democrats kill the public option in health care reform- Page 2

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 1:30pm

Remind me again what was so awful about Hillary.

She was a woman. And if you you believed the boys on this board she was a b*tch and a c*nt and just about everything else in the book.

I'm not saying Hillary would have been any better choice. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm kind of glad she didn't win because then she'd be saddled with this mess.

That said, she wasn't the candidate of CHANGE. She wasn't the new kind of politician who has going to bring about all this great and positive CHANGES. I never really bought it, but it seemed a lot of other people did; unless it was just because that gruesome Hillary was just too harsh an alternative.

[Renart]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 1:42pm

What's that sound I hear? Millions of Hillary Clinton and John McCain supporters saying, "I told you so!"

All through the primaries and general campaign America was warned about (then) Sen. Obama's style over subtance approach. He will promise anything to anybody to get elected. But no one listened to the warnings. Sen. Clinton might not have been able to come up with a better plan but I am pretty sure that she would be able to get leaders from both parties into a room together to discuss the issue and be, you know, a LEADER.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 1:48pm

So what exactly is this bill going to consist of? Requiring people to get insurance from the very companies that were supposed to be part of the reform? Where are we on pre-existing conditions?

This thing needs to die. The bill does, too.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 1:53pm

Hillary would not have been able to do anything with the Republicans either. Hillary would have sold us all out just exactly the way Obama has done.

Why? Because she's a sexist egotistical lying hypocritical bigot, oops, politician. She is owned by the same Forces Of Darkness that own Obama, and that own all politicians in this country.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 3:36pm

He will promise anything to anybody to get elected.

They all do that! Politicians are smart enough not to run on a platform of "I plan to run this country based on my own personal interests and beliefs, so vote for me if they happen to be the same as yours".

Updated On: 12/15/09 at 03:36 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 3:38pm

Yes, but he was supposed to be different. He was bringing change. He wasn't like all the rest, like that awful Hillary!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 4:45pm

Wait--what? Now Lieberman SUPPORTS it?!?

Can this be true?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 5:01pm

oh, pj. he supports the bill without the public option or the medicare buy-in.

jon walker at fdl says:
don't blame lieberman

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 5:09pm

Somewhere Ned Lamont is laughing.

And, Harry Reid is a joke. He does not have the balls to force the issue. I may not agree with the Republicans on many issues, but at least their leadership had control of its members.

[javero]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 6:11pm

Obama is looking more like a one-termer with each passing day due to little fault of his own. The cocktail of intractable military campaigns, a bad economy, colossal trade imbalance with China, class warfare and fanatical evangelical Christians is simply bigger than his office.

The public option w/ Medicare expansion and same-sex marital rights in all states should have happened already but both represent too much change too soon. IMO both are inevitable. But, we're still not out of the woods when it comes to Iraq, Afghanistan and an economy that's being propped up by gov't presses that keep right on printing greenbacks that are becoming increasingly worthless. The current political climate makes it too easy for our politicos to use the latter grouping to hold back the former.

The only individual capable of providing the leadership the nation needs right now is Clinton, and not Hillary. Ron Paul is is too much an ideologue to be of much use as POTUS, despite having loads of common sense. I've been an ardent Obama supporter but little separates him from his predecessor when it comes to politics. His administration is very finger-in-the-wind which should come as no surprise to anyone.

Updated On: 12/15/09 at 06:11 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 7:34pm

I think it's coming as a demoralizing surprise to a lot of people who were inspired by him during the campaign. I dread the inevitable epidemic of cynicism.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 8:08pm

I really had no opinion of the primary. I was too young to vote anyway and of course I was on the WFP line. My family was dividing so I basically was silent but looking at both candidates on the issues.

Obama was always focused on Afghanistan so why there are those who think he broke a campaign promise, as if they nearly believed the GOP firing line that he was a dove on foreign policy, I don't know.

Hillary always had a stronger health care plan she laid out than Obama. That would have been marred and probably would have been just as ugly from the mud-slinging. I think Obama is fine with passing something as just point A and point B will come later but consider how long this bill is taking he will have to be really pressing the Point B fast.

