Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Health bill clears hurdle with support from Snowe

Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:05 PM EDT
business, politics, us, health-care, barack-obama, overhaul, olympia-snowe, health-care-overhaul, snowe
David Espo, AP Special Correspondent
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus says the bill is a big step toward what the country needs.
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 16 photos
<p>A gavel and papers are seen at the seat of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2009, before the start of the committee's hearing regarding health care reform. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)</p>

A gavel and papers are seen at the seat of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2009, before the start of the committee's hearing regarding health care reform. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — Historic legislation to expand U.S. health care and control costs won its first Republican supporter Tuesday and cleared a key Senate hurdle, a double-barreled triumph that propelled President Barack Obama's signature issue toward votes this fall in both houses of Congress.

"When history calls, history calls," said Maine Republican Olympia Snowe, whose declaration of support ended weeks of suspense and provided the only drama of a 14-9 vote in the Senate Finance Committee. With her decision, the 62-year-old lawmaker bucked her own leadership on the most high-profile issue of the year in Congress, and gave the drive to remake health care at least a hint of the bipartisanship that Obama seeks.

At the White House, Obama called the events "a critical milestone" toward remaking the nation's health care system. He praised Snowe as well as Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the committee, and declared, "We are going to get this done."

There were fresh challenges. Within minutes of the vote, labor unions and large business organizations both demanded changes in the bill, which was an attempt at a middle-of-the-road measure fashioned by the committee under Baucus' leadership.

Still, nearly nine months after the president pledged in his Inaugural Address to tackle health care, legislation to expand coverage to millions who lack it has now advanced further than President Bill Clinton's ill-fated effort more than a decade ago — or any other attempt in more than a generation.

The next move in the Senate is up to Majority Leader Harry Reid, whose office said the full Senate would begin debate on the issue the week of Oct. 26.

Nominally, Reid must first blend the bill that cleared during the day with a version that passed earlier in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. But in reality, the majority leader — with the participation of the White House — has a virtual free hand in fashioning a measure to wind up gaining the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster.

"The bottom line here is we need a final bill, a merged bill, that gets 60 votes," Baucus said. "Our goal is to pass health care reform not just talk about it."

Reid's most politically sensitive decision revolves around proposals for the federal government to sell insurance in competition with private industry. The Senate bill approved in committee during the day omits the provision, while the one passed earlier includes it and many House Democrats support it as well.

In general, bills moving toward floor votes in both houses would require most Americans to purchase insurance, provide federal subsidies to help those of lower incomes afford coverage and give small businesses help in defraying the cost of coverage for their workers.

The measures would bar insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions, and for the first time limit their ability to charge higher premiums on the basis of age or family size. Expanded coverage would be paid for by cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from future Medicare payments to health care providers. Each house also envisions higher taxes — an income tax surcharge on million-dollar wage-earners in the case of the House, and a new excise levy on insurance companies selling high-cost policies in the case of the Senate Finance Committee bill.

Apart from Snowe, Republicans on the committee cited higher taxes, a greater federal role in the insurance industry and other concerns as they lined up to oppose the bill.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said the legislation would place the nation on a "slippery slope to more and more government control of health care."

Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, elicited testimony earlier from the head of the Congressional Budget Committee that a substantial portion of the bill's tax increases would fall on groups Obama has vowed would be protected: individuals making $200,000 or less and couples below $250,000.

Snowe, too, said there were problems with the bill, but on balance, the risks of doing nothing were too great.

"We should also contemplate the decades of inaction that have brought us to this crossroads," she said. "The status quo approach has produced one glaring common denominator, that is that we have a problem that is growing worse, not better."

The vote made the Finance Committee the last of five in Congress to complete its work on health care. It also marked a personal triumph for Baucus, who weathered criticism from fellow Democrats after his attempt at bipartisanship cratered earlier this fall after months of exhaustive effort. In the end, disgruntled liberals on the panel, including Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Ron Wyden of Oregon, went along in hopes the bill eventually would be reshaped more to their liking.

