Democrats To Pass Nationalized Health Care Through A By-Pass Of The Senate Filibuster

For a while now the Obama administration has been making noises about using the budget reconciliation process to pass major legislation through the Senate without exposing it to a filibuster. Specifically, his cap and trade tax and his plans for nationalized health care have been policies targeted for this tactic. A few weeks ago Republicans forced a Senate vote that stopped cap and trade from being passed in this manner, but it looks like Obama is still going to try and pass nationalized health care without the full 60 votes usually required to pass anything through the Senate.
Thus Obama – who promised unity and bipartisanship upon being elected – is ensuring that one of the most sweeping and controversial policies of his administration can be passed on a strict party-line vote of Democrats.

WASHINGTON — At the prodding of the White House, Democratic Congressional leaders have agreed to pursue a plan that would protect major health care legislation from Republican opposition by shielding it from last-minute Senate filibusters.
The aggressive approach reflects the big political claim that President Obama is staking on health care, and with it his willingness to face Republican wrath in order to guarantee that the Democrats, with their substantial majority in the Senate, could not be thwarted by minority tactics.
While some Democratic senators were reluctant to embrace the arrangement, Mr. Obama made clear at a White House session on Thursday afternoon that he favored it, people with knowledge of the session said.

The problem I have with this is that the budget reconciliation process was intended to pass…budgets. Not big, sweeping nationalized health care plans. Also, legislation going through the Senate requires sixty votes for a reason.
Shouldn’t policies that would drastically change the way we live our lives – that would expand and deepen the involvement of government in our daily lives – be subjected to the full debate and deliberation of our legislative branch before being made law?
Obama, far from being the bi-partisan uniter he likes to pose as, is ram-rodding his liberal agenda through Congress with little or no respect for the debate that usually surrounds such policy. Remember when Democrats were the minority party and screaming about the importance of the minority party’s participation? My how the things have changed.
Just another “say one thing and do another” moment for President Hope ‘N Change.
On a related note, North Dakota citizens should recognize that this wouldn’t be happening without assistance from Senator Kent Conrad who chairs the Senate Budget Committee.
No matter where you’re from, click here to contact your elected representatives in Congress and tell them that policies like nationalized health care deserve the full debate and scrutiny of the Senate.

Tags: , , ,


«
»
  • http://Array navtechie

    djer: Wow. you sure know how to make waves in the shallow end of the gene pool. Where’s the pool man when you need him. your comments are pure comedic relief – ignorance and stupidity never fail to amuse.

    Angry Amoeba: Your are being intellectually dishonest. The feds already have their fingers in the health care pie – hence the reason for the high costs. Medicaid and Medicare cannot pay the fair value for the services being offered by physicians. Thus, physicians must make up the difference from people that have private health insurance.
    –in anticipation to your reply: “the Drs are charging too much the greedy pigs!”.

    Fuck Off.

    Another basic tenet that the ignorant masses that voted for hopeychangey is that when you offer something for free, or give the perception that it is free, people will flock to it. The feds will not be able to maintain the coverage as millions of people that can afford their own plans will flock the govt plan…and then the slide to mediocrity begins. In Soviet Russia, the health system breaks you!

    Those of us that have at least 2 brain cells left to rub together will get the last laugh as the country slides into the shitter (as we predicted) while you wonder why your ass hurts so bad after you take it from both ends without so much as a reach-around from hopeychangey.

  • Ssgt.D.R.(REAL)McCoy

    To Party of NO Hell NO. I’ll go along with Obama only after he’s been strung up for treason to the nation. this man is a threat to the freedom of the U.S. to which I to an oathe to defend against all enemies of the Constitution both foreign and domestic. The revolution is coming and those of us who have seen combat will survive.
    HOO RAAHH

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    The banking system is largely privately owned and controlled, so are GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Having a tantrum and saying they have been nationalized won’t make it so.

    USPS is an example of a national asset (and profitable, well-run, and efficient. It really is some strong evidence against the dumb-righties alarmist fear-mongering about nationalization).

