Breaking: Blue Dogs win delay on ObamaCare vote; Update: Agreement on cuts, not on floor vote
posted at 12:45 pm on July 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Despite rumors floating around Capitol Hill earlier this morning, Democrats will not rescue Barack Obama’s credibility by getting him a floor vote on ObamaCare this week. The Hill reports that Blue Dogs have successfully stalled the process until after the August recess as they try to win concessions in the bill’s composition:
The Blue Dogs and House leaders have struck a deal to guarantee that the House will not vote on a healthcare bill before August, a leading Blue Dog said on Wednesday.
In exchange for putting off a floor vote until after Labor Day, the Energy and Commerce Committee may be allowed to continue its markup of the healthcare bill this week even if an agreement has not been reached between Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and seven Energy and Commerce Committee Blue Dogs over the content of the bill.
Asked if House leaders had told Democrats that there will be no House vote on healthcare before Friday, Blue Dog Co-Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.) said, “I don’t think [leaders have] made public statements to that regard, but my understanding is that that would be part of an agreement, if they actually do move forward with an Energy and Commerce markup that there will be no vote on the House floor until after Labor Day.” …
“There has been no official announcement on floor timing, but at this point, the odds are that we will not likely vote before we adjourn for August,” a Democratic leadership aide said.
Earlier rumors had the Democrats attempting to arrange a show vote in order to give Obama a little face-saving send-off to everyone’s vacation. Not only did Nancy Pelosi fail to get that much, Henry Waxman all but ran up the white flag on his bluff to bypass his own committee. The only concession made by the Blue Dogs was to continue working with Waxman to change the bill — hardly a defeat for the Blue Dogs, who refused to buckle to Waxman’s demand to take it as is.
Now the House will return to their constituents and hear an earful from all sides of the health-care debate, but the ground has shifted considerably in the meantime. The popularity of ObamaCare has plummeted as the costs have become more known, and so have Obama’s polling numbers. Moderates will face more conservative constituents, but even more traditionally liberal districts are going to look at hundred of billions of dollars in increased deficits with some skepticism.
When Congress reconvenes, expect the moderates to have even more pull — and for the split between Democratic leadership and its rank-and-file to widen.
Update: Both Fox and CNN are reporting that Blue Dogs have agreed to ObamaCare proposals in the House in exchange for about $100 billion in cuts to the program in order to make it less fiscally destructive. Both Fox and CNN are repeating that the bill will not get out to the House floor until the fall, however; the agreement is to get the bill out of the Energy and Commerce Committee by Friday, when the House adjourns for its August recess.
If they’re right, this is a tremendously stupid move by Democrats. It gives the Republicans a fixed target for the next few weeks, with an ability to cite the actual legislation and pick it apart, while painting moderate Democrats as fools who haven’t bothered to read it. Having no final version of the bill would have allowed Democrats to dodge questions about it. This makes them stand on the bill for weeks without getting moved out of way. Call it political target practice, practically akin to shooting ducks in a barrel, for the GOP.
Update II: Ace has more, including some great ideas for activists on this issue.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
So the government’s own website is lying about its own wait times by making it seem worse than it actually is. Riiiiight.
angryed on July 29, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Huh?
progressoverpeace on July 29, 2009 at 1:56 PM
The British one. The accent would calm me.
dcwvu on July 29, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Um, look at that list again. Most don’t even list their wait times. And most that do are between 7 days and 3-4 weeks. It takes that long to get to a specialist here…and we pay out the nose for it.
dcwvu on July 29, 2009 at 1:50 PM
An orthopedic surgeon called me at noon on a monday and told me that I needed brain surgery. He scheduled an appointment for me with a neurosurgeon at 8 the next morning. Won’t happen under ObamaCare.
txag92 on July 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM
And to think dvwvu is using up his minutes at the public library on petulance, spite and pettyness. Sad creature.
daesleeper on July 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Republicans are notoriously bad shots due to their jelly-like composition and natural adversion to conforntation.
Friendly21 on July 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM
I was agreeing with you. He lives in Ohio.
