Democratic Senators Summoned to White House

Once again, why don't us conservatives just succeed from the union and rid ourselves of this progressive hate rhetoric. I mean it too. Then us greedy, right wing nuts can live our lives in peace for once in that last 80 years.

Well his s/b interesting. Stong arm the Senators

I am very confused by some of the comments. Like "saying Obama will not be bipartisan because someone shouted out he is a liar". So I thought the President work for all Americans. I mean if you progressives don't like conservatives that is fine with me. I opt to succeed from the union. I mean it. I am sick of having to concede with these creeps everytime democrats want to push us closer to tyranny. Bush too was a progressive. I feel I pay taxes and have never been represented so why can't we succeed?

HR 3400. This is the answer, simple straight forward answer. The party of NO, to bad legislation, has hit a home run with good legislation. To bad the Dems are blindly stupid and thumbing their noses at the American public. I would urge everyone to read this short bill.

This sounds a little bit like "divide and conquer".

The good little congressmen/women heed their master's call like good little puppies. If they cooperate, they get a treat. If they don't, here comes Rhambo with a rolled-up newspaper.

No public option!

"You will notice that the president spoke last night about being interested in having Republican ideas and in reaching across the aisle...Moderate Democrats but no moderate Republicans. Kinda hard to buy the call to bipartisanship when he doesn't walk the walk."

Posted by: moderate | Sep 10, 2009 5:54:53 PM

Your buddy from South Carolina single-handedly killed bipartisanship with his outburst. So why should Obama give consider any republican point-of-view? If you paid attention to the speech, the republicans are to be slowly, but surely, eased out of the process of creating the legislation. You screwed yourselves.

Obama should ask some simple questions of these 17 Senators. How do they generate enough cost savings to make the bill revenue neutral without a public option. If they have a revenue neutral bill without these cost saving, what benefits/services do they eliminate to come up with the necessary savings. If they can't adequately answer those questions then they favor the status-quo and the problems caused there.

Frankly, Obama's only hope of escaping resolution is to get agreement to vote against a filibuster so an up or down vote on the actual bill can be held. A few could then change their vote to no on the actual bill. That is not unheard of.

Competition across state lines, tort reform, would fix most problems immediately. Some stricter regulation on insurance companies in regards to pre-exiting conditions etc. would help also. No on free to illegals, no on government covered abortions. All ideas Republicans offered and were poo pooed by the Democrats. So I guess it's their way or the highway. They win we all loose because when 40 million more people are suddenly going to the doctor for hang nails because they can, there will not be enough doctors or nurses. But who cares IT'S ALL FREE RIGHT?

Posted by: cathy Horner |

First: Tort costs represent 1.5 to 2 % of off health care related expenses, so tort reform would do next to nothing to mitigate the skyrocketing costs o health care.
Second: In NO PLAN that has been put forth have illegals been covered. Not a single Dem proposal has allowed for the inclusion of anyone who is not a legal resident. I dare you to prove otherwise.
Third: The president stated in his address that he does not support government funded abortions.
Finally: The biggest complaint that Republicans have to the plan s that it will LIMIT what is covered, so your argument that 40 million people will be going to the doctor for hang nails is ridiculous.

Wow maybe if Shaheen had expressed this, we would have not been so hard on her.

Posted by: NH

Yeah, we were so hard on her that she only won by 7 points.

ScoobyDubious, it really isnt' that complicated. You claim to be confused by Repubicans who seem to argue that, "
1) There should not be any government-run healthcare option because the government is incapable of doing anything effectively. AND....
2) There should not be any government-run healthcare option because the government plan will be too great and the poor insurance companies can't compete with such a cost-effective option."

You think these two statements contradict each other, but that's not quite so. Yes, the government would not run the program effectively-- witness Medicare or Indian health care, for example. And Yes, insurance companies would not be able to compete with the public option in the long run.

Not, however, as you phrase it, because the government program would be cost-effective, but because it would be cheaper. A government plan can lose money year after year without going out of business, as a private firm would do.
The president likes to use the example of FedEx and UPS competing with the postal service. Well, the postal service has been losing money for ages, but because of government support is able to keep going. If UPS had USPS's losses, it would have closed up long ago.

You want to increase competition between insurance companies-- then let them compete. Make coverage portable and permit sales across state lines, for example.

For the most part, of course, the higher cost of health insurance these days is not driven by the lack of competition, allowing the companies to gouge their customers, but by in large part by the spiraling cost of health CARE. After all, the insurance companies have to
pay benefits based on the cost of the health care services customers use, and those services are getting more expensive, so insurance premiums go up to attempt to keep pace.

In Canada, we have a (mostly) public health care and it WORKS!

Wow maybe if Shaheen had expressed this, we would have not been so hard on her.

The whiny voiced Lieberman should be told if he votes against the health care reform he will loose his committee assignments and chairmanships. He should have lost them when he switched to be "independent".

And his message is, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." This make or brake time, be an American first and a conservative second.

WE WANT MICHAEL DUVALL!!!

Wow, are the Republicans who don't want to bring prices down rich or something?

I mean really, anybody try to buy health insurance without a good job lately?

It's craaaaaaaazy expensive, especially with a family. It's not a car payment, it's a whole other mortgage expensive.

I don't know if Obama can get these slimeballs to separate from their fat insurance company campaign checks, but we'll see.

On the surface, purchasing healthcare insurance across state lines sounds like a good idea. However, STATES enforce laws regarding health insurance. To allow purchaing across states would, in effect, just be totally de-regulating the insurance industy. I think we have some prime examples in what's happening to our economy today to see that de-regulation doesn't work!

Competition across state lines, tort reform, would fix most problems immediately. Some stricter regulation on insurance companies in regards to pre-exiting conditions etc. would help also. No on free to illegals, no on government covered abortions. All ideas Republicans offered and were poo pooed by the Democrats. So I guess it's their way or the highway. They win we all loose because when 40 million more people are suddenly going to the doctor for hang nails because they can, there will not be enough doctors or nurses. But who cares IT'S ALL FREE RIGHT?

We'll all be on the "public option" if our politicians don't get busy and figure out why the public sector (the job creators for those familar with the term work) is scared witless to invest in America. And lets face facts; an ever increasing population without jobs and the large amount of people who could get health care if they really wanted it but prefer someone else to look after their needs , helps Obama in his trickle up poverty programs.

Here is the confused GOP thinking:

1) There should not be any government-run healthcare option because the government is incapable of doing anything effectively.

AND....

2) There should not be any government-run healthcare option because the government plan will be too great and the poor insurance companies can't compete with such a cost-effective option.

See any contradiction there? So which is it?
ANSWER: It doesn't matter what the GOP argument is because logic doesn't enter into the equation for them. They are just against ANYTHING Obama and the Dems suggest. Period.

Time to move the USA into the future with the rest of the civilized world.
Universal healthcare for everyone. There will always be angry, hateful, greedy backwards rightwing people opposed to helping anyone but themselves, but their numbers are dwindling by the day. THEY are the minority. Universal healthcare is what the vast majority of Americans (77%) want. It's well past time to make it a reality. History will not look kindly on the sad, desperate, greedy, hateful and dishonest tactics of the GOP.