  • robert108

    Obama is handing over tax-payer money to bail out his corporate backers. This is the very opposite to nationalizing.

    More bullshit! Obama’s predatory lending(read: loansharking) has turned private businesses over to govt control. He is trying to run those companies by hiring and firing, and by setting wages, which is what fascists do.

  • jimmypop

    elections mean things. dont be mad at barry and libs. bush and the republicans were pussies. if bush had any balls he would have privatized ss and totally gotten rid of the welfare state. he didnt. they are weak pussies abnd lost everything because of it. now shut up and elect some actual conservatives to repeal this crap barry is pushing thru or shut up about it.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    BTW, djer and WOOF, it is noticed that you do not attempt to defend or explain the Democrats’ actions here.

  • sayanything-5371

    vert, what do you think it will be called when the federal government controls health care as they are now controlling the automobile companies. Obama controls who is in charge and their business plan, which is effectively nationalization.

    If Obama does the same with health care what would you call that?

  • Mickey

    I wonder where Americans will go to get good health care when obama get’s this Nationalized Health Care. It’s not like we can cross the border in either direction to get quality care.

    Welcome to second class citizenship. The slackers won. Free government cheese for everyone.

  • sayanything-5371

    The Obama-Biden health care plan is on the web, you should have a look.

    I did look. LOL!!!!!!!! The web site mentions a plan, but, THERE IS NO PLAN.

    Will the govt own the hospitals, or have direct control, or be the doctor’s employer?

    Look, the government is controlling who is in charge and the business plan of auto companies, effectively nationalizing them.

    They will do the same with health care. You parse words and phrases and use deceitful language to try and convince yourself you are elite and possess superior knowledge. You don’t.

    You are willing to give up your liberty for some parsimonious security handed out if the government deems you are worthy. I’m not. That’s why the conservatives on here are bitching about Obama and what he is doing. We intend to stop him and his “change America” crap.

  • 2Hotel9

    Other than the fact it is an utter pile of bullshit, no. USPS is a financial failure, entirely supported by tax dollars. Take away all the free money and it collapses. So, in conclusion, fuck you.

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    That’s hilarious, `syn’ is posting condescending comments that she thinks are rebuttals to my points. You room-temp. IQ types crack me up.

    Here’s some free information, there are books called dictionaries. They contain definitions for many words, including `nationalize’. There are even online versions of dictionaries. To avoid sounding as foolish as a conservative, those who think that Obama will nationalize health-care should refer to a dictionary.

    I’m such a good Samaritan, giving away free advice I should be charging for.

  • dfwpike

    I heard about this on Mark Levin’s radio program Friday but haven’t seen anything about it in the mainstream media. Gee… I wonder why?

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    USPS made a profit of more than 5 billion in 2007, despite snail mail becoming obsolete.

    USPS has a no-profit mandate yet has averaged 1 billion in profit for the last 20 years. They make a profit even when trying not too!

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    Changing the topic? Where did he claim that he wants to nationalize health care?

    A free tip: Nationalize has a well-defined meaning, and that meaning is not the same as universal.

    Care to try again?

  • Mickey

    We already have the best health care available. What you really want is FREE helath insurance. Good luck with that.
    Nothing the government offers is FREE.

    BTW if Canadian Health Care is so good why do 75% of Canadian Physicians have health insirance that covers treatment in America? Why do Canadians come to America when they need serious surgery?

  • Bill

    This ain’t 1992. You lost the election and your rightie party is in complete and utter disarray and can’t seem to come up with anything to offer other than NO.

    Thats the point jack ass. The governemnt shouldn’t be coming up with these ideas. The private sector should.

    Health care would be far more accessable if there was major tort reform. Its expensive to be a doctor, so its expensive to see a doctor.

    Thats just how it goes. In fact, I have talked to a number of professionals, when I was exploring the profession, who say that the fear of getting sued is starting to outweigh the good things about being a dr.

    Which means fewer drs, lower supply, higher cost. And that doesn’t even count the hidden cost of people using the emergency room as the drs office, and not paying ever. Gov. needs to step out. No, is the correct answer. Just no. Not no, but we should do this. Just no.