Both were 'the moderate' on the same-sex marriage/LGBT equality, meaning they were about order not change though plenty of sweet talk to both sides. I do think DADT stripping will get passed but it needs to be passed rather quickly through. There is still debate over how equal marriage equality should be done so javero I do not understand why you think all of the sudden a wave a such magnitude would have been done by now. Two states waved goodbye to same-sex marriage thanks to mob rule. As far as I'm concerned it is federal and DOMA should be stripped.

I voted for him and in some cases he has been exactly how he's made himself to be but of course in other issues, issues especially major to those here on BWW, it has been an EPIC FAIL... thus far.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 8:19pm

Let me also say that I think when push come to shove Obama gets his rear in gear in both 2010 and 2012 (pending the complexion of both houses) during election time because unlike 2009 the elections will reflect him immensely.

I will also say I loved Hillary as my Senator, I love her as Secretary of State, and I love her replacement in the Senate- I canvassed for Gillibrand when she ran for Congress. I was basically for anything involving Hillary and Obama. This now sounds like complete revisionist history but there was always something bothersome about John Edwards.

Anyway, back to HCR. I found it a bit strange that both Sen. Rockefeller and Sen. Brown, both good progressives and stealth for HCR, were still optimistic. There has to be something there, Rockefeller practically wanted to kill Sen. Conrad for his idiocy in this whole process (co-ops?). Plus neither they or Sen. Feingold are ones to completely run or speak the party line.

[madbrian]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 8:52pm

For what it's worth, Nate Silver at 538.com writes an essay detailing the benefits of the Senate bill, even without the public option or Medicare/Medicaid expansion. It's pretty wonky, but he makes a case for the bill being supported, even if it's shy of what progressives wanted.
What's left of the Senate bill

[strummergirl]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 8:58pm

Ezra Klein also supported it which surprised me.

I love Nate. He got me into SABRmetrics in baseball.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 2:15pm

now dr. dean says:
kill it!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 2:31pm

What do Ezra Klein and Nate Silver say about the "mandate"?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 3:13pm

I never believed it was a mandate, just like I never believed Bush had a mandate. When you get barely half the vote, what does that mandate except for the fact that we should really just split into two countries?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 3:54pm

No, I mean the health-care mandate: the provision in the both the House and Senate version that forces all citizens to purchase health care or be subject to a fine.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 3:55pm

Oh, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 4:11pm

that it'll only apply to americans, pj.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 5:05pm

There was a Huffington blog about this the other day, but I don't understand why liberals and progressives are not speaking out against this more. During the primary debate in February, Obama beat up Hillary mercilessly because her health-care proposal included mandates.

Now the House version includes a penalty of 2.5% of your income if you fail to buy health-care insurance from an insurance company...EVEN IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY IT!!!

This is the House version proposed by the Democrats, not the GOP.

If you can't afford monthly premiums, why do these bozos think you can afford 2.5%?

HUFF POST: An Individual Mandate to Purchase Health Care Insurance Is Constitutional

Updated On: 12/16/09 at 05:05 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 5:06pm

Candidate Obama, February, 2008:

The mailing that we put out accurately indicates that the main difference between Senator Clinton's plan and mine is the fact that she would force, in some fashion, individuals to purchase health care.

If it was not affordable, she would still presumably force them to have it, unless there is a hardship exemption, as they've done in Massachusetts, which leaves 20 percent of the uninsured out. And if that's the case, then, in fact, her claim that she covers everybody is not accurate.

Now, Senator Clinton has not indicated how she would enforce this mandate. She hasn't indicated what level of subsidy she would provide to assure that it was, in fact, affordable. And so it is entirely legitimate for us to point out these differences.

[Q]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 5:11pm

I keep thinking that I've plateaued in my anger with Obama, and then discover that I was wrong.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 7:01pm

I told you she had a better healthcare plan. How successful she would do hypothetically is another story.