Across the Capitol, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants have been at work for weeks trying to blend legislation approved by three House committees. The eventual result is certain to include a government option, but the details of the plan have split the rank-and-file and leaders have spent days struggling with the issue.

One group favors allowing the government to negotiate with doctors, hospitals and other health care providers for fees to be paid to treat patients who have federal insurance policies, an approach that involves higher costs for the government.

The other, lower-cost approach envisions a fixed payment schedule linked to Medicare. Officials say that alternative was quietly sweetened in recent days for the benefit of hospitals, medical device makers and others to put them on an even plane with doctors.

Apart from the details of the emerging bills, there were signs that the political struggle was intensifying.

Several officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said business groups were discussing plans to step up their opposition to legislation. The health insurance industry made clear its own unhappiness on Monday when it released a study by the prominent auditing firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, saying the Finance Committee bill would raise premiums significantly for millions who already have insurance.

The report drew intense criticism from the White House, Democrats in Congress and other advocates of the legislation. By Monday night, the auditing firm appeared to backpedal, issuing a statement acknowledging its report was based only on an analysis of four provisions in the proposed legislation.

In another sign of its more aggressive stance against Baucus' bill, the health insurance industry began airing TV ads in six states on Sunday criticizing the Finance Committee bill for the more than $100 billion in cuts it would make in Medicare Advantage, under which private insurance companies provide Medicare benefits.

They quoted the Congressional Budget Office as saying many seniors "will see cuts in benefits."

America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's trade group, is running the ads in Louisiana, Colorado, Missouri, New Mexico and Pennsylvania, and in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's home state of Nevada. The group declined to reveal how much the ad campaign cost.

___

Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Erica Werner contributed to this report.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • David Espo's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (51)
Rush For President

Wow..there is a big surprise. The liberal Snowe votes with other liberals. I sure hope that the liberals can pump money into her war chest, because I know the conservatives will pump millions into her opponents.

  • 1 vote
Reply#1 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:32 PM EDT
Rita-900543

Snowe needs to switch parties if she's voting for this health care fiasco. It's time for the Republicans to rally and defeat her this next election. Unite against and support her opponents at all costs.

  • 4 votes
#1.1 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:41 PM EDT
Real World Engineer

If they turn on her hard, the conservatives will end up losing alot more of the other liberal Republicans in the senate as a consequence. You could see a number of Republicans start siding with dems.

Don't forget, Republicans in a number of states are significantly more liberal than repubs in deep red states.

  • 4 votes
#1.2 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:23 PM EDT
Eric AlbertDeleted
Eric AlbertDeleted
Reply
Kim-298921

In the end, we'll get something like a public option. And people can tell their insurance companies to jump in a lake.

  • 10 votes
Reply#2 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:38 PM EDT
Rita-900543

Research PUBLIC OPTION and you will find Government Controlled. Don't debate, just do the research. You're just like the others with your hands held out for whatever the government will give....unfortunately this time the cost of that free stuff will cost you way more than you bargained for.

  • 2 votes
#2.1 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:44 PM EDT
Kim-298921

You don't know @!$%#-all about me, Rita, so I'll be happy to inform you I've never had my hand out for anything.

I'm looking for fairness for Americans - they don't get jacked around by their health insurers, excluded, denied on pretexts, etc. Do you have a problem with that?

I'm looking for coverage for all Americans - so they don't die a death that could be prevented by having access to health care. Do you have a problem with that?

I trust health insurers not at all. They've created a lot of death by spreadsheet. Health care is a moral imperative for us as a nation. Do you have a problem with that?

  • 4 votes
#2.2 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:02 PM EDT
lvh-865640

I understand your sentiments but am not confident the government is capable of running health care. I question their moral judgement as you do the insurance company's. A conundrum.

  • 1 vote
#2.3 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:59 PM EDT
Reply
Borncorn

I know the conservatives will pump millions into her opponents.

Go ahead, waste your money. Snowe is extremely popular in her State, which also has a form of universal health insurance coverage. Maine isn't the same as the redneck GOP states of the old south.

  • 5 votes
Reply#3 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:44 PM EDT
Andi-1045453

However, she'll most likely get death threats from folks in other states, and she'll be called some of the usual negative names men love to use for women.

I totally believe in Freedom of Speech, but I doubt any of these 'real Americans' who will most likely threaten her are going to identify themselves

  • 1 vote
#3.1 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:14 PM EDT
Reply
Richard Garde

Oh how cool. Now Obama can claim bipartinship. Now if they get a bill, any bill no matter what's in it, no matter how much it costs the everyday joe in new taxes, no matter how much longer it takes to get a simple office visit to his desk he can sign it and proclaim that he has fixed our health care.

  • 1 vote
Reply#4 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:21 PM EDT
janice-376027

President Obama, the Congress and the Senate have tried to work with GOP for months on everything from the Health Care Reform bill (that all the GOP claims to think is super duper important - although they have done nothing about it in the past) to climate change to even allowing employees to sue their employer when the are frigging raped on the job.

The Democrats have 'compromised' too much in my opinion and should tell the GOP to just keep warming their seats for the next few years since they don't want to do any actual work that will help average Americans.

It wouldn't matter what the Dems came up with, the GOP would vote no. That is their strategy and it's not going to help them in 2010. We will pick up several seats and Snowe has nothing to worry about.

  • 4 votes
Reply#5 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:31 PM EDT
Richard Garde

Janice it's your right to believe what you want and what you hear, but if you'd like to make arguments with facts you might want to spend a little time at www.house.gov and www.senate.gov

I voted Democrat for years mainly because that's what my family was. Then someone "showed" me every law that I was griping about was written by and supported mainly by Democrats.

  • 4 votes
#5.1 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:37 PM EDT
lvh-865640

This failure to research and KNOW what the heck is going on is what's getting this country in trouble. I agree with you.

    #5.2 - Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:46 AM EDT
    Reply
    Wildcard-781265

    "She told her colleagues she has misgivings about the bill, but "when history calls, history calls."

    What in the hell is that suppose to mean? This broad got a double dose of stupid!

    I guess she thinks she will go down in history for having voted for this thing, but it might well be her last move in Washington when voters go to the polls or maybe she has decided to become a dem next election time.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#6 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:07 PM EDT
    hvymtl83

    Put the public plan back in, whip the Blue Dogs into line and cram this down the Repubs throats 'till they gag on it. If Repubs hate it, I'm for it.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#7 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:10 PM EDT
    Andi-1045453

    I agree. Since the Repubs hate anything OUR President had a hand in, might as well stick it to 'em.

    • 3 votes
    #7.1 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:16 PM EDT
    Reply
    ladybmore

    This is a big piece of health reform now, democrats take the Conservatives to the hoop and slam dunk on them. Most of them are so old they can't block it.

    • 2 votes
    Reply#8 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:15 PM EDT
    maybeblu

    Senator Snowe has voted and the passage of the bill out of the finance committee is being called sweeping . I guess that means like sweeping all of the needed changes under the rug. I do believe that if final passage is anything like this bill, the American people will have been betrayed by those in power and all of them, Democrats as well as Republicans should be voted out of office.

      Reply#9 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:24 PM EDT
      Wildcard-781265

      Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf, under questioning by Republican senators, acknowledged that the bill's total impact on the nation's health care costs is still unknown. The CBO has been able to establish that the legislation would reduce federal government deficits, but Elmendorf said his staff has not had time to evaluate its effects on privately insured people. Government programs pay about half the nation's annual $2.5 trillion health care tab.

      This bill is going to cost everyone in this country trillions of dollars in higher cost and taxes, and I for one am sick and tired of the dems and repubs taking their fight with each other out on the people.

      Whatever one side don’t want the other does and it does not matter what the people want or even need it’s all about them, the lowlife, blood sucking politicians in Washington who have everything paid for for them by us so they don’t care what happens to us.

        Reply#10 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:27 PM EDT
        You Just Lost The Game

        The repugs say government control of health care is bad but they can't figure out that corporate control is even worse.

        • 2 votes
        Reply#11 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:40 PM EDT
        DonkeyRidder

        We knew the Democrats would continue to try to shove this piece of crap brutal, destructive, oppressive health care/private sector take over bill that isn't yet a bill up America's butt. They've gotten the tip past the sphincter and the pressure is building. The Democrats will now put their shoulders into it and shove even harder. America should squeeze with all its might and expel the Democrats unwanted advance and all the other crap Democrats have shoved there in one cleansing catharsis.

        Ms. Snowe, just change parties. The deception is over. Republican leadership, if you give any campaign assistance or money to Ms. Snowe from the general fund, you're not getting another penny from me.

          Reply#12 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:43 PM EDT
          You Just Lost The Game

          You sound like Rush Limbaugh with your anal rape descriptions, and so she's a republican who actually knows what's going on and actually tries to compromise. Is that really grounds to boot her from the party? Oh wait yes it is.

          • 3 votes
          #12.1 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:10 PM EDT
          DonkeyRidder

          She compromised? What was the compromise? There's no bill. No Democrat proposal is off the table. It is a bankrupting concept, an irresponsible attempt to take over private business. She simply said okay to the Democrat BS foothold. She has been promised something for that vote. We'll keep our eyes open for the payout, to her or a close family member. She's a turncoat, a sellout. If the Republicans ever want to be in power again, they have to dump the liberals, dump the corrupt, no exceptions. Conservatives are not putting up with these liberal bankrupting atrocities any more.

          You sound like Rush Limbaugh with your anal rape descriptions,

          If you want a liberals attention, just make analogies to their favorite activities.

            #12.2 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:27 PM EDT
            PANeal

            "with these liberal bankrupting atrocities any more.

            You sound like Rush Limbaugh with your anal rape descriptions,

            If you want a liberals attention, just make analogies to their favorite activities."

            Donkey,

            Your over the top rhetoric adds nothing to the discussion. It only adds to the revulsion decent people have for your ideas and your choice of vocabulary. I assume these comments will be collapsed or deleted as offensive, inflammatory, and no value.

            • 1 vote
            #12.3 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:07 PM EDT
            Real World Engineer

            don,

            If the Republicans ever want to be in power again, they have to dump the liberals,

            In a lot of states, the only reason the republicians hold seat(s) is because they are liberal republicians. Take them out of your party and in those states conservative republicians don't even stand a chance.

            What you propose gives dems more power not repubs.

            • 1 vote
            #12.4 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:24 PM EDT
            DonkeyRidder

            the only reason the republicians hold seat(s) is because they are liberal republicians.

            And what good is a Republican that votes with the Democrats? I say none. If the Republican party wants to recover, it must distinguish itself from the liberal Democrats, each member must distinguish itself from the Democrats. The Republicans should boycott Snowe (i.e., pull party funding and support). This isn't a game about how many we can get in office. It is about having sufficient influence to carry the message. Make the Democrats spend their money to get their members in there, not us.

              #12.5 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:55 PM EDT
              Real World Engineer

              And what good is a Republican that votes with the Democrats?

              Simple really, liberal Republicans come from liberal states. (in general)

              So conservative republicians hold no hope, as stated, in those states.

              So it is better to have a party member with you SOME of the time than a liberal dem against you ALL the time.

              Make the Democrats spend their money to get their members in there, not us.

              The dems spend money on elections in those states already. Cut out liberal Republicans and you just save the dems money, becasue they have no real competitor.

              This isn't a game about how many we can get in office. It is about having sufficient influence to carry the message.

              If the Republicans cut out all liberal Republicans they would also lose more than a few moderate repubs as a consequence. This in turn would RISK dropping them to so few seats their message could always get the back-seat. They would border on being like one of the irrelevant 3rd parties.