    When we all have to wait in a 10 mile long line to have our prostates checked you will be screaming a different story. Read some of the horror stories from Canada and Britain buddy.

  • robert108

    No govt enterprise can really make a “profit” in the same sense that a private business does. AV just doesn’t know what the word means, obviously. He’s probably confused by his Marxist ideology.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

    USPS has a no-profit mandate yet has averaged 1 billion in profit for the last 20 years.

    Dunno about that AV.

    For about four weeks, (many, many moons ago) I worked on something called Postal Rate Litigation in the outskirts of Washington, DC.

    My primary task was to work on something covering called the contingency fee (although due to the mists of time, it might have had a different exact title) or the 2 percent or so additional buffer built into each USPS request for a rate increase. The purpose was to allow for unexpected costs that might be incurred in between rounds of rate increases, which seemed to average every three years or so.

    The research involved a study of the USPS’s profits and losses since the time the USPS was privatized (so to speak) and Zippy the Mailman logo replaced by the stylized American Eagle.

    What I recall was a roller coaster of red ink and black ink in alternating years. In the rate instances they were running in the black, they spent like crazy and this of course plunged them deeply into the red again.

    As it turned out, they were constantly going to Congress for something akin to bridge loans, to tie them over until the next round of postal rate increases. I’m not even sure if the USPS ever paid back those loans.

    But to say it was well-run is a reach.

    To give the devil his due, the USPS does okay, despite, not because of, governmental control and manipulation. Their unions control the organization way too much.

    If I recall, during the mid-1990′s, Ross Perot floated the idea of privatization and that his organization EDS or whatever, could do it better, faster and more profitably.

    Also, running off of memory, I believe what sank that proposition was the idea that the anti-Perot crowd alleged that Perot would save $$$$ by cutting off cost-ineffective rural routes.

    Either way, you are not convincing anyone here that the USPS is a prime example of the US government doing something better, more efficiently and cheaper than private industry.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

    He’s squeezing this one through the process.

    Attached GIF invoking heterosexual response — meep!

    Attached GIF invoking heterosexual response — meep!

    Attached GIF invoking heterosexual response — meep!

  • robert108

    Universal Health Care is a leftie myth, based on the Big Lie of unlimited govt. The private sector can always outproduce the public sector, so govt healthcare will always have supply and access problems.

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    THERE IS NO PLAN. — WillHuntForFood

    That’s pretty much my point. Obama, unfortunately, isn’t going to make big changes.

    They will do the same with health care. You parse words and phrases and use deceitful language to try and convince yourself you are elite and possess superior knowledge. You don’t. — WillHuntForFood

    I’m sorry you think that. I’ve been writing up my thesis for freakin’ ages. I reckon that could be making my writing sound too anal.

    I would describe what Obama is doing as “interfering”, “bungling”, “meddling”, these sorts of words are probably more accurate than “nationalizing”.

  • sayanything-5371

    Don’t expect to live as long as your parents did. You will have to see a party apparatchik to get a chit to see a doctor. If you are a conservative you can forget it. By the time you get to see a doctor your colon cancer will have metastized to other organs. This is already happening in Britain and Canada.

  • sayanything-5371

    Universal is a Liberal euphemism for Nationalalize and djer is too stupid to realize how he contracicts himself.

    Obama will not nationalize health care.[/quote

    Elections have consequences and you lost. We will have universal health care for everyone in this country. [/quote

    Elections have consequences and you lost.

    djer on April 26, 2009 at 03:09 am

    Only a liberal idiot could make a post like that denying that Obama intends to nationalize health care and believe it makes sense.

  • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

    Angry Vertebrate Barry O or NOBAMA is a big government Marxist of course is for univerisal health care, he is the one trying to ram this marxist agenda through before the dumbed down masses figure out what he has done.

    That being said you can just about guess that the Dems will ruin the health care system in this country because we are going to pay for all these fucken illegal aliens and free loaders and all of the Liberal Utopia from the big states like Califuckenfornia which has run their hospitals and city governments into the ground. In essence evenutally the whole federal government is going to come colasping down us eventually.