MobileVideoEngineer on July 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Don’t forget that the tactic of socialism is to get the foot in the door. How wide it opens at first is not the point. Obama will get the door to open, then, later, provisions will be added to increase it, maybe not in his term, but he will get the credit in the eyes of history for bringing universal healthcare to America.
America will have socialized health care because the politicians who are currently opposed will vote yes once it is watered down a bit. Ultimately, politicians want to sign something. It is their nature. (There are very few Dr. NOs.) Then, once in the door, this socialized medicine will be expanded. These Blue Dogs you speak of, and these Republican politicians currently opposed, are not opposed for ideological reasons. They are opposed only to the extent that this bill looks too socialist and it might impact their own popularity.
What these politicians really want is a healthcare plan that looks more liberal and less socialist. And that is the the Left’s tactic. Introduce socialism, knowing it will be bargained down to something that looks more like liberalism. And with that liberalism, they have their foot in the door. Time does the rest.
“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
Norman Thomas, 1948
Six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America
keep the change on July 29, 2009 at 1:58 PM
You wouldn’t be able to find one to service you.
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 1:58 PM
At least you’re honest about it, I’ll give you credit for that. You like Obama would rather have us all suffering in pain instead of getting “little tests”. I guess it’s easy to say that until you need one of these “little tests” yourself. But with ObamaCare you won’t have anywhere to go.
What little punks like you don’t get though is Obama will still get the tests. So will Dem senators. So will Nancy Pelosi. So will Ted Kennedy. So will David Axelrod. They’re not worried for a second. It’s shlubs like you, the useful idiot that will suffer under their plan that they would never in a million years think of imposing on themselves.
angryed on July 29, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Rubbish. I have Canadian friends who know firsthand, and they tell me they have never encountered these wait times. Cancer patients are not being held for MONTHS before treatment, or Canada would have a cancer mortality rate of 90%+. All GOP scare tactics designed to protect billionaire insurance companies.
dcwvu on July 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Sorry. I thought you mean this was done in Canada. My bad.
angryed on July 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM
When do we begin calling? When do the Blue dogs get home??
WhatsRight on July 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM
I’d be very happy to contribute to ship you off to any other country you want. Please leave and go to, what you consider to be, a country of excellence. You deserve it, but more importantly, the US deserves it.
progressoverpeace on July 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Could the Blue Dogs want a concrete bill during recess so they can be heckled during recess than give Dem leaders in the house a good excuse for voting no? To reword, Blue Dogs do not want to say no to Nancy now, so they create a written bill that they fully expect to outrage people in their districts. When they come back in September they tell Nancy they have to vote no to keep their seat.
WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Interesting standard for healthcare you have. Actual skill or ability or availability at taking care of you is irrelevant apparently.
gwelf on July 29, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Oh excuse me. Your friends know better than what the government has ON ITS OWN WEB SITE. Sure thing. I believe that.
angryed on July 29, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Oh please. The USA is #1 for having citizens that are lardballs. Our unshakable consumerist mindset is causing a huge burden on the healthcare system in myriad ways.
Dark-Star on July 29, 2009 at 2:01 PM
No doubt. The fools opened the door. Every dirty Dim and their pages will be filing through with amendments and health related pork by Labor Day.
The only hope now is the Senate. With Snowe and Collins in attendance it doesn’t look good for America.
Get ready for health rationing.
In two years our present system will look more like Canada than present day US health care.
FireBlogger on July 29, 2009 at 2:01 PM
\
Well, they’ll love to wait in line and not get those tests, then, won’t they?
And? Think lifestyle choices should be regulated to improve this?
3% net profit margins. Is that laughing all the way to the bank?
lorien1973 on July 29, 2009 at 2:02 PM
You once again show your ignorance. A company cannot be a billionaire you dolt. Learn some basics about how business works. I thin The Soros Institute from which you draw your AstroTurf paycheck offers some.
angryed on July 29, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Because we all know how totally reliable government figures are. Especially ones we get off teh interwebz!
Dark-Star on July 29, 2009 at 2:02 PM
No offense to any Brit’s here, but have you ever seen their teeth?
Knucklehead on July 29, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Honestly, I think if this whole agreement revolved around 100 billion dollars in cuts – and ONLY that – the Blue Dogs should just call themselves plain old Democrats. Let’s hope I’m wrong.
