The Health Care bill, first passed by the Senate in December, has been passed by the House 219-212. That bill then goes to President Obama. In addition, they've passed the Reconciliation package on to the Senate, with 217 votes currently.
I'll have more to say on this subject later. All I have to say right now is history has once been made, this time historic law. The fight that began with TR and the Progressive movement of the early 20th century has won a major victory. Whether or not the Senate drops the ball on the reconciliation package, health care reform is heading to the White House. It's history, and not a damn Republican has signed on to it.
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Saturday, November 7, 2009
The Sausage Works: Health Care Bill passes house (UPDATED)
The "People's House" has passed its version of the Health Care Bill 220-115, with 39 so called Democrats voting against it and one Republican (Cao from LA) voting for it. I really don't understand why those 39 Democrats are still Democrats. This bill appears to have much to appease all but the most leftist liberal, as well as some stuff that should have appealed to moderates and even conservatives. Is it perfect? No. Is it in line with the basic tenets of the Democratic party, at least the tenets since 1933? Of course. I am confident those people who voted against this bill will go down in history much like those people who opposed Social Security, Medicare, or any of the other "socialist hells" that on the balance have made this country better.
Of course now it has to get through the "Greatest Deliberative Body in the World". Expect such nobletools of the insurance industry senators such as Landrieu, Lincoln, Pryor, Bayh, and Lieberman to stand up for their masters principles. Who knows, maybe Harry Reid won't shrink from the situation.
(we're doomed)
UPDATE: Sorry, I forgot that a few of those no votes might have been Democrats who felt the bill didn't go far enough. If you voted no for that reason, you are off the hook for cowardice (but not for being unrealistic).
Also, that vote in NY23 wasn't anywhere near as important as New Jersey and Virginia governorships, right? I'm sure those votes in the House of Governors will screw Obama over no...oh wait, nevermind. If the Republicans get behind the Republican, this bill probably fails.
Of course now it has to get through the "Greatest Deliberative Body in the World". Expect such noble
(we're doomed)
UPDATE: Sorry, I forgot that a few of those no votes might have been Democrats who felt the bill didn't go far enough. If you voted no for that reason, you are off the hook for cowardice (but not for being unrealistic).
Also, that vote in NY23 wasn't anywhere near as important as New Jersey and Virginia governorships, right? I'm sure those votes in the House of Governors will screw Obama over no...oh wait, nevermind. If the Republicans get behind the Republican, this bill probably fails.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
More on Health Care Later
I'll have more on Obama's big speech later, once I get it written.
For now, here is the page to contribute to Rob Miller, the opponent to Representative Joe Wilson. Joe Wilson was the person who found it necessary to call President Obama a liar during the speech, despite evidence to the contrary. If you feel that its time to send Representative Wilson a message, this is as good of a place as any. Especially since his website seems to be down.
For now, here is the page to contribute to Rob Miller, the opponent to Representative Joe Wilson. Joe Wilson was the person who found it necessary to call President Obama a liar during the speech, despite evidence to the contrary. If you feel that its time to send Representative Wilson a message, this is as good of a place as any. Especially since his website seems to be down.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
America's Health Care Götterdämmerung: Robert Reich Explains the Public Option
An excellent explanation from Mr. Reich about the oh-so-horrible public option that a majority of Americans support, despite what Max Baucus and Kent Conrad think.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
An Open Letter to President Obama
Dear Mr. President,
I hope things are going well for you in your new job. From what I have seen, you have done many good things and begun erasing the stain of the previous administration. I congratulate you on the successful appointment of Justice Sotomayor, and hope that you can get some measure of relaxation on your upcoming vacation.
Starting with your famous speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, I have been a eager supporter of you. Your election as my senator in 2004 was a bright spot in an otherwise dark election day. I was ecstatic when you announced your candidacy for President on that frigid February day in Springfield. The moment when the networks declared you the winner of the election last November still remains one of my favorite memories ever.
For the most part I have been pleased by the things you and the members of your administration has accomplished. I hope you are still as committed to closing the national disgrace of Guantanamo as your Executive Order said you were. I wish you were more emphatic of your support of the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and weren't so wishy-washy on the Honduras situation. However, for the most part these are just minor issues.
I wish you the best of luck as the fight for health care heats up as it heads towards floor votes in Congress. After all, this was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, part of your domestic plan during the campaign. Failure to create "Change We Can Believe In" will not only harm your political agenda, it will hurt many Americans who are already hurting far too much. I am sure you understand how important this issue is.
I assure you that real and lasting health care reform is very important to us Americans who elected you. It is why we assented to you welcoming Joe Lieberman back into the fold without any real consequences. After all, you have preached empathy and forgiveness, and the potential political capital doesn't hurt either. No action for the rights of our GLBT citizens? It will come, we rationalized, we need to focus on health care. Other important issues to the progressives who helped get you elected need to be delayed? No problem, we're going for health care first.
What has all that capital bought so far? Not all that much, as far as I can tell. All I read about are secret deals with the Pharmaceutical giants, pressure for any bill to be "bi-partisan", and secret negotiations by self-appointed "centrists" who seem adamant on making a bill that no one will like, especially the Republicans who are supposedly involved.
I understand the complexity of our government. I'm well aware that most of the country, yourself included, are more to the right of my ideas. Compromise, behind-the-scenes negotiation, and parliamentary machinations are a necessary and vital part of a representative democracy. As much as a large portion of us on the left would like to deny it, we have to be willing to work with the Blue Dogs. I believe in the ideas of congenial cooperation and consensus building.
What I don't agree with is completely selling out core principles of the plan. At many of your town halls, you have done an excellent job of debunking the ridiculous crap coming out the mouths of the Limbaugh/Beck/BillO/GOP brigade. You've also seemed very committed to a strong public option, a real choice that can compete with the bloated insurance companies. I would like to think those who are skeptical of reform would change their mind if they heard your words.
However, it appears that this supposed critical plank is being eroded. Senators such as Jeff Bingaman and Kent Conrad don't seem confident that the public option can get passed, despite a large percentage of Americans supporting this option. Instead, the talk seems to be shifting towards some weak-ass coop idea, an idea that seems like a chickenshit cop-out.
I am sorry for the passionate language in the previous paragraph. This issue means a great deal to me, and I can tend to get carried away. I just don't understand why you would be so bold as to state your strong preference for a public option to us, but clearly don't care about it when talking to your buddies in the Senate.
I just don't see the strategy in place here, unless it is a strategy meant to betray the American people. I mean, Senator Baucus seems intent on sacrificing CHIP, a program he seems to be very proud of if you view his website. What the hell kind of compromise is it if he is willing to remove care for children just to appease some Republican who would never vote for the bill? How exactly is this change we can believe in?
Your administration seems far too reactive in getting its message out. How is it that a party that controls the White House and both houses of Congress doesn't seem able to get on one page, or even come close to controlling the message on the issue? Why do you not feel it necessary to get out and take this message to the people in a big way. The town hall meetings are a good start, but it still doesn't seem like you are engaged as much as you should be.
I understand why you don't want to engage the lunatics that seem to be intent on disrupting the genuine discussion of ideas. Hopefully their misplaced anger will dissipate as August moves on towards September. Still it is unfortunate that it appears your chief of staff is more concerned with yelling at progressives than getting Blue Dogs in line or dealing with Republican falsities.
I don't offer my concerns out of dislike, or even disappointment. I only offer them out of genuine curiosity at what is going on. Its very possible that you have an excellent strategy in place, and we will really see it in action once Congress gets back from its recess. It wouldn't be the first time that you and your advisers instincts have been better than mine.
I still trust that my vote wasn't in vain, and that we will see some genuine progress and improvement in this country. We need real solutions, and elected you and your colleagues up the street to provide those answers. Universal Health Care has been an issue in this country since the early 20th century. It is time we finally join the 21st century in regards to health care.
Sincerely,
Andrew C. Tate
P.S. I apologize, but I am withholding any donations to you, congressional democrats, or the DNC until a real health care bill is passed. I hope you understand that I require an appropriate level of return before I invest any of my resources. Unless my donation allows me to discuss this situation one on one with you, Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Baucus, or any of your other colleagues, I figure my donation won't be much use.
I hope things are going well for you in your new job. From what I have seen, you have done many good things and begun erasing the stain of the previous administration. I congratulate you on the successful appointment of Justice Sotomayor, and hope that you can get some measure of relaxation on your upcoming vacation.
Starting with your famous speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, I have been a eager supporter of you. Your election as my senator in 2004 was a bright spot in an otherwise dark election day. I was ecstatic when you announced your candidacy for President on that frigid February day in Springfield. The moment when the networks declared you the winner of the election last November still remains one of my favorite memories ever.
For the most part I have been pleased by the things you and the members of your administration has accomplished. I hope you are still as committed to closing the national disgrace of Guantanamo as your Executive Order said you were. I wish you were more emphatic of your support of the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and weren't so wishy-washy on the Honduras situation. However, for the most part these are just minor issues.
I wish you the best of luck as the fight for health care heats up as it heads towards floor votes in Congress. After all, this was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, part of your domestic plan during the campaign. Failure to create "Change We Can Believe In" will not only harm your political agenda, it will hurt many Americans who are already hurting far too much. I am sure you understand how important this issue is.
I assure you that real and lasting health care reform is very important to us Americans who elected you. It is why we assented to you welcoming Joe Lieberman back into the fold without any real consequences. After all, you have preached empathy and forgiveness, and the potential political capital doesn't hurt either. No action for the rights of our GLBT citizens? It will come, we rationalized, we need to focus on health care. Other important issues to the progressives who helped get you elected need to be delayed? No problem, we're going for health care first.
What has all that capital bought so far? Not all that much, as far as I can tell. All I read about are secret deals with the Pharmaceutical giants, pressure for any bill to be "bi-partisan", and secret negotiations by self-appointed "centrists" who seem adamant on making a bill that no one will like, especially the Republicans who are supposedly involved.
I understand the complexity of our government. I'm well aware that most of the country, yourself included, are more to the right of my ideas. Compromise, behind-the-scenes negotiation, and parliamentary machinations are a necessary and vital part of a representative democracy. As much as a large portion of us on the left would like to deny it, we have to be willing to work with the Blue Dogs. I believe in the ideas of congenial cooperation and consensus building.
What I don't agree with is completely selling out core principles of the plan. At many of your town halls, you have done an excellent job of debunking the ridiculous crap coming out the mouths of the Limbaugh/Beck/BillO/GOP brigade. You've also seemed very committed to a strong public option, a real choice that can compete with the bloated insurance companies. I would like to think those who are skeptical of reform would change their mind if they heard your words.
However, it appears that this supposed critical plank is being eroded. Senators such as Jeff Bingaman and Kent Conrad don't seem confident that the public option can get passed, despite a large percentage of Americans supporting this option. Instead, the talk seems to be shifting towards some weak-ass coop idea, an idea that seems like a chickenshit cop-out.
I am sorry for the passionate language in the previous paragraph. This issue means a great deal to me, and I can tend to get carried away. I just don't understand why you would be so bold as to state your strong preference for a public option to us, but clearly don't care about it when talking to your buddies in the Senate.
I just don't see the strategy in place here, unless it is a strategy meant to betray the American people. I mean, Senator Baucus seems intent on sacrificing CHIP, a program he seems to be very proud of if you view his website. What the hell kind of compromise is it if he is willing to remove care for children just to appease some Republican who would never vote for the bill? How exactly is this change we can believe in?
Your administration seems far too reactive in getting its message out. How is it that a party that controls the White House and both houses of Congress doesn't seem able to get on one page, or even come close to controlling the message on the issue? Why do you not feel it necessary to get out and take this message to the people in a big way. The town hall meetings are a good start, but it still doesn't seem like you are engaged as much as you should be.
I understand why you don't want to engage the lunatics that seem to be intent on disrupting the genuine discussion of ideas. Hopefully their misplaced anger will dissipate as August moves on towards September. Still it is unfortunate that it appears your chief of staff is more concerned with yelling at progressives than getting Blue Dogs in line or dealing with Republican falsities.
I don't offer my concerns out of dislike, or even disappointment. I only offer them out of genuine curiosity at what is going on. Its very possible that you have an excellent strategy in place, and we will really see it in action once Congress gets back from its recess. It wouldn't be the first time that you and your advisers instincts have been better than mine.
I still trust that my vote wasn't in vain, and that we will see some genuine progress and improvement in this country. We need real solutions, and elected you and your colleagues up the street to provide those answers. Universal Health Care has been an issue in this country since the early 20th century. It is time we finally join the 21st century in regards to health care.
Sincerely,
Andrew C. Tate
P.S. I apologize, but I am withholding any donations to you, congressional democrats, or the DNC until a real health care bill is passed. I hope you understand that I require an appropriate level of return before I invest any of my resources. Unless my donation allows me to discuss this situation one on one with you, Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Baucus, or any of your other colleagues, I figure my donation won't be much use.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
This is not the Voice of the American Public
Whether you watch the news on TV, listen to it on the radio, or read it online, you are very likely not getting the whole story. Case in point are the "spontaneous protests" at health care town hall events, such as an event held by HHS Secretary Sebelius and Senator Specter in Pennyslvania. Another disruption also took place at a congressman's district in Texas. The goal is to create a sense that the Democrats are acting against the "will of the people".
If you had read the New York Times, it would appear that the Democrats have a problem. Without doing any sort of research, the reporter decided that these angry folks were the unassailable vox populi of the American people. And if they had just shown up and were indiciative of a popular movement in these locales, it would be news, and would be something for Democrats to consider.
However, this is clearly not the case. These aren't groups of citizens trying to make their voice heard in a legitimate matter. These are nothing more than mobs meant to disrupt the meetings and stifle any meaningful discussions of the issues. They have no desire to hear the other side, to them the other side isn't worth debating. They are just there to make sure the Democrats can't get anything done.
To them, debate and compromise are weaknesses, not the foundation of a functioning government. Hell, to most of these people (The supposed patriots known as "Tea-Baggers"), a functioning government is not a desirable goal. They believe any government is unproductive, and as little as possible needs to be put into place. Its a breed of fanaticism that has nothing to do with religion, but has everything to do with the mythical infallibilty of the high holy market. Anything they don't like is tarred and feathered with the word "socialism", and anyone they disagree with is called less than patriotic.
The strategies employed by these mobs are not indicative of what democracy should be. Democracy is built upon the free exchange of ideas, on the grand process of taking many different perspectives and ideas and turning them into functioning policy and law. These town halls are meant to be open forums, where people can get answers from those who represent them in our government. It quite obvious that the tactics of these groups show their desire to be destructive instead of constructive. If they decide to stop attacking and start delivering real alternatives, we'll be waiting for them.
If you had read the New York Times, it would appear that the Democrats have a problem. Without doing any sort of research, the reporter decided that these angry folks were the unassailable vox populi of the American people. And if they had just shown up and were indiciative of a popular movement in these locales, it would be news, and would be something for Democrats to consider.
However, this is clearly not the case. These aren't groups of citizens trying to make their voice heard in a legitimate matter. These are nothing more than mobs meant to disrupt the meetings and stifle any meaningful discussions of the issues. They have no desire to hear the other side, to them the other side isn't worth debating. They are just there to make sure the Democrats can't get anything done.
To them, debate and compromise are weaknesses, not the foundation of a functioning government. Hell, to most of these people (The supposed patriots known as "Tea-Baggers"), a functioning government is not a desirable goal. They believe any government is unproductive, and as little as possible needs to be put into place. Its a breed of fanaticism that has nothing to do with religion, but has everything to do with the mythical infallibilty of the high holy market. Anything they don't like is tarred and feathered with the word "socialism", and anyone they disagree with is called less than patriotic.
The strategies employed by these mobs are not indicative of what democracy should be. Democracy is built upon the free exchange of ideas, on the grand process of taking many different perspectives and ideas and turning them into functioning policy and law. These town halls are meant to be open forums, where people can get answers from those who represent them in our government. It quite obvious that the tactics of these groups show their desire to be destructive instead of constructive. If they decide to stop attacking and start delivering real alternatives, we'll be waiting for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)