    I heard Mark Levin say on his radio show that we have 53 trillion in unfunded mandates that US government has no idea how we are going to pay for it.

  • carrick

    WOOF:

    Despite their howls against Obama, Republicans employed the same procedure to pass major Bush agenda items

    –The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 1836, 3/26/01]
    –The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 2, 3/23/03]
    –Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 [HR 4297, 5/11/06]
    –The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 [H. Con Res. 95, 12/21/05]

    These are all fiscal acts.

    How is health care a fiscal act?

    Not that a hypocrite like you cares.

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    Your analysis is way off WillHuntForFood. Obama is handing over tax-payer money to bail out his corporate backers. This is the very opposite to nationalizing. That there are some conditions attached to the tax-payer money is making Obama’s buddies whine, “How dare Obama tell us what we can do with American tax-payer money!”.

    The govt bought up non-voting stocks in the banks for example. This is pure corporate welfare.

    The fact that conservatives cannot understand this (and label it nationalizing/socializing) is simply astounding.

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    WillHuntForFood: It should be easy to find a quote of Obama’s claiming that he wants to nationalize health care then.

    One of Obama’s plans is to allow the use of imported generic drugs. I thought conservatives liked free-markets.

  • 2Hotel9

    Just like the complete and utter failure that is AMTRAK. Again, fuck you.

  • djer

    Obama will not nationalize health care. He just wants health care for all. I’m paying now for people who don’t have health care. I’m paying now for people who use the ER rooms because they don’t have health care.

    I have plenty of relatives in Canada who are more than satisfied with the health care they receive. My aunt had a heart attack, no lines, she was seen and treated immediately. My uncle has cancer. No lines, he is being treated.

    Elections have consequences and you lost. We will have universal health care for everyone in this country. The business community know it now needs it in order to be competetive with other countries that don’t have those business costs to contend with.

    Elections have consequences and you lost.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    Angry Vertebrate – Obama wants high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans. What a Marxist scumbag!!

    Seriously? That’s your argument?

    Obama has voted against keeping those who have survived abortion alive. Obama has proposed that injured troops, who were injured in the line of duty, pay for their own health care.

    In light of Obama’s ACTIONS as opposed to his lying words, what has Obama shown us that tells us that he actually wants us to have “high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans”?

    Stop your effervescent bullshitting. And find an argument! Because what you’re peddling? It’s just like Obama – fluffy and meaningless words.

  • sayanything-5371

    Your analysis is way off WillHuntForFood

    No, it isn’t. We just have a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes nationalization. When the government owns a substantial share of a corporation and makes managerial decisions, that is nationalization.

    So far Obama has done this with banking and auto manufacturing. Next is health car, big oil, the stock market, then energy. Obama thinks more government is wonderful.

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    What an utter pile of bullshit. — 2Hotel9

    That’s harsh. I thought Move_Zig’s response was civilized and well reasoned. Care to point out what is wrong with it?

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    As far as I know, Obama has never suggested the nationalization of health-care. Can anyone actually back up Rob’s claims?

  • http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

    This is what communist governments have done in the past. Control, kill, then die.

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    Obama wants high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans. What a Marxist scumbag!!

    You well know that universal is a liberal euphemism for nationalize. You are splitting hairs. — WillHuntForFood

    From this comment I’m guessing you don’t know what nationalize means.

    Britain has a nationalized health care system. Its hospitals are owned by the nation, a national asset, and the doctors are employed by the NHS, part of the govt. Tax-payer funding pays for the service.

    Germany has a universal health care system. Its hospitals are privately owned, it’s doctors privately employed. Still tax funded too.

    Obama doesn’t even want to go this far. He wants to break up some monopolies, allowing more competition, and use tax-rebates so that all working Americans can afford health care. How is that nationalization? Will the govt own the hospitals, or have direct control, or be the doctor’s employer?

    The Obama-Biden health care plan is on the web, you should have a look.

