The voters be damned: That seems to be Speaker Nancy Pelosi's attitude in the
wake of big Democratic losses on Tuesday. "House Democratic leaders,
undeterred by delays in the Senate or this week's Republican electoral
triumphs, plan to call a vote Saturday on the most sweeping overhaul of U.S.
health-care policy in four decades," Bloomberg reports:

The House will move on the $1.05 trillion legislation that
would cover 36 million uninsured people and create a government
plan to compete with private insurers even after the election
of Republican governors in New Jersey and Virginia. President
Barack Obama will go to Capitol Hill tomorrow to meet with House
Democrats, as they seek the 218 votes they need to pass the bill,
a Democratic leadership aide said.

Politico reports that "leaders expect a close vote, with a one-or two-vote
margin, and no Rs." They plan to pass this monstrosity without bipartisan
support and with the bare minimum of support from their own party. "Pelosi has
reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if
that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare," The Wall Street Journal reports. Is
she mad?

No, not really. Or we should say only ideologically, in that she loves the
monstrous idea of socialized medicine. Given that, though, her actions make
perfect sense in terms of practical politics. After all, this is likely to be
the high-water mark for liberal Democrats. They're likely to lose House seats
next year anyway, and there's no guarantee President Obama will be re-elected.
At 69, Pelosi stands a good chance of facing a death panel before she leads a
majority of this size again.

Besides, _her_ seat is in no jeopardy. She comes from a safe ultraliberal
district. The same is true of the Democratic committee chairman, who had to be
able to win re-election even in lean years like 1994. According to Wikipedia,
no member of the left-wing Congressional Progressive Caucus has lost
re-election in a general election (Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia lost a
primary to another CPC member).

So Pelosi will probably still be speaker a year from now, even if her caucus
is diminished. In the worst-case scenario, she'll be minority leader, with
hopes of returning to the speakership on the strength of President Obama's
re-election coattails. This is a small price to pay for the privilege of
seizing control of Americans' health care.

To prevail, however, she will still need to persuade some Democrats who do not
share her fervor for socialized medicine to risk their jobs for it. As
Politico reports:

Election Day losses in Virginia and New Jersey have congressional
Democrats focused like never before on jobs---their own.

While the White House and party leaders are urging calm,
Democratic incumbents from red states and Republican-leaning
districts are anything but; Tuesday's statehouse defeats have
left them acutely aware that their votes on health care reform
and other major Obama initiatives could be career-enders in 2010
or beyond.

"I should be nervous," said Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman
Democrat from Huntsville, Ala.

Griffith said the Democratic rank and file is "very, very sensitive"
to the fact that issues being pushed by party leaders "have the
potential to cost some of our front-line members their seats."

The June vote for Cap'n Trade was just 219-212, with 8 Republicans voting
"aye." If no GOP members back ObamaCare, Pelosi will need fewer defections
this time around. And if, as Politico predicts, the margin really is a single
vote or two, any marginal Democrat who votes "yes" will bear responsibility
for foisting this on his constituents.

It may be that Pelosi is savvy enough not to try to push this through without
being certain enough of her members are willing to sign her suicide pact. Or
perhaps this is a desperation move, since the chances of passing ObamaCare
would only diminish as the election results sink in. Or both--Pelosi may have
the votes AND be acting out of desperation.

Of course, even if the House passes this thing, it still has to get past the
Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid has got to be the least happy man in
Washington. Unlike Pelosi, he does not have a safe seat. In fact, liberal
electoral maven Nate Silver ranks Reid as the most vulnerable Senate incumbent
up next year.

The Associated Press reports that Reid "signaled Tuesday that Congress may
fail to meet a year-end deadline for passing health-care legislation, leaving
the measure's fate to the uncertainties of the 2010 election season." Another
Associated Press report notes that far-left groups like MoveOn.org are
threatening to campaign against moderate Democrats if they oppose ObamaCare:

The group said Tuesday it was launching radio ads aimed at
moderates [Blanche] Lincoln and Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La.,
accusing each of "siding with insurance companies." It was
also mailing sharply worded brochures to tens of thousands
of households in Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota
and even Maine--home of moderate GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe--urging
recipients to pressure their senators. . . .

Conflict between ideological groups and moderate lawmakers is
not uncommon in either party.

Yet the intensity of the progressive arm-twisting--and the
resentment it is stirring among targeted senators--reflect
the stakes as Congress tackles the top domestic priority of
President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

Even if Pelosi gets her way, there's reason to hope the Senate will be the
death panel for ObamaCare.

Osbama has less 'Coattails' than a naked midget.

