Which can’t be said for the minority for any of their own spending when they were in the majority. Which has something to do with why they’re now the minority. But memories are short.
Death panels!
And when I defend the Republicans, let me know. Until then, how about the Democrats figure it out - after all, they control all of Congress and the Presidency.
I will watch for the final bill to see how they expect to pay for whatever they finally put on the table.
For my free market Libertarian health care information:
There are other factors that affect legislation. Like $1.5M in lobbying. Every day.
But let me make it simple for ya:
2 months ago the Senate passed a healthcare bill that, thanks to ol’ Joe, the “Independent” from Aetna, did not have a public option.
Then, there was a flurry of opposition.
Why was there opposition? (Psst. This is where that librul thing called math comes in.) Because it didn’t include a public option.
What are we paying now for this woefully inefficiient system? How do we quantify the lost productivity? How do we factor human suffering?
As a matter of fact, yes, they will:
But this is true of any government action.
I wonder if Americans would’ve supported the Iraq War if they were shown a $2 trillion price tag and photos of dead children. Hell, I wonder how many would support continuation of the war, if they were shown these materials.
Too bad the rest of the torture photos aren’t being released. Oh, well…
and Pay Per View! 
The typical conservative truculence aside, a point about that “Cadillac” health plan tax: it is a tax on the middle class, not just the CEOs. The rich don’t really need health insurance, they can pay for everything out of pocket.
Socol-Islamo-Facist-Necro-Crypto-Kenyan Usurpers!
It’s not nice to stereotype–we don’t all like Southern Comfort.
Mind if I cite this “shining example”, as one among many?
“[Our bill] will be pro-life because it will not put seniors in the position of being put to death by their government”
“We have more to fear from the potential of that [health care] bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country.”
-Virginia Foxx of North Carolina
There are others. Feel free to find some.
Oh yeah, that doesn’t excuse the Dems from being a bunch of pussies, as Jon Stewart so aptly pointed out.
Not so much a statistic as an observation: Our political system allows sufficiently determined minorities to thwart the will of the majority. This is to a large extent a feature, not a bug–it was deliberately set up that way–but in recent years we’ve taken a Senate which potentially allows for quite small national minorities to block legislation just with straight majority voting (in theory, less than 20%) and piled on routine painless filibusters, which is a real recipe for permanent institutional gridlock strong enough to make it hard to pass legislation even when it’s supported by a good majority of the people.
The dems have a tough decision. They can put through a watered down bill which would just make the heath care providers happy and even richer, or actually pass a bill that would make things better. It would take guts .At minimum a public option is needed. Better yet, UHC. If they are going to get politically murdered by selfish repubs who don’t care about the welfare of the people, they may as well make one that will do the job. Instituting a better and fairer health care system would help the dems during the elections. Letting the lobbyists gut it would be the worst way to go.
Just a little more info, obtained with no effort:
President Obama wants to euthanize your grandma!!! :
These accusations—of “death panels” and forced euthanasia—are, of course, flatly untrue. As an article from the Associated Press puts it: “No ‘death panel’ in health care bill.”
Democrats are going to outlaw private insurance and force you into a government plan!!! :
With reform, choices will increase, not decrease. Obama’s reform plans will create a health insurance exchange, a one-stop shopping marketplace for affordable, high-quality insurance options.3 Included in the exchange is the public health insurance option—a nationwide plan with a broad network of providers—that will operate alongside private insurance companies, injecting competition into the market to drive quality up and costs down.4 If you’re happy with your coverage and doctors, you can keep them.
President Obama wants to implement Soviet-style rationing!!! :
Health care reform will expand access to high-quality health insurance, and give individuals, families, and businesses more choices for coverage.
You’ll have no choice in what health benefits you receive:
The myth that a “health choices commissioner” will decide what benefits you get seems to have originated in a July 19 post at blog.flecksoflife.com, whose homepage features an image of Obama looking like Heath Ledger’s Joker. …
The threat that Medicare will give cancer patients over 70 only end-of-life counseling and not chemotherapy—as a nurse at a hospital told a roomful of chemo patients, including the uncle of a NEWSWEEK reporter—has zero basis in fact. It’s just a vicious form of the rationing scare. The House bill does not use the word “ration.” Nor does it call for cost-effectiveness research, much less implementation—the idea that “it isn’t cost-effective to give a 90-year-old a hip replacement.”
“No ‘death panel’ in health care bill,” Associated Press, August 10, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51747
“Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan,” Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51737
“Obama: ‘If You Like Your Doctor, You Can Keep Your Doctor,’” Wall Street Journal, 15, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51736
“Obama: No reduced Medicare benefits in health care reform,” CNN, July 28, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51748
“Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies,” CNN, June 5, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51735
[sarcasm]
Yes, the reasoned and carefully researched objections we’ve ALL seen and heard in the “news” and from various pundits, talking heads and “pundits” was very carefully researched, measured, analyzed, and not one “concern” was invented.[/sarcasm]
But then, I am sure that all these fine people only have our best interests at heart.
Such fine caring people as “let them eat applesauce” Limbaugh.
I don’t think they have the will, or the guts.
Ooh. I actually like that. It’s dishonest, but on the other hand it does consider national security and social programs along the same lines. I seem to remember a bunch of conservatives trying to come with reasons that the WTC attack, with a toll of ~3,000, should be perceived as a greater threat to the country than, say, car accidents, which have much higher death tolls.
I think this is the right way to go. 44,789 Americans die every year because of lack of insurance. Alan Grayson’s proclamation of a “holocaust” should be carried forth since, hyperbolic though it may be, it is essentially true. That, and the executives of health insurance companies that are found to engage in unjustified claim denials that result in a patient’s death should be tried for murder.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_Obama_120909.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody New CBS poll says 60 percent of Americans are for the public option. 30 percent are against. It is clear to everyone but Fox followers.
And not only that, but between 50% and 60% (depending on the state) of voters say they would be more likely to vote for Dems in the next election if they pass healthcare legislation with a public option than if they try to get a bipartisan bill.
This topic is, “The Public Option is Not Dead, But Liars are Trying to Kill It.” (Cite: the thread title.)
Now, perhaps this is meant is a neutral observation, with no perjorative implication about the liars, but it sure doesn’t read this way. The entire freaking thread, in other words, is about condeming the influence of lying on decisions of public policy.
It is therefore utterly and completely relevant whether the objection to lying only arises when one disagrees with the ultimate policy at issue. If lying is acceptablewhen the end goal is desirable, then this thread’s emphasis on the liars derailing policy is itself dishonest; it’s not the lying that’s the problem under this view, just the subject of the lie.
If lying to achieve a public policy end is always worthy of condemnation, on the other hand, then the thread title is appropriate.
So there’s nothing “juvenile” or irrelevant in noting how much bullshit it is for you to whine and mewl about “the liars.” You love the liars when they lie for a cause you believe in. You happily embrace their lies; you let them pass without comment or perhaps even subtly promote them by attacking other ponts but failing to mention them.
So (a) it’s absolutely and completely relevant, and (b) absolutely and completely disgusting to watch.
Stop right there. This thread is NOT about “the influence of lying on decisions of public policy.” I’m surprised you would make that claim only 2 sentences after you cited and quoted the thread title: The Public Option is Not Dead, But Liars are Trying to Kill It. The thread has fuck-all to do with public policy in general. It is only about this one public policy.
The rest of your post falls apart, because you are trying to redefine the debate to be inclusive of other public policies, when, as you noted, it is only about the health care bill. In fact, the rest of your post is more like some shit from the Pit: it’s basically a rant against what you perceive to be the left’s willingness to be dishonest if it will further their cause.