    P.S. Funnily enough, conservatives on this forum regularly call progressives “emotional”. Yet all the alarmist terminology seems to be coming from conservatives.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    djer – Elections have consequences and you lost. We will have universal health care for everyone in this country.

    We heard that back when “HillaryCare” was being bandied about.

    Take a lesson from history djer. Drop the inane rhetoric.

  • 2Hotel9

    What an utter pile of bullshit.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

    USPS is an example of a national asset (and profitable, well-run, and efficient. It really is some strong evidence against the dumb-righties alarmist fear-mongering about nationalization).

    Ummm. Take a few moments to pull your mouth off the bong and get a couple whiffs of reality, dooooode.

    March 25, 2009

    Postmaster General John Potter said Wednesday the financially strapped U.S. Postal Service will run out of money this year without help from Congress.

    Postal Service Asks Congress for Bailout

    The USPS also has attracted criticism for straying from its government-mandated and protected task of delivering first- and third-class mail. The Postal Service, for example, has gone into the business of marketing prepaid phone calling cards for long-distance calls, competing with private firms. That competition of a government monopoly with the private sector is manifestly unfair. Postal facilities and assets were acquired through monopoly power. The USPS now uses those facilities and assets to compete with the private sector.

    abcnews.go.com — Battered by the economy, the post office is offering early retirement to 150,000 workers, cutting management and closing offices, the agency said Friday. The Postal Service lost $2.8 billion last year and is facing even larger losses this year, despite a rate increase – to 44 cents for first-class mail — scheduled to take effect May 11.

    U.S. Postal Service to Offer 150,000 Buyouts

  • robert108

    The banking system is largely privately owned and controlled, so are GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Having a tantrum and saying they have been nationalized won’t make it so.

    Obama’s predatory lending scheme has changed all that; when the govt controls private business, that’s fascism.

    USPS is an example of a national asset (and profitable, well-run, and efficient. It really is some strong evidence against the dumb-righties alarmist fear-mongering about nationalization).

    You’re in Fantasyland, AV; the USPS loses vast quantities of money every year, so it is neither profitable, well-run, or efficient, unless you are making up your own partisan, self-serving definitions of those terms.
    The private sector businesses kick USPS ass in every market they’re allowed to enter. The only reason USPS is in business at all is because it’s a govt monopoly.
    You are ignorant of the facts, as usual.

  • syn

    Sorry dear, you’ll have to wait on stopping your heart attack because the tax-rebate check is late.

    Angry Vertebrate, why complicate your life with meddling bureaucrats who do not give a democRats ass about you?

    I do not get it, why the need to complicate your life with a bunch useless, silly stuff.

    Please help me understand why you actively seek a bureaucracy to meddle in your personal life?

  • 2Hotel9

    That is the funniest bullshit I have read in a long time. AV:TFR needs to do stand up.

  • 2Hotel9

    See, once again we are given a telling look into the fantasy world in which Anarchist Vegan:The Fucking Retard lives. Priceless comedy, and free, too.

  • syn

    djer’s shorter version:

    “Government is forcing universal health care on you even if they have to kill you to do it.

    So worship the Statist tyrants like Canadians do!”

  • robert108

    WillHunt: We all know that transactions within markets have externalities.

    In superior demand systems, those cost/benefit decisions are made by free people making free choices. No command system can match the productivity or efficiency of a demand system where the people are personally, economically, religiously and politically free.
    Obama is on the wrong track.

  • robert108

    One thing you can depend on: nothing the govt does will ever be “universal”; it will simply be controlled by the govt instead of the citizens, and will be unresponsive to consumer demands and needs. Instead, like all govt enterprises, it will be run for the benefit of the bureaucrats and political bosses.

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    WillHunt: We all know that transactions within markets have externalities. Automobiles have externalities that are beneficial (mobile workforce) and harmful (pollution). Obama is trying to use handouts and regulation to both save the auto-makers and influence the market, to reduce the negative externalities, namely pollution. Regulating a market is not nationalization. (I think his plans will fail with the auto-makers, but hopefully I’m wrong.)

