Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since it's always hard to tell where Lieberman stands politically I wonder if he rejects it because he'd want a public option or if he's rejecting it because he's believe that insurance company scare tactic from yesterday......
Lieberman isn't on the Finance Committee, so he doesn't have a vote on the Baucus bill. There is also often a difference between what was actually said and what some bobble-head FOX News distortionist then says was said...
Lieberman isn't on the Finance Committee, so he doesn't have a vote on the Baucus bill. There is also often a difference between what was actually said and what some bobble-head FOX News distortionist then says was said...
More ducking and weaving from the left. Lieberman has stated that he opposes the Baucus bill as it is currently written. If the bill passes the Finance committee, Lieberman will have a chance to have his say, which is currently a "No." Whitewash it all you want, Sag, but Lieberman has said he will not vote for the healthcare bill if major components of the Baucus bill survive the bill merging process. His reasoning? "I'm afraid that in the end, the Baucus bill is actually going to raise the price of insurance for most of the people in the country."
Which is why we are having so much trouble getting a bill that favors the people and not Big Medicine.
If you look at the bill being proposed its more a reform on who pays really. The proponents want others to pay the bill and not pay anyhting themsleves bascially. If they were really serious then they would propose that taxes be raised on themselvbes to pay for the government cost.That way they would have some skin in the game especailly if its going to in the end save them money even with a increase in their taxes overall. Reform does not mean make someone else pay for you as many think. Just as the unions got tehe propoased taxing of employer contribution to their insurance to be taxed as income eliminated.It hard to get anything done when everyone wants to shift cost to everyone but themsleves. That is what this is really about more than just change to save cost.So it alot more tha just big medicane but individuals such as unions and taxpayer groups that have objected . Then states are objecting to the mandates on medicaid that will require them to increase taxes in their states. Alot going on and no one wants to pay.If those that wanted the public option would ahve wrote their congressmen i nmubers that they were will to pay more for that option it might have had a cahnce but of course they wanted something for nothing . Rememeber that 47-50% pay no income tcas at all and 69% actaully get more in services than they pay. Somethig for nothing is what they want.
Lieberman isn't on the Finance Committee, so he doesn't have a vote on the Baucus bill. There is also often a difference between what was actually said and what some bobble-head FOX News distortionist then says was said...
One of the new liberal boogiemans.....
That evil Fox News
Well trained and indoctrined Liberals always love to hate Fox
Not too sure how things will play out, but it would be better to just pursue some real reform instead of goverment trying to screw something else
Sad that folks are applauding the posiiblity of us not getting reform. I'm sure folks will say that they don't want this type of reform but the problem is Republicans have had power for the majority of the last 40 years and have NEVER made a real attempt at reforming healthcare. Republicans simply dont care and don't want reform. They want their insurance company campaign money.
More than just Republicans are against this bill. To try to even begin to understand why, watch this:
C-SPAN Video Player - David Walker, Former U.S. Comptroller General, Gov’t Accountability Office (GAO) (http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/10/09/HP/A/24129/David+Walker+Former+US+Comptroller+General+Govt+Ac countability+Office+GAO.aspx - broken link)
Very few are concerned about the blocking a filibuster, the bill will be passed in reconciliation. Filibuster away.
But having said that, I wouldn't vote for the Baccus bill as it stands now and neither will many progressive Democrats.
Right. I don't believe Kerry, Rockefeller will vote for the Baucus bill as it stands. Let's see where Olympia Snow stands. She's commented today that she doesn't think the insurance industry's scare tactic report that came out yesterday is accurate.
Clip:
Ms. Snowe said she was not impressed with a new report from America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group that said the Finance Committee bill would lead to higher premiums. “It’s highly questionable, the methodology and the assumptions,” Ms. Snowe said of the report. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/he...h.html?_r=1&hp
i can't believe that most americans are willing to line up behind a bill that requires MANDATORY health insurance or face a penalty if you do not buy it. this is, in effect, a tax on younger and / or healthy people to subsidize the costs of others. i would think this is a winner for the insurance companies. i see that insurance company stocks are rising on a likely passage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