              In a democracy it really is about the best compromise between message and getting seats.

              • 1 vote
              #12.6 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:09 PM EDT
              DonkeyRidder

              In a democracy it really is about the best compromise between message and getting seats.

              I think not. I think having your own poison your message does more damage than the opponents trying to do the same. The Democrat states are suffering from their liberal Democrat management already. A good conservative on point could easily point out the errors and punitive nature of liberal policy, how it leads to bankruptcy and unemployment, poverty and corruption, and come away the winner at the end of the day. If we don't, it won't matter. In another generation we'll just be a third rate socialist gang, mad at each other, everyone jockeying as members of a special interest groups to get a bigger piece of the ever smaller government pie.

              How dumb is it to add a new entitlement, the most costly ever, to existing entitlements that already can't be funded? What do you think is going to happen, what is going to give? Conservatives know, as the answer is repeated throughout history.

                #12.7 - Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:37 AM EDT
                Real World Engineer

                A good conservative on point could easily point out the errors and punitive nature of liberal policy, how it leads to bankruptcy and unemployment, poverty and corruption, and come away the winner at the end of the day.

                1) A good conservative stands ZERO chance in liberal states, just by the fact of his message and who he is.

                I suspect, your mistake, is to assume there is some sort of conservative underground that exists in sufficient numbers in these states and a failure to understand that "moderates" in these states are actually NOT moderate as defined by a national level.

                The whole spectrum in these states, is far enough left, that anything too much towards the right has no real chance.

                Say compared to a deep RED state: The repubs in a liberal state are like conservative dems in the deep red state. The moderates are like plain dems and the dems are like open socialists in a deep red state.

                2) Liberal states for the most part embrace, support, and see nothing wrong with these socialist style policies. They wil be supported and grown indefiantely. This is what many conservative fail to grasp.

                Like I said, thining out the repub party to just conservatives, will cost so many seats, the party would become irrelevant.

                  #12.8 - Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:08 PM EDT
                  DonkeyRidder

                  A good conservative stands ZERO chance in liberal states, just by the fact of his message and who he is.

                  Liberal states for the most part embrace, support, and see nothing wrong with these socialist style policies.

                  If there were no Republicans to blame the liberal Democrat failures on, the public would turn on Democrats, as they should. The current bad economy, unemployment, devastated dollar, and general discontent is all related to liberalism/statism.

                  You are right, it is a battle to keep people educated on the facts and truths, so they don't succumb to the temptation to fall to that lowest state of human existence liberalism promises. So far, liberals are winning because they have the media propping them up with lies and deception. But liberalism will destroy itself if Republicans/conservatives don't win out. It always, always devolves into a tyranny, a poverty state, and the people will overthrow it. Republicans would prefer to prevent liberalism's conclusion rather than later have the liberals kill themselves fighting over that last bit of government cheese.

                    #12.9 - Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:05 PM EDT
                    Reply
                    ingenjon

                    The Baucus plan would, for the first time, require most Americans to purchase insurance

                    Most Americans? No fair, who got the loophole? I want one!

                      Reply#13 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:04 PM EDT
                      hungary1956

                      I don't understand the hurry in health INSURANCE reform while it is taking weeks to make a decision on Afghanistan. Military commanders gave their recommendations and Obama wants to take time to make a decision. But everything else .....especially health INSURANCE reform needs to happen NOW. DON'T READ the BILL, just PASS it. Let our military men and women die in Afghanistan because he can't make a decision because he wants to pass all his little pet projects first.

                      Obama is the worse commander and president as he puts his own objectives first...........not the lives of our military men and women.

                        Reply#14 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:25 PM EDT
                        The Gunshark

                        So, they gutted a bill that could have been a historic achievement on the level of Social Security... for one vote.

                        I would rather have them ram the legislation down the Republicans' throats, allow the people to see that the Republicans are doing nothing but dragging their feet, allow them to get their ass kicked in 2010, and try again.