    Obama is also planning to modify the regulations governing the health-care industry. While the US may, or may not, have the best health-care system (the ERs are supposed to be the best), it is certainly the most expensive. Nearly 50 million Americans cannot (or will not) pay for it. He is trying to fix that too. Again, regulating is not nationalizing.

  • sayanything-5371

    As far as I know, Obama has never suggested the nationalization of health-care. Can anyone actually back up Rob’s claims?

    Have you been freeze dried or doing hard time? A national health care system is all the dems talk about. Its at the top of their wish list.

  • sayanything-5371

    Woof, you finally posted something I can get behind. Nothing you texted, though.

  • sayanything-5371

    BTW if Canadian Health Care is so good why do 75% of Canadian Physicians have health insurance that covers treatment in America? Why do Canadians come to America when they need serious surgery?

    For that matter why does 70% of the population of Canada live within 30 miles of the US Border?

    Answer: So they can live under the umbrella of US protection and come here to shop for less expensive and more available goods and services in short supply in their socialist utopia.

    No wonder many of us in northern tier states refer to Canada as the 51st (non-US tax paying) state.

  • sayanything-5371

    Care to try again?

    No need.

    You well know that universal is a liberal euphemism for nationalize. You are splitting hairs.

    You know that the democratic party wants a government controlled national health care system. You also know that it is failing in Canada and Britain and that people are coming here and paying out of pocket for health care that is refused to them in their own country because some bureaucrat is rationing health care and deciding who deserves it.

  • sayanything-5371

    I would describe what Obama is doing as “interfering”, “bungling”, “meddling”, these sorts of words are probably more accurate than “nationalizing”.

    That’s fairly accurate. It’s what he says that matters. He is careless without his teleprompter and says things that freak out the marketplace. The stock market is freaking over what he says. I plan to retire in 5 years and its screwing up my plans and everything I’ve worked for. Change I definitely don’t need. Have you paid attention to what has happened to guns and ammunition sales based on what Obama, Holder and Hillary have said recently? They should just shut their pieholes. They are idiotic and thoughtless IMO.

  • sayanything-5371

    Again, regulating is not nationalizing.

    When government makes managerial decisions, such as employee compensation and company business practices this effectively makes the government the de facto manager. This is nationalization. You can argue semantics all you want. It is the actions of the government that define the outcome, not words like regulate. This is why the statist loves euphemisms like regulate. It sounds so innocuous compared to factual sounding words like, take over, or operate. It boils down to we gave you money, now we get to tell you what to do. The classic trap of a monkey grasping something shiny down in a narrow vase, his balled fist trapping him with his own greed.

    In less than 100 days Obama has effectively nationalized the banking and automobile industries in the USA. His next targets are big oil, the stock market and health care. This country is being taken in a direction that I saw coming when it became obvious this classic socialist was going to get into the White House. It was about July, 2008 when the stock market went from declining growth to a marked negative downturn. It appears that many in the market saw this coming, too.

    However, Obama is a bungler and a meddler and simpleminded in his inexperience. He is the perfect puppet with soaring oratory, so long as his teleprompter doesn’t hiccup. It is globalists, primarily George Soros, who control his strings.

    The sheeple don’t see it coming and won’t until they are at the brink of the waterfall, when it may well be too late to head for a safe and familiar shore.

  • sayanything-5371

    Invertebrate

    Obama Calls for Universal Health Care
    Obama calls for universal health care within six years, saying ‘the time has come’

    WASHINGTON, Jan. 26, 2007
    By NEDRA PICKLER Associated Press Writer
    ——————————————————————————–
    (AP)

    (AP) Every American should have health care coverage within six years, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday as he set an ambitious goal soon after jumping into the 2008 presidential race.

    “I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country,” Obama told a conference of Families USA, a health care advocacy group.

    The Illinois senator did not provide specifics on his plan for coverage.

    Obama was previewing what is shaping up to be a theme of the 2008 Democratic primary. His chief rivals, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, also are strong proponents of universal health care and have promised to offer their plans.

