| Benedict Arlen: Democrats are Getting Mad! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 9 2010, 01:11 AM (389 Views) | |
| Mason | Mar 9 2010, 01:11 AM Post #1 |
|
Parts unknown
|
Specter: Democrats getting 'angry,' will pass healthcare bill By Eric Zimmermann - 03/08/10 02:09 PM ET Democrats in Congress are getting "angry" enough to push through healthcare reform, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) said today. Speaking to reporters after President Barack Obama's healthcare event outside Philadelphia on Monday, Specter said frustration over Republican "obstruction" is making his caucus determined to move ahead. "I think there's a lot more determination in the Congress now to get it passed," he said, according to a pool report. "I really think there's sort of reaction on the Democratic side of getting a little angry over the duration and intensity of obstruction and a lot more determination to see it through." Specter also said that Obama had stepped up his role in the healthcare debate and is motivating Democrats. "The president's providing for more fiery leadership now," Specter said. "That's the most fiery I've seen him since the early campaign," he added. "When I was listening to him, I wished that he had given that in the State of the Union. If it's the State of the Union he would have reached a lot more people." http://tinyurl.com/y9s2rvy . |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Mar 9 2010, 01:14 AM Post #2 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Who is he kidding? They aren't getting angry, they are getting bribed, threatened, and frightened into falling in line. They don't need Republicans to pass the bill in the House, and it's already passed in the Senate. . |
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Mar 9 2010, 01:46 AM Post #3 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
What has been passed, can be unpassed... |
![]() |
|
| Concerned | Mar 9 2010, 02:30 AM Post #4 |
|
They are determined to pass that bill one way or the other. Dems turn risky health vote into manhood contest http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Dems-turn-risky-health-vote-into-manhood-contest-86422107.html
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Mar 9 2010, 08:59 AM Post #5 |
|
That "...anonymous ...Democratic strategist" is not the sharpest tool in the shed, but lets hope he is the sharpest tool the Democrats have! The "ONE" is campaigning again, but is anyone (besides Specter) listening? Those facing re-election will ONLY have the excuse that they were 'promised' changes IF they vote for the bill those they represent did not want ...the Senate bill. So ...those facing re-election needed to know how that 'reconcilliation' thingy could give them the changes they're promised. Now that they're seeing it can't be done, the "ONE" wants them to take one for the team! That should really motivate any that must face the voters they represent! "...take one for the team" Edited by kbp, Mar 9 2010, 09:00 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Concerned | Mar 9 2010, 09:52 PM Post #6 |
|
Looks like Dennis Kucinich won't be bullied - he says he's still going to vote against the bill. He's for single-payer so I presume he has a very socialist-minded constituency. http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/kucinich-healthcare-olbermann-vote/2010/03/09/id/352127 |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Mar 9 2010, 09:58 PM Post #7 |
|
"...The former presidential candidate voted against the House version of the healthcare bill last November, when it passed by a 220-215 margin." I'd guess he is not one of the "216" they are counting on. |
![]() |
|
| Concerned | Mar 9 2010, 10:01 PM Post #8 |
|
Maybe not, but he met with Obama behind closed doors last week, so I thought maybe there had been some arm-twisting going on. |
![]() |
|
| Walt-in-Durham | Mar 10 2010, 03:11 PM Post #9 |
|
He represents the west side of Cleveland, Ohio. Single payer is not all that socialist. After all, Medicare and Medicaid are examples of single payer in the US. The VA is an example of single provider in the US. Either single payer or single provider will work well and reduce the cost of health care to the nation. Unfortunately the Senate bill is not an example of either. I admire Congressman Kucinich for standing up to big healthcare and the President on this one. Walt-in-Durham |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Mar 10 2010, 04:45 PM Post #10 |
|
Hi Walt! IMO, the only way for Medicare and Medicaid to be more socialistic would be for them to be the "single provider" also. If we have a "single" anything or everything, I'd sure like to review the record of Mr. Single first. |
![]() |
|
| comelately | Mar 10 2010, 04:45 PM Post #11 |
|
The ultimate problem with government-run structures is that when they are in trouble, they tend to use force. For example, the US Post Office has been surviving for decades due to the simple fact that they are the only ones PERMITTED to deliver first-class mail. In other words, if you try to compete with them, big men with guns will come and take you away. When Hillary tried to nationalize the health care in this country, she was a bit too honest: her plan prescribed PRISON for any physician practicing outside an approved program, more specifically, four (!!) years in prison, IIRC. Again, men with guns... Force has been used several times to save Medicare (that is, that I was aware of, and can remember). And Obamacare STARTS with the use of force: REDUCE MEDICARE EXPENSES by a TRILLION dollars over a decade. Clearly, only the government can promise such a thing. Why? Because the GOVERNMENT HAS A MONOPOLY ON THE USE OF FORCE. As we know, such techniques rarely improve the quality of anything - among other things, because people (especially, competent people) do not like to be threatened with guns. So, competent people "vote with their feet", either by emigrating, or by avoiding certain professions, or by using various forms of "black market". Then men with guns try to find them and take them away... An obvious solution is to find some of the said men with guns, and pay them a little - so that they would be more inclined to come after other violators, and leave you alone. Another approach is to find the families of some of the men with guns, and reason from that position. So you get an Albania, or a Sicily, or... The American approach has been (for the most part) to try to keep the government out of most areas of business; this way men with guns can utilize their talents guarding the coast, or patrolling the highways, or (in extreme cases) dropping Napalm and similar substances on those people abroad who need such treatment most (there seems to be a wealth of deserving recipients lately). Socialized health care will introduce the Government (and, by implication, the threat of force) into the health care for all of us. That alone should be enough to treat it like it were a Lenin carrying an anthrax-infected rat!
|
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Mar 10 2010, 06:17 PM Post #12 |
|
With all due respect Medicare does not work well. It will go Bankrupt by 2019. That is not working well. Not my opinion but the trustees. Obama's Healthcare pulls more money out of Medicare to help "lower" the cost for his health care bill. It doesn't address the looming bankruptcy of Medicare There is a big difference in Heath-care and Heath care coverage. For the vast majority of us we do get the best heath-care in the USA compared to other countries. We have higher Healthcare standards of treatment which makes it the most expensive in the world. A single payer single will lower health-care standards, but provide coverage for all. The only real way to have better health-care is to make the country richer. Funny how Obama doesn't talk about that much. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |






7:40 PM Jul 10