View Full Version : special interests

12-22-2009, 12:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">President Bush brought us preemptive war. President Obama's specialty seems to be preemptive compromise. He gave the farm away to Pharma, and then had to keep on giving when Lieberman, Nelson, and the other industry-backed Senators came calling.

There are many reasons for hoping the current Senate bill doesn't become law. <u>But the biggest reason of all is the desperate need for a DC pattern interrupt. </u><span style='font-size: 20pt'>The desperate need to draw a line in the sand against the continued domination of our democracy -- and the continued undermining of the public interest -- by special interests. </span></div></div> link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-senate-health-care-bi_b_400006.html)

What to do?


12-22-2009, 08:40 AM
I wish I knew the answer to that question. I think our two party system lies at the heart of the problem. In the example of healthcare, the goal is no longer to write a good bill that actually addresses the problems we face. The goal is to score a victory for one side or the other. While it is good to have differing opinions, when the legislature becomes more focused on the politics of maintaining power for one party or the other, the country becomes the victim.

Where do you think Harry or Nancy's priorities lie? Is it with actually meeting the needs and wishes of those who they represent, or is it in perpetuating their individual and party power? (It's not just Nancy and Harry, I just used them since they are the leaders of their respective chambers)


12-22-2009, 10:09 AM
Check this out for arrogance.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Kent Conrad Says That America is Run By The 'Senate" Is the House Listening?

Kent Conrad is telling the House of Representatives to go "Cheney" themselves. Are Nancy Pelosi and the progressive members of Congress listening? I wrote this last week and Conrad just made my point for me.

How does the House feel after being rendered useless in 'Health Care Reform' by the Senate?

When the House and Senate committee members meet in conference and supposedly merge their bills, exactly what can they do to influence it at all? If the Senate bill is as far as the Gang of Four, or Six or Ten or whatever it is, are willing to go, then is the House bill nothing more than a stage prop?

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Do members of the House of Representatives feel jubilation at the thought that any pieces of major legislation they are asked to put together will ultimately be decided by President Lieberman, Queen Snowe, Mary Landrone, Ben "floppy hair" Nelson and Max Baucus? I'm sure more names will be added to the list.

I really want to know how they feel.</span>
</div></div> link (http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/kent-conrad-told-me-america-was-senate)

Lets see what happens in the House.


12-22-2009, 10:19 AM
Well, the Senate had to buy votes in 4 states (VT, NE, LA, and MA) to get their version passed with no votes to spare.
The House passed theirs by the slimmest of margins as well. The two bills are very different. (House has a public option, Senate doesn't, etc)
I'm not sure they can come up with a merged bill that will pass on both sides.

It would have been much easier to just come up with a good bill that would have gotten support from bith sides, but that wasn't the way Nancy and Harry wanted to do it. So now, they may find that they will be losing some of those critical votes in both houses when they have to compromise even further to come up with one bill for both houses to vote on.


12-22-2009, 10:24 AM
Some truth about this Bill.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glenn Greenwald, on Democracy Now:

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Well, the whole point of the public option originally was that if youíre going to mandate that people buy health insurance, then it is only a legitimate and moral thing to do if you actually provide them with a public-run program, so that the health insurance industry, which is notorious for gouging people and for engaging in all sorts of nefarious business practices, canít use the mandate to essentially get 30 million new customers and then gouge them for profits while providing them with virtually no services.</span>

And the argument of Howard Dean and others is that <span style='font-size: 17pt'>this bill actually does more harm than good.The argument is not, well, since itís not pure enough ideologically or itís not perfect, it should be defeated; the argument is that it actually does more harm than good, because it reinforces the monopoly status of the private healthcare industry and, at the same time, forces huge numbers of Americans, many of whom will not be able to afford it, to buy products that are inadequate and that they do not want. <u>It perpetuates the very system that supposedly was the impetus in the first place for healthcare reform to pass. </u></span>

A commenter over at Pamís place makes what Glenn is talking about explicit:

If this bill were to pass as isÖ
It would remove any chance I have to access health care.

If I am forced to purchase insurance, even the cheapest plan, and then pay the first 1,200 out of pocket and co-pays, I wonít be able to do anything but pay the premium or the fine. I wonít be able to afford to actually use the insurance.

The only thing I can afford now is regular trips to the dentist, an M.D. is out of the question. If this passes I will have to forgo all care and I donít see how I will be able to make my rent! This is a nightmare for me, it is causing me such stress that it is almost unbearable.

I donít know what Iím going to do, there is a good chance this will make me homeless if it passes.</div></div>

Some Bill.


12-22-2009, 10:51 AM
so true (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vS6kIbJu64&feature=player_embedded#)


12-22-2009, 11:16 AM
I believe they thought that since they had the majority in both houses, they could do anything they pleased. And when it worked with stimulus, surely, it would work again on this one.

What they failed to recognize was that it is one thing to create and pass a fat pork-filled spending bill, but it is quite another to pass a bill that directly impacts the public. People are looking closely at this one, and they know it is a bad bill.

I wouldn't be surprised, if it passes as is, to see it challenged in court. I think they overstepped their bounds when they decided to force everyone to buy a product they may or may not want. And no, car insurance is not the same thing. You don't HAVE to buy car insurance....just don't own a car. Plenty of people don't.

I think they have buried themselves so deeply in a big pile of crap that they won't be able to get the stench off. This may be the biggest mistake one political party has made in decades.