    He said it’s wrong that 46 million in this country are uninsured when the country spends more than any one else on health care. He said Americans pay $15 billion in taxes to help care for the uninsured.

    Obama’s call was an echo of a speech he made last April when he said Democrats “need to cling to the core values that make us Democrats, the belief in universal health care, the belief in universal education, and then we should be agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values.”

    ………….

  • 2Hotel9

    You start by saying Barri does not want nationalized healthcare and end by saying Barri force nationalized healthcare on America. Keep up the good work, djerk.

  • robert108

    Woof: The govt is too inefficient and unmotivated to supply the health care needs of this country. Expect shortages, rationing and totalitarian rules.

    Nice gif, though. Reminds me of a friend.

  • syn

    Obama doesn’t even want to go this far. He wants to break up some monopolies, allowing more competition, and use tax-rebates so that all working Americans can afford health care.

    Tax-rebates? How are tax-rebates going to help working Americans afford health-care when their marginal tax rates are going to void what value there is to a taxz-rebates?

    I cannot understand how ‘working Americans’ enjoy complicating their lives to the extend that they are driving themselves into the poorhouse.

    Angry Vertebrate, you are missing an important component to your nationalized health care, that being, by the time the nanny Statist pay themselves there’s never enough money left for you, silly twit.

    I cannot relate to the government nanny state and the childish adults who drool and slobber all over their slavemaster.

    I am woman hear me roar keep the meddling nanny Statist away from my door!

  • robert108

    Obama wants high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

    An empty promise, based on Obama’s illusion that govt is unlimited. Every enterprise that produces goods and services for people to consume has its limitations, and the private sector is much more productive and efficient in its use of resources than is govt enterprise. This is a fact. Govt can’t compete with the private sector on a level playing field, which is why govt always has to monopolize a market to enter it. Once govt enters a market, competition is over, and mediocre, autocratic govt standards rule that market, rather than free people making free choices.
    Govt healthcare will lead to supply shortages, long wait times, and govt mandates about who gets what, with no consumer input. Every aspect of your healthcare will be decided bureaucratically, by people who are not involved in caring about you, only in satisfying the next person in the pecking order of the healthcare bureaucracy.

  • robert108

    the party of no…

    It is the right thing to do to say “hell, no!” to Marxist economics, communist agitation in the social realm, and fascism in the business realm in this country.

  • syn

    the party of no is upset because President Obama is doing what the majority of Americans want, a health care system that works for everyone.

    Listen Sweetie, when you are upset because you cannot find a doctor who can save your life please bitch to your slavemaster who convinced you that he cares about you.

    What good is Obama’s health care when doctors and nurses shut down business because they are broke?

    Anyone who believes in universal health care is as good as a dead zombie walking.

    It is so simple even the obtuse can understand this concept, so why can’t the Democrat voter’s understand?

  • 2Hotel9

    Oh, they gonna try like hell. Their goal, for 40 years, has been to collapse energy production, industry, and agriculture, and they think they are on the raggedy, ready to step off. They actually think they can use pieces of paper to starve Americans to death, the way their hero Stalin did.

  • djer

    Robert, please feel free to name call, stomp your feet, hold your breath and yell no all day long.

    President Obama will pass health care reform with or without the republicans. The business community, labor and other groups are working together to make it happen.

    You and your ilk will move further into obscurity with each and every yelling of NO.

    This ain’t 1992. You lost the election and your rightie party is in complete and utter disarray and can’t seem to come up with anything to offer other than NO.

  • jimmypop

    Last time I looked I discovered that laws were passed by Congress. Congress in general spent most of Bushs presidency trying to sabotage his programs and war effort. They were never interested in any significant reform

    they didnt fight him on the right things and didnt support him on the couple ideas he had that were right.

  • docdave

    if bush had any balls he would have privatized ss and totally gotten rid of the welfare state

    . Last time I looked I discovered that laws were passed by Congress. Congress in general spent most of Bushs presidency trying to sabotage his programs and war effort. They were never interested in any significant reform.