                        They aren't going to support this no matter what concessions the Democrats make.

                          Reply#15 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:48 PM EDT
                          Profchaos

                          funny that they are so ready to put snowe in the headline considering it would have passed without her vote anyway. she didn't really help much excpet in the fact that the token repub has climbed on board so now the left can claim bipartisanship.

                            Reply#16 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:55 PM EDT
                            DonkeyRidder

                            Historic legislation to control U.S. health care and expand costs won its first Republican supporter Tuesday and cleared a key Senate hurdle, a double-barreled triumph that propelled President Barack Obama's signature issue toward votes this fall in both houses of Congress.

                              Reply#17 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:32 PM EDT
                              lvh-865640

                              Ms Snowe has made it quite clear that she will NOT back public option. There goes the bi-partisanship.

                                Reply#18 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:02 PM EDT
                                PANeal

                                The wingnuts on the right continue in their delusional belief that they can stop health care reform. The super progressives on the right still are calling for single payer and farther left solutions. Almost no one on this thread seems to recognize that what is going to pass is a centrist bill that will represent a huge amount of progress, one that will be a capstone on Obama's first year of sizeable accomplishments, an outcome that will reinforce his center left coalition for seven more years.

                                Do any of you extremists ever just listen to network news or read local papers or talk to real people? Health care reform is not going to be a government takeover, there will be no death panels, but it will be a huge improvement over continuation of the current system. It will be a very good thing. There will be small mistakes in it, things that can be corrected by tinkering over the next few years.

                                The health insurance "study" released yesterday was so dishonest they alienated even more people than they had alienated before.

                                • 2 votes
                                Reply#19 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:21 PM EDT
                                DonkeyRidder

                                The wingnuts on the right continue in their delusional belief that they can stop health care reform.

                                We are not trying to stop health care reform. We want health insurance reform. We are trying to stop the Democrat party imposition of Marxism on America this time using the ruse of health insurance reform. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi want control oif you life and your money and your kids future and your doctor and your nurse and your hospital, those slimy, scheming, Marxist bastards.

                                  #19.1 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:35 PM EDT
                                  PANeal

                                  "We are not trying to stop health care reform

                                  Obama, Reid, and Pelosi want control oif you life and your money and your kids future and your doctor and your nurse and your hospital"

                                  Those are outright lies and untruths. Obama has plenty to do just righting the wreckage Cheney left him, without taking time to worry about each and every one of us. And it is well documented the opposition to health care reform has been delay in hopes of killing it.

                                  "those slimy, scheming, Marxist bastards."

                                  Your name calling and vocabulary are juvenile and disgusting. Why don't you go wash your keyboard off with soap?

                                  Did you intend to use the pronoun "we" when responding to a question about Wingnuts??

                                  • 2 votes
                                  #19.2 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:42 PM EDT
                                  wyattnev

                                  The health-care bill is a trojan horse. Inside is socialism.

                                  I am NOT a republican, either.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #19.3 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:21 PM EDT
                                  DonkeyRidder

                                  PANeal, you call us wingnuts and in return you get slimy, scheming, Marxist bastards. If you don't like name-calling, stop your juvenile and disgusting provocations, go wash your keyboard with soap and water, preferably while you are in the tub with it still plugged in, and stop your glaring hypocrisy.

                                    #19.4 - Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:43 AM EDT
                                    Real World Engineer

                                    The health-care bill is a trojan horse. Inside is socialism.

                                    So what?

                                    A American style capitalism-democracy has shown to be a failure. A democracy with some capitalism aspect and some socialist protections would be the best.

                                    It is not 1950 anymore. Some socialism is better democracy for the people. Socialism is not some scary word that Americans run from anymore. Many people in our country now realize the benefits of socialist style policies.

                                      #19.5 - Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:15 PM EDT
                                      DonkeyRidder

                                      The health-care bill is a trojan horse. Inside is socialism.

                                      Of course it is.

