For progressives: should the healthcare bill be opposed?

[Darwin333]

The original bill was a good bill that did the things you claim it didn't and it was gutted from there.

Who did the gutting and why? It is not secret that the Republicans oppose this bill so if they did it to try and get a vote they never stood a chance in hell of getting that makes the Democrats pure idiots.

No, they gutted the bill to get other DEMOCRATS to vote for it as they need exactly ZERO Republican votes. Craig's bullshit post about how its really the Republicans fault that the Democrats gutted their own bill in order to get other Democrats to vote for it is just that, bullshit and I guarantee that the voters won't buy it either.

Once again, its amusing as hell that the bill hasn't even passed yet and you guys are already getting creative as hell trying to blame the Republicans because the bill is shitty. Somehow, a sizable number of yall still want the bill passed.

Furthermore, what does your argument say about the Republicans? They must be pure political geniuses if they were able to get the Democrats to gut their own bill even though they still aren't going to vote for it. With absolutely nothing to bargain with the Republicans were able to kill the public option. Pure political masterminds right? Or its a few holdout Democrats that have effectively caused the bill to be gutted because they wouldn't vote for it otherwise and it doesn't stand a chance of passing without those Democrats votes. Which is it, holdout Dems or political mastermind Reps?

 

[Craig234]

Oh, really? Are you admitting that Democrats are also being bought off? If so, we have no disagreement then.

Your problem is that you are treating the Democrats like one group where every member is the same, and that's not the case. You are taking if a minority do something, and labelling all of them based on it.

Some Democrats are compromised by industry money. Some are probably ideologically oriented toward the industry - they're called 'blue dogs' for a reason. Republicans are far more industry-oriented as a party.

The only support for the progressive provisions of the bill that were yanked out, that were negotiated away by Obama, were the progressive Democrats (and Sanders). No Republicans.

So you need to be more accurate in your comments and not say all the Demkocrats are the same, not imply the Republicans, who get a vote and could pass a progressive bill, are blameless.

 

[Craig234]

Who did the gutting and why? It is not secret that the Republicans oppose this bill so if they did it to try and get a vote they never stood a chance in hell of getting that makes the Democrats pure idiots.

No, they gutted the bill to get other DEMOCRATS to vote for it as they need exactly ZERO Republican votes. Craig's bullshit post about how its really the Republicans fault that the Democrats gutted their own bill in order to get other Democrats to vote for it is just that, bullshit and I guarantee that the voters won't buy it either.

Once again, its amusing as hell that the bill hasn't even passed yet and you guys are already getting creative as hell trying to blame the Republicans because the bill is shitty. Somehow, a sizable number of yall still want the bill passed.

Furthermore, what does your argument say about the Republicans? They must be pure political geniuses if they were able to get the Democrats to gut their own bill even though they still aren't going to vote for it. With absolutely nothing to bargain with the Republicans were able to kill the public option. Pure political masterminds right? Or its a few holdout Democrats that have effectively caused the bill to be gutted because they wouldn't vote for it otherwise and it doesn't stand a chance of passing without those Democrats votes. Which is it, holdout Dems or political mastermind Reps?

You're an idiot Darwin.

In the following simplified scenario here's your lack of logic:

Public large majority: PRO STRONG HEALTHCARE
40% Republican Congress: AGAINST ANY HEALTHCARE
60% Democratic Congress: 80% PRO STRONG HEALTHCARE, 20% PRO WEAK HEALTHCARE

Democrats introduce strong healthcare bill. All Republicans and 20% Democrats: "We'll filibuster!" Fall short on votes.to pass. Begin peeling away provisions to meet demands of 20% who want weak healthcare.

Finally peel enough away for the 20% to support the now weak healthcare bill.

Craig: Don't let the Republicans who couold have passed a strong healthcare billl off the hook.

Darwin (how are you still around with survival of the fittest): No, the Repubclicans are blamess, they played no role, the flaw is entirely the Democrats, all of whom are equally corrupt.

And you can'tg say buillshit to the voters about the Republicans being anything other than on their side - the voters are not going to fall for that they want strong healthcare so they'll elect Republicans in 2010.

Nice logic. If I had a bad logic of the week award, this topic would earn it, but you might be the poster child. It's one thing for someone to make the mistake, and quite another for you to be corrected and say 'BS'.

 

[SunSamurai]

You're being an idiot again Hayabusa. Someone who ignores progressive values to do the opposite for a corrupt reason, as you imply is the case, is the opposite of a 'true progressive'.

Now, there is a question whether your implication of some conern for the part's well being is corrupt is correct. What pie in the sky place do you live on where you don't need to get elected to do any good?

Show me the politician who doesn't have any concern for such things and I'll show you one who very likely isn't in office.

About the only one who seems to fit your ideal is one you are probably not a fan of, my favorite Senator Bernie Sanders, who is probably unelectable in 49 states, why there's only one of him.

Apparently you can't make a coherent argument against progressives' position since you use dishnest attacks like this one instead of such an argument.

And it's not some betrayal of principle for a poliitician to say "I'd like X and will work for X, but the nation will accept at most .5x, and the other party would pass -2X, so I'm going to compromise on the .5x and not let the -2x guys get in power by refusing to compromise." Who are you, Hayabusa, if the voters choose to reward some phony bill more than they willl support a better bill, to say that politicians can't respond to that by giving the people what they foolishly want and demanding they lose the next election by doing what you say they should?

And you're awfully selective it seems to criticize dems for sucha compromise but not so much Republicans for the last several years.

Which is it - are you hypocritical by only attacking Dems and not Republicans for concern for winning elections, or are you equally condeming both and just ridiculous for demanding they lose elections?

If you feel the compromise is wrong, why don't you direct your criticism to the voters who are the source of the misguided things they're demanding of the politicians?

We can always debate whether a particular compromise is too much or not, but for you to imply politicians should not have any concern for the politicis of the issues is sillly, your party won't get elected.

I haven't seen the clip yet and am not defending the compromiser here, I'm responding to your comments.

But you may get a hint of my sympathies from the fact this discussion is taking place in my thread about whether the progressives should kill the bill because it *is* so much an empty 'trophy bill'.

Eskimo makes the case for the good provisions that do remain. That's the discussion I'm having here, not one for encouraging the 'trophy bill', but your misuse of 'true progressive' needed to be corrected.

A true progressive, like a true anything, is free to ask, are progressive values best served by supporting an imperfect bill, or by not supporting it, and the impact on their party's ability to win elections is a factor.

What you're demanding is that Democrats never compromise on something like capital punishment or guns no matter the public opinion, or that Republicans come out againt popular Social Security and Medicare programs instead of pretending not to oppose them, ignoring the public opinion, that these people just lose elections to make you happy. That's silly.

