Isn't the Beltway wisdom on Joe that he's among the most liberal senators on social issues but only sided with the neo-conservatives because of his strongly held convictions on Iraq? Because this just makes it look like he's a Republican with unearned party chairmanships. I hope Harry Reid does the right thing here and slaps his ass back to the freshman, minor party status he, and his constituents, deserve.
I find it shocking that conservatives attack the Obama administration over the cost of the health care bill, he wants to turn us into a socialist country, the federal government is getting bigger, the economy is in shambles, unemployment rates, the banks not lending money, the war in Afghanistan and whatever the cause du jour is. Newsflash,we are not a poor nation, we can afford heath care. I just want to know where were all these fiscally minded people when Bush took us from a surplus to a deficit? Where were all of the small government town halls when Bush increased the size of the federal government? Where were all of these people when Bush grabbed some more money for the banks on his was out the door? Where was the indignation when Bush signed trade agreements that fucked our industries? I would like to know where were the tea parties when Bush deregulated just about every business that sent him money but especially the banking industry? Where was the indignation over the outsourcing of millions of American jobs? Where was the fury over the troops in Iraq & Afghanistan?
I guess 8 years of silence can eventually cause outrage. #healthcare
Top 3 reasons Joe Lieberman is a hypocrite:
1. In 2006 he campaigned on health care reform
2. His wife is a lobbyist for the healthcare industry
3. CT has a public option
Special bonus reasons:
1. Voting for cloture doesn't mean you support the legislation
2. This one applies to all Senators, I suppose — does the blatant hypocrisy of opposing something you yourself have (government run health care benefits) never occur to any of these douchenozzles?
Support for the public option is the highest it's ever been -- 48% -- and rising. Support for kicking Joe Lieberman out of the Democratic caucus is at its usual 99%. Get with it, Harry. #healthcare
We need Rahm Emanuel to get medieval with this fucker. Obama needs to keep his hands clean. Not so much with Rahm.
I am wildly optimistic that some health care bill will pass. And when it does, I can only hope Lieberman will be rendered a man without a country (or a party). Let's hope Dems learn their lesson and shun him, for real this time.
I am so over Olympia Snowe. Pssst, Democrats: YOU WON!!!! Remember?!!! Why the fuck do you guys care about her?
@OrneryBabe: I just wish the president would be all, fuck this, it's still bipartisan if Bernie Sanders votes for it. Onward!
I am so fucking fed up with Joe Goddamn Lieberman and the Democrats' inability to either bring him into line or kick him out of the caucus. And Olympia Snowe...I used to think Maine was awesome for their all-lady delegation. NO LONGER, MAINE! #healthcare
The only thing that's keeping me from devoting my life to a crusade against Lieberman's brand of fuckery is the fact that he looks a little like an impishly adorably Dr. Seuss antagonist. #healthcare
Medicare and Medicaid cost more than "we're" prepared to pay because of the extremely fucked up way the health care system (literally, EVERYONE IN IT) has abused those programs. If we could, I dunno...pass some sort of health care bill, maybe we could start fixing that up, Droopy Dog. #healthcare
@kafkask: It has to do with that, as well as the fact that Lieberman has essentially decided to cast his lot with the GOP on every defining issue of our time. #healthcare
@momof3wildkids: Because, at the end of the day, she's a senator from the 40th most populous state in the union, not the Queen of America. I'm still baffled as to why they even attempted to court her in the first place. Conservatives will never admit that a public option might work until we shove it down their throats and they see it in action. So let's do that, already. #healthcare
@skt.smth: I'm not for the public option as it appears to stand now, for full disclosure purposes.
I think the Dems are scared to take on this health plan without any conservative support. With such a sweeping piece of legislation, if something goes wrong it is going to lie squarely at their feet.
I personally think that the public option is nearly dead. Let's see if the Dems can resurrect it. It is going to be interesting to watch this play out. #healthcare
@momof3wildkids: That's a strange bit of analysis. I think the dems are shooting for bipartisanship for two reasons, neither of which happen to be the one you mentioned:
1) They want to exercise Obama's promise that he would extend an olive branch to the right and try to work with them, rather than despite them, on legislation.
2) They want to make extra sure that the public sees them extending that olive branch to the right, so when it's smacked out of their hands and the left consequently says "fuck y'all, we're ramming everything down your throats now," it will appear wholly justified.
