John Barrow FINALLY grows a spine and makes it official: he is a firm NO on ObamaCare

Well, that only took 14 months

I am strongly in favor of reforming the health care system, but I don’t think this bill is going to do it, and therefore I can’t support it. It puts too much of the burden of paying for it on working folks who are already being overcharged, and that’s not fair. It threatens to overwhelm Medicaid in Georgia, and that’s not right. And it barely touches the insurance companies, and that’s not smart. We can do better and I’m ready to start.

Glad to see he finally got the message.

[UPDATE] Sanford Bishop will be looking for a new job come January as he is now voting YES on ObamaCare.

36 comments

  1. You know, I find it strange that Republicans are saying “Democrat x dooms their chances at reelection by voting for this bill.”

    As if the Democrat’s vote will somehow change the effort with which the local GOP goes after that congressional seat.

    • GOPGeorgia says:

      It won’t be just the effort of the District GOP that removes them from office. It will the average person who doesn’t like this bill. It will take a good challenger, but if there is one, it will improve their chances.

      • If the “average person” were more involved in this process, we wouldn’t have so many clowns representing us in DC on either side of the aisle.

        In my lifetime, there have only been two sea-change election years where the “average people” being talked about actually showed up at their voting booths on election day and did what everyone thought they were going to do: 1994 and 2008.

        Pardon me if I take the “average people” meme with the same grains of salt on the lip of my Bubba Garcia’s margaritas and “independent voters” narratives.

        • GOPGeorgia says:

          The average person is a little more involved this year because they want congress working on creating an environment where jobs can grow and they are getting a health care bill they don’t want.

          • Republican Lady says:

            I do think jobs should have had a slightly higher priority because with jobs, more people could have an opportunity to afford the insurance. I think the job issue would have been solved in less time maybe. What say you?

            • I’d bet if they realized health care would turn into this circus, jobs definitely would have been at the higher on the rotation.

              In the past 4 years, the GOP hasn’t figured out why it lost, and the Dems haven’t figured out why they won (which is why politics right now are so frustrating).

              It comes as no surprise to me that Pelosi and Reid misread things and figured they had a more robust mandate for health care reform. Simple answer: they didn’t think it would take this long.

              Oops.

              If the jobs issue was up “next,” their projections probably had that going through six months ago.

              • GOPGeorgia says:

                The GOP lost control for several reasons. The main reason they lost is that they did not stick to the concept of smaller government and less spending. The economy tanking didn’t help, and they were lost of bad bills pushed through, and the let themselves be branded as a culture of corruption. The Dems are showing us how all of that (spending, bad bills, corruption) is really done.

                The stimulus package did not address jobs. It addressed social change, political kickbacks, growing government, and just spending, spending and more spending. I will admit that spending did create some jobs and save some other (government) jobs, but it could have been done so much better than it was.

                • GOPGeorgia says:

                  I really need to proofread more.

                  “lost of bad bills” = “lots of bad bills”

                  ” the let themselves” = “they let themselves”

            • polisavvy says:

              Amen! Jobs should be at the top of everyone’s list. I don’t understand why no one seems to realize the importance of that. It should have been the primary focus.

            • ByteMe says:

              So the “stimulus package” wasn’t about jobs? And they get smacked around for spending that much to help the states (who gladly take the money and then complain) and people still wonder why they aren’t focused on jobs?

              • polisavvy says:

                I still haven’t seen where all those jobs were created with the stimulus package. I think we have all ridden that horse before on here. Yes, jobs were created. Was it a significant number of jobs? I think that a good many of us feel that the answer is a big “no” to that. I understand the need for health care reform, I really do. I just think that way too much time was devoted to it. Just think, if a whole year had been devoted to the stimulus package, it could have probably yielded more jobs. That’s all I’m saying.

                • ByteMe says:

                  A year ago, we were losing about 700,000 jobs a month. Now we’re close to break-even, which is still not enough to hire people coming into the market, but it’s not as bad as it was. And yet people don’t want to give credit to the government throwing billions at the states (which is where most of it went) so that they could keep their tax rates low and still keep paying their teachers and put road crews to work.

                  Do you see any of the money? Maybe not unless you were a government employee or contractor. If it wasn’t there, we would most definitely have seen it either in more layoffs or higher state and local taxes. No one was buying anything except for the “purchaser of last resort.”

                  Just think, if a whole year had been devoted to arguing about the stimulus bill, we might have 25% unemployment. Just sayin’. Speed was essential to adjusting the downer mindset.

                  As for a year on HCR, first people complain about the bill being too long at 2400 pages, then they complain it took too long or they complain it didn’t take long enough. I think a year to hash out was about as long as our national attention span could handle.

                  Is any of it exactly what I want? Nope. But then again, I’m not Dictator For Life either, so I accept the compromises that get made to get the largest number of people to go along.

                  • Republican Lady says:

                    I’m not so sure I agree with your comment

                    “it’s not as bad as it was”.

                    For the past two plus years, law enforcement, corrections – prison guards, fire, and EMS have not seen desperately needed monies for their agencies. In fact, many of them are facing furloughs in an effort to balance county and state budgets.

                    LEO agencies cannot fill empty positions due to lack of funds, and corrections lack of officers is causing dangerous safety issues in overcrowded facilities. We have some bad ass people in the systems, Brian Nichols for one, and CO’s need other officers for backup when they go into cells to break up fights or to secure violent prisoners for whatever reason.

                    Fire fighters and EMS have also experienced shortages with stations closed and some personnel pushed into early retirement or laid off if they could not be reassigned to other locations.

                    Training for LEO’s and first responders has fallen off according to the Georgia Public Safety Training Center. Georgia requires twenty training hours each year for these people, so they must get it somewhere. If agencies are not large enough to put on inservice training, then certifications are lost, causing legal problems statewide.

                    Probation and Parole Officers are also hit hard. Traditionally, they have too many cases to begin with but as positions stay vacant, workloads are shyrocketing. They can only see so many people a day. Across the nation, 1600 people are released daily. Who is going to watch them?

                    Socail services is past its breaking point trying to help battered women and children as well as overseeing kids in foster care. They also have not received desperately needed funds.

                    These are the areas I know about and I hear from representatives in these fields as they express concerns over many issues.

                    So where are the jobs you mentioned going, as all of these groups have not seen many changes?

                    • benevolus says:

                      The R Party’s solution is to cut taxes. Even if that were to eventually stimulate job growth- with it wouldn’t- the first effect is to reduce revenues even further. All those things would be worse if we starved them even more.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      RL, you are complaining because state and local government in Georgia refuses to tax at an appropriate rate for the services people want offered.

                      It’s the Georgia Republican way: cut taxes (revenue) and then blame “guvmint” for not offering better services. Sad, really, that the voters haven’t see through the BS and demanded better.

                      You want government employees to get hired? Tell them to increase taxes to do it. Otherwise, you can’t really complain that state and local employees are not getting paid well enough. I want to see teachers and first-responders get paid like we value their work! But I’m a lib’ral, I guess. :roll:

              • Mozart says:

                The stimulus was more about the government deciding where it thought jobs should be created, and for how long, rather than creating an environment in which jobs could be created by the private sector all over the country.

                Byte, you’re such a Keynesian.

                • ByteMe says:

                  And at times I’m also a Friedmanista. But I’m smart enough to know not to let ideology get in the way of choosing the right school of thought for the moment in history.

                  When consumers aren’t buying because of fear and businesses aren’t buying because of fear, the only way to jump-start the economy is to have the “purchaser of last resort” start buying like crazy until everyone else stops being afraid and starts buying again. Then the government must revert back to getting out of the way.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      Depends. Was the Federal budget balanced then? If it wasn’t, then the government is borrowing money in order to keep a certain level of stimulus in the economy. If the budget is balanced (or in surplus in order to pay down any debt), then the government is just moving around the chess pieces on the board and not creating new pieces out of thin air (or money).

          • Again, this is one of those things I’ll believe when I see. Usually I hear Dems forecasting more “average person” involvement and future electoral success based on what voters “will not stand” for.

            As I said, in my lifetime, that’s only worked once.

  2. DAMY46 says:

    Well, I’ll be darned..I am right wing and have always voted with the GOP…But, Mr. Barrow has earned my support…

    • GOPGeorgia says:

      If he was to earn my support for 2010, he’d have to bring about 10 yeses to the no column. He’s be fair game in 2012.

  3. ByteMe says:

    [UPDATE] Sanford Bishop will be looking for a new job come January as he is now voting YES on ObamaCare.

    Hahahahahahaha…. clearly Pete doesn’t grasp Bishop’s constituency.

  4. kyleinatl says:

    Barely touches the insurance companies? Clearly Barrow has no understanding of the bill as currently written, color
    me not shocked.

    • ByteMe says:

      I expect that’s correct. There were about 10-15 of them who were allowed to sit on the fence until their vote was needed.

  5. Progressive Dem says:

    Pelosi still needs 9 to 10 votes. I doubt she is letting anyone off the hook. She wants this badly. If this passes, and there is a reasonable chance it will, Pelosi is going to be recognized as one of the more powerful speakers we had in recent history.

  6. rugby says:

    Here’s a shock… Republicans are convinced that any congressman who votes for a bill they don’t like in a rural district (because rural=Republican….right?) will lose the next election.

    Even if said congressman is in a district that is 45% African American, went for Obama, and Gore, tied for Kerry, and probably for Clinton twice, hasn’t had a Republican representative for more than 150 years and here is the kicker…lacks a strong competitor.

    Keep telling yourselves whatever you need to hear.

    • Doug Deal says:

      Not to interupt, but no district has been in existance for more than 8 years.

      More than 20 years ago and there weren’t any Republicans here either.

Comments are closed.