Are we talking Political Interests or Public Interest on Health Care
Shelby says: defeating Obama on healthcare in GOP's political interest
Whatever Happened To WE THE PEOPLE????
Whatever Happened To WE THE PEOPLE????
It would be in the GOP's interest to see President Obama suffer politically by defeating the healthcare reform bill the president has pushed, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) acknowledged Thursday.
Shelby, during an appearance of Fox News Radio, concurred with host Brian Kilmeade's suggestion that it would open up opportunities for Republicans on issues to let Obama "go down with the healthcare ship."
"I think it's always in our interest to let anybody go down when we think they're philosophically wrong, and I believe he's totally wrong on this healthcare," Shelby said.
Democrats had pounced on suggestions by Republican lawmakers that defeating the bill would be to their political benefit. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) was most notably castigated for saying that defeating healthcare would be Obama's "Waterloo."
LinkHere
Shelby, during an appearance of Fox News Radio, concurred with host Brian Kilmeade's suggestion that it would open up opportunities for Republicans on issues to let Obama "go down with the healthcare ship."
"I think it's always in our interest to let anybody go down when we think they're philosophically wrong, and I believe he's totally wrong on this healthcare," Shelby said.
Democrats had pounced on suggestions by Republican lawmakers that defeating the bill would be to their political benefit. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) was most notably castigated for saying that defeating healthcare would be Obama's "Waterloo."
LinkHere
GOP Senators Call For NEW 75-80 VOTE SUPERFILIBUSTER Standard On Health Reform
In your friking dreams Hatch, You lost Hatch .... get over it.!!!!!
Source: Think Progress
Speaking on Fox News last night, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) claimed that health care reform should not happen because it doesn’t enjoy “bipartisan” support, adding that a bill cannot be bipartisan unless it garners “somewhere between 75 and 80 votes.”
Hatch is hardly the only conservative senator to float a 75-80 vote supermajority requirement for health reform. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who is currently blocking attempts to fix the health care system, told the Washington Post that “e ought to be focusing on getting 80 votes.” Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) demanded “a bill that 75 or 80 senators can support.”
Hatch, Grassley, and Enzi all sang a very different tune when they were in the majority, however:
– Tax Cuts For The Rich: In May 2001, the Senate passed President Bush’s budget-breaking $1.35 trillion tax cuts with only 58 votes. Nevertheless, Hatch announced that he was “extremely proud of this bipartisan bill.” Grassley praised the tax cuts as “built upon bipartisanship,” and Enzi praised the Senate for passing the bill in a “bipartisan fashion.”
– Subsidies For Drug Companies: In November 2003, the Senate passed a prescription drug plan for seniors that was strongly backed by lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry with only 54 votes. Nevertheless, Grassley released a statement praising himself as the “lead Senate architect of the bipartisan legislation” creating this plan.
– Nuclear Option: Four years ago, when Senate Democrats filibustered seven of President Bush’s 205 nominees to the federal bench, conservatives deemed the filibuster unconstitutional and invented a tactic known as the “nuclear option” to ram the blocked nominees through the Senate. Hatch and Grassley were on the vanguard of the movement to block any attempt to require judges to be confirmed by a supermajority. Hatch described the filibuster as “unconstitutional,” and Grassley described judicial filibusters as “an abuse of our function under the Constitution.”
Now that conservatives make up only a tiny majority of the Senate, however, they’ve decided that even the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold isn’t a strong enough barrier to block much-needed reform. Instead, Hatch, Grassley, and Enzi now want to impose a 75-80 vote superfilibuster standard that will effectively kill any health care plan they don’t personally approve of.
LinkHere
Speaking on Fox News last night, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) claimed that health care reform should not happen because it doesn’t enjoy “bipartisan” support, adding that a bill cannot be bipartisan unless it garners “somewhere between 75 and 80 votes.”
Hatch is hardly the only conservative senator to float a 75-80 vote supermajority requirement for health reform. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who is currently blocking attempts to fix the health care system, told the Washington Post that “e ought to be focusing on getting 80 votes.” Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) demanded “a bill that 75 or 80 senators can support.”
Hatch, Grassley, and Enzi all sang a very different tune when they were in the majority, however:
– Tax Cuts For The Rich: In May 2001, the Senate passed President Bush’s budget-breaking $1.35 trillion tax cuts with only 58 votes. Nevertheless, Hatch announced that he was “extremely proud of this bipartisan bill.” Grassley praised the tax cuts as “built upon bipartisanship,” and Enzi praised the Senate for passing the bill in a “bipartisan fashion.”
– Subsidies For Drug Companies: In November 2003, the Senate passed a prescription drug plan for seniors that was strongly backed by lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry with only 54 votes. Nevertheless, Grassley released a statement praising himself as the “lead Senate architect of the bipartisan legislation” creating this plan.
– Nuclear Option: Four years ago, when Senate Democrats filibustered seven of President Bush’s 205 nominees to the federal bench, conservatives deemed the filibuster unconstitutional and invented a tactic known as the “nuclear option” to ram the blocked nominees through the Senate. Hatch and Grassley were on the vanguard of the movement to block any attempt to require judges to be confirmed by a supermajority. Hatch described the filibuster as “unconstitutional,” and Grassley described judicial filibusters as “an abuse of our function under the Constitution.”
Now that conservatives make up only a tiny majority of the Senate, however, they’ve decided that even the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold isn’t a strong enough barrier to block much-needed reform. Instead, Hatch, Grassley, and Enzi now want to impose a 75-80 vote superfilibuster standard that will effectively kill any health care plan they don’t personally approve of.
LinkHere
Olympia Snowe reverses herself on co ops & admits public option not on the table
By John Amato Friday Aug 21, 2009 11:03amOlympia Snowe admitted to Andrea Mitchell that the Senate Finance Committee is not even considering a public option in their bill and never had it on the table. She said that the skyrocketing costs of health care are paramount to their bill which is why they are ogling co opts.
Mitchell: So bottom lines, Nancy Pelosi says that they will not produce anything that does not include a public option. Do you see any way that the gang of six will come out of the Finance Committee with a public option?
Snowe: No, I don't. We have not had the public option on the table. It's been co ops and addressing affordability and availability and plans through the exchange and those are the challenges we're wrestling with to insure that there are basic plans to offer Americans.
You can count on the gang of six of working on problems that don't include real solutions. This is a reversal on what she said to Andrea back in June when she said co ops were worthless.
Mitchell: So bottom lines, Nancy Pelosi says that they will not produce anything that does not include a public option. Do you see any way that the gang of six will come out of the Finance Committee with a public option?
Snowe: No, I don't. We have not had the public option on the table. It's been co ops and addressing affordability and availability and plans through the exchange and those are the challenges we're wrestling with to insure that there are basic plans to offer Americans.
You can count on the gang of six of working on problems that don't include real solutions. This is a reversal on what she said to Andrea back in June when she said co ops were worthless.
Thousands From Canada And Europe Praise Their National Health Care On Global Message Board
Don't Forget Australia in there!!!!!!!! 
Comment from one of your own dual citizen. Right On Dual Citizen!!!!!!!
I now live in Australia and a huge reason I love this country so much is that it is much more humane than the America I left 20 years ago.
Yesterday, global online advocacy network Avaaz.org attempted to inject a dose of reality into the heated debate over health care reform by launching an interactive database of user-submitted health care stories from Canada, the UK, and other countries with national health care systems. In a marked departure from the outrage, truth-distortion and detraction at recent town hall debates, contributors to the Avaaz message board have sounded surprisingly levelheaded.
LinkHere
posted by Kangaroo Brisbane Australia at 5:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home