HCAN: "It's a Shame Not a Single Republican" Voted To Allow Debate

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The following statement was issued on Nov. 21, 2009, by Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for the pro-reform umbrella group Health Care for America Now, in response to the 60-39 Senate vote on cloture:

"By voting to begin debate, Senate Democrats took another key step toward putting a bill on the President's desk that guarantees good, affordable coverage for America's families and businesses.

It is a shame not a single Republican in the Senate could put aside partisan gamesmanship to allow a legislative debate. We thought debating legislation is what Members of Congress were sent to Washington to do. Instead, Republicans continue to shill for the health insurance industry which is trying to kill meaningful reform. Republicans have proven once again they don't know how to say anything but "no."

Our nation's families and businesses can no longer wait for good, affordable health care with the choice of a public health insurance option, and Senate Democrats clearly understand we have come too far to slow down now.

We look forward to working with Senate Democrats in the coming weeks to make a good bill even better."

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ate.php?ref=fpa

[Tsup2 0]

Republicans are united in trying to stop this train wreck from happening. I hope they are ultimately successful.

[Pooky 3,865]

Republicans continue to shill for the health insurance industry which is trying to kill meaningful reform.

And in any of the Democrat Bills out there right now, the health insurance industry has done just that anyway.

So either way, we're screwed.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

It's not a shame to be united in doing the right thing against the tone deaf Dims.

[NickD 203]

Still don't feel it's a party thing, had a corporation controlled congress for years, now that is the major crime, they are suppose to represent the will of the people. And why can just one guy, the president, get us into a war? And why have all these very powerful governmental agencies have been formed since the 70's that make laws that contradict other such agencies?

And how can we have three branches of government with an idiot president, a yes congress, that appoints judges to the supreme court? Ends up being a dictatorship with just one guy screwing up the country, neither a republic nor a democracy. But this is where we are today.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It is not a shame, except that now the Democrats cannot claim it was bi-partisan IF it ever passes and WHEN it fails. Nope the Republicans are gonna let the Democrats eat this one all by themselves.

For example, Bush gets blamed for the recession when it was Clinton that signed the legislation that allowed the financial/mortgage mess we have now that started it. But then Democrats say the Republicans controlled the congress at the time so it is their fault.

We won't have any finger pointing now...will we? I think the Republicans ought to step aside for the next three years just so they cannot be blamed for this do-nothing-but-hope-and-blab President.

[Krikit 1,166]

You know, I was watching this on the news this morning and all I could think was how shocking it is that the US is only now doing something about healthcare reform when the rest of the developed world did it decades ago. In the US it's all about the haves and the have-nots. Those who "have" have the strongest voice and it's me me me me me. Those who "have not" aren't heard because they don't have a voice (paid lobbyists, healthcare industry) and nobody cares about them. The ironic thing is that the word "healthcare" is an oxymoron here.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You know, I was watching this on the news this morning and all I could think was how shocking it is that the US is only now doing something about healthcare reform when the rest of the developed world did it decades ago. In the US it's all about the haves and the have-nots. Those who "have" have the strongest voice and it's me me me me me. Those who "have not" aren't heard because they don't have a voice (paid lobbyists, healthcare industry) and nobody cares about them. The ironic thing is that the word "healthcare" is an oxymoron here.

Yep. Somewhere along the way, the Republican Party lost the idea of looking out for the least of their brethren. At some point, they decided that government is no longer "the people" but some scary monster to be feared and loathed.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I agree it is a shame. It's all about the party stance, not what's best for the people. It's a Democrat idea, so it's no good. The GOP uses the same logic as VW and a few others here of both parties. It's a Repbub idea, so it's no good. Meantime it does nothing to resolve the issue. They can't even vote to discuss it, pathetic. They won't compromise at all to have some say in it? Lame. It's not about whose idea it is or what party you belong to, it's about the American people.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I agree it is a shame. It's all about the party stance, not what's best for the people. It's a Democrat idea, so it's no good. The GOP uses the same logic as VW and a few others here of both parties. It's a Repbub idea, so it's no good. Meantime it does nothing to resolve the issue. They can't even vote to discuss it, pathetic. They won't compromise at all to have some say in it? Lame. It's not about whose idea it is or what party you belong to, it's about the American people.

Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.

~ Alexander Hamilton

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You know, I was watching this on the news this morning and all I could think was how shocking it is that the US is only now doing something about healthcare reform when the rest of the developed world did it decades ago. In the US it's all about the haves and the have-nots. Those who "have" have the strongest voice and it's me me me me me. Those who "have not" aren't heard because they don't have a voice (paid lobbyists, healthcare industry) and nobody cares about them. The ironic thing is that the word "healthcare" is an oxymoron here.

what's shocking to me is that anyone thinks Americans will accept the ####### healthcare the rest of the industrialized world has put up with. And I fear for the Canadians that flood across the border every day to use the medical services in Vermont...what are they going to do now?

