Saxby Chambliss’ Statement On Health Care

The following is Senator Chambliss’ press release regarding this morning’s Senate passage of the Health Care reform bill:

Chambliss: This Bill is a Political Victory, Not a Substantive One

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., today made the following statement regarding the Senate health care bill, which now costs $2.5 trillion, is 2,733 pages long, and includes $518.5 billion in tax increases and $470.7 billion in Medicare cuts.

“I am supportive of reforming health care so that all Americans have access to affordable, quality care. However, a bill created by backroom deal-making, partisan arm-twisting and special carve-outs for wavering senators does not represent meaningful reform.

“The already-strained budgets of individuals, families and small businesses will be pushed to the breaking point by the increase in taxes and increased costs for medical devices and medicine. The health care industry itself will also feel more than $100 billion in taxes and fees, which will be shifted directly to the American people in the form of higher premiums.

“Over the past few weeks, several amendments were offered to strip the Medicare cuts and cuts to other critical health care programs, but unfortunately, those votes fell along party lines and the amendments failed. Several other amendments to improve the bill, like a tort reform measure I introduced, weren’t even allowed to be called up for a vote.

“The process used to get this bill to 60 votes was unlike anything I had never seen before. Deals were cut behind closed doors for individual senators and their states at the expense of taxpayers across the nation – and that’s just not right. The majority leader also made a compromise on abortion – where, morally, there can be no compromise – to get his 60th vote.

“And after all this, the health care bill does not even cover everyone. Some 23 million Americans will still be left uninsured.

“Americans are right to demand access to affordable health care. But the Senate bill is bad legislation. It is a political victory – not a substantive one – that will actually make health care more expensive.”

62 comments

  1. John Konop says:

    Saxby Said:

    ….“Over the past few weeks, several amendments were offered to strip the Medicare cuts and cuts to other critical health care programs but unfortunately, those votes fell along party lines and the amendments failed. ….

    The Truth:

    Medicare pays out 3 dollars in service for every 1 dollar a person pays in. No RATIONAL person argues that Medicare will drive our country into bankruptcy in less than 10 years. Only A VERY SELFISH pandering politician would call for not cuts and or adjustments to Medicare!

    I do not support the healthcare bill but this irrational pandering is why we are in this mess. Saxby is the poster child for I got mine and to hell with future generations. We need real leadership from Washington and now all we have is both sides making promises they cannot fulfill.

      • Romegaguy says:

        Saxby says “I am supportive of reforming health care so that all Americans have access to affordable, quality care. ” but forgot to add “even though I have never tried to support legislation to address this problem…”

        • ByteMe says:

          You might as well throw in the part where he’s against illegal immigrants unless the INS rounds them up from a farm in South Georgia that is owned by a contributor to his campaign. Then he’s against the INS for interfering with businesses.

          I feel bad for him. It must be hard to go through life with no real compass.

  2. Life and Liberty says:

    Saxby said:
    “However, a bill created by backroom deal-making, partisan arm-twisting and special carve-outs for wavering senators does not represent meaningful reform.”

    The Truth:
    he offered these 3 reasons to a group in Cherokee County as to why he voted for TARP:

    1. We’re Senators. We HAD to do something.
    2. Bernake and Paulsin threatened them
    3. A buddy in S GA who ownes a factory called him up and told him that if he didn’t pass TARP, he’d not be able to make payroll.

    To this day, as far as I know, Saxby is still unapologetic for his vote.

    It’d be a waste of good tar and feathers, but it’d sure be fun…

    • theendisfar says:

      L&L,

      Did you see the language in the Bill that prevents changes to the bill by future legislatures? http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/reid_bill_declares_future_cong_1.asp

      Over the last several years our government has been methodically hog tying the Citizens of the US, both the Domesticated willing and the unwilling/unknowing folks of ability/liberty. The final Blitzkrieg on the remaining Liberties we Citizens still hold onto began on Christmas Eve 2009. We must respond with vigor.

      The Socialists who wheeled and dealed to make this happen need to be punished appropriately. They used Majority Rule to impose involuntary servitude upon those who are willing and able to support ourselves in order to insure 30 Million Domesticated Human Beings who will likely vote Democratic. Our Republican representatives simply whined making them quite impotent in representing those that are aware of Our inalienable rights.

      We Shall indenture those responsible for this tyranny, appropriate their property, and make an example of all those that believe they can be delegated the Authority to erase and abridge inalienable rights using the same Majority Rule they employed before we erase Majority Rule in the US and replace it again with Rule of Law based upon Life, Liberty, and Property.

      Merry Christmas and may the tide of this War favor Life and Liberty in 2010.

      No time to waste,

      The End is Far!

      • Game Fan says:

        Death panels are the “dark ugly side” of how the collectivists think. So much for all the “positivity” and “equal access” to “health care”. They really see no problem with “society” making the “decision” here. Actually it’s quite revealing how one minute so many are wringing their hands about the uninsured and then turn right around with the hand wring about how can “we” pay for “that too”. (“capture and control” theme rears it’s ugly head again) This is just more empowerment for the “centralizers” which included big pharma and the medical industrial complex. You’ve been had. You’re just a number. It’s a big con game and the “representatives” are getting rich on the deal. Another blow to freedom and free markets and competition and alternative medicine. So I hope you supporters of Obamacare have all gone out to get your swine flu vaccination. Otherwise you’re a bunch of hypocrites.

      • Life and Liberty says:

        I have Great Hope for the near (and far) prospects for Life and Liberty, sir- and I thank you for your Christmas wish!

        It seems to me that even in our State house, the problem is a federal one, namely: how to get back (some of) our federal money for our citizens’ benefit.

        I have an idea or 2 about how I’d like to deal with the root, but HB 877 looks like the most viable one offered to the general assembly. Perhaps, with the current climate and distaste for Obamacare, we might convince our own legislators to consider cosponsoring this legislation, or offering us an answer why they would not.

      • benevolus says:

        Even the article you link to doesn’t claim that clause prevents changes to “the bill”. It only prevents changes to that “subsection”.

    • Elin is Hot says:

      “It’d be a waste of good tar and feathers, but it’d sure be fun…”

      But think of the demand for tar and feathers you would generate by using them up for Saxby? That very act could be the re-start of the economic engine of this country!

  3. ByteMe says:

    Saxby’s just annoyed that his “leadership” wouldn’t let him cut any deals to get something for his next election.

    So, Saxby: are you for or against getting rid of the “pre-existing” conditions crap that insurance companies use to deny claims and insurance? Are you for or against allowing insurance companies to use “recissions” to deny coverage to people who have paid their premiums? Are you for or against covering more people so that our (expensive) emergency rooms aren’t overcrowded with the uninsured?

    Saxby, you are a sham. You complain about the deals and that you couldn’t get your corporatist “tort reform” measure considered, but you could care less about anyone who can’t afford to give you money for your next election.

  4. Rick Day says:

    I chortled when he said “back room deals”. Recent history, from FISA to FDA, back room deals have been the backbone of Republican politics.

    And frankly, I blame the Republicans for this horror of a bill. IF they had not been so smug and so tight with those who see ‘the People” as “The Customers”, perhaps they would have a closer balance of power, instead of impotently flapping their gums, per above.

    Oh Georgia Republicans, when will you RID us of this wet-spot of a politician from our Senate seat? Even Snuggles™ is looking better at this point.

    • Chris says:

      “And frankly, I blame the Republicans for this horror of a bill. IF they had not been so smug and so tight with those who see ‘the People” as “The Customers”, perhaps they would have a closer balance of power,”

      Holy Virgin-Birth Batman. I agree with Rick once again.

  5. Chris says:

    STFU Saxby.

    If the GOP has all these great solutions, why didn’t you do something when you have the majority? Instead gave blow-jobs to the religious nut-jobs by banning Gay Marriage (how many people aren’t covered because they’re ineligible for their partner’s benefits?) and meddling in the death of a vegetable in Florida.

    The blood from this bill is on your hands Senator Chambliss. Yours and Isakson’s, Linder’s, Kingston’s, Deal and the rest of the ass-clowns we have working in DC.

  6. Buddha the Magnificent says:

    “I am supportive of reforming health care so that all Americans have access to affordable, quality care.”

    Saxby, what is the difference between this statement and Harry Reid’s assertion that health care is a right? As usual with you, it’s all a matter of degree, not a matter of principal.

    I see that South Carolina’s two senators have manned-up and asked their state’s AG to investigate the corruption behind the cloture vote on the Senate bill. At last the feckless Lindsey Graham remembers how to growl. Neither of our two worthless sacks of air is fit to carry Jim Demint’s jockstrap.

    • Icarus says:

      Yesterday’s press release:

      Dec 23 2009

      WASHINGTON – U.S. Sens. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., and Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., sent a letter today urging Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker to review the constitutionality of the Medicaid deal Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, cut for the state of Nebraska in an effort to gain his 60th vote in favor of the Senate health care bill. The senators also asked Baker to review the entire bill to see if there are other provisions that might be unconstitutional.

      Text of the letter is below:

      Attorney General Baker:

      The health care legislation that is expected to be passed tomorrow by the U.S. Senate, H.R.3590, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, includes a provision for the state of Nebraska where 100 percent of the cost of all newly eligible Medicaid enrollees will be permanently borne by the United States Government instead of the traditional relationship that requires some form of state contribution.

      This health care legislation will expand Medicaid eligibility by requiring states to cover all residents with incomes of up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. This will increase the financial burden in Georgia by hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when our state can least afford it.

      We have serious concerns about the constitutionality of the special deal for Nebraska as it results in special treatment for only one state in the nation at the expense of the other 49. While Georgia will have to struggle to come up with hundreds of millions of dollars to comply with the massive new federal Medicaid mandate, Nebraska does not have to come up with a single dollar.

      Please inform us of any potential legal challenges that could be pursued by our state, either separately or jointly with other states, and your advice on how to proceed. We appreciate your assistance and look forward to reviewing your response.

      Sincerely,

      Johnny Isakson Saxby Chambliss

    • “I am supportive of reforming health care so that all Americans have access to affordable, quality care.”

      Like Americans don’t have access to health care. I’m not naive to say that it isn’t expensive, however, I am thoroughly tired of “politicians” dictating price on anything. Every election is going to be filled with bogus campaign ads to seniors and gullible individuals saying candidate Joe is going to cut your benefits…. Power to the politicians.

      I am so looking forward to the upcoming elections. If I can help in some small way to erradicate even one of these pandering incompetents, I’ll be a happy man.

      • ByteMe says:

        I’m not naive to say that it isn’t expensive, however, I am thoroughly tired of “politicians” dictating price on anything.

        Only in this country can you go bankrupt because of a medical condition AND still have health insurance.

        Only in this country can you be denied anything but critical care if you do not have the money to pay.

        America, Land of the Corporatists. Business is more important than the people who make up the country.

        • LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

          “Only in this country can you go bankrupt because of a medical condition AND still have health insurance.”

          No worries, Chip Rogers and Judson Hill are fighting for your right to go bankrupt 🙂

        • ByteMe, Perhaps you need to move to Macon. Plenty of access to health care that’s not critical care.

          If you think for one moment that a government run health care program will extend anyone’s life and livelihood, then you’re smoking something illegal.

          Look only to the bankrupt Social Security system; the failed Cash for Clunkers program; the cost over-runs in virtually every government program, then tell me how these Einsteins are going to fix this. Past performance is a strong indicator of the future.

          Simply look at what these elitists are doing with the TARP reimbursements from the banks. According to news reports, they’re being spent on other projects.

          • Faux talking points? Dream on. Those are facts. How is this piece of legislation going to reduce spending as Obama says? Somebody has been nipping at the egg nog too long, or you have no sense of history. The bubble will burst and your concern of bankrupt individuals over health issues will be the least of your worries.

  7. “Chambliss: This Bill is a Political Victory, Not a Substantive One”…. I wish for once a politician would proclaim what it is, sham legislation designed to further the socialist trends that this administration and congressional leadership (regardless of party) are moving our country in.

    Victory will come when they are run out of office.

    • Ken in Eastman says:

      A bill that will affect 100% of US citizens while “helping” about 3%, lessen employment by scaring the daylights out of employers, increase the power of the national government, decrease the power of individuals, increase the desire of illegal aliens to enter the US, fine people for NOT buying insurance, decrease payments to doctors for Medicare, etc.

      Anyone who votes for cloture needs to be . . . defeated. It was so hard not to write a lengthy description of what I would really like to happen – but it would frighten older people, children and literate animals.

      • ByteMe says:

        I think your numbers need help. Saxby says 23 million still uncovered. Last number I heard was about 35 million without coverage. So you’re helping about 70% of those who need it.

        And, as an employer, I’m not scared at all. The biggest concern is always uncertainty. I — like everyone else — am good at adjusting to the new reality… I just need to know exactly what it is.

        As for the “voting for cloture” statement, that should be pretty easy to figure out: Look for the ones with a D after their name 🙂 .

        • Ken in Eastman says:

          Healthcare Reform – Words and Numbers

          First, please pardon the misnomer, but if I had entitled this “Insurance Reform” would you have read even this far? Yet, the attention of the American people is rightly focused on “Healthcare Reform” even if they know the wording is wrong. The real topic isn’t healthcare; it’s insurance, and this verbal sleight of hand needs to be examined because it brings complete misunderstanding to the subject.

          So, when liberals – including our President – state that 45.7 million Americans “are without healthcare” that is simply wrong. There are 45.7 million residents without health insurance. As you and I both know, those two things are staggeringly different.

          Where did the number of 45.7 million come from? It’s based on a 2006 Census Bureau report of a survey which assumed that if you refused to answer the questions on insurance (2.5 million projected non-respondents nationwide) that you had no insurance. Also, if you had no health insurance for any part of the year, even if you had health insurance at the time of the survey, you were also deemed to be uninsured. We’ll take this information into account later.

          So, who are these 45.7 million people and why don’t they have health insurance? The first group is the 9.7 million illegal aliens, a conservative estimate by the Census Bureau. There are estimates as high as 20 million illegal aliens based upon Border Patrol arrests and the Pew Hispanic Research Center estimated the number being between 11.5 and 12 million back in 2006.

          Even using the low Census estimate, this leaves us with 36 million American citizens and legal immigrants estimated without health insurance. Of the remainder “who can’t afford health insurance” according to those panting for government-paid healthcare, 17.04 million had incomes of over $50,000 per year. I think we can safely say that virtually all these people choose to be self-insured. This leaves less than 19 million people out of a country of 300 million.

          I know 19 million is still a lot of uninsured people, but here is something that you may not know because it is seldom reported. According to the same Census Bureau report approximately 45% of the uninsured were uninsured due to changing jobs and reported they would be without health insurance for less than four months. After eliminating all but 19 million, removing another 45% leaves us with less than 10.5 million; a number which includes all 2.5 million who were deemed to have no health insurance because they were non-responsive to the survey.

          Surprisingly this places this conservative’s estimate right with the liberal-leaning Kaiser Family Institute’s estimate for families making less than $50,000 per year. The Kaiser Family Institute’s estimated range for this same group is from 8.2 million (chronically uninsured) up to 13.9 million who are temporarily without insurance.

          All said, this leaves us changing a system for 300 million Americans for the benefit of 10 million – less than 3.5% of the population. There are ways to change our current system to help these 10 million people, leaving the system 85% of Americans like in place.

          • Ken,
            The reason they call it Healthcare Reform is to manipulate the argument and scare the heck out of the population.

            This gimpy old man, with a chronic health condition wants absolutely nothing to do with this government sham. I’ll also be working my tail end off to defeat them in the next election.

          • benevolus says:

            “17.04 million had incomes of over $50,000 per year. I think we can safely say that virtually all these people choose to be self-insured.”

            That’s a pretty lame assumption.

      • I wonder what program they’ll come up with when they eliminate tens of thousands of private sector jobs in the insurance industry and create the same government jobs? Where are they going to acquire the necessary revenues to fund the jobs once they’ve destroyed the tax paying base that funded their illustrious legislation?

  8. ByteMe says:

    . I think we can safely say that virtually all these people choose to be self-insured.

    According to the same Census Bureau report approximately 45% of the uninsured were uninsured due to changing jobs and reported they would be without health insurance for less than four months.

    All said, this leaves us changing a system for 300 million Americans for the benefit of 10 million

    So those are the key places where they jump tracks. I’m using “they”, since I’m guessing you didn’t write all that without a single typo 🙂 .

    So now step back and work the other side of the block and challenge each of those statements. Part of understanding the opposition to your position is understanding where maybe your own argument is not solid enough. I’ll give you first crack before I take them apart with facts that are being ignored in order to make their argument.

    • Ken in Eastman says:

      ByteMe,

      I wrote it earlier (cut and paste does wonders for typos, for which I am notorious).

      The information comes from the Census Bureau report.

      Argument One: I think we can safely say that virtually all these people choose to be self-insured. There may be some whose income exceeds $50,000 per year who are “uninsurable”. Would it be a significant number? Doubtful. In addition there are those who make less than $50,000 per year who choose not to participate in employer subsidized healthcare offerings. I think the latter is a larger number.

      Argument Two: According to the same Census Bureau report approximately 45% of the uninsured were uninsured due to changing jobs and reported they would be without health insurance for less than four months. These are the transitionally unemployed. The generally accepted rate for the transitionally unemployed is around 3% of the labor force. We also know the report classifies anyone who was without insurance at any part of the year as “uninsured”. Again, I’m pretty sure the latter is a great number than the former.

      Argument Three: All said, this leaves us changing a system for 300 million Americans for the benefit of 10 million I’m sticking with this one unless you can demonstrate a flaw.

      Fire away.

      • ByteMe says:

        You didn’t take the other side, just re-stated your own position. Blech!

        Ok, I’ll drop some hints and let you try again (it’s boring around my office as well 🙂 ):

        Argument 1: Think children. Think about that actual cost of insuring a family of 4 with adequate coverage (I’m paying about 13K per year. Now think about the math of figure out how a family of 4 earning $50K can afford $13K in insurance. Also, related to #3, think about how a non-insured person actually gets health coverage in this country.

        Argument 2: Go back to the BLS and find out how long “transitionally unemployed” or “underemployed” people are really not fully employed and covered today (instead of at the last Census check).

        Argument 3: the uninsured get medical coverage — it’s mandated — but it costs the rest of us in higher premiums. Konop will tell you more if you like, but you’re better off accepting it 🙂

        • John Konop says:

          Ken

          In fact what I have read and seen the people who have found work is generally as a contractor. That is more relevant argument the bill is it will likely increase cost on self employed contractors.

          That is why we must require everyone to have mandatory catastrophic insurance. We also should eliminate the co-pay system with a % of pay based on cost. For instance if a person uses a dial a doc or drug store they pay less than a emergency room and or doctor visit for common illness. We could create self insurance large pools private and or public ie Medicare, public workers, vets…. Also we must immediately eliminate the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies.

          • Ken in Eastman says:

            John,

            I think five things should be done INSTEAD of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi travesty:

            1 – Allow insurance sales across state lines to create larger pools which will allow:
            a) a decrease in rates because of a decrease in individual risk with the increase in the size of the pools of insured;
            b) the development of specialty health insurance companies that can specialize in higher risk insureds, pool them together and reduce their rates; and,
            c) allow for true national portability of insurance coverages.

            2 – True portability of insurance plans. This would not include subsidies from former employers but it would also not have increased costs. The company benefits from having additional members of its pool.

            3 – Create a pool for the “uninsurable”. Do it like P&C Insurance. If you write 30% of the insurance in a given state, then you are expected to cover 30% of the “uninsurables”. The rates for the “uninsurables” will be higher than others but not prohibitive. See #1 and #2 for reasons this would be feasible.

            4 – Catastrophic Health Care coverage should be made available. It would be relatively inexpensive (because the chances of using it are small) and kick in after 1 million dollars (arbitrary number, it could be 2 million but should begin where most health insurance coverage ends).

            5 – Tort reform is a must. First differentiate between what is truly malpractice and what is not. There are risks associated with certain procedures that cannot be avoided 100% of the time. If those risks are known up front and agreed to by the patient and there is no evidence the doctor increased the risk of ill effects then there should be no suit.

            A tribunal of “Special Masters” would be selected to determine if a suit is actually eligible to be a malpractice suit or not. The “Special Masters”, who would be trained adequately as a group in medicine, law and financial planning, would also set the cap on pain and suffering.

            For those suits which do not qualify, then economic loss would be covered as detailed in the individual’s insurance plan and no more.

            Finally, we do need to find an incentive for people to NOT use an emergency room unless it is an emergency. If nothing else (no job, no money) then they will perform a designated number of hours community service with the hospital getting first dibs on their labor. There are always needed jobs that require no training around facilities.

          • Ken in Eastman says:

            ByteMe,

            Sorry, I got distracted with some actual business.

            Unfortunately, the 2006 numbers were the most recent I could find back in September when I wrote that piece on health care.

            I agree things are different now, but the numbers for uninsured people who could not obtain insurance and used to justify the Obama/Reid/Pelosi (non) bills were highly inflated. If there are newer numbers, I am not aware of them, so it becomes educated guesses.

            As for “transitionally unemployed” the numbers given to the Census Bureau at the time were from people who self-reported that their unemployment would last less than four months.

            The broader picture is that the “nearly 47 million without medical care” was inaccurate from the beginning and it was under-reported that this was the case. That number, I believe, is still high and the best cure for those without health insurance is jobs.

            Finally, President Obama did indeed lie when he stated that illegal aliens would not be covered. Legal precedent states they will be covered. When this happens, tell me how many additional, sick illegal aliens will we have coming into the US?

            The price tag by the CBO doesn’t take this into account. How much tuberculosis will we see in this country?

            Oh, and I forgot to mention in my reply to John, we need more doctors already. Wait until that happens. There will be a doctor shortage like you wouldn’t believe and the strain on our budgets and the budgets on most states will be astronomical.

          • John Konop says:

            You said:

            …the development of specialty health insurance companies that can specialize in higher risk insureds, pool them together and reduce their rates; and….

            The Truth:

            Anyone in the risk business like I am would tell you this would drive the price up for high risk insurance not down. In fact so is why we end up paying for the people now one way or another ( county hospitals, Peach care, Medicaid…) because insurance companies are in the game of knocking them out and or charging very high rates.

            You said:

            Allow insurance sales across state lines to create larger pools which will allow:

            The Truth:

            If you lifted the anti-trust law exemption for insurance companies it would help much more than this. The price fixing can extend across state lines as well.

            Also if you do make it mandatory you have to many people taking the risk on the people playing by the rules. And as I said you must have real incentives at the consumer level and doctor level to make productive decisions. The flat co-pay system sets up no incentive to use more efficient viable solutions like call a doc by phone, drug stores…..

            Also a big portion of money is spent for end of life treatment. Like it or not other countries do a better job of managing this process. And we need stricter guidelines or we cannot bend the 5 dollars out for every dollar in Medicare that will drown our economy.

            Finally we need to let people buy drugs they need from places like Canada with real quality control. This would drive the prices down.

            I am all for tort reform but it has not been the big saver as sold ie Georgia with toughest laws.

          • Ken in Eastman says:

            John,

            Once actual risks are known, prices will go down. In P&C, Progressive did exactly that by specializing in high risk drivers and determining where the risk actually existed.

            In high risk health insurance, I’m thinking cancer survivors probably get taken for a ride if they can find health insurance. There are factors that can be analyzed which will give a more accurate idea on who may no longer be at a higher risk.

            Let’s put those actuaries to work.

            I absolutely agree that a flat copay does not increase an insured’s desire to seek lower costs. Perhaps a fixed fee plus a percentage of costs might help or just a percentage of costs.

            That might also lessen the non-emergency emergency room visits that are so costly.

            I’m not sure buying Canadian drugs is the long-term answer. The Canadian government is the reason the drugs are less expensive there. I think our higher costs are subsidizing the Canadian market.

          • benevolus says:

            There’s nothing stopping companies from selling insurance in any state they want to. They just have to conform to that state’s regulations. No big deal. It doesn’t need to be “permitted”. It’s already permitted.

  9. IndyInjun says:

    Helloooooooooooo Saxby –

    Everything you wrote about this healthcare bill could be said about Medicare D – Passed in the middle of the night – GOP reps had arms twisted – lies about the cost – Big Pharma contribution explosion just before the vote that resumed normalcy afterward – drug reimportation banned – and so on.

    Your Buddy Tauzin from Louisiana thanks you for helping him get his $2 million a year with Big Pharma and figures – what with all fellow Republican Bernanke is doing with the money supply – that you ought to be able to hold them up for $5 million.

    Your ticket is getting the GOP back in so you can cash out like old Billy.

  10. kim000 says:

    After a while, it really does start to look unseemly to fight so hard to prevent persons from having healthcare. I can’t see the difference between seniors having healthcare and others having access to healthcare. Only older people deserve access to healthcare? If you voted for Medicare D and other similiar measures, you should be able to vote for the Senate version of the healthcare bill or something very close to it–but for the fact that its Obama and not Bush.

    McConnell is also sounding like the GOP is going to campaign on repealing healthcare reform. Come again? Where are the GOP’s political strategists when they need some.

    • btpull says:

      Generally seniors are viewed as being past their working years whereas younger people at least in theory should be able to support themselves via employment. The irony is the older generation has a higher concentration of wealth.

      So we have the 20 something struggling to get started in life supporting the elderly couple living in the $1 million dollar home. Its funny how government intervention works.

  11. Game Fan says:

    Folks the big picture here is the CORPORATISTS are tilting the playing field against small business. And some of us out here are still fighting the good fight. And for those who don’t have a basic understanding of economics, socialism and command economics has been thoroughly discredited. But what probably resonates the most is “death panels” and illegal aliens. The complete insanity of how the DC corporate establishment looks at citizenship, the Constitution and American sovereignty as out of date concepts is amazing. The Bushes, the Clintons, and now Obama will do everything in their power to undermine this. They’re all elitists, all corporatists. All crooks and liars.

Comments are closed.