The voters be damned: That seems to be Speaker Nancy Pelosi's attitude in the
wake of big Democratic losses on Tuesday. "House Democratic leaders,
undeterred by delays in the Senate or this week's Republican electoral
triumphs, plan to call a vote Saturday on the most sweeping overhaul of U.S.
health-care policy in four decades," Bloomberg reports:

In article <B-SdnWL8BNRXi2nXnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
Ubiquitous <weberm at (no spam) polaris.net> wrote:


The voters be damned: That seems to be Speaker Nancy Pelosi's attitude in
the
wake of big Democratic losses on Tuesday. "House Democratic leaders,
undeterred by delays in the Senate or this week's Republican electoral
triumphs, plan to call a vote Saturday on the most sweeping overhaul of
U.S.
health-care policy in four decades," Bloomberg reports:

Why would they have been deterred? They just gained two seats in
Congress. And the majority of the people still supports a health reform
bill.

A majority (55%) support a public option. The other 45% mystify me.
Why WOULDN'T you want this option to exist, even if you had no current
plans to use it?

In article <B-SdnWL8BNRXi2nXnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
Ubiquitous <weberm at (no spam) polaris.net> wrote:

The voters be damned: That seems to be Speaker Nancy Pelosi's attitude in the
wake of big Democratic losses on Tuesday. "House Democratic leaders,
undeterred by delays in the Senate or this week's Republican electoral
triumphs, plan to call a vote Saturday on the most sweeping overhaul of U.S.
health-care policy in four decades," Bloomberg reports:

Why would they have been deterred? They just gained two seats in
Congress. And the majority of the people still supports a health reform
bill.

A majority (55%) support a public option. The other 45% mystify me.
Why WOULDN'T you want this option to exist, even if you had no current
plans to use it?

"Hope for the Heartless" <h.heartless at (no spam) bitbucket.gov> wrote in message
news:hd5280$24n$5 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
In article <B-SdnWL8BNRXi2nXnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
Ubiquitous <weberm at (no spam) polaris.net> wrote:


The voters be damned: That seems to be Speaker Nancy Pelosi's attitude in
the
wake of big Democratic losses on Tuesday. "House Democratic leaders,
undeterred by delays in the Senate or this week's Republican electoral
triumphs, plan to call a vote Saturday on the most sweeping overhaul of
U.S.
health-care policy in four decades," Bloomberg reports:

Why would they have been deterred? They just gained two seats in
Congress. And the majority of the people still supports a health reform
bill.

A majority (55%) support a public option. The other 45% mystify me.
Why WOULDN'T you want this option to exist, even if you had no current
plans to use it?

What do you think the "public option" is going to do for you, or whomever
you think it's going to benefit?

In article <hd5280$24n$5 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org>,
Hope for the Heartless <h.heartless at (no spam) bitbucket.gov> wrote:
In article <B-SdnWL8BNRXi2nXnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
Ubiquitous <weberm at (no spam) polaris.net> wrote:


The voters be damned: That seems to be Speaker Nancy Pelosi's attitude in
the
wake of big Democratic losses on Tuesday. "House Democratic leaders,
undeterred by delays in the Senate or this week's Republican electoral
triumphs, plan to call a vote Saturday on the most sweeping overhaul of
U.S.
health-care policy in four decades," Bloomberg reports:

Why would they have been deterred? They just gained two seats in
Congress. And the majority of the people still supports a health reform
bill.

A majority (55%) support a public option. The other 45% mystify me.
Why WOULDN'T you want this option to exist, even if you had no current
plans to use it?

One should consider ALL the consequences of the proposed
action. The government, because it does not pay taxes, and
also because it can hide costs, could soon charge enough less
to drive out the competition.

Then life and death decisions
would be made by bureaucrats and toadies.

The real health care problem is not cost, but availability
and quality.

Both are poor now, and partly because both
government and "insurance" companies are setting fees.

What
is needed is to have MSAs and catastrophic coverage, not now
available, and likely never to be available except as part of
welfare.

Real insurance is not paid for by an income tax, and does not
consider income of the recipient. But the socialists cannot
abide that.

Innews:hd88d5$rhh$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.orgHope for the Heartless

h.heartl... at (no spam) bitbucket.gov> wrote:
At last, here's something I agree with.  Insurance isn't paid with an
income tax.  But HEALTH CARE can be paid for by an income tax.  Many
countries handle it that way.  France, for instance, and their access
and costs are better than ours.  

Maybe the government should supply our groceries too.