Edited November 22, 2009 by Gary and Alla

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I agree it is a shame. It's all about the party stance, not what's best for the people. It's a Democrat idea, so it's no good. The GOP uses the same logic as VW and a few others here of both parties. It's a Repbub idea, so it's no good. Meantime it does nothing to resolve the issue. They can't even vote to discuss it, pathetic. They won't compromise at all to have some say in it? Lame. It's not about whose idea it is or what party you belong to, it's about the American people.

I think it is VERY good it is a Democrat idea. WHY are Democrats so ashamed to lay claim to it? It is all yours, take it. Brag about it! Ride it to re-election for years to come! Don't worry, be happy. You will get ALL the "credit".

Bu tin reality the Democrats are thinking..."oh ####### we are about to turn our healthcare over to the same government that runs USCIS" I can;t wait for the healthcare call center to be set up.

[Niels Bohr 72]

It's also their actions that lead to the Iraq war.

Feeble minded people think alike.

Republicans are united in trying to stop this train wreck from happening. I hope they are ultimately successful.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Nixon introduced his Comprehensive Health Insurance Act on Feb. 6, 1974, days after he used what would be his final State of the Union address to call for universal access to health insurance.

"I shall propose a sweeping new program that will assure comprehensive health-insurance protection to millions of Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved protection against catastrophic illnesses," he told America.

Nixon said his plan would build on existing employer-sponsored insurance plans and would provide government subsidies to the self-employed and small businesses to ensure universal access to health insurance. He said it wouldn't create a new federal bureaucracy.

The Nixon plan won support from a Time magazine editorial on Feb. 18, 1974, which noted that "more and more Americans have been insisting that national health insurance is an idea whose tune (sic) has come."

Nixon proposed a plan that would provide health insurance for all Americans. Similar to the situation faced by President Johnson, partisan opposition to Nixon's policies was firmly entrenched. In this instance, few were prepared to label the renowned anti-communist president as an advocate for socialism. Instead his opponents, such as Senator Edward “Teddy” Kennedy of Massachusetts, attacked Nixon on the grounds that he was offering a deal that would see the insurance companies benefit.

Nixon, for his part, was stalwart in his belief that a national health insurance plan was vital to the country’s future. He stated in his 1974 State of the Union Address that “The time is at hand this year to bring comprehensive, high quality health care within the reach of every American.” Nixon’s own past experience with poverty and family illness made this a personal issue for the President. Yet Nixon’s call for an employer mandate to provide health insurance as part of his planned universal health care coverage for all citizens was seen as inadequate by many democrats in congress. The plan was also opposed by powerful unions such as the AFL-CIO and the United Autoworkers, who lobbied hard to defeat the legislation.

In a moment of bi-partisan cooperation, Nixon’s staunch foe, Ted Kennedy, agreed to a compromise deal and prepared to work to get the health care legislation passed through congress. However, the brewing Watergate scandal soon took over the headlines and distracted the President from pushing through with this initiative. With the President unable to continue to rally support, the efforts of the Unions, who hoped for a better deal under a new presidential administration, succeeded in derailing the Nixon-Kennedy health care bill.

http://pmpub.krose.org/forum?action=reply_...ssage_id=342060

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Nixon introduced his Comprehensive Health Insurance Act on Feb. 6, 1974, days after he used what would be his final State of the Union address to call for universal access to health insurance.

"I shall propose a sweeping new program that will assure comprehensive health-insurance protection to millions of Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved protection against catastrophic illnesses," he told America.

Nixon said his plan would build on existing employer-sponsored insurance plans and would provide government subsidies to the self-employed and small businesses to ensure universal access to health insurance. He said it wouldn't create a new federal bureaucracy.

The Nixon plan won support from a Time magazine editorial on Feb. 18, 1974, which noted that "more and more Americans have been insisting that national health insurance is an idea whose tune (sic) has come."

Nixon proposed a plan that would provide health insurance for all Americans. Similar to the situation faced by President Johnson, partisan opposition to Nixon's policies was firmly entrenched. In this instance, few were prepared to label the renowned anti-communist president as an advocate for socialism. Instead his opponents, such as Senator Edward “Teddy” Kennedy of Massachusetts, attacked Nixon on the grounds that he was offering a deal that would see the insurance companies benefit.

Nixon, for his part, was stalwart in his belief that a national health insurance plan was vital to the country’s future. He stated in his 1974 State of the Union Address that “The time is at hand this year to bring comprehensive, high quality health care within the reach of every American.” Nixon’s own past experience with poverty and family illness made this a personal issue for the President. Yet Nixon’s call for an employer mandate to provide health insurance as part of his planned universal health care coverage for all citizens was seen as inadequate by many democrats in congress. The plan was also opposed by powerful unions such as the AFL-CIO and the United Autoworkers, who lobbied hard to defeat the legislation.

In a moment of bi-partisan cooperation, Nixon’s staunch foe, Ted Kennedy, agreed to a compromise deal and prepared to work to get the health care legislation passed through congress. However, the brewing Watergate scandal soon took over the headlines and distracted the President from pushing through with this initiative. With the President unable to continue to rally support, the efforts of the Unions, who hoped for a better deal under a new presidential administration, succeeded in derailing the Nixon-Kennedy health care bill.

http://pmpub.krose.org/forum?action=reply_...ssage_id=342060

we need another Watergate.