Ryan Gandy on July 29, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Your answer was dead-on but the dense and the devoted will never understand. They are a lost cause. They will always be the burden on society.
sherry on July 29, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Rubbish!
lorien1973 on July 29, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Yay! I can’t wait to see what ObamaCare’s answer to obesity is! It states clearly in the constitution that the government is responsible for the ‘general welfare’ which as we all know means they are responsible for everything.
gwelf on July 29, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Starting to wonder if the Blue Dogs are actually Blue Foxes….
They nail San Fran Nan, her dummy Waxman, and Obama to this bill, static, for weeks.
They, just like Nan and Waxy and *every other congresscritter* have to go listen to their constituents tell them “No” (or more likely “Hells no!”) then come back, and say “My people say they don’t like this, what do you say we start over?”.
Should give the centrists a bit more control over the final bill…
Mew
(who thinks insurance reform is needed, but who would prefer to start with tort and immigration reform first…)
acat on July 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM
I’d believe that – if your friends in question are cats or dogs.
gwelf on July 29, 2009 at 2:05 PM
WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM
—–
Same thought, just a few minutes longer typing it up.
Mew
acat on July 29, 2009 at 2:05 PM
If the government was going to fudge the numbers they’d fudge it to make themselves look better. But I suppose they could be so incompetent to get that wrong too.
gwelf on July 29, 2009 at 2:06 PM
I have a Canadian friend who came to Duke for her cancer surgery because
A)the care was superior and
B)the wait at home would have literally killed her.
I know this because I visited her at Duke- 30 minutes from my house.
Monica on July 29, 2009 at 2:06 PM
When I was there most had good teeth
They had bad teeth in the past
blatantblue on July 29, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Im not sure what obesity has to do with government run health care. Are useful idiots like gealife/dccwu (same person) suggesting that a govt run health care will magically turn the obese into the skinny?
Look at WHO is obese. The poor mainly. They’re already on govt helathcare via medicaid. So your plan is to get those that are not obese onto the same govt run clusterfu*k and somehow that will make the existing obese, not obese.
Dude you are dumber than dumb.
angryed on July 29, 2009 at 2:08 PM
I’m not sure many of our current GOP reps would be able to hit ducks in a barrel.
hawksruleva on July 29, 2009 at 2:08 PM
WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM
I thought that too. I hope you’re right.
txag92 on July 29, 2009 at 2:08 PM
I don’t even want a single-payer system. If we could just come up with ways to lower insurance costs/premiums that would be fine by me and millions of others. However, the opposite is happening and we’re just sick of it. Is Obamacare overreaching? Perhaps. But after decades of broken promises on healthcare, we’ll take whatever we can get in terms of reform.
dcwvu on July 29, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Did you know government mandates are the primary reason healthcare costs are on the rise?
lorien1973 on July 29, 2009 at 2:10 PM
WPost: Reid told reporters Tuesday that he might be willing to compromise on points of policy if it meant getting the 60 votes needed to turn back GOP procedural objections. The Senate Democratic caucus stands at 60 members, but two members — Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.) and Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) — have battled serious illness, requiring Reid to win support from at least two Republicans to make up for their absence.
“I have a responsibility to get a bill on the Senate floor that will get 60 votes,” Reid said. “That’s my number one responsibility, and there are times when I have to set aside my personal preferences for the good of the Senate and, I think, the country”.
Procedurally, you are correct about the nuclear option, but Harry Reid wants 60 Senators.
WaPost:”Assuming the fragile committee coalition holds, the legislation it produces would scramble the reform landscape by introducing policy ideas that have their origins in the political center. The bill is bound to disappoint liberals. But with prominent GOP backing, it also could prove more difficult for Republicans to reject out of hand — the approach they have taken to the House bill and a second Senate version, written by the health committee. The finance panel’s legislation is expected to include incentives for employers to provide health insurance for their workers, rather than a more punitive coverage mandate. The committee is also likely to endorse narrowly-targeted tax increases, rejecting a controversial tax surcharge on wealthy households that the House adopted and limits on deductions for upper-income taxpayers that Obama is seeking.
GOP negotiators rejected from the outset the kind of government-run insurance plan that Obama and most Democrats are pushing for in an attempt to inject the health-insurance market with pricing competition. Instead, the committee would create coverage cooperatives modeled after rural electricity providers.
Negotiators are scrubbing every provision for unintended consequences that could negatively affect small businesses or middle-class families, both of which Republicans say could be harmed by the other bills moving through Congress.
“What we do obviously would be important to our Republican conference,” said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), a member of the GOP team, along with Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on the finance panel, and Mike Enzi (Wyo.), the senior Republican on the health committee. Snowe said the primary goal of the negotiations is a bill that can draw Republican votes. ”
Conservatives can comfort themselves by watching liberals lose control of their bowels by wondering how the Senate health care bill emerged as a GOP bill…
ChrisB on July 29, 2009 at 2:10 PM
That’s good. Because Western countries that have a single-payer system have been trying to slowly walk it back these past few years. So I don’t think that is something we want here.
terryannonline on July 29, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Because you don’t care what happens. As long as the word “reform” is slapped on the bill and Obama is the one signing it into law, you’ll be happy.
ZJPolitical on July 29, 2009 at 2:12 PM
So you’re supporting a system that’s going to RAISE costs overall?
Brilliant plan, Hawking.
Chuck Schick on July 29, 2009 at 2:12 PM
dcwvu is like AnninCA. I want any reform that’ll “lower costs” but as long as it’s this reform, and only this reform. No other option is acceptable.
lorien1973 on July 29, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Canada actually does have significantly higher mortality rates for many sorts of cancer.http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/25/10-surprising-facts-about-american-health-care/
hawksruleva on July 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM
dcwvu, your Soros review for this week will not be kind. Stick to one point. You’re all over the map on this one. You want British/Canadian systems but not a single payer. You hate insurance companies but still want them involved. You want reform, but don’t even know what that means. And you think the British Pound and Euro have always been strong currencies.
If I were Soros, a D+ would be my grade.
angryed on July 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Reform no matter what the end result is what you want? Even if it obviously will not lower the cost of healthcare to you?
Have you asked yourself why it is that healthcare is so expensive? If your answer is the eeeeeeeevil insurance companies then you’re wrong. Excessive law suits, those paying for insurance subsidizing Medicare/Medicaid’s policy of under-paying doctors, and isolating the patient from the ‘costs’, and bad insurance ‘regulations’ are all at fualt.
Why not get behind the GOP plan if you don’t really care what reform happens?
gwelf on July 29, 2009 at 2:15 PM
I’m honestly asking this. Wouldn’t the raise in taxes be offset by the lowering of copays/premiums/out of pocket expenses? Like overall, which would be lower? I thought the argument was that a raise in taxes was still less than what we pay for healthcare costs now.
dcwvu on July 29, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Typical Left argumentation. Come up with a snappy 2 or 3 word phrase that any moron can parrot and sound really canny.
The moron in this case, of course, being dcwvu.
guntotinglibertarian on July 29, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Ed, I am glad you are at Hot Air; I really respect your analyses. I just read this one concerning the Dems locking themselves into a form of Obamacare and I think you are right in that opponents of the plan now have something they can point to and yell, “American people, this is what you want…really?’
mbabbitt on July 29, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Dcwvu, your comrades are disappearing. Equality was given the Ban Hammer on the Michelle/NBC thread today.
kingsjester on July 29, 2009 at 2:16 PM
So, shooting all the poor people would be a good plan, as far as you’re concerned? That would lower overall costs quite a bit.
How about letting old people die instead of treating them? That’s actually going to happen under this plan.
hawksruleva on July 29, 2009 at 2:16 PM
I’m trying to be enlightened here. So stop being a wisea$$.
dcwvu on July 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Actually wasn’t health care cheaper back in the day (a long time ago obviously)when the vast majority didn’t have health insurance.
terryannonline on July 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/Details/Health/infant-mortality-rate.aspx
From the government:
Canada gets a “C” and ranks 16th out of 17 peer countries. Its infant mortality rate is shockingly high for a country at Canada’s level of socio-economic development.
I can’t wait until we go the Canadian route for health care. Anyone of you libs have any babies on the way? For their sake I hope not.
angryed on July 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM
That might work for you, since you probably make under $40,000 and go to the doctor every time you have a sniffle.
For my wife and I, the tax increase would be at least $50,000 per year. And we almost never go to the doctor.
I know you…you want “free” healthcare, paid for by me.
Stuff it.
guntotinglibertarian on July 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Question about your insurance. Do you want your insurance company to have plenty of money in the bank, or run on a shoestring budget?
I’ll take the billionaire insurance company every time. It means they can afford to pay my bill.
hawksruleva on July 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Who is this “equality” you speak of?
dcwvu on July 29, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Leeches cost less than MRIs, too.
hawksruleva on July 29, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, is worth surrendering our liberty. How much is too much? How much control do you want the government to have over our lives? If you want to sell your soul to the devil, be my guest… but kindly leave us the hell alone!
BPD on July 29, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Uh huh. Do they all have cancer?
Bishop on July 29, 2009 at 2:19 PM
I don’t want anything paid for by you…I assure you. I get by on my own quite well.
dcwvu on July 29, 2009 at 2:20 PM
I’m pleading for someone to telly me the details.
Bishop on July 29, 2009 at 2:21 PM
These costs that getalife/dcwvu keep talking about include the cost of ER care for 20 million illegals. Take out those costs and the overal per capita cost of health care drops dramatically.
But why spoil a good leftist story with facts and figures?
angryed on July 29, 2009 at 2:21 PM
We have a winner!!!
BPD on July 29, 2009 at 2:21 PM
dcwvu on July 29, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Someone with all the charm, wit,personality and Political viewpoint of a Kos Kid who got their jollies from trolling on a Conservative website. I figured you could relate.
kingsjester on July 29, 2009 at 2:21 PM
I’m not getalife!! I’ve been on here for several months now.
dcwvu on July 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations. Who is this “we” who will take “whatever we can get”? Americans would rather have “reform” that, you know, improves things. Otherwise, no.
ChrisB on July 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Hear that? It’s the sound of gealife ‘s(err excuse me dcwvu’s) head exploding as he tries to figure that one out.
angryed on July 29, 2009 at 2:23 PM
But the actual costs of healthcare don’t go down in any significant way according to 2 reports from the CBO. If the government gets a break on something, it will be made up by the vendor raising prices on the free market elsewhere. This is exactly what happened with Medicare.
And then you have the massive added expense of putting 45 million people on the government dole.
Chuck Schick on July 29, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Why is trolling = to stating a differing viewpoint? Can we not have diverse opinion on here anymore?
dcwvu on July 29, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Why do you guys keep feeding this troll “dcwu”?
kerrhome on July 29, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Why ask that question, the liberal women abort their “mindless globs of tissue” because being pregnant means not being able to attend cocktail parties in a fashionable dress.
Bishop on July 29, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Of course. Since it is impossible to register on a web site with 2 names. Why that’s just unheard of on these internets.
angryed on July 29, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Calling Laura Bush a murderer on another thread is trolling, douchenozzle.
PimFortuynsGhost on July 29, 2009 at 2:24 PM
I’m honestly asking this. Wouldn’t the raise in taxes be offset by the lowering of copays/premiums/out of pocket expenses? Like overall, which would be lower? I thought the argument was that a raise in taxes was still less than what we pay for healthcare costs now.
dcwvu on July 29, 2009 at 2:15 PM
—–
Government is the least efficient way to run things.
Imagine your DMV running health care.
Mew
acat on July 29, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Clearly I can’t prove it, so theres no need to argue about it. I would think thought the moderators would know if a banned troll has names under the same IP address? I dont know how that works.
dcwvu on July 29, 2009 at 2:26 PM
The only way I can think for the government to hold down expenses would be a single payer system and massive rationing. The Democrats will commit mass suicide if this ever happened, but that’s exactly the backdoor goal of the government option.
Chuck Schick on July 29, 2009 at 2:27 PM
I found the list for my home state of “USA you will now feel our pain” Illinois.
My favorites:
- Alcoholism (so I am responsible and must cover other)
- Mental Illness – Non-Serious
- Contraceptives (isn’t this a choice?)
At least I did not find “Chop-o-dick-tomy.”