Last time I checked, polls showed that a hefty percentage of the public view congressional GOP just as poorly, in general, as the democrats, but still feel like the democrats are handling the healthcare issue better than the GOP. I think the GOP have a hell of a lot more to lose if healthcare reform works out than the democrats have to lose if it doesn't. Where are the GOP going to be if/when a robust public option turns out to be wildly successful? #healthcare
@skt.smth: I think a more likely scenario will be that people will be pissed, incensed, fuming (you get my drift) over the cost of this plan whether or not it is successful in covering all Americans (which it won't). That is why I think the Dems are nervous to go solo on this... especially since the taxes to fund this start years before one can enjoy the 'bounty' of a gov't health plan.
I just hope the Dems' marriage to the gov't option doesn't shoot the whole health care/insurance reform down the crapper. #healthcare
@skt.smth: "Where are the GOP going to be if/when a robust public option turns out to be wildly successful?"
Where they've always been. The contrapositive is true: even though deregulation of the financial sector proved to be disastrous, the GOP hasn't backed away from its fundamentals. Nationalized healthcare is antithetical to the party's fundamentals, and will always be wrong. If it is shown to be a success by any measure, some will deny it while others will say it's not worth it.
And when half the country is inclined to tow the party line (or perhaps it's the party towing conservative America's line), I don't think they have a whole lot to lose playing obstructionist politics on healthcare.
I do believe, however, that once you give a people a right or access to resources, it's much more difficult to take it away than it was to pass it in the first place. For this reason, I hope that the Democrats 1) shove it down the GOP's throat and avoid compromise for the sake of compromise, and 2) get it right. I'm still worried about a Republican controlled Congress, down the road, that decides to take a national healthcare system built under Democrats and tweak it through deregulation into something unrecognizable and to the detriment of the people.
@hilikusopus: What I would say is that it's kind of difficult to will an entire group of people who are directly benefiting from healthcare reform (i.e. the conservatives in this hypothetical future where healthcare reform is a success) to hate what now benefits them. Such a thing is easy to do over gay marriage, abortion, gun laws, etc. But when they can see something right before their eyes that's incontrovertibly making their lives easier, it's hard for their spokespeople in Congress to then turn around and say "this is bad for you." Again, it's like being against the very premise of Social Security, or for a more apt example, Medicare. Even the GOP has had to turn around and admit Medicare is great, and switch the debate to "protecting Medicare benefits," because a huge part of their constituency (old people) loves it.
So again, I pose the question: where is the GOP going to be if/when healthcare reform, which they've by and large attempted to obstruct, becomes the new Social Security or the new Medicare? It will a number of election cycles for them to live down that kind of shame. #healthcare
@skt.smth: Medicare and social security are two of the best examples, and the one's foremost in my mind when I made that comment. But then I also think of examples like how the FCC deregulated TV/radio for the national market, so that a few companies control control access to information in those two media (internet obviously changed the equation though). It's also worth pointing out that this serves as an equally good example of how Republicans pay lip service to "freedom of choice", when what we get is more like an oligarchical system that maximizes profit for a few priveledged, well connected entities.
My concern is that I can conceive of a world in which, for any number of reasons, Republicans have chisseled away at a nationalized healthcare system, maybe by advocating a few points on which Democrats would be more than happy to "compromise", but which serves to shanghai the new national healthcare system into the service of privitization and deregulation. We already know that the Republican platform calls for a national market for private insurance companies as the part of the "solution" to the healthcare crisis. It'd be like a trojan horse -- and all the while Republicans are paying lip service to just how darn good our new safety net is. I'm also reminded of the Republican Congress and Bush that passed the 2003 prescription drug plan on behalf of insurance and pharmaceutical interests.
@hilikusopus: The way I see it, the democrats can't afford to squander the influence they have right now on some hoodwink legislation where industry wins and the people lose. I'm not saying it's impossible that such a thing could happen, but they don't gain anything other than extremely temporary benefits from doing so. At the end of the day, I think most of the democrats can see that the benefits of introducing another Medicare or Social Security-like program, something that endures, and moreover, provides something they can call on again and again in future elections, far outweigh whatever advantages might come from selling us out to the healthcare industry (something they clearly cannot call on in future elections). #healthcare
@lionel-mandrake: Unfortunately, Lieberman, for whatever reason, still has the rich, stick-up-the-ass vote on his side in CT. I would imagine that most of the regular people there (i.e. the ones in the northeastern part of the state) are well over him by now, but they aren't the ones giving out all the campaign dollars. #healthcare
10/29/09
10/29/09
I guess 8 years of silence can eventually cause outrage. #healthcare
10/28/09
1. In 2006 he campaigned on health care reform
2. His wife is a lobbyist for the healthcare industry
3. CT has a public option
Special bonus reasons:
1. Voting for cloture doesn't mean you support the legislation
2. This one applies to all Senators, I suppose — does the blatant hypocrisy of opposing something you yourself have (government run health care benefits) never occur to any of these douchenozzles?
