about what this health care is doing to a political party...

"Sitting in an airport, on his way home to Michigan, Rep. Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat, is chagrined. “They’re ignoring me,”,,,,"

Now, in the debate’s final hours, Stupak says the other eleven are coming under “enormous” political pressure from both the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.). “I am a definite ‘no’ vote,” he says. “I didn’t cave. The others are having both of their arms twisted, and we’re all getting pounded by our traditional Democratic supporters, like unions.”

Stupak says he also doesn’t trust the “Slaughter solution,” a legislative maneuver being bandied about on Capitol Hill as a way to pass the Senate bill in the House without actually voting on it. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,” he says. “I don’t have a warm-and-fuzzy feeling about what I’m hearing.”

Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. “I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.”

What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

And he ends the interview as follows...

"And the politics of the issue are pretty rough. “This has really reached an unhealthy stage,” Stupak says. “People are threatening ethics complaints on me. On the left, they’re really stepping it up. Every day, from Rachel Maddow to the Daily Kos, it keeps coming. Does it bother me? Sure. Does it change my position? No.”"

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...E3Y2ZlZDQ5NTY=


While folks have let the Republican party to die a few short months ago, we seem to be witnessing the Democratic party committing suicide. Imagine "threatening ethics complaints" to get votes. What has Washington become.

And I might add....our President, the one who dismisses politics is in the middle of it all. who will bless whatever chicanary is required to pass his bill despite the feelings of the majority of the american people. But, of course as Nancy Pelosi says...."we wont know what is in it until we pass it".

By the way, the "Slaughter solution" referenced in the article and the means by which our congress will pass a health bill was proposed by a Pelosi friend, Louise Slaughter a democrat from New York. They will get the health care through the house without actually voting on the bill that came from the senate. As I understand it they will vote ONLY on ammendments and then "DEEM" the senate bill passed. I suppose our constitutional expert, our President does not care HOW !

As long as either party is even thinking this way, we are doomed. Ignore the people and find tricks to get done whatever you want.

Yes, how is that "hopey changey" working out for us?

Too bad we don't have the same types of people in Congress that we had as recently as 15-20 years ago. As recently as then, the liberal Democratic Speaker of the House would visit with the conservative POTUS to share a freindly drink and cigar. President Reagan once told Tip O'Neill, "Get me 75% of what I want and that's enough. We'll try to get the rest later."

We've reached the point now where there is no possibility of consensus. In our Congress it has become, "It's my way or the highway" or "If you don't do it my way, I'm taking my ball and going home."

Does it make sense to anyone that when virtually the entire country agrees that reform of the healthcare system is desperately needed, that no reform at all will threaten our very way of life, that a small group of people would threaten the entire country because they couldn't get their way on a single, narrow issue? It sure doesn't make sense to me.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Too bad we don't have the same types of people in Congress that we had as recently as 15-20 years ago. As recently as then, the liberal Democratic Speaker of the House would visit with the conservative POTUS to share a freindly drink and cigar. President Reagan once told Tip O'Neill, "Get me 75% of what I want and that's enough. We'll try to get the rest later."

We've reached the point now where there is no possibility of consensus. In our Congress it has become, "It's my way or the highway" or "If you don't do it my way, I'm taking my ball and going home."

Does it make sense to anyone that when virtually the entire country agrees that reform of the healthcare system is desperately needed, that no reform at all will threaten our very way of life, that a small group of people would threaten the entire country because they couldn't get their way on a single, narrow issue? It sure doesn't make sense to me.

Does it make sense that when americans do not want this particular bill, that it does not address the main issue which is cost that a small gropu of people would threaten not only the entire country but the constitution to get their way on a single narrow issue ? It sure doesnt make sense tome !

The link below from Fortune magazine details some of the ways the President is playing word games with all of us.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/12/news...tune/index.htm

that which the majority of us are satisfied with. Then "repair" that which is wrong with the current system i.e. abuse, collusion, etc....and with the REAL savings only, provide insurance for the un-insured who want it.

Some how the majority position never makes it to the front page of Washington politics.

Would anyone like to make a guess how many of the un-insured would purchase coverage if the cash was put in their hand??

The current proposal...that is what ever it turns out to be....offers absolutely no more assurance of any less future disaster than leaving the current as is (do nothing is not appropriate because at some point somebody will ultimately have to step up to the plate and address what is wrong).

Unbridled progression at any cost no matter what against the will of the people is just wrong. Part of the hope Obama offered was he would not employ such tactics.....oh yeah that was an elect me because "reading"....and what does that have to do with what HE wants? His agenda is obviously worth more than re-election OF ANYBODY.

btk

Originally Posted by Bucco

Does it make sense that when americans do not want this particular bill, that it does not address the main issue which is cost that a small gropu of people would threaten not only the entire country but the constitution to get their way on a single narrow issue ? It sure doesnt make sense tome !

