You are herecontent / Democrats Pressured To Vote "Yes" On Health Insurance Reform Bill
Democrats Pressured To Vote "Yes" On Health Insurance Reform Bill
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
HR 4789 and The Public Option: The Way Forward
By Rep. Alan Grayson | Huffington Post
Health care reform -- here's where we are. The House of Representatives is about to vote on a Senate bill without a public option. It looks like the reconciliation amendment will not have a public option. The House bill had a public option, but once the House passes the Senate bill, that's history.
Which is why I introduced H.R. 4789, the Public Option Act. This simple four-page bill lets any American buy into Medicare at cost. You want it, you pay for it, you're in. It adds nothing to the deficit; you pay what it costs. Read more.
- Login to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
About the "pressure' that Democrats being "pressured" to vote yes on this.
A Democratic presidency, a Democratic House and a Democrat Senate.
"Pressuring" the Democrats to support his thing.
I am fascinated to hear about this.
“Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because consciennce tells one that it is right."
Dr Martin Luther King
who kiss their asses, keep their campaign coffers filled with cash, and threaten them with personal and political ruin if they don't go along with the willful destruction of the American Dream. Congress is made up entirely of whores and cowards.
They don't go to Washington to serve us. they go there to serve themselves and their corporate paymasters, either directly through specific intention, or indirectly through their debilitating cowardice and unwillingness to stand up and unequivocally renounce what is so clearly a broken system.
Everybody knows it. Some just don't have the nerve to admit it, because they have too much invested in what they all eventually come to realize is one gigantic fu**ing fraud, if they don't already know it going in.
Anyone who wants to hold out their rep as an exception to this rule needs to ask that rep why he or she is still willingly working within the broken system.
Why is Dennis Kucinich still a Democrat?
Why is Ron Paul still a Republican?
Neither has the balls to make the clean break.
Talking Truth the Talking Heads Can't Handle:
Afghanistan: Anyone for Truth?
Your post and the you tube link are fucking beautiful.
This explains why unknownn countless dissidents have been banned from posting on many "tough, liberal, progressive" blogs like Op Ed News, Common Dreams, Daily KOS, Huff Post etc etc e..
Because we point out the uncomfortable truth. that THEIR president, THEIR Congress are war criminals.
“Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one that it is right."
Dr Martin Luther King
guess. Your video statement is good, btw.
DK and RP are on the inside and we're not. But that is not the sole difference and the overall reality is not black-and-white simple in another respect; or in one or more other respects (?).
Ron Paul, from what I've read, wants to restore the RP to what it formerly and originally was, like what it was during President Abe Lincoln, who was a real Republican, contrary to most people who claim or pretend to be Repub., today. And DK wants to reform the Dem. Party, but I don't see how this is achievable without voters making this happen, which is also true for the Repub. Party, but while I know little of the histories of these two parties and less about that of the Dem. Party.
Anyway, neither of these two members of the Congress can be expected to be the solutiom. They are not Saviors, and The People, if they want the government to be Constitutional and of, for and by them, have been awfully neglecting their or our related responsibilities; one of which is to make sure to only elect and re-elect qualified candidates as representatives. Awfully few people who've voted have cared to stand by this latter responsibility. Instead, most have been treaonously negligent, derelict, which makes them as much to blame, as guilty, as the corrupt, soulless, ... candidates they elected.
Even Libetarians were ready to profit from the replacement of U.S citizens who were hi-tech professionals with un-needed foreign workers who, to get jobs in the U.S., accepted awfully low wages and thereby helped to put man of us citizens into total bankruptcy. Some sued for retroactive compensation and won, but if I and others tried to sue because we were also low-balled, includigng equally, then us citizens would get nothing. There are statutes of limiation(s) that make it clear that we'd lose if we did try to get retroactive compensation as many of the unnnecessarily imported workers got. No one cares.
