I am beginning to despise the term “Blue Dog” or “Conservative Democrat”.  Max Baucus and his repub friends have constructed an interesting little (very little) bill which includes hefty penalties for not having insurance BUT NO PUBLIC OPTION.  How on earth do we reign in costs and make health care affordable if we have no public option?  This dude is bonkers.  If this lame excuse for a bill passes the Senate, I may need to make a trip down to D.C. to protest in person.  I’m fine with mandatory insurance IF there is a public option.  Otherwise, the idea of mandatory insurance is disgusting and only fuels the monster that is our insurance industry.  Here is a website you can sign-up to get your name on a commercial in support of a public option.
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5649/t/4612/content.jsp?content_KEY=2644&gclid=COOQwu6p45wCFRHxDAodWDHGJQ
It asks you for money after you sign-up, but you don’t have to donate to get your name on the list. 

If you want your voice heard, you gotta start yellin’!

Awesome update:  Baucus did everything he could, but he couldn’t get a repub. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090916/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

That article talks about Baucus’ failed attempt to get a “bipartisan” health care bill into the Senate.  This is a great lesson for all of those supposed “Blue Dog” dems who keep trying to compromise with repub demands.  It reminds me of that old school game The Farmer in the Dell: The cheese stands alone.  Now Baucus is the cheese!  Awesome!  Luckily, I doubt the bill will get anywhere.  Whew!  That was a close one!

Just goes to show that although the Republicans said that they wanted health care reform, they never did.  Rather, saying that they were for it was part of their strategy of being against it.  It goes back to republican wordsmith Frank Luntz’s talking points memo: 

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/frank-luntz-the-language-of-healthcare-20091.pdf

So you’re right.  It makes no sense to try to work with someone who wants only to see you fail.

Have a Nice Day!

Pragmatic Naturalist - 17 September 2009 04:32 PM

Have a Nice Day!

This might help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y

...or not?!? 

Pragmatic Naturalist - 17 September 2009 04:58 PM

Pragmatic Naturalist - 17 September 2009 04:32 PM

Have a Nice Day!

This might help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y

...or not?!? 

That was an awesome video!  I think you should post it on that “Glenn Beck is crazy” thread that I’ve seen somewhere on here.  It might be in the Politics or General Discussion sections.  It is so ridiculous how people believe whatever Fox says!

Thanks for the video!  It makes me laugh, but then it makes me cry. Huh! 

Pragmatic Naturalist - 17 September 2009 04:32 PM

Just goes to show that although the Republicans said that they wanted health care reform, they never did.

Huh.  How then would you explain my advocacy of decreasing insurance mandates dating to before the election and the Obama administration’s focus on passing a health care bill?

Rather, saying that they were for it was part of their strategy of being against it.  It goes back to republican wordsmith Frank Luntz’s talking points memo: 

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/frank-luntz-the-language-of-healthcare-20091.pdf

If it all goes back to something Frank Luntz wrote in 2009, then why did John McCain advocate health care reform in early 2008 as part of his campaign?

So you’re right.  It makes no sense to try to work with someone who wants only to see you fail.

No bill is better than a bad bill.  The public option is a bad idea, and is quite ridiculous when presented as a method for reigning in costs.  And that’s exactly what Obama did.  He said our nation requires health care reform in order to return to economic prosperity, using that rationale to gain public support.  But you simply won’t reign in costs by merely making access to health care easier.  The resulting increase in demand will increase the amount of services delivered, and when maximum services are delivered rationing must follow even if there’s money to pay for more services.  The only way to decrease the amount of services delivered is to ration care. 

Think about it.  After selling us on the notion of health care reform as a cost-saving measure, the latest version of the bill costs something like $8 billion.  But the Dems try to make it seem OK by calling it deficit neutral.  If it is deficit neutral (the CBO report, as I understand it, sticks with the initial years of the plan before the real costs start to pile up), then that is because of the taxation embedded in the bill (“Not one dime.”).

Everyone’s heard Robert Reich do his impression of an honest presidential candidate by now, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7Y0TOBuG4&feature=player_embedded