founders built the constitution so it confined congress to a very specific list of enumerated powers. Until this check on power is restored, and access to our money is severely limited, congress will be hopelessly corrupted.
staff04 (anonymous) says…
Cowboy, I think it is high time Democrats started playing hardball politics like the Republicans did for 6 years.
You're g-d right. Strip the Republican Lieberman of his leadership first, then see how quickly the others fall into line.
TacoBob (anonymous) says…
The only party of NO at work here is the Dems. They have the majority across the board, why can't they line up the votes? Lieberman is waiting for the call from the President - he will see the light. The GOP lost, Dems need to get over it.
TIme to pass this big fat Harry Pelosi.
merrill (anonymous) says…
The trouble with Lieberman and too many others is NOT that government has anything to do with it. He and those too many others are lying. The government as we speak blows $1.2 trillion tax dollars on 60% of those with insurance to include Joe "liar Lieberman. 2010 costs are looking like $18,310 per legislator.
At $18,310 for 2010 that comes to about $10,986,000 just for legislators medical insurance
Face it folks $11 million is a lot of money for a selected few. So under HR 676 National Health Insurance that number could be reduced to $1,800,000 or a savings of about $9 million. HR 676 reduces the cost to about $3,000 - 3500 a year.
So what are Lieberman and those too many others concerned about? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
The nations consumers could have excellent National Health insurance for all if one would remove:
*elected officials as shareholders
*special interest campaign funding
*the insurance industry recklessly spending health care dollars to bribe votes
Is protecting the most expensive medical insurance in the world good for business? No it is anti business and anti new jobs and industry
Is protecting the most expensive medical insurance in the world good for keeping the cost of of just about everything we buy in reasonable check? Absolutely not it increases our cost of living across the board just like high dollar gasoline.
Did we elect people to office to protect the most expensive medical insurance in the world from a more reasonable and fiscally responsible National Health Insurance program? No way jose' That is corrupt.
Did we send elected officials to Washington to accept special interest campaign money from the most expensive medical insurance program in the world? Heck NO that increases the cost of medical insurance!
So it seems the loudest voices against National Health Insurance for All are those who are profiting from the misfortune of others.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
"Translation— Lieberman has has an obligation to his benefactors with Big Health to make an even bigger joke of healthcare reform, transferring even more taxpayer and premium dollars into Big Health's coffers."
I see boohoozo still can't answer the question of how a public option that costs more than private insurance is going to be good for anyone. Oh, forgot - it's okay if it costs more for the people that have to pay it, as long as the difference goes to government waste instead of anyone making a profit.
And not having a conscience, I guess we wouldn't expect boohoozo to understand one. Boohoozo is just a parrot for the Party line, but then, to boohoozo, the Party is father, the Party is mother, nicht wahr, Herr Klowne?
Senator Lieberman is an unusual politician, boohoozo. He actually believes it's his job to represent the will of the people in Connecticut who sent him to Washington to speak for them. The Party kicked him out because he had the audacity to try and represent those people instead of the Party, and numerous Democrats, Republicans, and most importantly Independents (CT's largest voting group) overwhelmingly elected him to do that again.
Of course, with the weasel-in-chief bullying the legislators to ignore what their constituents want just to make him look good, there won't be too many others following his lead.
But there will be enough.
**********************************************
G_E (Anonymous) says…
"…But seriously, Repubs, learn the definition of “socialism.”"
The most common definition is the government owning the means of production (see GM and Chrysler for examples). So tell us - what justification is there the government to be selling insurance, if it's going to cost more than private insurers?
merrill (anonymous) says…
Where Does All the Money Go?
After you’ve finished gasping in surprise at the share of your income that is already going into health care, you may wonder where all that money goes.
One answer is that the United States has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world, including over 1,500 different companies, each offering multiple plans, each with its own marketing program and enrollment procedures, its own paperwork and policies, its CEO salaries, sales commissions, and other non-clinical costs—and, of course, if it is a for-profit company, its profits.
Compared to the overhead costs of the single-payer approach, this fragmented system takes almost 25 cents more out of every health care dollar for expenses other than actually providing care.