During the second half of the 1990s when the Libertarian Party's leaders publicly supported and promoted the importation of foreigners who'd really be used only to replace U.S. citizens, I protested this online in a computer consulting forum and did I ever get a clearly heinous reaction from the LP. Liberty to screw thy fellow citizens is not a right or privilege granted in the U.S. Consitution or Bill of Rights, but a lot of people like to make up their own rules. They want to profit from their individual rules while also trying to avoid becoming prey of people practicing the same rules.
Anyway, DK and RP are only two individuals, and you're right in your video recorded statement. The population, eligible voters need to do their part. This is always true in any country where the population wants to have and believes that it has a democracy.
Supporting Obama for the Presidency didn't fit with doing one's Constitutional duty to elect only candidates fit for public or political office. Neither he, nor Hilary Clinton, nor John McCain were fit; they were all and very unfit, and voting for anyone who's unfit is definitely an unfitting action for a citizen to do. I did my part by doing like others who also did their parts, which was to try to warn that Obama was [unfit], untrustworthy, un-Constitutional, ...; but others still voted one of this evil bunch in as President. So the fault lays with these negligent, and worse, citizens. Some were negligently idiotic, say, while others were much worse and really malevolant. The voters who voted for him while realising he wasn't really a good choice, or that he was a bad choice, only failed to understand that it was better to vote for no one than it was to vote for any of the three candidates of evil. At least these voters understood that their choice was not good. But others maliciously refused to accept that their choice was bad, so they outright made their beds with evil. I argued against the whimsical voters who claimed that Obama was a lesser evil and none of these people could ever defend their claim, but they stuck to it anyway. Lesser? My ... buttocks. Some people understandably say he and his administration are worse than the prior administration!
Even if voters aren't the ones who really decide who can become President, a majority, not large, but still a majority of citizens vote and constantly, repeatedly elect evils to public or political office, and they don't defend the constitutional right for alternative candidates to get equal media coverage during campaigns. So voters have been highly derelict and must correct this. Until they do, they have little or no just reason to blame the elites who corrupt elections.
There's a hell of a lot of blame to place in the latter respect, but only when voters get their acts straight.
Anyway, good video statement!
Mike Corbeil
He speaks so much truth here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rb3YlNZm2A&fmt=18
No More Two Party dictatorship.
expect more of the same
In a sense, to some degree, I agree with his view on health care, that the government being used to provide universal single-payer health care can infringe on the rights or liberties of some citizens who wouldn't want their tax dollars used for this purpose. But, and in a practical sense, I disagree with him, for the country needs single-payer healthcare, whether it is provided nationally or by states. Some of each tax payer's dollars will be used, either way, but health care provided on this basis would be far less costly. I listened to the Dem. Now! interview and discussion with Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich posted at ADS yesterday or the day before, and posted at DN!, I think, on March 18th. RN said that the present cost of health care per capita is over $7,000 a year and he compared this to the costs for single-payer health care in Europe or some European countries and possibly Canada, where he said the cost is ... below $4,000 a year, per capita; somwhere between $3,000 and $4,000, but a per capita reduction of over $3,000 a year.
With single-payer health care in the U.S., the cost would become similar to the costs in Europe and Canada, so the amount that tax payers would individually contribute for the government providing this sort of health care system would not be as costly to them as the system is today. Iow, single-payer healthcare would cost people less, not more. The government would be helping tax payers SAVE income, instead of increasing cost burdens.
For this reason alone, I would not support Ron Paul. I agree with him on many issues, especially the Federal Reserve and U.S. foreign policies, but Ralph Nader would be a better President, imo.
And I'm not sure that people who want the right to abortions would appreciate Ron Paul for President, for I've read that he's an opponent of or to this right or liberty and if he became President and ruled on abortion according to his personal view of it, then many, very many voters would not appreciate this, say.
That's of less or no real concern to me, but it'd be a serious issue to many Americans. But I disagree with him on health care. I don't buy into his argument against the government providing for guaranteed single-payer health care.
Even if I very rarely use health care professionals and will often go to a pharmacy and speak with the pharmacist about a problem I'm having, before seeing a doctor, which is an approach that's been fruitful and money-saving for me a few times, I'd still support some of my tax dollars being used for the government providing universal single-payer health care.