The link below from Fortune magazine details some of the ways the President is playing word games with all of us.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/12/news...tune/index.htm

Thanks for the link. A voice of reason.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Does it make sense to anyone that when virtually the entire country agrees that reform of the health care system is desperately needed, that no reform at all will threaten our very way of life, that a small group of people would threaten the entire country because they couldn't get their way on a single, narrow issue? It sure doesn't make sense to me.

Who is the small group of people not getting their way?

This position appears to advocate Obamacare, but doesn't seem to reconcile with your post that gives budgetary perspective. You appear to advocate for budget cuts while at the same time advocating for health care reform that will be the most costly entitlement in the history of the world by even the most conservative estimates.

I view the passage of the proposed bill the final execution of the Cloward-Piven Strategy that calls for deliberately overloading America's entitlement system to the breaking point in order to bankrupt our economic system. This would than morph into a totalitarian government takeover based on a Marxist spread the wealth system guaranteeing a national income dictated by the govenment. Obama and the communists in the White House and halls of Congress must be giddy with the prospect realizing their dream.

Originally Posted by cabo35

Who is the small group of people not getting their way?...

Sorry, I missed your reply in this thread.

The "small group" I was referring to is the Stupack group of 11-12 who are willing to hold up the entire healthcare reform bill based on one narrow issue. If one is to believe what the politicians and commentators are saying, what they're holding out for isn't even in the bill.

I suppose I could have been referring to many other examples of the same type of conduct--Senator Bunning's recent conduct is an example disdained by both sides; Senator Kyle did the same thing, although I can't recall the issue; of course, there's the example of Senators Nelson and Landrieux, both of whom held out for benefits for their constituents, refusing to pass legislation for the good of the country in exchange for feathering their own nests.

The point I was trying to make is there seems to be a trend of our legislators--in both parties--to demand that their narrow needs be addressed, sometimes issues not at all related to the legislation and added only by amendment, in exchange for their vote on broader, more important legislation affecting the entire country.

define the source of funding for the bill. Since he is not running for re-election he had nothing to lose.
If in fact he was beaten down by the system (both parties) with emphasis on passing the bill and not muddying up the waters by demanding to know what was not going to be spent to offset yet another addition to the deficit....which it appears happened....then accountability is not a priority.

I personally do not see any impediment by any legislator who will not just go along and who has the guts (initially anyway) to seek justification.

Understanding where funding is to come from or demanding an offset of other spending is not what our legislators comprehend...

My issues with health care reform is there is no accountability, as per normal. No justification of funding, as per normal. Insisting that we the people take a leap of faith that the the proposal being rammed through will turn out as verbalized. Historical track record deems that not to be the case.

I don't care who is proposing what, in my book if it cannot be justified then it should not be passed. It is an Obama agenda item that implementation has become more important than the cost or even what is in the bill. As he has said previously, he doesn't care what winds up in the bill as long as it is passed. Why? To be able to say he has done what no other POTUS has done....excuse me !!!!!!!!!

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

...I don't care who is proposing what, in my book if it cannot be justified then it should not be passed...

While I fundamentally agree with you, applying that logic to the way our government legislates would result in absolutely nothing getting done. The reason is that the partisans on one side or the other would make sure that an amendment or two were added to every bill being considered that would authorize something totally unjustifiable. Apply the rule, that would mean that no one could vote to pass any legislation at all because of the addition of amendments authorizing unjustifiable or even objectionable things.

Furthermore, really understanding what's in each piece of legislation is a lot easier said than done. I can recall a workshop that my Congressman, Republican John Porter of Illinois' 10th District, ran several years ago. The task of his constituents who participated was to reach a conclusion on whether to pass or reject a federal budget proposal. He explained that he tried to set up the workshop to closely represent the kind of problem a member of Congress has in considering spending bills. He explained that the members of Congress are NOT given the detailed budgets prepared by every single unit of the federal bureaucracy. At the very best, they get top-level summaries of proposed expenditures, with virtually no detail regarding what the proposed spending is actually for.

The hundred or so participants were very frustrated by the fact that we were being asked to approve or reject a federal budget with so little supporting information and so little time to analyze and consider the budget proposals. We all knew that a budget had to be approved or the govenment would simply shut down with no funding. But we were frustrated by knowing so little about what we were voting for.

Our Congressman's response was, "welcome to the world of the House of Representatives!" He explained that the complaints we cited for the task we were presented were exactly the same kinds of complaints that every freshman Congressman makes when first confronted with the budget approval part of his/her job. There's not enough time and certainly not enough information with which to make a really informed decision.

I provide this anecdote only to further demonstrate how difficult it is to actually accomplish what sounds so logical and right. "Don't vote for anything that can't be justified." Who could possibly argue with that?

But then, just try to actually do it.