                                      American style capitalism-democracy has shown to be a failure. A democracy with some capitalism aspect and some socialist protections would be the best.

                                      American capitalism regulated and overseen by corrupt liberal Democrats fails, as does any system of government regulated and overseen by corrupt liberals.

                                      So what?

                                      1. If the liberals are willing to lie and deceive to get this, they will lie and deceive when they run it. And of course both are true.

                                      2. It is unConstitutional. Any one trying to overthrow the Constitution with a deception scheme should be hanged. If you disagree with the Constitution, there are mechanism to change it. Overthrowing it will not be tolerated.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #19.6 - Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:43 PM EDT
                                      Real World Engineer

                                      Nothing in the constitution wholesale prevents all possible socialist style laws. If anything unconstitutional was put forth the SCOTUS would strike it down. It is just too many right winger think they can interpret the constitution. The constitution is for SCOTUS to interpret alone. The people, no matter how many, can NOT interpret it, that would be unconstitutional!

                                      A democracy can be totally capitalistic, totally socialistic, or somewhere in between. A good balance between the two is what America needs.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #19.7 - Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:01 PM EDT
                                      wyattnev

                                      Socialism is nothing less than communism lite. I don't want the government making decisions about anything other than what the Constitution gives it the right to do.

                                      The Constitution is NOT "a living document". That's a bunch of crap. Where in the Constitution does it say that the government is supposed to provide health-care for the entire population? It doesn't - that is my choice.

                                      Where in the Constitution does it say that the "government" is allowed to bailout failing companies? Is doesn't!

                                      Where does it say in the Constitution that the government has the right to tell companies how much they can pay their employees? It doesn't!

                                      The government "has" specific responsibilities and socialism is not one of them.

                                      What the government has been doing for years is unconstitutional.

                                      If you want to live in a socialist country, there are plenty to choose from, but you may not like it once you get there!

                                        #19.8 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:12 PM EDT
                                        Real World Engineer

                                        Socialism is nothing less than communism lite.

                                        So what? Capitalism has proven to be a virtual oligarchy of the rich.

                                        The government "has" specific responsibilities and socialism is not one of them.

                                        Again, nothing in the constitution prevents socialist style policies.

                                        What the government has been doing for years is unconstitutional.

                                        SCOTUS decides that, not you or any number of people like you. So far everything has been constitutional according to them.

                                        If you want to live in a socialist country, there are plenty to choose from, but you may not like it once you get there!

                                        It is pretty obvious that America will continue to benefit from a movement towards more socialist protections for the people. Looked at as wholes, both parties wanted bailouts.

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #19.9 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:46 PM EDT
                                        Reply
                                        Borncorn

                                        If you don't want the public option form of insurance, don't buy it. Those who do want that option should be able to buy it. It is just an option. I've got no problem with Americans having options for something as important as Health Insurance.

                                        • 2 votes
                                        Reply#20 - Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:58 AM EDT
                                        DonkeyRidder

                                        There is a multi-thousand dollar penalty tax if one doesn't buy insurance and threat of imprisonment in one version if one doesn't get insurance. So sure, don't buy it, and take the resulting repeated lumps from those compassionate liberals controlling our government.

                                          #20.1 - Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:56 AM EDT
                                          Borncorn

                                          The penalty is in the bill that does not include the public option. The Baucus joke of a bill.

                                            #20.2 - Thu Oct 15, 2009 8:57 AM EDT
                                            Reply
                                            Leave a Comment:
                                            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                            You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                            (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                            Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                            FUN STUFF:
                                            • Leaderboard |
                                            • E-Mail Alerts |
                                            • Top of the Vine |
                                            • Newsvine Live |
                                            • Newsvine Archives |
                                            • The Greenhouse
                                            COMPANY STUFF:
                                            • Code of Honor |
                                            • Company Info |
                                            • Contact Us |
                                            • Jobs |
                                            • User Agreement |
                                            • Privacy Policy |
                                            • About our ads
                                            LEGAL STUFF:
                                            • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                            • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                            • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com