If Ron Paul cares about abortions, thinks they're often wrongly committed, then he is a moral person, and if he's a moral person, then why does he care to protect capitalistic, materialistic, ... selfishness over human [need] for [health care]?
It's no good for him to speak alone on the topic, and the same applies to anyone else who's against the government using taxpayer dollars to provide guaranteed single-payer health care. The only time their views are really acceptable is in a very thorough debate. These people need to be questioned so that listeners then obtain a real, full, and analytical perspective.
If he's against the gov't providing guaranteed single-payer health care at thousands of dollars less cost per year on a per capita basis, then is he also against military conscription in the hypothetical case in which the U.S. really is attacked by a foreign state? If he's for the latter and against the former, then he critically needs to be questioned about this.
Furthermore, if he's against the gov't providing this health care system, then he needs to be asked if he uses his free health care that he gets as a member of Congress and which all gov't employees get. If he uses it, then he should be asked about how he feels regarding using real taxpayers' dollars for this health care when many tax payers need to do without health care insurance, because it's very costly and increasingly worthless.
I agree with him about the Federal Reserve and U.S. foreign policies, or the foreign policies of war. Regarding the Federal Reserve, however, it may not be necessary to totally obsolete it, but if it's maintained, then it must be made part of the gov't and overseen by the Congress. Otherwise, it needs to be totally obsoleted, eliminated, disappeared ... forever. And if he's only against U.S. foreign policies of war, then I'd disagree with this and not because I'm for these policies, for I'm always against them, but because his view and principles would then be much too limited. He'd then need to be questioned about why he's not against the other U.S. foreign policies, which are of rogue kind.
He really needs to be brought into a true debative forum sort of context to be able to sufficiently learn of his views and what he'd most probably be like as a President, if he was elected to this position. But this is not only true of him.
I prefer Ralph Nader for President of a whole society or country, and this is true, I believe anyway, regardless of whether we speak of Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, who once said that Obama speaks out of both sides of his mouth, having said this during the 2009 campaigns, and has said, since Obama was inaugurated, that Obama's a good man. That doesn't make much sense, for a person who speaks out of both sides of his mouth iow has a forked tongue and that's not a characteristic of people of good will and conduct.
Ron Paul should not switch to the Libertarians again, as he did for a year or so quite a long time ago, but it seems that both he and Dennis Kucinich should part from the two main parties they're members of and become [independents].
[Individual conscience is primordial]! It's a principle that even the Roman Catholic Church has made into doctrinal law, or doctrine, whatever; official anyway. What does this principle, which is [essential] to a healthy life speak of? Being [independent], including when we're oppressed, in which case or context we can maintain a real independence by not submitting our wills, consciences to the whims of the oppressors. Doing that can be fatal, it can be a fatal choice, but we have the individual right to accept to make this choice, independently. Of course the choice would depend on whether or not we're oppressed to this sort of extreme; that is, there are external dependencies, of a sort. But we retain our consciences and therefore will to not defer to the evils of oppressors, etcetera, and this is the most treasurable quality humans have; for people who have this level of conscience, anyway.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich could simply accept the ..., well, not necessarily fact, but the high probability that they'll never be able to succeed in reforming their political parties, not without a lot of awakened voters who formerly voted in derelict ways finally voting in [sane] ways, voting for only sane and qualified political candidates, anyway; an eventuality that is not within the foreseeable future, yet. Voters need to do like David Swanson has been excellently stating needs to be done!
But while we have real cause for this level of awakenness and voter action or change, today, voters have an awfully lousy track record and if we don't neglect the latter, then I can't presently foresee when they'll be sufficiently awake to be able to finally decide to vote for only Constitutionally qualified political candidates. The voters, the majority of them, which excludes abstainers, since an abstainer isn't a voter, except when the abstainers decide to place a vote, once in a while, well, the majority of voters have proven to be very dumb animals, so far. So dumb that they repeatedly vote for their own ills, say. That's an awfully dumb thing to do, but ... leave it to humans to be awfully dumb.