  • Neiman

    There was never any chance it would not pass anyway. Why? Unfortunately, ignorant of what it really means, the American people want National Health Care, socialized medicine. They see it as a basic human right, a civil right. After it is enacted and the negative side of national health insurance is being felt, like any social welfare type program, there will be no chance of ever going back short of an armed revolution.

  • robert108

    Woof: Even if your comparison is accurate, President Bush increased our freedom and prosperity, whereas Obama plans to decrease both.
    Not the same at all.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    djer – The party of no is bereft of ideas.

    You’re just not listening. You’d rather be immature with your ears closed off.

    But for now, you ain’t in the driver’s seat any longer.

    Actually, we are, since we’ll be the ones paying for your ideas.

    At least you got the dragging us “kicking and screaming” right. You guys don’t persuade, but rather use force. Nice admittance there.

  • robert108

    Robert, please feel free to name call, stomp your feet, hold your breath and yell no all day long.

    I’ll leave all that to you, while I simply tell the truth about what Obama is trying to do to my country.

    Despite your fevered wishes, the Republican are raising more money than the Dems, even with the claimed popularity of your fascist leader.

    Hype wears off.

  • docdave

    We are becoming a one-party country a sure sign of totalitarianism. Lenin, Stalin, Chavez, Hitler, Castro move over, you’ve got company.

  • robert108

    You and your ilk…

    Are you referring to real Americans, who live under the Constitution, the founding principles, individual independence and the free enterprise economic system? You are the enemy of freedom, and will be suitably rewarded.

  • djer

    the party of no is upset because President Obama is doing what the majority of Americans want, a health care system that works for everyone.

    The party of no is bereft of ideas. President Obama has a mandate to do what he said he would do about health care and he will get it, even if he has to drag the party of no along kicking and screaming.

    In two years, you will have your opportunity to try and make the changes you want. But for now, you ain’t in the driver’s seat any longer.

    President Obama is more than willing to work with the Party of No, but not at the cost of his programs. He won the election, and if all you are going to say is NO, then we will move on without you.

  • robert108

    dd: The Dem culture of corruption will never rest in trying to maintain SS, no matter how bad, inefficient or broke it is; they cling to wasteful social spending like an addict to his drug.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    By the way, google Poodle’s quote and see how many liberal blogs all of the internet those extra phrases appear.

    Astroturf, anyone?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Despite their howls against Obama, Republicans employed the same procedure to pass major Bush agenda items

    –The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 1836, 3/26/01]
    –The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 2, 3/23/03]
    –Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 [HR 4297, 5/11/06]
    –The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 [H. Con Res. 95, 12/21/05]

    Those are all budget bills, jackass, having to do with spending and revenue.

    Nationalized health care is not budgeting policy.

  • WOOFX

    Obama is committed to health care legislation
    He’s squeezing this one through the process.

    Image and video hosting by TinyPic

  • WOOFX

    Despite their howls against Obama, Republicans employed the same procedure to pass major Bush agenda items

    — The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 1836, 3/26/01]
    — The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 2, 3/23/03]
    — Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 [HR 4297, 5/11/06]
    — The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 [H. Con Res. 95, 12/21/05]

  • WOOFX

    There are few examples of purity in legislation.

    Those are all budget bills, jackass, having to do with spending and revenue.

    Move ‘em out, head ‘em up,
    Head ‘em up, move ‘em on.
    Move ‘em out, head ‘em up:
    Rawhide.
    Cut ‘em out, ride ‘em in,
    Ride ‘em in, cut ‘em out,
    Cut ‘em out, ride ‘em in:
    Rawhide!

  • http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

    likwidshoe, are we surprised that none of the libtards have defended Obama’s actions with logical rational exposition explaining why his ideas are good and worthy of this abuse of power?

    Every time any of them try, which is rare I grant you, robert108 alone can tear their reasoning to shreds never mind you, Rob, etc.

    If there were votes on each reply as to smart/stupid, the usual libtard suspects would each get a 100 to 4 ratio of smart to stupid votes every time. If you ever get a chance to do a script like that Rob, it would be truly a lopsided disaster for those morons.

    BTW WOOF, the image was inappropriate.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development