You know, during California's 'golden age', there was an excellent governor, Pat Brown. But he was against capital punishment (as am I) and the public was for it. He had an election, and some say the deciding factor was the public's strong preference for capital punishment, which his opponent strongly supported. Brown stood firm - and it cost him the election. You may approve of this. But I think a case can be made that he could say he disagrees, but will respect the public's wishes on the issue for the sake of the rest of the issues - because his not doing so kicked off the political career of Ronald Reagan who hurt our country so much.

Many more people lost their lives because Reagan was elected and had his administration back torture and terrorism and government murder of people who resisted the corrupt power than his capital punishment position would protect - and out of office he coudln't even do anything about capital punishment either. You can argue either side of that, but you don't seem to understand the other side of the issue, the reasons for compromise.

Having made that case, it's inevitable someone will misunderstand my position by taking it further, to the point that the politicians don't comprfomise, they pander to anything to win elections.

No, I'm not saying that. There are lines to draw. But it's not a violation of being a progressive to weigh the politics as one factor in whether to vote for a bill that's mixed with good and bad.

There are 'true progressives' on both sides on this issue.

http://alothman-b.com/handout_parag.htm

 

[Darwin333]

You're an idiot Darwin.

In the following simplified scenario here's your lack of logic:

Public large majority: PRO STRONG HEALTHCARE

Large majority pro strong healthcare eh? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

I am sure you will disagree with the poll but I don't recall any polls showing "large majority" being pro strong healthcare.

40% Republican Congress: AGAINST ANY HEALTHCARE
60% Democratic Congress: 80% PRO STRONG HEALTHCARE, 20% PRO WEAK HEALTHCARE

I wouldn't say they are against any healthcare. This is the party that passed Part D. They are against the healthcare plans proposed by the Democrats though.

Democrats introduce strong healthcare bill. All Republicans and 20% Democrats: "We'll filibuster!" Fall short on votes.to pass. Begin peeling away provisions to meet demands of 20% who want weak healthcare.

Finally peel enough away for the 20% to support the now weak healthcare bill.

At least you admit that the "peeling away" was done to appease Democrats which has been my entire point.

Craig: Don't let the Republicans who couold have passed a strong healthcare billl off the hook.

If by "strong healthcare bill" you mean something like the Democrats are trying to pass there isn't any reason to let them off the hook. The Republicans disagree with the entire premise of government controlled healthcare. If you are talking about actions they could have taken in the past when they had actual power then you have a point but anything they would have passed would have been a far cry from anything you claim to be a strong healthcare bill. We can also play that game with a slew of other issues but its pointless and accomplishes nothing.

Darwin (how are you still around with survival of the fittest): No, the Repubclicans are blamess, they played no role, the flaw is entirely the Democrats, all of whom are equally corrupt.

I would agree with most of that statement, especially the equally corrupt part. While there is plenty of things to blame on the Republicans the content of the specific healthcare bill we are discussing is not one of them.

And you can'tg say buillshit to the voters about the Republicans being anything other than on their side - the voters are not going to fall for that they want strong healthcare so they'll elect Republicans in 2010.

No, I am saying that the voters will not buy that the Republicans are responsible for the content of this bill. If this bill becomes law and goes south the entirety of the blame for the content of that law will, rightfully so, belong to the Democrats. The fact that people are already trying to blame them for the bill shows just how bad people on the left think it is.

And why would the voters think the Democrats are on their side either? The Democrats have crafted a bill that is basically a bigass giveaway to the insurance companies and big pharma. Hell they even voted down an amendment that would allow people to import much cheaper prescriptions from Canada. It sure looks like they are more on the side of Big Pharma than they are voters who want strong healthcare.

Nice logic. If I had a bad logic of the week award, this topic would earn it, but you might be the poster child. It's one thing for someone to make the mistake, and quite another for you to be corrected and say 'BS'.

Since when is there logic in politics? If you want to blame Reps for not doing enough for healthcare when they had actual power, that would be valid but kind of pointless as the Reps don't believe in anything you would consider to be good healthcare legislation. It would be like the Reps blaming the Dems for not passing a "drill baby drill" law right now. I am sure some asshole will try but it will be equally bullshit as the Dems simply do not believe in and expecting them to pass laws they do not believe in is a waste of time at best.

If the Dems do try to blame the content of the bill on the Reps what they will really be doing is saying that (at least in the eyes of the Republicans and people who do not want government controlled healthcare) that the Republicans, up against a Democrat super majority in both the house and the Senate and a Democrat controlled executive branch, while not able to stop the bill entirely they were able to get the most offensive (to them and their supporters) parts removed from the bill while giving zero support in return. The Republicans would love that as they would spin it as a victory for them.


Ironically, the only thing that has been bipartisan about this bill so far is the opposition to it and as I have previously stated, the Democrats own the content of this bill for better or worse. The fact that some are already trying to spin this on the Republicans leads me to believe that at least some Dems think its going to go south. Why else would they, and you, be trying to blame them for the content of a bill that hasn't even passed?

One last thing, your club has spent the last few years blaming just about everything on a single person. Does your shared blame philosophy extend to all of those issues as well or just the ones that benefit your club?

 

[her209]

Kill it. Let the baby boomers rob us in their old age.

Fixed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Craig-You're being an idiot again Hayabusa. Someone who ignores progressive values to do the opposite for a corrupt reason, as you imply is the case, is the opposite of a 'true progressive'.

Like the Conservative who disregards the Constitution isn't one so is the Progressive who pushes his ideology without regard for consequence.

The evidence lies in the fact that what they really complain about is opposition to their "correct" but ignorant views. Challenge them with specifics and you'll get "terrorist supporter" in one case, and your replies on the other.

You can identify an ideologue because they speak nobly in broad terms about their inherent correctness. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

That's todays Progressive, todays Patriot. It's hilarious that you who have absolutely no idea about health care itself, but swear that this is the solution. It's like listening to Bush supporters all over again. We have intel, we have evidence. We know we are right, and don't dare oppose us.

Well, they are out and you are in. Don't think that because people didn't roll over then they will now. I don't give a shit about your parties.

Now, there is a question whether your implication of some conern for the part's well being is corrupt is correct. What pie in the sky place do you live on where you don't need to get elected to do any good?

If you choose to not do good, why should you get elected? If you decide to push forward something without getting it right in your only opportunity, why should others get behind it. I'll cite half a century of Medicaid which has bankrupted budgets, created arcane regulations used to punish providers, and yet takes days and days to get a prior authorization? Guess what? No one is going to go there. It's set in stone.

What guarantees existed in fact which would prevent similar things from happening? When specifics are to be determined down the road, how can you say they will be the right ones? Because Democrats will make the rules? Funny, but when one looks up competence in the dictionary it never mentions political affiliation.

Show me the politician who doesn't have any concern for such things and I'll show you one who very likely isn't in office.

Show me a politician who puts his office above his duty and I'll show you one who shouldn't be there.


About the only one who seems to fit your ideal is one you are probably not a fan of, my favorite Senator Bernie Sanders, who is probably unelectable in 49 states, why there's only one of him.

If Bernie went around working hard to help people help others as his first priority, then went about actually doing just that wisely, both parties would make sure he's unelectable.

Apparently you can't make a coherent argument against progressives' position since you use dishnest attacks like this one instead of such an argument.

I'm attacking the Progressives as they have become. See my prior comment about "conservatives".

And it's not some betrayal of principle for a poliitician to say "I'd like X and will work for X, but the nation will accept at most .5x, and the other party would pass -2X, so I'm going to compromise on the .5x and not let the -2x guys get in power by refusing to compromise." Who are you, Hayabusa, if the voters choose to reward some phony bill more than they willl support a better bill, to say that politicians can't respond to that by giving the people what they foolishly want and demanding they lose the next election by doing what you say they should?

Health care was NEVER the issue. It was all about control and money. It was interesting because in the Moyers interview one of the commentators made the same argument I've been hammering away at. The Dems could have gone out of their way to define the issue, get people with a clue to assist them in what they cannot possibly understand, and THEN put forward something. What happened? Politics as usual. Prevent the opposition from making hay, because it's all about "us" vs. "them". No originality, no foresight. Hacks.

Now go back and have them do their homework, and then you won't have to resort to "foot in the door" politics. Will the Reps object? Probably. Who gives a shit? If the public is shown all along (and saying "it's really for your own good" doesn't count) that this is about improving access and quality and have demonstrated a consistent policy of openness and competence from the start then guess what? They'll be shooting blanks. You beat them by being better, not more crafty.

And you're awfully selective it seems to criticize dems for sucha compromise but not so much Republicans for the last several years.


Which is it - are you hypocritical by only attacking Dems and not Republicans for concern for winning elections, or are you equally condeming both and just ridiculous for demanding they lose elections?

I'll tell you what. Ask Harvey or CAD just how supportive I was about Iraq, or Padilla, or the Patriot Act, the Republicans or Bush. See if I was an apologist for the Administration. Warrantless wiretaps? Nope. When Reps AND Dems were calling for war I spoke out against it, right here. What I did not do is yell at them because they were Reps, but because they were wrong. I'll also remind you that "demanding they lose elections" was the main reason that many Dems caved. No one insisted on seeing the facts up front. No one cried for a full and current assessment by experts. It was right, it had to be right, and any one got in the way was in political jeopardy. That being the case it was the Reps I targeted because Bush pushed the war button.

Then I was a bleeding heart lib, and now I'm a Rep obstructionist. I'm not in the least surprised, because I expected that something would come into play which was wrong or unwise and the Faithful would line up behind it an push. I don't really care.

But back to the Dems who overwhelmingly supported the war. Iraq happened because their complicit fear, but on the bright side they were elected. After all, if you don't get elected you can't object to things you helped create. Curious logic.

If you feel the compromise is wrong, why don't you direct your criticism to the voters who are the source of the misguided things they're demanding of the politicians?

I object to legislated ignorance. I object to poor leadership. I object to the exercise of power over others without due consideration to consequence, especially when it carries the full weight of the law. I object to partisan hackery. I object to intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

The last two apply to the public as well as politicians, so they aren't off the hook. Unfortunately it's all too true that we do not have nearly as much control over our government as do the political parties. When all are bad, picking one hardly recommends the system that provides the Hobson's choice.

We can always debate whether a particular compromise is too much or not, but for you to imply politicians should not have any concern for the politicis of the issues is sillly, your party won't get elected.

Your mindset is one of political compromise. Mine is about providing a chance to make things better. They are not the same.

I haven't seen the clip yet and am not defending the compromiser here, I'm responding to your comments.

It's interesting to watch the justification for his POV. Moyers certainly was troubled by the priorities expressed. Have a look.

But you may get a hint of my sympathies from the fact this discussion is taking place in my thread about whether the progressives should kill the bill because it *is* so much an empty 'trophy bill'.

Eskimo makes the case for the good provisions that do remain. That's the discussion I'm having here, not one for encouraging the 'trophy bill', but your misuse of 'true progressive' needed to be corrected.

To be clear, I don't think the people who helped during the Dust Bowl exist any more in practice than Conservatives. This is about what is rather than what was or ought to be. I excoriated the Neocons in much the same way.

A true progressive, like a true anything, is free to ask, are progressive values best served by supporting an imperfect bill, or by not supporting it, and the impact on their party's ability to win elections is a factor.

I see a need and ask what is prudent and proper to help, then think about how to go about doing it. I do not stop at asking about a solution, but think about the consequences thereof and how they can be mitigated. Then I reassess the whole thing including my first principles. Could I be wrong? Is my perspective objective? Might someone have a better idea? Do I have all of the facts? Is what I propose effectively irrevocable if it fails? What's the worst case result of my decisions? If I grant something with one hand, what do I take away with the other? Have I exercised due diligence, and demand it of policy makers? Do I hold those I approve of to the same standard of competence as those I do not? Myself for that matter?

I ask a lot of questions. I'm a true gadfly, but not out of malice.

What "ive" or "ite" does that make me? Labels are fun.

What you're demanding is that Democrats never compromise on something like capital punishment or guns no matter the public opinion, or that Republicans come out againt popular Social Security and Medicare programs instead of pretending not to oppose them, ignoring the public opinion, that these people just lose elections to make you happy. That's silly.

You know, during California's 'golden age', there was an excellent governor, Pat Brown. But he was against capital punishment (as am I) and the public was for it. He had an election, and some say the deciding factor was the public's strong preference for capital punishment, which his opponent strongly supported. Brown stood firm - and it cost him the election. You may approve of this. But I think a case can be made that he could say he disagrees, but will respect the public's wishes on the issue for the sake of the rest of the issues - because his not doing so kicked off the political career of Ronald Reagan who hurt our country so much.

Many more people lost their lives because Reagan was elected and had his administration back torture and terrorism and government murder of people who resisted the corrupt power than his capital punishment position would protect - and out of office he coudln't even do anything about capital punishment either. You can argue either side of that, but you don't seem to understand the other side of the issue, the reasons for compromise.

Having made that case, it's inevitable someone will misunderstand my position by taking it further, to the point that the politicians don't comprfomise, they pander to anything to win elections.

No, I'm not saying that. There are lines to draw. But it's not a violation of being a progressive to weigh the politics as one factor in whether to vote for a bill that's mixed with good and bad.

There are 'true progressives' on both sides on this issue.

I'll finish with this. First off I'm no Ron R worshiper. Many bad policies were enacted because of him. Many complain today that their parents didn't plan for retirement, either not realizing or caring that they did. Ronnie decided to block legislation which prevented the raiding of pensions (including those which employees contributed in some part). As a result we have a great many who had a retirement only to have it stolen. Then there is the Contra affair. I can go on and on. I have. Unfortunately, what is past is past. We're here today and now.

So let me give a "today" example what "true progressives" as they would call them selves have done here in NY. I'll allow that they were well intentioned, however their great fault is the belief that government is perpetually benign and self correcting. Consequently they enacted programs based on what should be rather than what is. We've inherited a self perpetuating welfare society which is wholly unsustainable, and since it's government mandated it cannot be fired or changed. There are hundreds of progressive agendas which sound great, but they have no connection to financial reality. The reaction by our state government is that since they have to be in power they will not alienate these people and the ones who support them.

Ok, whatever except that I pay "only" $4500 a year in property taxes on a home worth less than $200k on the open market. I say only, because we have a landfill which accepts trash from Buffalo and Rochester. Across the road in the next town I'd be paying close to 9K per year. On top of that we have high fees and income taxes, sales taxes etc. Now people who had their retirement taken by one group of ideologues stand a good chance of losing their homes to the other? WTF is that?

For the Progressive vision we pay dearly, in fact more than anywhere in the nation. The Lottery was earmarked for education. That's gone. Our outrageous property taxes have gone in part for a decent public school system, but our Governor just announced that school budgets would be slashed by 10% in order to pay for other programs.

In western NY we have a lot of hunters. Those fees were to pay for conservation. Nope. Fees shot thorough the roof and the money taken. Preserves and conservation lands parceled off, again to pay for living beyond our means. So the result? Since monies which are legally obliged to go to a particular use are being stolen, there are more hunters than ever but curiously far fewer hunting and fishing licenses being sold. They've had enough.

We've been screwed, people who can are moving out leaving the rest of us to pick up an ever growing budget with less income.

After our kids are grown we're going to try to move out of here. One less family to feed upon.

What's the response to this from those in charge? "We all need to sacrifice".

Right.

 

[Craig234]

Large majority pro strong healthcare eh? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

I am sure you will disagree with the poll but I don't recall any polls showing "large majority" being pro strong healthcare.

When yoiu see a word you don't understand, like scenario, look it up, don't post based on a misunderstandig of it as you did here.

I said "simplified scenario". That means I'm stipulating certain things hypothetically for the sake of making a point. "Simplified scenario" doesn't mean "this is the exct description of how things are, nit pick away".

I wouldn't say they are against any healthcare. This is the party that passed Part D. They are against the healthcare plans proposed by the Democrats though.

Use some common sense. They're against any healthcare reform as the term is used in our current situation, the idea of 'universal healthcare', reigning in corporate excess, etc.

Yes, if you made a list of naming everything in the country after Reagan, slashing all social spending 90%, double the tax money fro the middle class going to the rich, give one aspirin to a guy with a headache, and put a neat label on the bill titled "healthcare reform", then sure, they'd be for healthcare reform. But they're against what anysensible person means by the term.

You have the gall to bring up Medicare part D?

Let's review the history. George Bush lied about it covering all seniors and how much help it would give, and then set the terms to blackmail seniors into choosing between getting off Medicare and onto a private plan to get the drug 'benefit', OR they miss out on the 'benefit if they stayed with their doctor on Medicare. Then under huge criticism, Bush added a provision for seniors with 'significant drug costs' to get some benefit - but he set the minimum to qualify at spending at least $7,000 a year while the average was $2,400, to few seniors got any help from that either.

This was called the 'doughnut' - many or most senriors faced *higher* costs under the bill, because the bill wasn't to help the seniors, it was for the provision that helped the Republicans' #1 donor industry in 2000, big pharma, which is why this bill was one of Bush's top two domestic prioriities (with the redistributionist tax cuts for the rich) - the provision in the bill that unlike other government programs that use the government's massive buying power to negotiate lower drug prices, no negotiation would be allowed, which handed hundreds of billions of tax dollars to big pharma as windfall profits.

The Congressmen who was in charge of getting this massively corrupt bill passed resigned right after it passed to become the head of big pharma lobbying for $2 million a year.

Even some of the lock-step Republicans could't stomach the corruptionit was so bad, and the bill failed - so the corrupt Republican leadership extended the voting period by minujtes, and then hours, for the first time in House history just ignoring the rules this badly, while the leadership walked the floor twisting arms, reportedly threatening and bribing - one congressman said they told him his son who was going to run for office would get a $100,000 donation if the congressman changed his vote to yes, and his son would get blackballed in the party if he didn't - they finally switched enough votes after an all night fight.

That bill is a monster that condemns the Republicans, exposing their corruption, their selling out the taqxpayer and the national interest, their dishnonest cynical use of a good cause to steal.

It's not what you tried to use it as, a healthcare bill the Republicans supported in the context of healthcare REFORM now under discussion.

I know youy wrote more, but I'm losing my patience after that garbaqge.

At least you admit that the "peeling away" was done to appease Democrats which has been my entire point.

'All I said was...' one of the most common lies told. No, it's not. If that was your entire point, we'd have agreed.

If by "strong healthcare bill" you mean something like the Democrats are trying to pass there isn't any reason to let them off the hook. The Republicans disagree with the entire premise of government controlled healthcare. If you are talking about actions they could have taken in the past when they had actual power then you have a point but anything they would have passed would have been a far cry from anything you claim to be a strong healthcare bill. We can also play that game with a slew of other issues but its pointless and accomplishes nothing.



I would agree with most of that statement, especially the equally corrupt part. While there is plenty of things to blame on the Republicans the content of the specific healthcare bill we are discussing is not one of them.

Yes, it is. I can see I'm going to have to repeat this over an over for some people.

Forget the party labels for a minute. There's this group of a couple hundred members of Congress who had the label 'R' but you are ignoring it. This group COULD say they're in favor of the most liberal healthcare bill ever. They COULD say they're only for a corrupt industry bill. THey COULD say they are against any bill because they don't like the guy who os president. It's their choice, and because they have the votes, THEY ARE PART OF WHAT IS DETERMING THE BILL THAT PASSES.

The fact that they're sitting on their butts saying no to anything the Democrats want is part of the situation. They're not vacationing on the moon not part of the debate, they'[re hundreds of votes.

What does it take for you to get that they are accountable for their position too, they don't get some freebie non-accountable privilege to killa bill and say they had nothing to do with it.

If they weren't saying no, the Dems woujldn'thave to be peeling away the bill to try to win over blue dogs. That is the Republicans' fault for not supporting the fuller billl.

No, I am saying that the voters will not buy that the Republicans are responsible for the content of this bill. If this bill becomes law and goes south the entirety of the blame for the content of that law will, rightfully so, belong to the Democrats. The fact that people are already trying to blame them for the bill shows just how bad people on the left think it is.

And here I'll repeat it again for you. TRhe Repulicans arenot primarily responsble for the content of this bill. THey ARE responsible for the impact their position has on it. They have hte votes tp get a bill passed.

And why would the voters think the Democrats are on their side either? The Democrats have crafted a bill that is basically a bigass giveaway to the insurance companies and big pharma. Hell they even voted down an amendment that would allow people to import much cheaper prescriptions from Canada. It sure looks like they are more on the side of Big Pharma than they are voters who want strong healthcare.

SOME Democrts have backed the big pharma industry. SOME Democrats have oppsed them and bcked the public interest. NO Republicans have opposed big pharma and backed the public interest.

SOME Republicans have backed big pharma. ALL Republicans have signed on, it seems, to the 'try to kill this because it will hurt Democrats' agenda.

That';s why it makes no sense to suggest the public, frustrated by getting a sellout bill, should turn from the Dems who are split, to the Republicans who are far MORE corrupted to big pharma.

It might happen because voters are idiots, but it makes no sense.

Since when is there logic in politics? If you want to blame Reps for not doing enough for healthcare when they had actual power, that would be valid but kind of pointless as the Reps don't believe in anything you would consider to be good healthcare legislation. It would be like the Reps blaming the Dems for not passing a "drill baby drill" law right now. I am sure some asshole will try but it will be equally bullshit as the Dems simply do not believe in and expecting them to pass laws they do not believe in is a waste of time at best.

If the Dems do try to blame the content of the bill on the Reps what they will really be doing is saying that (at least in the eyes of the Republicans and people who do not want government controlled healthcare) that the Republicans, up against a Democrat super majority in both the house and the Senate and a Democrat controlled executive branch, while not able to stop the bill entirely they were able to get the most offensive (to them and their supporters) parts removed from the bill while giving zero support in return. The Republicans would love that as they would spin it as a victory for them.


Ironically, the only thing that has been bipartisan about this bill so far is the opposition to it and as I have previously stated, the Democrats own the content of this bill for better or worse. The fact that some are already trying to spin this on the Republicans leads me to believe that at least some Dems think its going to go south. Why else would they, and you, be trying to blame them for the content of a bill that hasn't even passed?

One last thing, your club has spent the last few years blaming just about everything on a single person. Does your shared blame philosophy extend to all of those issues as well or just the ones that benefit your club?

If I could I'd delete the above as ground covered, but on your last point, again you misunderstand. When Democrats blamed Bush, they didn't mean 'only the man', they meant the whole agenda the Republican party followed under his presidency - the corporatism out of control and handed the keys to the government, the terrible appointees, the co-President and often real president Chedney, the corrupt Republican Congress (let's not forget DeLay), and many more.

Hopefully my comments above are gettig through about the Republicans' share of blame. You are mixing tghings up a bit by one minute referring to the gutted bill as 'bad' and the next as something 'good' the Republicans can take credit for, but hopefully I was clear in explaining to you that the Democrats are primarily responsible for the healthcare reform effort; the Dems who are not accepting the fuller bill, the progressive bill, are responsible for their part in the gutted bill going forward; and Republicans are responsible for opposing ANY bill the Democrats are putting forward, which does kill the progressiove bill.

 

[SunSamurai]

Craig234 sure does try and cover his ass even though he's wrong on points already pointed out by several people.

Sooner or later he'll have to write a post sooo long its going to crash AT.

 

[Craig234]

Hayabusa, I just lost a post I wrote for 15 minutes, after prefacing it with the problems I have with the current interface I'm using to post - sorry. It's quite frustrating.

In a nutshell I found areas we can agree on, while sayiing it's very frustratring that when I carefull say I support limited concern for party with limits, you change what I said so badly to a straw man.

You just ignored the limits I put on and rant against the straw man you created. But I discussed your closing section and how I do agree Democrats can do bad things governing and we can agree.

 

[shadow9d9]

Yes, but you forget that the "reform" that many have in mind is only going to increase the expenses even further, and at the same time reduce the type of healthcare we get. We spend way too much, but without fixing the cost itself, no bill is going to make anything better, only worse and more expensive.



Yeah, blame the repubs. Sure. Newsflash. The repubs have no say in this whatsoever. The dems have the supermajority in both houses and can do whatever they want. It's not the repubs getting in the way, the moderate dems know that the public does not want the garbage the far left is peddling, and they know they will pay the price come election time. Idiots like Pelosi will get re-elected, because her constituents are idiots. People like Nelson from Nebraska know that if they pass this garbage, they will get the boot. No amount of pressure from the Dear Leader or other idiot democrats will change that reality. It's self preservation.

WHAT!? The republicans, who have all determined to vote "no",. no matter what are NOT at fault!? Under what twisted logic?

The Democrats do NOT have a supermajority! Stop repeating blatant lies. If you want to consider the hick democrats to actually be democrat, then you STILL do not have a supermajority.. Independent does NOT equal democrat!

Remember who that one "independent" single handedly removed the public option and medicare buyin? yeah, no supermajority.

People like you repeatedly lie and expect to be taken seriously. You are part of the problem.

 

[cubby1223]

Well, health care reform will be passed by the Senate.

How did they do it?

By forcing the other 49 states to pick up the payments for Nebraska's Medicaid.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/Ben_Nelsons_Medicaid_deal.html

Way to go Democrats! I'm glad Progressives (er, sorry, socialists) like Craig want health care passed just to spite Republicans...

 

[shadow9d9]

Well, health care reform will be passed by the Senate.

How did they do it?

By forcing the other 49 states to pick up the payments for Nebraska's Medicaid.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/Ben_Nelsons_Medicaid_deal.html

Way to go Democrats! I'm glad Progressives (er, sorry, socialists) like Craig want health care passed just to spite Republicans...

Could have had real negotiations, but the Republicans don't want to actually negotiate.. which gives a handful of democrats too much power.

 

[Craig234]

Well, health care reform will be passed by the Senate.

How did they do it?

By forcing the other 49 states to pick up the payments for Nebraska's Medicaid.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/Ben_Nelsons_Medicaid_deal.html

Way to go Democrats! I'm glad Progressives (er, sorry, socialists) like Craig want health care passed just to spite Republicans...

Add one more to the list who have to get called on the carpet for lyiing aboiut my position.

It's like a mental problem the way rightioes seem to have to believe opponents' position are straw men.

I'm not a 'socialist'. not that you know what the word means.

And I *do not* want the bill passed to spite Repuiblicans. Lie.

Now, do I give some weight to passing it not for spite, but the fact that itpolitically helps the party that's a hell of a lot better than the Republlicans? Yes, that has some weight - but limited. I could vote no on it.

Indeed, you have to ignore my thread where I raise that very question, to tell your lie about my position - where I ask, should progressives oppose the bill? Hardly 'passing it to spite Republicans'.

You lie. You have zero basis for your lie - no innocent misunderstanding - you are simply reckless in attack and unconcerned with the truth, makng a statement not only without basis but ignoring the evidence.

Edit: about your link on Ben Nelson. It souds like an ugly consession, and Ben Nelson might get credit with his state for gouging this money, but he deserves more blame from the nation for his willingness to blacklmail the healthcare bill. My recollection is that Nelson is one of the least progressive Democrats, making me no fan. This might be a necessary compromise to get the bill passed, unfortunately. Welcome to bad politics.

On the other hand, every Republican is also responsible for allowing this to happen, insofar as they coulld provide the needed votes and take away Nelson's blackmail.

 

[sciwizam]

SOME Democrts have backed the big pharma industry. SOME Democrats have oppsed them and bcked the public interest. NO Republicans have opposed big pharma and backed the public interest.

SOME Republicans have backed big pharma. ALL Republicans have signed on, it seems, to the 'try to kill this because it will hurt Democrats' agenda.

That';s why it makes no sense to suggest the public, frustrated by getting a sellout bill, should turn from the Dems who are split, to the Republicans who are far MORE corrupted to big pharma.

It might happen because voters are idiots, but it makes no sense.

SOME Democrats screwed over ALL Americans

 

[Darwin333]

When yoiu see a word you don't understand, like scenario, look it up, don't post based on a misunderstandig of it as you did here.

I said "simplified scenario". That means I'm stipulating certain things hypothetically for the sake of making a point. "Simplified scenario" doesn't mean "this is the exct description of how things are, nit pick away".

Lol, and I am nit picking..
I was playing with the kids and read it to fast, sue me. I do hope the rest of your post is better than simply pointing out that I missed a word or two when quickly reading through your rather lengthy attempt to blame someone other than your club for your clubs bill.

Use some common sense. They're against any healthcare reform as the term is used in our current situation, the idea of 'universal healthcare', reigning in corporate excess, etc.

Ah, so regardless of what the Dems do on healthcare it will always be the republicans fault. The ideology that they supposedly believe in is smaller government and less government involvement in peoples lives. The democrats version of healthcare is completely opposite of those ideals so why would you expect them too? Common sense says that you don't expect them to support it but since your club is going to pass a horrible bill you don't want your club to take the blame. If this was a good bill you would be singing a completely different tune.

You have the gall to bring up Medicare part D?

The gall? I dislike the Republicans as much as I do the Democrats. They aren't nearly as different as most people believe and both parties main goal is to help those that help them. There are exceptions of course but for the most part they are bought and paid for by the elites who generally write, or help write, these bills for them. Whose idea do you think the legislation guaranteeing the big ass bonuses was? Who do you think wrote Medicare part D? Why are our politicians against bringing down prescription drug costs for the people except to protect the profits of big pharma?

Let's review the history. George Bush lied about it covering all seniors and how much help it would give, and then set the terms to blackmail seniors into choosing between getting off Medicare and onto a private plan to get the drug 'benefit', OR they miss out on the 'benefit if they stayed with their doctor on Medicare. Then under huge criticism, Bush added a provision for seniors with 'significant drug costs' to get some benefit - but he set the minimum to qualify at spending at least $7,000 a year while the average was $2,400, to few seniors got any help from that either.


This was called the 'doughnut' - many or most senriors faced *higher* costs under the bill, because the bill wasn't to help the seniors, it was for the provision that helped the Republicans' #1 donor industry in 2000, big pharma, which is why this bill was one of Bush's top two domestic prioriities (with the redistributionist tax cuts for the rich) - the provision in the bill that unlike other government programs that use the government's massive buying power to negotiate lower drug prices, no negotiation would be allowed, which handed hundreds of billions of tax dollars to big pharma as windfall profits.

The Congressmen who was in charge of getting this massively corrupt bill passed resigned right after it passed to become the head of big pharma lobbying for $2 million a year.

Even some of the lock-step Republicans could't stomach the corruptionit was so bad, and the bill failed - so the corrupt Republican leadership extended the voting period by minujtes, and then hours, for the first time in House history just ignoring the rules this badly, while the leadership walked the floor twisting arms, reportedly threatening and bribing - one congressman said they told him his son who was going to run for office would get a $100,000 donation if the congressman changed his vote to yes, and his son would get blackballed in the party if he didn't - they finally switched enough votes after an all night fight.

That bill is a monster that condemns the Republicans, exposing their corruption, their selling out the taqxpayer and the national interest, their dishnonest cynical use of a good cause to steal.

I pretty much agree with the above. Not only did it hand hundreds of billions in profits to big pharma, as you noted, but big pharma was so appreciative that they jacked up costs year after year at a rate well above inflation. It was one big ass screwing of the taxpayer.

My concern is the current healthcare bill will be relatively similar in results. We are giving another handout to big pharma (OT a bit, didn't Obama give pharma a huge slide as well a while back? If I get time I will look it up). It also gives the insurance companies a slew of new customers who, last time I checked, will now be forced by law to purchase their products. That seems an awful lot like rewarding the very people you condemn and yet you are ok with that. Other than wanting your club to win I can't imagine why you would be ok with using the IRS to force people to do business with those you say have done the American people such a disservice. To be fair, there are some good meassures in the bill that will help some Americans such as those with pre-existing conditions but in this case is that really worth enriching companies that you believe have been ripping off (to a point I do as well, just not to the extent that you do) American consumers?

'All I said was...' one of the most common lies told. No, it's not. If that was your entire point, we'd have agreed.

I doubt it. You tend to think that, for the most part, there is a good party and a bad party in DC. I tend to think they are birds of a feather who rarely have the best interests of the American people in mind.

Yes, it is. I can see I'm going to have to repeat this over an over for some people.

Forget the party labels for a minute. There's this group of a couple hundred members of Congress who had the label 'R' but you are ignoring it. This group COULD say they're in favor of the most liberal healthcare bill ever. They COULD say they're only for a corrupt industry bill. THey COULD say they are against any bill because they don't like the guy who os president. It's their choice, and because they have the votes, THEY ARE PART OF WHAT IS DETERMING THE BILL THAT PASSES.

The fact that they're sitting on their butts saying no to anything the Democrats want is part of the situation. They're not vacationing on the moon not part of the debate, they'[re hundreds of votes.

What does it take for you to get that they are accountable for their position too, they don't get some freebie non-accountable privilege to killa bill and say they had nothing to do with it.

If they weren't saying no, the Dems woujldn'thave to be peeling away the bill to try to win over blue dogs. That is the Republicans' fault for not supporting the fuller billl.

Of course they are accountable for the positions they take, in this case sitting on their hands and trying everything they can to slow the bill down. However, the Democrats knew that was exactly what they would do. If the bill fails then they deserve the blame or credit, depending on what club you belong to, for being instrumental in killing the bill. Once again, my point is about the content of the bill of which they have had very little opportunity to affect and if the Democrats change the content of the bill for someone who they know isn't going to support it anyway, who gets the credit or the blame for that? If I ask you for a $100 and you give it to me, is it my fault that you are broke? While I played a part in the process you made the decision to give it to me and therefor you are ultimately responsible for your actions.

And here I'll repeat it again for you. TRhe Repulicans arenot primarily responsble for the content of this bill. THey ARE responsible for the impact their position has on it. They have hte votes tp get a bill passed.

Wow, we agree.

SOME Democrts have backed the big pharma industry. SOME Democrats have oppsed them and bcked the public interest. NO Republicans have opposed big pharma and backed the public interest.

I would say more than some but again we agree. Unfortunately, it seems those that support the insurance companies and big pharma are in the majority.

SOME Republicans have backed big pharma. ALL Republicans have signed on, it seems, to the 'try to kill this because it will hurt Democrats' agenda.

Holy shit, we agree again. Maybe I should by a powerball ticket, the odds have got to be better that I will hit the jackpot than you and I agreeing on this many points in a single post.

That';s why it makes no sense to suggest the public, frustrated by getting a sellout bill, should turn from the Dems who are split, to the Republicans who are far MORE corrupted to big pharma.

It might happen because voters are idiots, but it makes no sense.

Except I think they are both a bunch of sellouts. They have done nothing but enrich the elites and their big supporters since having their supermajority. Even some of the programs that are supposed to be for the people are nothing more than backdoor bailouts for companies already making record profits while the rest of us are seeing wages and hours being cut if you are lucky enough to be employed.

If I could I'd delete the above as ground covered, but on your last point, again you misunderstand. When Democrats blamed Bush, they didn't mean 'only the man', they meant the whole agenda the Republican party followed under his presidency - the corporatism out of control and handed the keys to the government, the terrible appointees, the co-President and often real president Chedney, the corrupt Republican Congress (let's not forget DeLay), and many more.

Aww, and I thought we were making progress. I agree with most of it except the Dems are doing the same thing which I am sure you disagree with. Quick question, massive amounts of fraud took place, in part, causing the financial mess we are in. How many investigations has Obama's justice department launched? How about the recent consumer credit bill they passed, do you think it was incompitence that allowed the banks to jack everyones (including people with good and excellent credit) rates up or do you think the banks had a heavy hand in drafting the bill? Like I said, birds of a feather...

Hopefully my comments above are gettig through about the Republicans' share of blame. You are mixing tghings up a bit by one minute referring to the gutted bill as 'bad' and the next as something 'good' the Republicans can take credit for, but hopefully I was clear in explaining to you that the Democrats are primarily responsible for the healthcare reform effort; the Dems who are not accepting the fuller bill, the progressive bill, are responsible for their part in the gutted bill going forward; and Republicans are responsible for opposing ANY bill the Democrats are putting forward, which does kill the progressiove bill.

You have made your point clearer, we were simply arguing about blame or responsibility of different things. Unfortunately, the above is status quo for Washington. I have seen both sides defeat bills that they agreed with simply because the other side introduced the bill. Just one more reason why I think they are a bunch of corrupt assholes who only have their interests and the interests of their clubs in mind. You and I aren't even a distant 3rd or 4th.

At any rate, I am off to the park with the kids to launch some model rockets while the winds are down and the sun is up.

 

[dali71]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

Pick any poll you want, the majority of the people are against this sorry excuse of a bill.

 

[Darwin333]

Edit: about your link on Ben Nelson. It souds like an ugly consession, and Ben Nelson might get credit with his state for gouging this money, but he deserves more blame from the nation for his willingness to blacklmail the healthcare bill. My recollection is that Nelson is one of the least progressive Democrats, making me no fan. This might be a necessary compromise to get the bill passed, unfortunately. Welcome to bad politics.

On the other hand, every Republican is also responsible for allowing this to happen, insofar as they coulld provide the needed votes and take away Nelson's blackmail.

I am sorry but this isn't a necessary compromise, here in the real world we call this a bribe.

As far as "On the other hand, every Republican is also responsible for allowing this to happen, insofar as they coulld provide the needed votes and take away Nelson's blackmail" I will bite. The Republicans, after seeing the "necessary compromise" could simply be holding out for a bribe for their constituents as well. If the Dems wouldn't have set the precedent that they will pay huge amounts of money for individual votes we might not have this problem.

I bet you think the above is a bunch of bullshit don't you?

BTW 12 successful rocket launches and we recovered all of them. Good times till the sun went down. My daughter is dying to do a night launch so I guess my project for tomorrow is figuring out how to put some lights on one.

 

[Craig234]

I am sorry but this isn't a necessary compromise, here in the real world we call this a bribe.

As far as "On the other hand, every Republican is also responsible for allowing this to happen, insofar as they coulld provide the needed votes and take away Nelson's blackmail" I will bite. The Republicans, after seeing the "necessary compromise" could simply be holding out for a bribe for their constituents as well. If the Dems wouldn't have set the precedent that they will pay huge amounts of money for individual votes we might not have this problem.

I bet you think the above is a bunch of bullshit don't you?

BTW 12 successful rocket launches and we recovered all of them. Good times till the sun went down. My daughter is dying to do a night launch so I guess my project for tomorrow is figuring out how to put some lights on one.

I owe you a response to the longer post, but the short version is it was good to see mostly, where you agreed with me, and I agree with most of the things you seem to thik I wouldn't.

The main sticking point may be your equating the two parties while Iview the Democrats as better for various reasons while I share your open of many of the Democrats' problems.

Anyway on to this thread. The issue with the word bribe is that if a politician says "add a billion for my state to get my vote", that's legislating, if he says "give me a thousand in cash", that's a bribe.

The language differentiates, but in the way you meant it, I think - and I said - yes, it looks like a 'bribe'.

The thing with your response on Republicvans is, they're *not* willing to do what Nelson did and offer their support in exchange for $65M for someone's state Medicare. If they were, the Dems would do it I'm sure.

Before you praise the noble principled Republicans on that,k we both know the reason is that thery valuje the political benefits of opposing the bill more than the concessions.

Enjoy your rockets. Been a long time.

Since you mention it, I'll mention a little fantasy. If you have been to the white house you have seen the layout with the open grounds.

I thoght it'd be fun to have some RC thing - maybe a mechanical squirrel - I could discreetly let loose and guide up to the Secret Servic people or a door. Maybe have a cam on it. I know, I know.

 

[alphatarget1]

If it weren't for the Republican filibuster, the bill wouldn't have been watered down so that it's more acceptable to moderates. This bill is crap (in the eyes of an independent like me), but it's better than what it would've been if Democrats had 60 super liberal senators. Democracy at work I guess.

Oh yeah, screw Nebraska and Louisiana. I want my share of pork for my state.

 

[eits]

i'm a democrat

this healthcare bill sucks balls. all it will do is enable insurance companies to charge the hell out of people, more than they already do.

the democrats are really fucking up here and i don't understand why everyone's being such a pussy about paying a little extra tax to ensure that EVERYONE in america gets healthcare. it shouldn't even be a question.

this is a sweetheart deal for big pharma and insurance companies... they might as well have written the damn thing.

 

[blackangst1]

If it weren't for the Republican filibuster, the bill wouldn't have been watered down so that it's more acceptable to moderates. This bill is crap (in the eyes of an independent like me), but it's better than what it would've been if Democrats had 60 super liberal senators. Democracy at work I guess.

Oh yeah, screw Nebraska and Louisiana. I want my share of pork for my state.

Well, Im sure the record spending of pharma et al to Democrats as well as Republicans, Im sure that had something to do with it.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158362.php

"According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the health sector reported spending $127 million in lobbying during the first three months of this year, more than any other area."

Health companies and their employees gave Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., nearly $1.5 million in 2007 and 2008, just as the Senator was readying the Senate Finance Committee to consider health reform.

Baucus and his aides say they began refusing contributions from health care political action committees after June 1. "But the policy does not apply to lobbyists or corporate executives, who continued to make donations, disclosure records show. Baucus declined requests to comment for this article. Spokesman Tyler Matsdorf said the senator 'is only driven by one thing: what is right for Montana and the country.'" The health care sector gave "nearly $170 million to federal lawmakers in 2007 and 2008, with 54 percent going to Democrats, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics."

Other Senators, including Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, have also been the target of health care giving. "Grassley, the Finance Committee's ranking Republican, received more than $2 million from the health and insurance sectors since 2003. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) took in $1.6 million from the health sector and its employees over the past two years; ranking Republican Dave Camp (Mich.) received nearly $1 million."

"Dodd … has branched out his fundraising operation by tapping healthcare-related companies for more than $112,000 in the second quarter of 2009. The sum represents a good chunk of the more than $450,000 Dodd accumulated from PACs in the second quarter. In addition, fundraising records reviewed by The Hill show that Dodd accepted contributions from 32 lobbyists representing healthcare interests between April 1 and June 30, the weeks preceding Dodd's markup of legislation overhauling the nation's healthcare system."

Dodd's spokespeople say he has taken the money without letting it influence his policymaking (ROFL riiiight)

 

[Ozoned]

Well, Im sure the record spending of pharma et al to Democrats as well as Republicans, Im sure that had something to do with it.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158362.php

"According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the health sector reported spending $127 million in lobbying during the first three months of this year, more than any other area."

Health companies and their employees gave Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., nearly $1.5 million in 2007 and 2008, just as the Senator was readying the Senate Finance Committee to consider health reform.

Baucus and his aides say they began refusing contributions from health care political action committees after June 1. "But the policy does not apply to lobbyists or corporate executives, who continued to make donations, disclosure records show. Baucus declined requests to comment for this article. Spokesman Tyler Matsdorf said the senator 'is only driven by one thing: what is right for Montana and the country.'" The health care sector gave "nearly $170 million to federal lawmakers in 2007 and 2008, with 54 percent going to Democrats, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics."

Other Senators, including Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, have also been the target of health care giving. "Grassley, the Finance Committee's ranking Republican, received more than $2 million from the health and insurance sectors since 2003. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) took in $1.6 million from the health sector and its employees over the past two years; ranking Republican Dave Camp (Mich.) received nearly $1 million."

"Dodd … has branched out his fundraising operation by tapping healthcare-related companies for more than $112,000 in the second quarter of 2009. The sum represents a good chunk of the more than $450,000 Dodd accumulated from PACs in the second quarter. In addition, fundraising records reviewed by The Hill show that Dodd accepted contributions from 32 lobbyists representing healthcare interests between April 1 and June 30, the weeks preceding Dodd's markup of legislation overhauling the nation's healthcare system."

Dodd's spokespeople say he has taken the money without letting it influence his policymaking (ROFL riiiight)

Capitalism rocks!! Little did people know when Obama talked about new green jobs, he was referencing people in scrubs.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Your problem is that you are treating the Democrats like one group where every member is the same, and that's not the case. You are taking if a minority do something, and labelling all of them based on it.

Some Democrats are compromised by industry money. Some are probably ideologically oriented toward the industry - they're called 'blue dogs' for a reason. Republicans are far more industry-oriented as a party.

The only support for the progressive provisions of the bill that were yanked out, that were negotiated away by Obama, were the progressive Democrats (and Sanders). No Republicans.

So you need to be more accurate in your comments and not say all the Demkocrats are the same, not imply the Republicans, who get a vote and could pass a progressive bill, are blameless.

You can try to blame the Republicans for this bill not being passed, but this is very poor logic. If they disagree with what is in the bill, it is their job to vote against it. If GWB had proposed a bill and the Democrats disagreed and voted against it, you wouldn't hear me in here blaming them for it ESPECIALLY if the Republicans, as a party, had a huge majority. While parties are not monolithic entities, it is the job of those in a particular party to work together on one of their key initiatives to come up with something palatable to all in their party. And with regards to Republican support, if the Democrats need or want it, it is their job to gain this support since they authored the bills. The Democrats have failed miserably on both counts.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

NM