10/28/09
10/28/09
I am wildly optimistic that some health care bill will pass. And when it does, I can only hope Lieberman will be rendered a man without a country (or a party). Let's hope Dems learn their lesson and shun him, for real this time.
I am so over Olympia Snowe. Pssst, Democrats: YOU WON!!!! Remember?!!! Why the fuck do you guys care about her?
10/28/09
I am so fucking fed up with Joe Goddamn Lieberman and the Democrats' inability to either bring him into line or kick him out of the caucus. And Olympia Snowe...I used to think Maine was awesome for their all-lady delegation. NO LONGER, MAINE! #healthcare
10/28/09
Better dead than with a public option! #healthcare
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
And how does he get his hair so silky soft? Pantene? He must be using Pantene. #healthcare
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
I think the Dems are scared to take on this health plan without any conservative support. With such a sweeping piece of legislation, if something goes wrong it is going to lie squarely at their feet.
I personally think that the public option is nearly dead. Let's see if the Dems can resurrect it. It is going to be interesting to watch this play out. #healthcare
10/28/09
1) They want to exercise Obama's promise that he would extend an olive branch to the right and try to work with them, rather than despite them, on legislation.
2) They want to make extra sure that the public sees them extending that olive branch to the right, so when it's smacked out of their hands and the left consequently says "fuck y'all, we're ramming everything down your throats now," it will appear wholly justified.
Last time I checked, polls showed that a hefty percentage of the public view congressional GOP just as poorly, in general, as the democrats, but still feel like the democrats are handling the healthcare issue better than the GOP. I think the GOP have a hell of a lot more to lose if healthcare reform works out than the democrats have to lose if it doesn't. Where are the GOP going to be if/when a robust public option turns out to be wildly successful? #healthcare
10/28/09
I just hope the Dems' marriage to the gov't option doesn't shoot the whole health care/insurance reform down the crapper. #healthcare
10/28/09
Where they've always been. The contrapositive is true: even though deregulation of the financial sector proved to be disastrous, the GOP hasn't backed away from its fundamentals. Nationalized healthcare is antithetical to the party's fundamentals, and will always be wrong. If it is shown to be a success by any measure, some will deny it while others will say it's not worth it.
And when half the country is inclined to tow the party line (or perhaps it's the party towing conservative America's line), I don't think they have a whole lot to lose playing obstructionist politics on healthcare.
I do believe, however, that once you give a people a right or access to resources, it's much more difficult to take it away than it was to pass it in the first place. For this reason, I hope that the Democrats 1) shove it down the GOP's throat and avoid compromise for the sake of compromise, and 2) get it right. I'm still worried about a Republican controlled Congress, down the road, that decides to take a national healthcare system built under Democrats and tweak it through deregulation into something unrecognizable and to the detriment of the people.
10/28/09
So again, I pose the question: where is the GOP going to be if/when healthcare reform, which they've by and large attempted to obstruct, becomes the new Social Security or the new Medicare? It will a number of election cycles for them to live down that kind of shame. #healthcare
10/28/09
My concern is that I can conceive of a world in which, for any number of reasons, Republicans have chisseled away at a nationalized healthcare system, maybe by advocating a few points on which Democrats would be more than happy to "compromise", but which serves to shanghai the new national healthcare system into the service of privitization and deregulation. We already know that the Republican platform calls for a national market for private insurance companies as the part of the "solution" to the healthcare crisis. It'd be like a trojan horse -- and all the while Republicans are paying lip service to just how darn good our new safety net is. I'm also reminded of the Republican Congress and Bush that passed the 2003 prescription drug plan on behalf of insurance and pharmaceutical interests.
10/28/09
10/29/09
10/28/09
Also. Someone please tell Joe Leiberman to clear his throat, he's had an air bubble back there for the last 30 years. #healthcare
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
I'm really enjoying the Al Franken decade so far. #healthcare
10/28/09