We should be able to customize our coverage as we can with other insurance products.
WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Or your post office. “Sorry, but we are closed for lunch from 1130 to 1300. Come back then and maybe we can take a look at that traumatic amputation of yours.”
Bishop on July 29, 2009 at 2:27 PM
That would be fine unless, like the people who run lotteries, the “billionaire insurance company” gets it’s billions in the first place by shafting a great many Peters to pay a few Pauls, using any excuse it can think of.
Also, pro-lifers (myself included) need to be careful not to be hypocritical on this issue:
http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=9971
Dark-Star on July 29, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Equality was banned for its one and only comment on that thread. And about time as well.
dave c on July 29, 2009 at 2:28 PM
I’m not saying to get rid of health insurance companies. What I’m saying the fact the overwhelming majority of people in our country have health insurance has brought up costs. People don’t know what they are paying for. John Stossel basically said that is his special on health care.
That said I do want more people insured. All I’m saying the simple truth, that even libertarian John Stosell believes…health insurance companies do drive up costs. This doesn’t mean I am for demolishing health insurance companies…I’m just stating the truth.
terryannonline on July 29, 2009 at 2:28 PM
He/she said something about Michelle Malkin being a racist.
dcwvu on July 29, 2009 at 2:29 PM
I’m pleading for someone to telly me the details.
Bishop on July 29, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Here you go.
txag92 on July 29, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Well, you could. Go into the vault and find your posts from “months ago.”
ZJPolitical on July 29, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Government will never cut costs for a simple reason. It is always using someone else’s money. A private company needs more money coming in than going out. If that doesn’t happen the company goes out of business. Simple. Even for a lib to understand.
However the government has no such constraints. It can always print more money to cover the loss. Which is why it is beyond stupid to think the government can run a lemonade stand let alone 15% of the US economy.
angryed on July 29, 2009 at 2:31 PM
What makes you think the government owes you anything, especially where your personal health is concerned?
Monica on July 29, 2009 at 2:31 PM
And if you are over 50 the chances would dwindle to the point that you probably would not have made it under ObamaCare. And if you are in your 80′s then just take the blue pill. My Mother died 2 months ago – pulmony fibrosis. She was 69. She developed it at 66 – One year earlier and she could have qualified for a lung transplant. MediCare said – sorry here is some oxygen – have a nice few years….
izoneguy on July 29, 2009 at 2:33 PM
He is a liberal. In his twisted mind the govt makes the air he breathes.
angryed on July 29, 2009 at 2:34 PM
At your service.
Linky
Knucklehead on July 29, 2009 at 2:34 PM
An orthopedic surgeon called me at noon on a monday and told me that I needed brain surgery. He scheduled an appointment for me with a neurosurgeon at 8 the next morning. Won’t happen under ObamaCare.
txag92 on July 29, 2009 at 1:57 PM
No it certainly won’t…and my sister wouldn’t get her anyerism surgery either…
ladyingray on July 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM
I prefer moderate. I’ll probably get more conservative with age, though.
dcwvu on July 29, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I hope the GOP goes silent for two days. Let them hang themselves. This may seem like a great achievement for Dems, but it finally commits them to something and exposes them for the wealth distributionists that they are.
Shaddup for two days.
BuckeyeSam on July 29, 2009 at 2:36 PM
But Obama, Michelle, Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel….they’ll all get theirs. I GA-RON-TEE it.
angryed on July 29, 2009 at 2:36 PM
The democrats need as many ZERO liability voters as they can get.
Soon the 1% that pay 70% of taxes will leave and America will collapse.
izoneguy on July 29, 2009 at 2:36 PM
If this mess and Crap & Tax go down to ultimate defeat, anyone taking odds that Nancy and Harry will be in leadership positions next year?
Hoyer is probably whispering in Rahm’s ear; “I coulda gotten this done two weeks ago!”
GarandFan on July 29, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Only from the perspective of the new, even more brainwashed leftist generation that will appear.
ZJPolitical on July 29, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Most ethical congress ever. Bipartisan solutions. Yep, the Democrats and Obama sure know how to lie their freakin’ asses off. The real fools are the Americans that voted for them.
kirkill on July 29, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »