It is very important that everyone call their Rep to support this bill. If you don't know your Rep's direct number please call the Congressional switchboard and they will connect you to the proper office: 202-224-3121.

http://www.truemajority.org/callin/switchboard.php?callid=9

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091106/ap_on_...h_care_overhaul

House Dems say Sat. vote on health care may slip

AP – Actor Jon Voight speaks with Rep. Michele Bachmann R-Minn., at Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, …
By ERICA WERNER and RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writers Erica Werner And Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writers – 41 mins ago
WASHINGTON – House Democrats acknowledged they don't yet have the votes to pass a sweeping overhaul of the nation's health care system, and signaled they may push back the vote until Sunday or early next week.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters in a conference call Friday that the make-or-break vote on President Barack Obama's push to make health coverage part of the social safety net could face delay. Democrats were originally hoping to pass the bill on Saturday_and officially, that's still the plan.

But Democrats have yet to resolve a intraparty disputes over abortion funding and illegal immigrants' access to medical coverage. They cleared one hurdle Friday when liberals supporting a government-run Medicare-for-all system withdrew their demand for a floor vote.

Hoyer sought to pin the blame for any possible slippage on delaying tactics expected from Republicans, who unanimously oppose the health care remake.

"Nice try Rep. Hoyer, but you can't blame Republicans when the fact is you just don't have the votes," said Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio. Republicans could stall the bill by demanding roll-call votes on parliamentary matters.

Hoyer acknowledged that Democrats are still short of the 218 votes they need to pass the bill. "There are many people who are still trying to get a comfort level that this is the right thing to do," he said. "We're very close."

While Hoyer said he still expects a vote Saturday evening, he said he has put lawmakers on notice they may be called to the House floor Sunday afternoon, or even Monday or Tuesday.

The White House issued a formal endorsement of the House bill Friday, and said Obama plans to go to Capitol Hill on Saturday to rally Democrats. House passage of the 10-year, $1.2 trillion legislation that extends health coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans and puts tough new restrictions on insurance companies would be a breakthrough for his agenda.

A moderate Democrat, South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, announced Friday she would not vote for the House bill — but held out the possibility she could support final passage of the legislation, after compromises with the Senate. Sandlin said she fears the House bill could diminish access to health care in her state.

Action on health legislation was slowed as senators waited for the Congressional Budget Office to weigh in on a bill written by Majority Leader Harry Reid in consultation with the White House and key committee chairmen. Senate votes could slip until next year, but in the House Democratic leaders pressed forward.

They expressed optimism that when it came time to vote, they'd have the majority needed to prevail in the 435-seat House.

Asked Thursday if she had the votes, Speaker Nancy Pelosi replied: "We will."

Pelosi and other Democratic leaders were finalizing language to bar federal funding of abortion and resolving a flare-up over the treatment of illegal immigrants in the legislation that had Hispanic lawmakers up in arms.

Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus object to a provision in the Senate legislation — backed by the White House — that bars illegal immigrants from buying health insurance within a proposed new marketplace, or exchange, even if they use their own money to buy from private companies.

Illegal immigrants can buy private health insurance now, so some lawmakers say the White House position goes too far.

Democrats were trying to toughen prohibitions in the bill against federal funding for abortions in a way that would satisfy enough anti-abortion Democrats. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was involved in the talks, but the issue was still unresolved Friday morning.

Federal law now bars government funds from being used to pay for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. The health care bill would create a new stream of federal money to subsidize medical insurance premiums, and the dispute is over how to apply the abortion restrictions to those funds.

Abortion opponents say language now in the bill is inadequate to ensure that only private dollars — not federal funds — can be used to pay for the procedure. Abortion rights supporters say if the bill gets much more restrictive, it would deny women access to a procedure now covered by many private insurance plans.

Hoyer said Democratic leaders want the health care bill "to keep the situation neutral," not shift the government's policy on abortion funding in one direction or another. But activists on both sides of the issue disagree on what it would take to meet that goal.

The House effort picked up two major endorsements Thursday, from the powerful seniors' lobby AARP and the American Medical Association.

The bill would cover 96 percent of Americans, providing government subsidies beginning in 2013 to extend coverage to millions who now lack it. Self-employed people and small businesses could buy coverage through the new exchanges, either from a private insurer or a new government plan that would compete. All the plans sold through the exchange would have to follow basic consumer protection rules.

For the first time, almost all individuals would be required to purchase insurance or pay a fine, and employers would be required to insure their employees. Insurance companies would be barred from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions or charging much higher rates to older people.

The sad part of this bill no public option but it's the best we could do. But that clown Lieberman is going to filibuster it can't wait till 2012 to boot him out.

Well, if we can all stay somewhat healthy until 2012, maybe after December 21, 2012 we won't have to worry about it. :clap:

Congratulations to the US House of Representatives. It ain't perfect but they passed a major bill. There's got to be a way to get something across the finish line in the Senate as well.

:clap:

this is the big one

every single blue dog who votes against in the senate needs to be evicted from the senate forever

the people are watching

Obama won CHANGE

and we need CHANGE or vote them all out in 2010

What about Dennis Kucinich? He voted against it too.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091108/pl_politico/29281

It went to passage by 220 over 215...even President Obama is giving THIS win to Speaker Nancy Pelosi...Let her BASK in the GLORY of VICTORY! :clap:

The Radcons were hoping for "blue dog" defections that didn't happen because their offices were flooded with calls and E-mails from AMERICANS who WANTED this to PASS! BRAVO TO WE THE PEOPLE AS WE CLAIM BACK WHAT IS OURS FROM RADCON RADIO! :clap: :clap: :clap:

It's all up to Senator REID now! Prima Donna Lieberman is the ONLY one left standing in the way with a FILIBUSTER! How this man (if you can call him that)...ever campaigned wit Al Gore is just waaaay beyond me! It is time for Joe Lieberman to get OUT OF THE WAY OF PROGRESS!