Dumbest creature there is! Up in Canada, there's a province called Quebec, and guess what. Many of them love the Clintons, these [charlatans]. Do the Quebecers know or realise that the Clintons are about [evil], or do the Quebecers dream about the Clintons being something they're really polar opposites of? I don't know. Being dual-U.S. and Canadian, I get news reports on some matters in both countries and it has never ceased to amaze me that anyone could be for the Clintons; whether the supporters are Canadian or American, it's astounding that anyone could sanely support this couple of Evil's offsprings. Well, "sane" is the keyword. No sane person could support the Clintons, Bushes, now the Obamas, and so on; not in political offices anyway.
We could be merciful and support their right to be floor cleaners, f.e.; but NEVER holders of any political offices whatsoever, and never any important positions in gov't. Flipping burgers at McD? Are you crazy. I wouldn't trust these ... scoundrels, say, near anything I'm going to eat. Floor cleaning, oh, and toilets, etcetera, but not coffee pots, for we consume what is made with coffee pots and I don't trust these people with anything I can consume, internally, but also externally; keep these people away from maintaining cars, computers, etcetera. Floor cleaning, and toilets, too!
I will accept to be this merciful, if doing so helps to bring a stop to all criminal U.S. foreign policies, and most, if not all, U.S. foreign policies are criminal, or criminally conducted, carried out.
It's one thing to wake up a dumb animal, but what will the creature then do? Experience will tell us what the dumb creature will do when awakened, but in the case of dumb humans, we're likely to want to put the animal back to sleep. A dumb animal that's alseep is sometimes safer.
Either voters need to fully wake up and start to vote in truly Constitutional ways beginning in 2010 elections, or they need to be put back to sleep enough that they don't become aware of anything external to them, especially elections.
I always have this need to "nail" or "crucify" voters, but they deserve it.
Well, given the way voters are, based on their track record of usually voting for Constitutionally unfitting candidates, and this is describing most of them very politely, how the hell can Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich imagine that they have any chance, at all, in or at reforming their parties?
If voters can't be relied on being intelligent and Constitutional, then how the hell are the rest of us voters who try to vote in only sane ways, or else sanely abstain, when there are no really qualified candidates on our ballots, well, how the hell are the rest of us supposed to believe than individual members of Congress can change a dark world into one of real light, from evil or predatory to good, ...? I don't see how we're realistically going to be able to imagine this unimaginable outcome. It'd have to be a fluke, luck, by chance matter, accident, ....
True, voters don't decide who will be electable to the Presidency, or appointable, as happened with Bush Jr in 2000, f.e. But voters nevertheless contribute to the deciders of this, say, matter. We have the elites shooting us in both feet (to say the least) and then the majority of voters aren't contented, so they make sure that any remaining resemblance of a footed creature looks like one that never had anything like feet, at all. The majority of voters help to ensure our obliteration; figuratively speaking. After all, if it wasn't figurative, then I surely wouldn't be writing this post, now would I. (Paranormal specialists need not respond and can just accept that I'm real, physically present, albeit over the Internet, which paranormal specialists might want to verify, for maybe I'ma ghost of some ... one.)
We have this reality and Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich "think" that they can reform their parties? They need critical questioning about this. And they should also be questioned about why they can't accept [change].
Life is dynamic. It includes change quite naturally. Why are some principled humans in total or seeming to be in total rejection of change sometimes being better than if it did not happen? Why are they afraid of experimentation? Okay, so they're not scientifically minded people, but, and nevertheless, life often involves the need to change, to re-adapt according to changes that have occurred and over which we have no power or control; changes we can't possibly or plausibly reverse.
Humans are said to be, and credibly are, the most rapidly adaptable creature that exists, but can someone provide some proof of this in terms of politics? When it comes to politics, it seems, to me anyway, that humans are not amenable to change. It's probably easier to pull teath using bare fingers.
Mike Corbeil