Of the additional overhead in the current U.S. system, approximately half is borne by doctors’ offices and hospitals, which are forced to maintain large billing and negotiating staffs to deal with all the plans. By contrast, under
Canada’s single-payer system (which is run by the provinces, not by the federal government), each medical specialty organization negotiates once a year with the nonprofit payer for each province to set fees, and doctors and hospitals need only bill that one payer.
Of course, the United States already has a universal, single-payer health care program: Medicare. Medicare, which serves the elderly and people with disabilities, operates with overhead costs equal to just 3% of total expenditures, compared to 15% to 25% overhead in private health programs.
Since Medicare collects its revenue through the IRS, there is no need to collect from individuals, groups, or businesses.
Some complexity remains—after all, Medicare must exist in the fragmented world that is American health care—but no matter how creative the opponents of single-payer get, there is no way they can show convincingly how the administrative costs of a single-payer system could come close to the current level.
Some opponents use current U.S. government expenditures for Medicare and Medicaid to arrive at frightening cost estimates for a universal single-payer health care system.
They may use Medicare’s $8,568 per person, or $34,272 for a family of four (2006). But they fail to mention that Medicare covers a very atypical, high-cost slice of the U.S. population: senior citizens, regardless of pre-existing conditions, and people with disabilities, including diagnoses such as AIDS and end-stage renal disease.
Or they use Medicaid costs—forgetting to mention that half of Medicaid dollars pay for nursing homes, while the other half of Medicaid provides basic health care coverage, primarily to children in low-income households, at a cost of only about $1,500 a year per child."
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
"Politics at its worst."
'Politics at its worst,' poochie, is voting for something against the will of the people you're supposed to represent because the Party tells you to. Sen. Lieberman is representing his constituents, which is all too uncommon, but politics as it's supposed to be.
merrill (anonymous) says…
National Health Insurance is the least expensive option across the board. Yes less expensive than the public option.
In facts it reduces the cost $350-$400 billion annually according to the CBO.
See for yourselves:
http://www.healthcare-now.org/report-...
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
Hey, merrill, how come the CBO says the public option will cost more than private insurance, then?
Maybe time to update your propaganda lists?
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Internal combustion lawnmowers contribute to global warming and killing grass snakes and making the bunnies cry.
Ban gas-powered lawnmowers!
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
"I would be gratified if the Democrats played hardball and got this thing through. Most of the disaffection I see from people who support Democrats is that they aren't playing hardball. That's why we elected them, to fight for these things."
And which Democrat*S* did you elect, poochie? If you live in Lawrence, you can take credit for Michael - er, em, I mean Dennis - Moore. Senator Lieberman was elected by the people of Connecticut, and he is doing what *THEY* sent him there to do, not what the whiny, entitled, People's Republic of Lawrence want him to do.
And by the way, poochie, why is it that when the Republicans vote aginst such garbage because their constituents tell them to, that's obstructionism, and when the Democrats vote for it (*against* the will of the people they're supposed to be representing) they're doing what "we" elected them to do?
Oh, and here's a little more on your "politics at its worst":
"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."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/...
So in other words, not only did the Democrats (at the weasel-in-chief's bullying) vote against the will of the people to pass this thing, they also sold out the pro-choice voters (who elected those Democrats to represent *them*, too), and rushed through a bill nobody likes, on a Saturday night, before support could evaporate, just for the sake of passing *something*.
Now *THAT* is politics at its worst.
tbaker (anonymous) says…
This health care bill is nothing more than another great example of liberals being liberals - they love to give away everything they do not own. They won't rest until the entire country is a giant assisted living facility and the country is bankrupt.
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
merrill (anonymous) says…
Kucinich: Why I Voted NO
Washington, Nov 7 -
After voting against H.R. 3962 - Affordable Health Care for America Act, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement:
“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are.
But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.
“Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills.
The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.
“But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies — a bailout under a blue cross.
“By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress’ blog, Think Progress, states “since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.” Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Con't
Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that “money will start flowing in again” to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.
“During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The “robust public option” which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.
“Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks’ hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy -- in which most Americans live -- the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.
“This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America’s manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.
“Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America’s businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
Just out of curiosity, poochie, did your poll mention that the public option would cost more than private insurance?
What?
No?
And weren't you the one accusing me of using biased polls (Rasmussen), and you come back with *Quinnipiac*?????????
And I suppose it just escaped your notice that Chris Dodd (one of the country's senior Democrats) has a negative approval rating? Strange - it was the lead-off and the bulk of the questions in the poll.
And that your own numbers show Obama's approval falling, now at the lowest point since his inauguration? Oh - not to mention the numbers you cited are two months old? And that Independents - who outnumber either Democrats or Republicans in Connecticut - disapprove of Obama's handling of healthcare?
What else ya' got, troll?
Still waiting for an answer of how many Democrat*S* you personally elected to send to Washington, poochie.
EXks (anonymous) says…
A show of hands of all those who want to abolish government-run socialist programs: Social Security, Medicare benefits, Medicaid, VA (for life) care, and especially farm subsidies......yeah, I thought so.....
Satirical (anonymous) says…
EXks...
"A show of hands of all those who want to abolish government-run socialist programs..."
It's called the ratchet effect. Once you get people dependent on government programs there is no getting rid of them, no matter how inefficient, overly bureaucratic or corrupt. People start believing this or that government programs becomes a human right and no longer know how to live without them. This is the liberal socialist paradise - a population which depends on them for their survival and bureaucrats taking the burden of decisions away from individuals, all in the name of "helping."
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
By the way, poochie - according to the exit polls, how many people were elected to pass healthcare legislation? Or how many think it should be the top priority even now?
And, um, despite the public option (the polling between different organizations being somewhat inconsistent), the polls - virtually *ALL* polls - have remained consistently in opposition to the overall plan? And that even the polling on the public option is dependent on the variables included in the questions (e.g. deficits, costs, choice, etc.)?
JHOK32 (anonymous) says…
So again, it's OK for Bush & Cheney to give $Billions of our tax dollars to the big oil companies, big defense contractors, Wall street big wigs, AIG big wigs, Blackwater bigwigs, etc, etc, it's OK to make all these Millionaires into Billionaires, but it's not OK to provide the average American access to healthcare? Just give us the same healthcare that we pay Congress to get, don't we deserve that? Apparently the Republicans don't think so.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
Poor poochie - despite the efforts of counteless people to educate the ignorant troll, he *STILL* doesn't understand the difference between All, Registered Voters, and Likely Voters. But then, since he didn't understand the difference between public option and single-payer, what would we expect from the laughing buffoon?
The poll *YOU* cited was about Chris Dodd, moron, and it was two months old. You posted the link - did you think nobody would notice? Not everyone is as stupid as you, poochie. But if you're referring to what this *story* was about, it wasn't about Obama's approval rating, either, was it? Which, BTW, is plummeting according to your own figures? BTW, poochie, how close was Quinnipiac on the New Jersey governor's race?
And um, poochie - are you seriously so psychotic that you think people around here agree with *YOU*?
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
(laughter)
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
The only real option is single-payer. Get rid of the health insurance companies. All they add is overhead. Under single-payer, you go see the doctor, he treats you, and he submits the bill to the government. The government pays him. We pay the government (taxes). That's a h*ll of a lot cheaper than paying a sea of bureaucrats who can only say no.
jayhawklawrence (anonymous) says…
The end result of all this is going to be that rich people will always get better health care.
The rest of us will end up with some kind of health care but not the best. The best health care option is going to be your own personal habits and learning how to take care of yourself with home remedies, etc.
It is time to stop smoking, exercise, eat the right foods and take care of yourself. The personal option is always going to be better than the government option.
The system is breaking down from overhead. The political arguments are almost a waste of time. Exercise your personal option if you want to live.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"tbaker (Anonymous) says…
Bozo says: “But robbed on whose behalf?”
Does it matter? "
Of course it matters. If someone robs a bank, the police don't throw up their hands and say it doesn't matter who did it, do they?