Joe, this is how the COW eats the CABBAGE...if you have even a 'shred' of decency left from 2000 then use it NOW!...This doesn't even come close to making up for THAT loss and 8 solid years of BU$H H3LL...but it IS A GOOD START! ;)

(Filibustering this will definitely go down in 'infamy' for SURE!) :angry:

President Obama gave the VICTORY to Pelosi saying what he ALWAYS SAID!

THIS IS ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE & NOT ABOUT HIM! :good:

That's true James...Hey Clay! What about 'Denice The Menace'...Gonna kick him out too? :?:

Dennis the Menace??? I alway prefered "The Mayor of Munckintown".

Remember he also voted against the Cap & Trade bill that Al Gore supported.

Pardon my slip up...DENICE is a GIRL"S NAME pronounced DEN-ICE'...the male is DENNIS!...That you for the correction James!



Mr. Bill is very unhappy at that misspelling!

SO HE GOT A STATUE! OK! WE GET IT!

Knock it off with the Bill Clinton pics ALREADY! Your just doing this to stir the up the pot.

Why don't you just make this pic your AVATAR and be done with it?

Hey I'm just happy there haven't been any erection jokes about the statue. :clap:

Hey, don't give anybody any ideas. :laugh:

The vote in the House was a victory for the American people, the President, the Speaker, and the Democratic Party. :good:

Maybe all of us should call Joe's office and make our thoughts known.

LIEberman's office will only take your call if you are a resident of Conn. They hang up on everyone else.

Secret Joe Lieberman E-Mail Leaked

Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 21:13:11 -0700
From: joelieberator@yahoo.com
Subject: Killing the P.O.
To: rich.as.f*ck@aetna.com

Hey Richard,

How's it going old friend? I'm assuming you're either out on the yacht for the weekend, or trying to drop some of the "high-risk" groups from coverage. LOL :-D

I just got done with my Fox News Sunday appearance. Those guys love me for some reason. They just let me go on and criticize the president whenever I feel like it. Brought to you by the dude who forgave me after John's campaign...I mean I said Obama doesn't put his country first and kept my chairmanship...talk about gullible.

Speaking of gullible, I wanted to touch base with you about our little arrangement. I'm fine with opposing the public option, and threatening to filibuster until they drop it, and you depositing an exorbitant amount of money into my wife's bank account. You still good with that?

I've been going out there like you said and using phrases like "bankrupt the country," and "recession" and "government takeover" and you're right, it does sound scary! It it's totes easy because the Republicans are saying the same things day in and day out, backing me up, making me look tough like when I voted for the Iraq War. No one's ever going to bully me again! I've sure come a long way since High School.

I am getting a bit annoyed that these peasants from my state keep calling my office about this legislation. Don't they get it by now? I only ran on a Universal Health Care platform in '06 so that I could beat stupid Ned Lamont. And they thought I meant it? LMFAO here. Seriously.

Hopefully, this will teach the Democrats a lesson about messing with me, and Kelly Olsen for not letting me take her to junior prom, and that stupid jock Gary Phillis for calling me Droopy. See if you'll ever get health coverage now Gary HAHAHAH

Anyways I have to go practice saying "as a matter of conscience" without bursting out laughing.

Thanks again,

Joe

I can't believe you guys are all, or mostly all, for this monstrosity of a FAKE health care "reform" bill. This bill will do NOTHING (except remove the pre-existing condition clause, which we could simply make a law that that one thing be done, at NO COST) to truly reform, let alone CHANGE, our health care system. Yet you guys sit there and trash Conyers and Kucinich for having the courage, along with the 85 co-sponsors, to really TRY to save our country by moving forward the cause of TRUE health care reform.

I am totally disgusted with the Obama administration and with my party, for the most part. And as for this board, I'm nothing short of shocked. I can see where some folks support this bill, honestly believing it would be some sort of incremental step forward. I disagree with that, but I respect that opinion. Wayne, for example, seems to have that opinion, and I can respect that. However, the folks who think that everyone SHOULD support this and anyone who doesn't is some sort of traitor to the party? Wow. Try the party is a traitor to itself, to its loyal core members like me, to its true ideals, to saving this country.

I'm done trying to be a "good Democrat" and to "support the president". What good is it to be a "good Democrat" if that means to SELL OUT our fundamental democratic values, let alone our intelligence and knowledge and wisdom and common sense about what will and what won't work for a health care system to be a decent and moral system and to not break our economy? And what good does it do to "support the president" if he is WRONG?

No. No. I don't support this sell-out, empty-suit president and, as for the party, I'm trying to decide if it is even worth trying to fight for from within, or if we need a whole new party in this country. First they try to take away my vote, then they line up behind shrub and Bernanke to bail out Wall Street with corporate socialism, and now they won't help REAL citizens with REAL health care reform, which is not only the decent, moral, ethical thing to do, but REAL health care reform is necessary to save this country's economy in the long run. So, to recap: what we have in the USA is socialism for private corporations with our tax dollars, yet we can't get nationalized heatlh care with our tax dollars, and instead we get a big bonanza for the private health insurance industry, and we DON'T FIX THE INHERENT PROBLEMS WITH OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM! This disgusting bill, capped by Pelosi's sell-out-infused "joy" when she said the bill passed, was the final straw for me. Something snapped in my, as far as loyalty to my party, at that moment. I feel that the writing has been on the wall for me for a while that the Democratic party has abandoned its ideals and thus, abandoned me, but I have been trying not to see that, not to believe it, even though it's been hitting me in the face since the 2008 primary season. And when Pelosi said that the bill passed, and she had that outright joy over the fact that she just sold the ideals of our party down the river, as well as selling what's best for this country down the river, SOMETHING SNAPPED in chad. I'm disgusted and I'm trying to figure out if I'm actually one step beyond disgusted and into DONE. I want to stay in my party and fight from within, but I don't even see any signs of the soul left worth fighting for. To me, this community, this board, was representative of the soul of the party...but now? I don't see it. I see a lot of "agree with us or we will TRASH YOU", that's what I see. Well, start trashing, because I do NOT support this bill, I actively will FIGHT it, and furthermore I'm done with the Obama administration because they are everything I thought they would be, everything I feared they would be. They aren't for change. They're for saying "Look, we got a historic health care reform bill passed, thus securing our place in the history books!" Well, NOT GOOD if that bill is not good for America. And it isn't. So I'm not going to be politically correct and say that it is! And if you all hate me, then you hate me. So be it. It hurts, but fine. I have to be true to my ideals. And if I even thought that this was an incremental step to get there, that it was "better than nothing", sure I'd support it, but honestly, I feel it is way, way, way, way, WAY WORSE than doing nothing. Just because you call something "health care reform", doesn't mean that it IS. And just because something is called "The Democratic Party", doesn't mean that it is anymore. We have sold out all our ideals. My party is unrecognizable to me.

This is awful.

Chad, I am a little puzzled by your above post. Who exactly is trashing Conyers and Kucinich - other than just the comment that Kucinich didn't vote for this bill? This bill may not be our idea of the best healthcare reform available, but it is supposed to cover 96% of the population and make insurance more affordable which is far better than what we have now.

The downside of democracy is that with everybody getting a voice, (which is mostly a good thing) is that we may not always get everything we want in the bill. But as you humorously put it in that other thread, soap characters do come back to life, so I think there's still hope for HR 676 in the future, but we've got to start somewhere. Maybe if we do get some healthcare reform passed, and people begin to see what it could be like, maybe there will be more support for HR 676 in the future.

And Obama did not promise single payer. Why all the empty suit stuff? Quit hatin' on Obama, okay? I'm just playin' with ya. :lol: Really, I do admire your determination and conviction on the matter. Don't give up on us dems just yet. :Y:

Actually, for once I'm not gonna protest and say "Oh, I'm not hatin' on Obama", because you know what? As of this health care bill and Pelosi's certain way that she said "the bill passes", something happened in me. Like I said, something snapped. And I'm done TRYING to see the good in Obama and give him the benefit of the doubt and like him. I don't like him, I don't like his policies (for the most part...like the famous quote about the suburbs, "there's no there there", I mean, give me something, SOMETHING I can work with!) and mostly I don't like the way I always--and this goes back even before he won, this goes back to choices he made in the campaign, in the primaries--feel like he just dismisses me and anyone who gets in his way in any form or fashion, and most of all, God, most of all, here's my thing about him: he is all fluff and no SUBSTANCE. He just wants to advance himself and now that he has advanced to the highest office in the land, he wants to secure his "legacy" (we passed health care!), even if, AGAIN: there's no there there. Where's the reform? Where's the change? This forces a lot of folks to buy into our FAILED private-insurance based system, that's what I see. And it is going to cost a TON and do you think they are really going to cut Medicare to pay for it? Do you think they should do that?

TfG, I'm sorry, but I'm done with Obama, I'm done with Axelrod and his spin, I'm done with my girl, Pelosi, my fellow Marylander who I was so excited when she became speaker, I'm done with all the Democratic leaders who are lining up behind Obama on this: who is fighting for true change, who is fighting for our future? NO ONE. There is no one. Some might turn to the Green Party, but I never will. Not after 2000. They cost Gore the election. They said there was no diff between Gore and Bush. Plus they are anti-Israel...I think (I'd have to look into that more before making such a statement, but I know that the European Greens are...not sure about The American branch). I have no party. I didn't abandon the Democrats, they abandoned me. All I'm doing now is facing reality, finally. I saw it look at me through the eyes of Nancy Pelosi jubilently announcing "the bill passes."

:(

The only thing I can say good about the Obama administration right now is that at least they aren't McCain-Palin. But that is not exactly a ringing endorsement. And in all seriousness, I've never been more alienated from my party. I didn't think it was possible that I'd ever get to this point. And, mind you, I've always had policy points that I disagreed with my party over, I think everyone does. A few of them have been big things, but NEVER did that make me even THINK of leaving or feel disaffected or lose respect for the party. Never did I even begin to feel this way until the primary season of 2008, but since then? It has been one thing after the other after the other after the other until it's just like: ENOUGH! Stop the madness!

I haven't been posting much because we've been undergoing not one, not two, but THREE mergers at once at work, one of which has really impacted me and one other co-worker in my dept. Today is the first day I see a light at the end of the tunnel (which may be an oncoming freight train, I'm not sure! :lol: ), so that is why I have time to post now...which is kinda unfortunate, since I seem to be really upset and probably should just hold my ever-lovin' tongue until I calm down. ...Thing is, I'm not sure time will fix this. Honestly, if some other party were out there that I could identify with, I'd very likely jump ship right now, amazingly. But, no such party exists, so I'm stuck with my dang Dems :lol: . And they are stuck with me, screaming at the top of my lungs about the change **I** can believe in and want and need to see us turning towards. They just want me to sit down and shut up, as do many on this board, I think, but I can't. No can do. This is the only country I have and this is the only party I have, and I have to fight for both even when I seem to not have my posse behind me. I don't have a posse, that's the disconcerting thing! My posse is all behind the Obama administration and I'm...well, I'm not. It's that simple.

HC, you're welcome to express yourself here at this forum. Not that you've ever been shy about that. :blink: In my opinion, the only way America can get to single payer is by starting with this current bill. It took every single progressive vote to accomplish this much. Asking for a lot more (or even anything more) at this time means it won't pass. We need to pass something we can build on or we could wait another 30 or 60 years until we could have another chance. I've heard people on the radio recently say how they are sick of compromising, sick of Democrats and I understand their frustration. But what was his answer? It was to let the Republicans win and then there would be a revolution. :dripple: I mean, I think he was absolutely clueless. Obama would like a single-payer system, but he doesn't live in the clouds. First we have to pass this legislation, then improve the public option provision in 2 to 4 years. Then improve it even more in another 6 to 12 years. That's the only way I can see of realistically getting there.

I’m sorry to see you so dismayed, Chad. And of course, you don’t have to “quit hatin’ on Obama” just cause I said so or fall in line because others do. You’re still my fellow Gorista bud whether we agree on Obama or not. It’s just that some people say we are compromising too much – others say we’re not compromising enough.

Really, when you think about the diversity of our nation, it is amazing that there are only two major political parties. I mean, how can all the different ideas and views out there be lumped into two categories? Hence, we compromise. And because we compromise, our ultimate goals take longer to achieve. However, I do acknowledge that big insurance, as well as other lobbyist groups play a big role in our government and I don’t like the hold they have over it. That was one thing I liked about Obama in the beginning, that he had a lot of grassroots support. I didn’t think he would be as easily swayed by lobbyists. I myself would have been happier if HR 676 was given the attention it deserved and passed, but given the strong opposition healthcare reform has received, I am happy that Congress has made some progress.

I am reminded of a comment by a college student who is like a nephew to me. He doesn’t like Obama and is upset that Congress passed the healthcare reform. He wrote “we’re all SOCIALISTS now.” Of course, I had to put in my two cents, so he’s probably pissed at me now. And one of my faves, Chet Edwards voted against the bill, not because it wasn’t single payer, but because he thought it would add too much to the federal deficit. I think he was under pressure to vote that way, but I am disappointed nonetheless, and it makes me wonder if he’ll lose his seat over it.

But in talking about all this, it makes me wonder where we would be (healthcare reform wise) had McCain won, or even Hillary. The plan may not be perfect, but I hope it’s just a stepping stone to more progress. :Y:

I think this is extremely unkind and ungenerous of you, Chad. I mean, really. It would be one thing if the President had the power to make up laws and pass them all by himself (but then we wouldn't be a democracy, would we). But if anyone is to be blamed here, it's the legislative branch, not the executive. Why are you hanging this all on Obama? He has the ability to pass or veto bills. And as President, he can do some strong-arming and phone-calling and influencing, but that's it. He does not sit in either the Senate or the House and make laws.

And think about what we've been up against with this. Accusations of socialism and communism and lies and spin and a hopelessly uninformed or misinformed, hostile populace. As Wayne said, this is a first step toward reform. I don't think anyone looks at this as the final product.

But again, blaming this on Obama is really not fair. Blame it on our legislators if you want, but I believe Obama has done what he can to help get a bill through--any bill--just so we can begin the process of true reform, NOT so he can go down in the history books as having brought reform to the health care crisis.

You're entitled to your opinions, obviously, but I really do think you're off base here. No one says this is a great bill they've passed. But it's a start.

Well, I am an idealist (an INFJ in the Keirsey/Myers-Briggs/Jungian personality typing system, if anyone gives a flying fig...we INFJ's are only 1% of the population and we are, indeed, guilty as charged of being the quintessential "head in the clouds", imaginative, idealistic type...for better or for worse). However, I do have a logical, reasonable side (I know, I know, it's hard to see it peeking out from the clouds sometimes, but it is there!), too, and like I said earlier, if I thought that this bill was a good first step, I'd be THERE, behind it 100%. But, while I respect your opinion on that, Wayne, I disagree. This thing, imho, is just cow-towing to Big Insurance and it doesn't fundamentally change the health care system. Even David Brooks, a conservative commentator of the increasingly rare reasonable variety, said that unless we change our current fee-for-service-based, private insurance, employer-based system, we are not reforming what needs to be reformed from either an economic or moral perspective (well, I added that last bit about "from either an economic or moral perspective, he was talking about pure economics, about the long-term health of our economy and sustainability of the health care system).

I know I'm an idealist and I know the importance of compromising and incrementalism is sometimes lost on me, BUT on the other hand, I think sometimes--arguably NOT most times or in most situations--but sometimes, on some issues, you have to go all or nothing and you have to change BIG when you change and you need the 1% of true idealists like moi out here shouting that what is on the table is wrong. I actually think it is going to set things inexorably BACK in this country as far as ever TRULY changing our healthcare system.

I hear ya that they could barely get this through, what makes me think they could get nationalized healthcare through, but I think he COULD possibly have done it IF he had taken a strong stand and really led and given some of his excellent speeches (but with CONVICTION, with PASSION, and with him being behind a specific, substantive plan, not: "well, I don't know, whatever you guys want to do is fine with me"). I think he had a small window of opportunity there when he could have possibly (not for sure, but possibly) gotten true health reform ignited in the imagination and intellect and reasonableness of the American people's minds and we could have had REAL change. Instead, as he, imho, usually does, he took the middle road and didn't want to offend anyone (particularly powerful lobbying groups--he didn't seem to care about hauling off doctors and nurses in handcuffs who just wanted the "seat at the table" promised to all "stakeholders") and was, imho, much more wedded to getting a bill--any bill--through, than he was to getting the right prescription for this country through. Slogans, no substance. This is my prob with him from pre-Day One. It's nice to hold up a large stack of papers and call it a health reform bill. Bully for you. Too bad it isn't real reform.

I'm sorry to sound so bitter but I'm just VERY disappointed and frustrated with my party leaders right now. To end on a fair note, though, I do for sure see your point that, considering the blow-back from the right on even this bill, how would they ever have gotten real reform through? *sigh* Maybe I shouldn't be taking out my frustration and anger on my own party, but rather on all the tea-partiers and Palin followers and Rush loyalists and general repugs who are the SAME ones who voted for Reagan and Bush and now they are stopping what the country needs yet again.

Will sanity ever prevail in these United States again?

At least people had the presence of mind to NOT put McCain-Palin in office. Thank God for small favors!

...Anyway, thanks for not biting my head off, TfG and Wayne. You guys rock. I'm sure Clay will do the honors (of biting my head off, that is). I'm braced.

I just would LOVE if we could really have the change I could believe in. And now I think it will never happen, at least not on health care. This country isn't even arguing about the right things, that's how out-of-it we are on this issue. The rest of the world must be scratching their heads about us.

((((((HUG!!!!!!!))))))))

Thanks! I needed that! :wub: :Y:

Well, I respect your opinion, my cherished earthmother, but I will stick to my guns here. I'm "hanging it all on him" because, imho, he didn't LEAD on this. Oh, he was out there making speeches and lobbying for SOMETHING, anything, but he didn't get out front with what HE wanted to see (other than a "public option") strongly enough and he just allowed a lobbyest feeding frenzy to go on. And if this final product is indeed what he wanted to see in a bill, then shame on him, this isn't the change I can believe in. I have to go or I'd do a longer, more thoughtful response to your well-written, intelligent post, but the bottom line is: we disagree on this one. And I do blame Obama and also the entire leadership of my party, basically. We should have put ourselves out there with a spine at the front of this thing, instead of trying to "build consensus" with Big Insurance. As the old song goes, we were "looking for love in all the wrong places".

I'm disgusted and yes, there is plenty to go around for the right-wingers and Big Insurance, etc., but in the end, WE are the ones in power now and this is the best we could do? TRUE, the country is undergoing INTENSE crises on multiple fronts right now, thanks to the shrub aftermath, and I realize that the "natives are restless" and looking for a scapegoat and the right uniting behind this bill is more about that than it is about health care reform, but STILL, why couldn't we do better? Or do nothing. Because this is not a good first step, this is disasterous, imho. If the natives are restless and out there with pitchforks, determined to derail any TRUE reform, then okay, we do nothing. If we can't do it, we can't do it. But we shouldn't instead just do anything, just for the sake of passing something. This mess of a bill is NOT the way to go! Obama can't help that he inherited a profoundly huge MESS of an economy, thanks to shrub, one that was in crisis. So if that means that the American people are not going to accept real health care reform right now, even though we desperately need it and it would HELP the economy in the long run, then that's the way it is, why ram through something that is only going to hurt the economy and not be real reform because that's all we could pass?

Gotta go. Back Wednesday! Might not be on manana. Later, dudes.

I wonder if that's the rub? I was looking forward to a great bill. Maybe it was all the campaign talk about providing health care for every American...

This is disappointing to me.
And what's up with this 96% coverage? Who's still not covered???

As I said, you're entitled to your opinion, and like TfG, we still welcome you here and don't insist that you agree with us. I, too, would have liked to have seen a better bill, a more radical bill, but given what I know about how repugnant so many people seem to find this whole thing, I'm amazed they were able to get anything at all passed. I mean, hell, so many people still don't even understand that their cherished Medicare is a gov't program.

You have every right to be frustrated with the government and with our leadership. I just think we're getting a good taste of Washington politics with this, and I'm not sure another president would have been able to do a better job. Well, LBJ might've been able to make back-room deals and "lead," as you say. Gore? I'm not sure how he'd have handled this. And I do think it's true that Obama tries to find the path down the middle so as not to ruffle feathers on either side. That seems to be his M.O. It'll serve him well in many situations, particularly in international diplomacy. Here at home, it might not be the best tactic. But it's who he is, and I'm not going to rip him apart for it. But I don't think it has anything to do with trying to make this part of his legacy. I think he's trying, and while he may not be getting the results we'd like, this is an enormously uphill battle, and I think this can be considered a victory, if only a small one.

This is incremental change I can believe in. Is it the best or even very good? NO. Is it a tremendous start? YES. Will the Senate destroy it? YES. :wacko:

President Obama or any president will have a hard time until we get the churches out of politics. He has to start with baby steps and keep working to get it better. As we have known for years, when someone wants to kill a bill, they bring in abortion. The right-wing has almost turned me away from church.

Very intelligent and important points you all make. I'm just frustrated. Thanks for allowing me to feel how I feel about it and not ripping me apart. Wish I had time to write more, but just know I appreciate the intelligence and friendship here. Sorry if I was overly defensive and/or over-the-top the other day. It's been a very stressful time for me and ya gotta vent somewhere! :Y:

*sigh*

The right wing nuts are taking over this country. It started, far as I can discern, with the rise of the Reagan era, and it is continuing unabated. I'd love to think that Obama's election represented a sea change, but I think it was more a huge, huge vote AGAINST Bush. While nothing can take away from how breathtaking a moment and victory it was in our country's history to see us progress from slavery to the day when an African-American was voted into the highest office in the land, and I will always take great joy that we took that huge step towards realizing our ideals that all people are created equal and of Dr. King's Dream coming true before my eyes (the mountaintop! he didn't get there with us, but we got to see it, us little tots too young to understand the speech when he gave it, we got to grow up and see it realized just a relatively short time, historically-speaking, later. WOW), the sad reality is that Obama, imho, is really frustrating me on several fronts. But like you guys point out, look what he's up against.

I'm just frustrated because it seems like the good guys never win, not in my entire adult life (the onset of which which coincided with the rise of Reaganism). When is it really going to be OUR TURN? Is it EVER going to be? When I was a kid, I thought eventually the flower children would grow up, encircle the world, sing kumbaya and take over the reigns of power, ending war and painting psychedelic flowers and peace signs everywhere. WHY didn't that happen? (Answer Key: because some of my rat fink fellow Boomers sold out and traded in their peace signs for jobs in the military-industrial complex, SUVs, McMansions, and ballots marked "Ronald Reagan", not necessarily in that order. :angry: ) If the election hadn't been stolen in 2000... You know, I don't think I'll ever get over that. In some ways, I have, but in other ways...nope. It's like I'm stuck in the second half of "It's a Wonderful Life" when reality is all wrong and not the way it was supposed to be, and I can't escape.

It would help if Rush Limbaugh et al. would SHUT UP. But they never do.

Well, on that cheery note, back to work--I AM getting the net at home one of these days. I know I've been saying that since July, but, hey, life is what happens while you make other plans!
:wub:

I think we all know that feeling of "when is it going to be our turn." And geez, with what happened in 2000, that only reinforced it. I think the problem is that the wingnuts are SO loud and SO vocal and SO in your face, in a way that most liberals and even the more rational members of the GOP are not. So they get all the attention, and since you can't turn on the TV or listen to the radio without hearing these slurs against rationalism and all that's right and good in the world, it makes you feel as if these A-Holes are in control. But they're really not. Yes, they may derail some of our better legislation, and we'll just have to live with that and try to work around it.

I know that the healthcare bill that passed is far from what it ought to be. Everyone knows that. But I don't think there was any possibility that you'd have been able to get something more radical passed. No possibility at all. So, for now, we take it for what it is and try to improve on it. Maybe Obama could've been a more forceful leader on this issue, but I'm not convinced of that. I think he did what he had to do to get SOMEthing passed, and he deserves credit for that.

On another note, I've been having these wild thoughts about Joe Lieberman and the 2000 election. Maybe it's not such a bad thing that Gore had that election taken away from him? What would have happened if Lieberman had shown his true colors during those eight years in office? It would've been an enormous embarrassment to Gore and to the Party. As it is, I feel he's an enormous embarrassment because he was on the ticket with Gore. Well, I'm not suggesting that Gore shouldn't have taken the office he was elected to, but I can't help wondering what would've happened if Lieberman had been sitting in that delicate position of being a heartbeat away from the presidency. <_<

I'm usually on the same page as EM, and on a differing page from HC each time. In this case I think I actually have the reverse position. My sense of what is happening is more along with what Chad has been saying. I DO think Earthmother's normally sane, calm and somewhat middle-of-the-liberal-road is pragmatic, realistic and normally an appropriate way to pursue this type of legislation.

However it is not at all what I had hoped for, or voted for. As such, I too vehemently despise this approach.

I wanted sweeping change of a scale and scope of the New Deal and a real shakeup of the very inefficient and corrupt industry I work in. Thats what I voted for...That hasn't happened. Instead of the Medicare for All, Medicare at Conception bill I wanted, I instead got "single payer", "public option" and "opt out" crapola. Instead of 100% coverage I got "maybe 96%". It's not what I was hoping for. I want the insurance companies dismantled and put out of business...they are companies that take gambles on human beings health based upon actuarial tables...they only profit if they can put their thumb on the roulette wheel. They are....in a word...morally bankrup. (ok 2 words)

I will say that my attitude has suffered greatlysince the heady euphoric days of "will Gore run?". I have taken two full semesters of US Radicalism graduate classes and I've been dragged naked though 5 miles of glass covering things I was only vaguely aware of before: the rise and fall of socialism, anachism, syndicalism and especially the CPUSA and its role in trade union formation...that it was actually the Communists that gave us the 40 hour work week and the 8 hour day (look it up if you don't believe it).

I've read through the Palmer raids, the Sacco and Vanzetti trial (and now doing a second historiographical essay on it which I will present to our state's historical society annual meeting this year), the Haymarket bombings, the first Wall Street bombings, and the series of restrictive and abhorrent laws our government passed on immigration since the 1800's. It's a said hateful story of conservative nativism and Capitalism, which I now believe is the single most evil thing on earth. (Ban corporations, allow 'companies' instead and shut down the compyter manipulatd rigged Vegas sideshow we know as the Stock Market.

Chad is however "wrong" :) on one thing...the tilt of our country to neo-conservatism didn't really start with Reagan, it started much, much earlier, pre World War I for sure...historians believe it started in the 1870's.

So what we have today is a far right party (the Republicans) a center right party (The Democrats) and now in the happy litttle fascist state I live in, a new far, far right party the "Conservative" party. I think Chad is right, we had the populace vote for sweeping change and didn't get it...we got piecemeal...maybe (if it passes).

We also sold out women with the most restrictive piece of anti-abortion, anti-choice crap ever voted for in Congress, the infamous Bart Stupak amendment that prohibits even private insurers from offering insurance for abortions, except as a "rider". Stupak is a...Democrat.

So I think Chad is more right than wrong. We made a little progress on heathcare, and sold out women in the process.

My only consolation is that perhaps a President Gore would not have done this the way Obama..who has sat on the sidelines throughout while his administration sent out VERY mixed signals...has. (look at what Pelosi vs Biden vs Emmanual vs Reid vs Gibbs have all said, their message is all over the map) But now, I am not sure. I am disillusioned and angry at the democrats now. Yes...the Republicans are worse...but if Stupak stays and we don't geta good bill passed by the end of the year, I am dropping out of the Democratic Party and will not vote for them again. 60 seats, and a Presidency and 70% percent public approval...and we get this?

No way...no way. I guess at the age of 56, I've been re-radicalized. (Sorry EM...I usually right there with you, just can't drink the Obama Kool-Aid on this one.)

Hey, nobody says you have to agree with me! And the truth is, while the main part of me is sticking to my "normally sane, calm and somewhat middle-of-the-liberal-road: pragmatism, there's a part of me that's pissed as hell about this. It's just that when I look at the players involved and the way the gov't works, I don't think we could have expected anything more than what we got, and the reality is that I'm surprised we even got what we did.

I don't think the New Deal or Great Society or any sweeping progressive reform like that could happen today. The power of the President is limited, and with Democrats and Republicans so polarized, it's virtually impossible to get anything done. There are the few members of the GOP who've been willing to cross over and take a stab at doing the right thing, but they are very few, and then there's Joe Lieberman :rolleyes:.

Let's face it: To a large extent, our government really doesn't work very well anymore. Yes, it manages to keep itself in existence and keep the country going. But it limps along, paralyzed by the shackles we've placed on it, both out of necessity (checks and balances) and out of our own stupidity (the extreme polarization we have and inability to work with each other in a rational way). Because of that, I don't think anyone could've pushed through true health-care reform.

I don't say I'm happy with the bill or with the way our gov't is functioning. I just think it's the best we could expect given the situation.

I think a lot of people tend to overinflate what happened in the New Deal and Great Society.

First both FDR and LBJ had much larger majorities in Congress, about 65 seats in the Senate. Plus the Democratic party was far more unified in those days. Still the Supreme Court ruled that several of the reforms in the New Deal were unconstitutional and were struck down. When FDR tried to change the make-up of the Court to reverse those decisions the Democratic Congress refused to go along.

Second, neither FDR or LBJ enacted all their programs in their first year. The reforms of the New Deal took years to be put into place. Third Social Security wasn't even proposed until 1935 and the first benefits were not paid out until 1941.

Third, both FDR and LBJ took an incremental approach rather than an all or nothing approach. Social Security only covered a limited number of workers at first. It was only over the years that the program was expanded to cover everyone. LBJ's goal was universal heath coverage for everyone but he had to settle for Medicare covering only those over 65. He came back later to enact Medicaid to cover the poor.

Now where would we be now if in 1935 FDR had insisted that Social Security cover everyone or in 1965 of LBJ insisted that Medicare cover everyone. Both programs would have died then.

The Healthcare bill that passed the House on Saturday is not perfect but it is a good first step. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. To insist that President Obama fall on a sword of principle might be gratefying for some but it will do nothing to help the millions of people that need the reforms the current bill will deliver.

Very good arguments, James. I think if Obama did try to take an all or nothing approach, that you would have a lot of people feeling very uneasy. Look how hard it's been to get everyone on board for what has passed. It's like someone trying to sell some kind of get rich quick scheme, but they can't tell you anything about it until you send them $39.95. <_<

Obama has only been in office less than a year. People need to be more patient. Of course, our society has become so used to getting it "today" whatever it is. But it seems like Bush was given so much more of a break than Obama's getting.

This healthcare bill is hopefully just a first step. :good:

Actually James we even have the phrase the "First 100 days" almost solely because of FDR. He sent dozens of bills to Congress during that time frame, and 15 major bills were passed as below. This first hundred days is recognized as the single most productive phase of legislation in US history. I've listed them below for you if interested. As an historian focusing upon post 1877 US history, I personally would agree that there has never been such a period of cooperative activity between a President and a Congress, ever.

Sure times were different then, but that doesn't diminish the overall accomplishments, or things that were significant at the time but changed over the succeeding years.

While some of your points are both accurate and things I agree with (the dates of social security implementation, the court packing etc) they don't diminish the overall narrative that the FDR-Congress work during the time frame were very precedent setting. Indeed, if nothing from the time frame survived other than Social Security and the TVA (and both have so far, as well as other reforms) that would make the time frame very significant.

March 4th 1933 FDR Inauguration

March 6th Bank Holiday

March 9th Emergency Session of Congress. Passage of Emergency Banking Act. Creates credit unions as separate system of financial institutions from banks.

March 10th Economy Act sent to Congress

March 12th First Fireside Chat

March 13th Banks begin to reopen

March 16th Farm Bill sent to congress to remedy lack of purchasing power of farmers. This includes the measures against over-production which by October result in 6 million pigs being slaughtered and the meat thrown out as waste, and cotton crops plowed under.

March 20th Economy Act Passed into Law. This Act cut Veterans benefits by 50%. Veterans benefits made up 25% of the budget. The whole budget was $3.6 billion. Therefore, pre cuts, the benefits were $900 million, afterwards $450 million.

March 21st Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) bill sent to Congress.

March 22nd Beer-wine revenue bill sent to Congress.

March 27th Farm Credit Administration created by Executive Order merger of 9 separate agencies. Farm Mortgage Relief Act proposed. Half of farmers threatened with foreclosure. Banks foreclosing on farm mortgages at rate of 20,000 per year by February 1933.

March 31st CCC passed into law. Initially designed to create 250,000 jobs among unemployed young adults. Created more than 2 million by the end of the program in 1942. The CCC was empowered to employ these youth for flood control, reforestation, suppression of tree disease, clearing fire breaks, building fire observation towers, creating parks, protecting endangered species (Whooping Crane). Over the life of the program 4 million trees were thinned, one billion fish stocked and 30,000 wildlife shelters built.

April 3rd Farm Mortgage Relief proposal was sent to Congress and attached to the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

April 5th Farm Mortgage Relief reported out of committee and passed into law.

April 7th Beer sales were legal for the first time since Prohibition began in 1920. Tax revenues flow into government.

April 10th Congress sent legislative proposal for Tennessee Valley Authority.

April 18th US$ slumps. Treasury refuses to license more gold exports. Evening White House meeting: FDR, Moley, Bullitt, Warburg, Feis, Senator Pittman. Decision to leave gold standard announced.

Credit creation features of Agricultural Adjustment Act, Thomas Amendment, accepted.

April 19th FDR takes the US$ off the gold standard. Press conference, later in the day, FDR announces intent to get the world as a whole back on the gold standard.

May 7th Second Fireside Chat. Reviews progress after 60 days.

May 12th Federal Emergency Relief Act creates FERA, with $500 million, ½ directed to the states, ½ available as matching funds for state programs in the ratio of 1:3. Harry Hopkins in charge. Intended to relieve unemployment.

Agricultural Adjustment Act and Emergency Farm Mortgage Act, to reduce $200 million worth of surplus production, through plough unders, acreage set asides and livestock and poultry slaughters.

During this April to May period Congress, through such members as Hugo Black, and LaFollette in the Senate, initiated legislation for a 30-hour work week, intended to create 6 million jobs for the 14 million unemployed, and for $6 billion funding for relief projects. FDR thought Black’s 30-hr week would result in pay cuts all round and opposed it as unconstitutional restraint of trade etc. He opposed LaFollette’s $6 billion on grounds of fiscal orthodoxy, too much money.

May 18th Passage of TVA: 650 mile navigable water way to be built from Knoxville TN to Paducah KY, with construction of dams, power plants, fertilizer production, intended for direct economic benefit on 7 state area affected, and much wider effects. The TVA was a challenge to Commonwealth and Southern, the utility which, under the leadership of Wendell Wilkie, was picking up the surviving pieces of the collapsed empire of Samuel Insull.

May 27th Federal Securities Act passed, established the Securities and Exchange Commission headed by “to catch a thief” Joseph Kennedy. Intended to “restore some old fashioned standards of rectitude” as FDR put it in his signing statement.

June 5th Senate and House by Joint Resolution abrogate the gold clause in private and public contracts, and back paper currency as legal tender.

June 6th National Employment Service created. Intended to help coordinate job searches between Federal and state governments.

June 13th Homeowners’ Loan Corporation enacted, empowered to refinance mortgages, make loans, and advance cash for tax payments and repairs.

June 16th

1) Banking Act of 1933, aka “Glass-Steagall” Act passed into law. This legislation created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and protected bank deposits up to $5,000, separated commercial from investment banking, forced banks to get out of the business of financial investment, banned the use of bank deposits in speculation.

2) Emergency Railroad Transportation Act, attempted to smooth out operating duplications and inefficiencies in then existing railroad network.

3) National Industrial Recovery Act, including Title 2 creating the Public Works Administration. This act was said to be FDR’s response to Hugo Black’s 30-hr work week proposal. The NIRA was established in 3 parts. Title I suspended the provisions of anti-trust legislation on price fixing, and a enacted a tremendous boost to industrial trade unions by promoting collective bargaining.

Title II allocated $3.3 billion for public works, to build and repair Federal buildings, roads, bridges, and dams. It gave employment to around 2 million. Buried here, in an indication of things to come, was money for the US Navy to build 2 heavy cruisers.

Title III was made up of Congressional wish-lists, proposals to end the depression, and other means employed to widen the political support the measure might enjoy.

FDR thought that between the CCC, the TVA and the WPA 4.5 million, or roughly 30% of the 14 million unemployed, might be put to work.

4) Farm Credit Act. Legislation which brought to completion the process launched with the Executive Order forming the Farm Credit Administration. This provided easier refinancing of farm mortgages, and brought foreclosures to a halt.[/B][B][/B][B][/B][B][B][/B]

Funny I didn't see the creation of Social Security on that list which is the only thing that can be compared to Healthcare reform. Plus you ignore many of the President's accomplishments in his first 100 days suchs as:

- Jane 29, The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act gave workers more time to sue employers for wage discrimination

- Feb 4, The government children's health insurance program is renewed for 4 1/2 years and expanded to cover 4 million more children.

- Mar 30, The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act designated millions of acres of federal land as wilderness.

And let's not forget passing the largest stimulus bill in the nations history. Appointing the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court. Dealing with the Somali pirates. Ordering the closing of GitMo. etc. Here's a list you can read through: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=132x8730317

And since I can't say it better I'll quote this article from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9042803336.html

Yeah, I think Obama is both trying and succeeding at some things. I was really addressing FDR more though. I guess I'm more interested in older history. :)

I do think Obama is sitting on the sidelines too much, and the Stupak amendment needs to be killed. I am very interested in what happens in the next couple of months, to me this IS Obama's presidency.

Yesterday, Bill Press said (regarding the health-care bill) that there needed to be more LBJ behind the scenes and less Obama. Maybe Obama isn't into the LBJ style of doing things (i.e., offering to stump for a candidate and things like that if he'd vote his way on a bill). I'm not sure that type of thing is exactly considered "leadership." It falls more under the category of strong-arming, which LBJ was supposedly a master at. I don't get the sense that Obama goes in for that type of thing.