Innews:873cf9b1-b8f5-47a0-a7ff-4144d9ca00cc at (no spam) r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com

Stile4aly <stile4... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 9, 6:52 am, Bert Hyman <b... at (no spam) iphouse.com> wrote:
Innews:hd88d5$rhh$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.orgHopefor the Heartless

h.heartl... at (no spam) bitbucket.gov> wrote:
At last, here's something I agree with.  Insurance isn't paid with
an income tax.  But HEALTH CARE can be paid for by an income tax.
 Many countries handle it that way.  France, for instance, and
their access and costs are better than ours.  

Maybe the government should supply our groceries too.

Surely you've heard of the WIC program.

But that's only open to a select few; I'm talking about food for
everyone.

Food's even more important than health care, isn't it?

It should be free for everyone.

At last, here's something I agree with. Insurance isn't paid with an
income tax. But HEALTH CARE can be paid for by an income tax. Many
countries handle it that way. France, for instance, and their access
and costs are better than ours.

Innews:785292ca-49bd-4f0d-bcd0-b7bd74270b34 at (no spam) b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com





Stile4aly <stile4... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 9, 10:36 am, Bert Hyman <b... at (no spam) iphouse.com> wrote:
Innews:873cf9b1-b8f5-47a0-a7ff-4144d9ca00cc at (no spam) r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.co
m

Stile4aly <stile4... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 9, 6:52 am, Bert Hyman <b... at (no spam) iphouse.com> wrote:
Innews:hd88d5$rhh$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.orgHopeforthe
Heartless

h.heartl... at (no spam) bitbucket.gov> wrote:
At last, here's something I agree with.  Insurance isn't paid
with an income tax.  But HEALTH CARE can be paid for by an
income tax.  Many countries handle it that way.  France, for
instance, and their access and costs are better than ours.  

Maybe the government should supply our groceries too.

Surely you've heard of the WIC program.

But that's only open to a select few; I'm talking about food for
everyone.

Food's even more important than health care, isn't it?

It should be free for everyone.

No one is suggesting that food, or healthcare, should be free for
everyone.  What is being suggested is that you should have the choice
of where to shop, just as today you can go to Trader Joes, or Kroger,
or Safeway, and that those who can't afford it should be able to get a
subsidy for purchase, just like WIC.

If that's all it is, then why's the current plan going to cost over a
trillion dollars?

"bahai" <ba... at (no spam) snotmail.com> wrote in message

news:hd9k8c$ktd$1 at (no spam) news.datemas.de...







"PLMerite" <stock... at (no spam) smokebombhill.com> wrote in message
news:ZkYJm.176163$8m4.6227 at (no spam) en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com...

"Hope for the Heartless" <h.heartl... at (no spam) bitbucket.gov> wrote in message
news:hd86im$fe1$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
It's going to give them an OPTION.  Why wouldn't you want an OPTION?

If you don't like it, you choose ANOTHER option.  But instead,
conservatives tell us they don't want anybody to have this option.

Why is that?

Can I have the option to get the exact policy that I want without
government interference?  Can I have the option of not having to pay for
someone else's "option?"

Are you demanding Medicare be abolished?

Medicare is bankrupt.  It is abolishing itself.  Why should I be forced to
contribute if I don't want to?  How much more than you take out are you
willing to contribute to the system?  How much harder are you willing to
work to pay for someone else's responsibility ?

And, come to think of it, a lot of Nacy Pelosi's "savings" for the $1.2
Trillion Health Care Plan are supposed to come from Medicare.  How's she
going to do that?

They're going to put private health care companies up against the U.S.
Government when the US Gov't sets the rules, sets the prices and can
print money to cover any shortfalls they have.

So you think the private companies can not exist if there is a government
option?

It makes sense. This is why FedEx and UPS both never existed as they had
to compete against the postal service.

FedEx and UPS do fine.  The US Postal Service is inefficient and bankrupt so
we should emulate their "Public Option."  And don't I recall the USPS
threatening people who do too much shipping via private companies?

Exactly how "fair" is the competition going to be when the Speaker of the
House says:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE56T4CZ20090730
"It's almost immoral what they are doing," Pelosi said to reporters,
referring to insurance companies. "Of course they've been immoral all along
in how they have treated the people that they insure," she said, adding,
"They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way..
They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from
happening."

But no, the plan isn't to put health insurance providers out of business.

"Stile4aly" <stile4... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:99cbf492-e567-4827-84a3-d50e159d3ba7 at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 11:49 am, Bert Hyman <b... at (no spam) iphouse.com> wrote:





Innews:785292ca-49bd-4f0d-bcd0-b7bd74270b34 at (no spam) b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com

Stile4aly <stile4... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 9, 10:36 am, Bert Hyman <b... at (no spam) iphouse.com> wrote:
Innews:873cf9b1-b8f5-47a0-a7ff-4144d9ca00cc at (no spam) r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.co
m

Stile4aly <stile4... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 9, 6:52 am, Bert Hyman <b... at (no spam) iphouse.com> wrote:
Innews:hd88d5$rhh$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.orgHopeforthe
Heartless

h.heartl... at (no spam) bitbucket.gov> wrote:
At last, here's something I agree with. Insurance isn't paid
with an income tax. But HEALTH CARE can be paid for by an
income tax. Many countries handle it that way. France, for
instance, and their access and costs are better than ours.

Maybe the government should supply our groceries too.

Surely you've heard of the WIC program.

But that's only open to a select few; I'm talking about food for
everyone.

Food's even more important than health care, isn't it?

It should be free for everyone.

No one is suggesting that food, or healthcare, should be free for
everyone. What is being suggested is that you should have the choice
of where to shop, just as today you can go to Trader Joes, or Kroger,
or Safeway, and that those who can't afford it should be able to get a
subsidy for purchase, just like WIC.

If that's all it is, then why's the current plan going to cost over a
trillion dollars?

It costs money to regulate the insurance industry.  It costs money to
set up and administrate a public option.  It costs money to expand
Medicare.  It costs money to provide subsidies.  The question you
should be asking isn't necessarily what it will cost, but whether or
not it's paid for.  For the House bill, between the revenues generated
from the premiums for the public option, the savings from efficiencies
gained through reforming the existing systems, and a marginal tax
increase on those making more than $500K it is more than paid for.  In
fact the House bill *reduces* the deficit by over 100 billion.  The
Senate bill is less expensive, and saves a little less on the deficit,
but accomplishes many of the same goals as the House bill.
*********************************************
Do you honestly believe that our politicians are going to
reduce spending on Medicare/Medicaid by $400,000,000,000.00?
That's even more than a bridge in New York.

"Stile4aly" <stile4... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:5559c367-7051-4267-91e7-2d1d7e266907 at (no spam) 2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 12:26 pm, "Bob" <n... at (no spam) email.address> wrote:





"Stile4aly" <stile4... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:99cbf492-e567-4827-84a3-d50e159d3ba7 at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com....
On Nov 9, 11:49 am, Bert Hyman <b... at (no spam) iphouse.com> wrote:

Innews:785292ca-49bd-4f0d-bcd0-b7bd74270b34 at (no spam) b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com

Stile4aly <stile4... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 9, 10:36 am, Bert Hyman <b... at (no spam) iphouse.com> wrote:
Innews:873cf9b1-b8f5-47a0-a7ff-4144d9ca00cc at (no spam) r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.co
m

Stile4aly <stile4... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 9, 6:52 am, Bert Hyman <b... at (no spam) iphouse.com> wrote:
Innews:hd88d5$rhh$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.orgHopeforthe
Heartless

h.heartl... at (no spam) bitbucket.gov> wrote:
At last, here's something I agree with. Insurance isn't paid
with an income tax. But HEALTH CARE can be paid for by an
income tax. Many countries handle it that way. France, for
instance, and their access and costs are better than ours.

Maybe the government should supply our groceries too.

Surely you've heard of the WIC program.

But that's only open to a select few; I'm talking about food for
everyone.

Food's even more important than health care, isn't it?

It should be free for everyone.

No one is suggesting that food, or healthcare, should be free for
everyone. What is being suggested is that you should have the choice
of where to shop, just as today you can go to Trader Joes, or Kroger,
or Safeway, and that those who can't afford it should be able to get a
subsidy for purchase, just like WIC.

If that's all it is, then why's the current plan going to cost over a
trillion dollars?

It costs money to regulate the insurance industry. It costs money to
set up and administrate a public option. It costs money to expand
Medicare. It costs money to provide subsidies. The question you
should be asking isn't necessarily what it will cost, but whether or
not it's paid for. For the House bill, between the revenues generated
from the premiums for the public option, the savings from efficiencies
gained through reforming the existing systems, and a marginal tax
increase on those making more than $500K it is more than paid for. In
fact the House bill *reduces* the deficit by over 100 billion. The
Senate bill is less expensive, and saves a little less on the deficit,
but accomplishes many of the same goals as the House bill.
*********************************************
Do you honestly believe that our politicians are going to
reduce spending on Medicare/Medicaid by $400,000,000,000.00?
That's even more than a bridge in New York.

40 billion per year for 10 years is achievable.
***********************************************
Agreed, but you do honestly believe our politicians will
follow through on that portion of the healthcare plan?

In the scope of
governmental spending, it isn't that much.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -