Not all who voted against ObamaCare are (as yet) interested in repealing it

The Club for Growth has its “Repeal It!” website up and running, taking names of those Congressmen and Congressional candidates who pledge to “sponsor and support legislation to repeal any federal health care takeover passed in 2010, and replace it with real reforms that lower health care costs without growing government.”

Looking solely at Georgia’s Congressmen, as of this afternoon, Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey, Jack Kingston and Tom Price have taken the pledge. That leaves Lynn Westmoreland, Jim Marshall, and John Barrow as having voted against ObamaCare but not yet taking the pledge to fight for its repeal. No need to mention the remainder who clearly despise federalism.

While Westmoreland is more-or-less already known as being in favor or repealing the monstrosity passed earlier this month, Marshall and Barrow would be well served to show their constituents they were not just testing the political winds with their ObamaCare vote but are committed to its repeal by signing onto the pledge.

94 comments

  1. rightofcenter says:

    If I were a congressman, I would refuse to sign any “pledges” other than a pledge to do my best to do what is right. Pledges are cheesy and gimmicky – kind of like the “purity pledge” some grown-ups try to browbeat kids to sign. It is totally irrelevant as long as Obama is President, anyway. Let’s do what we can to prevent any more Godawful policies from becoming law – because once they’re law, we’re looking at 2013 before we can really do anything about them.

  2. seenbetrdayz says:

    I agree on the cheezy part. When you over-do stuff like pledges, they become cliche’ and meaningless.

    . . . much like taking an oath to support and uphold a certain document.

    • ByteMe says:

      . . . much like taking an oath to support and uphold a certain document.

      Yes, let’s look at how well that’s worked so far….

  3. c_murrayiii says:

    I’d just settle for congressmen actually upholding the one “pledge” they have to make to take office, “Uphold and defend the Constitution”

  4. Pine Knot says:

    Repeal and replace this bill! Thank you Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey, Jack Kingston, Lynn Westmoreland, and Nathan Deal, for fighting in Washington against this unconstitutional, flawed Health Care Bill.

      • Pine Knot says:

        Like Karen Handel, Nathan Deal did resign to focus on the race for Gov. Mr. Deal did postpone his resignation until after the vote was cast. Typical of some people to push this into a Nathan Deal bashing topic. I was thanking the Georgia Republicans who fought against this Government takeover of Health Care. I was not promoting anyone in my prior post, but our GA Republicans who stayed and fought against this.

        • Republican Lady says:

          Eric Johnson resigned also or didn’t you know that? Deal is the only one to resign, take it back, and resign again.

      • Henry Waxman says:

        Deal was the first Republican called upon to speak against the bill during the House debate because he led most of the fight against the bill as the lead Republican (Ranking Member) on the Subcommittee on Health, which has the vast majority of jurisdiction over the bill. He did his part and left after the last component of the ObamaCare package (H.R. 4872) was passed by the House.

        If you know of any other major health care bills that will be considered by Congress this session, please let us know what they are.

        • macho says:

          So Deal allegedly led the charge against healthcare, but we now have it. What does that say?

          Why is it in politics we give folks such kudos for trying real hard, introducing legislation, etc…, but never accomplishing anything. I’m a commissioned salesman. Do you know what I get for tying real hard, but not accomplishing any sales – a commission envelope without a check in it.

            • John Konop says:

              Pine Knot,

              The bill came from the GOP. It was first incubated and supported by Nixon, McCain, Bush……. And the Heritage foundation did a study supporting it in 2003.

              The GOP’s Dirty Health-Care Secret

              Is it Obamacare or GOPcare?

              BP-Republicans are screaming that Obamacare’s mandates are a “stunning assault on liberty,” as one put it. That’s ironic, since Richard Nixon, Bob Dole, and Bill Frist all embraced the idea.
              The new mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance is “the most egregious, unconstitutional legislation that we can remember,” said South Carolina Republican Attorney General Henry McMaster. He is among more than a dozen state attorneys general who have filed a lawsuit asking the courts to declare the mandate unconstitutional because it is “an unprecedented encroachment” on the rights of both individuals and the states by the federal government. The political scrum that’s erupted over the mandate plan is deeply ironic—given that the idea has been warmly embraced by elements of the right since at least the early 1970s.
              Far from the “stunning assault on liberty” decried by Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the individual mandate is partially traceable to conservative embrace of an anti-Medicare, pro-free-market health-reform agenda. President Nixon’s Office of Management and Budget Director Caspar Weinberger believed that providing insurance to all Americans was a worthy goal, for instance. At the same time, he opposed reforms that would expand a government-run health-care system. So, as Daily Beast contributor Adam Clymer recounts in his fine biography of Sen. Ted Kennedy, Weinberger proposed a “solution” that would put the burden on employers “by requiring them to insure their workers.” This was an “employer mandate,” and it appealed to Weinberger among others because it ensured that health care in America would remain in the hands of the private sector, not fall under control of Washington.

              http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-24/the-gops-dirty-health-care-secret/?cid=hp:mainpromo2

              • Henry Waxman says:

                Just because President Nixon’s OMB director may have thought an employer mandate was better than Medicare-for-All, the 2733 page ObamaCare bill was a Republican idea??? An appointed OMB director from 40 years ago is the best link that Adam Clymer can find….Well, I guess I’m convinced.

                • John Konop says:

                  More facts in 2003 from the Heritage foundation showing OBOMACARE came from the GOP!

                  Laying the Groundwork for Universal Health Care Coverage

                  TH…..”In a civilized and rich country like the United States, it is reasonable for society to accept an obligation to ensure that all residents have affordable access to at least basic health care – much as we accept the same obligation to assure a reasonable level of housing, education and nutrition.”
                  “But as part of that contract, it is also reasonable to expect residents of the society who can do so to contribute an appropriate amount to their own health care. This translates into a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan – one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family. And as any social contract, there would also be an obligation on society. To the extent that the family cannot reasonably afford reasonable basic coverage, the rest of society, via government, should take responsibility for financing that minimum coverage.”
                  “These proposals would increase the subsidy to lower-income households relative to upper-income households.”…..

                  more

                  http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/Laying-the-Groundwork-for-Universal-Health-Care-Coverage

                    • John Konop says:

                      Read about Bush pushing for Obamacare!

                      Individual Mandate, Now Vilified By GOP, Was Supported By George H.W. Bush

                      Though Republican lawmakers now vilify the individual mandate for health insurance coverage as unconstitutional, the provision has long roots in conservative health care philosophy and has been supported by such GOP presidents as Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush.

                      Republican administrations were among the first to embrace the concept of forcing individuals to buy coverage. Nixon — hoping to stave off the single-payer ethos of many congressional Democrats — explored the idea in the 1970s, though Republicans now dismiss those discussions as the byproduct of a moderate president searching for a domestic policy victory.
                      Less than two decades later, in what remains an unexplored chapter of health care history, a surprising supporter of the individual mandate was George H.W. Bush. According to contemporaneous reporting, Bush used “the tax system to ‘encourage and empower’ individuals to buy health insurance and would enact insurance market reforms that make it possible for everyone — even if they have pre-existing health problems — to get insurance.” In short: individuals would be mandated to buy catastrophic health insurance. The cost of that coverage would be tied to income, meaning that the poorer you were, the less expensive your policy would be.

                      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/29/individual-mandate-now-vi_n_517097.html

                    • Henry Waxman says:

                      Despite the delusional and dishonest leaps taken by the Huffington Post, George W. Bush never supported an individual mandate. If you can find ANYTHING from George W. Bush supporting an individual mandate (quote, press release, anything), I will glady admit that I am wrong.

                      And since 16 million of the 30 million people (that’s more than half) covered under the ObamaCare legislative package in 2016 are covered through a mandated expansion of the Medicaid program to over 90 million people, I would LOVE to see you find any Republican that supports that idea.

                    • Henry Waxman says:

                      If you want to convince anyone remotely familiar with the bill that the ObamaCare bill came from the GOP, then you need to find Republicans supporting (1) a mandated expansion of Medicaid to over 90 million Americans, (2) a mandate that all states create an insurance exchange that strictly regulates the health insurance industry, (3) a multi-billion increase on taxes on investment income (3.8% in the bill), (4) the elimination of almost all Health Savings Accounts, (5) the elimination of 3 million Americans from Medicare Advantage (which Republicans created), (6) a requirement that all employers with more than 50 employees must purchase Washington-bureaucrat-approved health insurance or face a $2,000 fine per employee fine, (7) create a new legal entitlement to outcomes for Medicaid beneficiaries that will create billions of dollars in lawsuits against states (see Section 2304), (8) the requirement that the HHS Secretary define a required benefits package that every health insurance plan must include, (9) guaranteed issue for all insurance plans in the nation, (10) community rating for all insurance plans in the nation, and (11) a national, government run health insurance plan run by the OPM.

                      Let me know when you find those.

                    • Henry Waxman says:

                      I should have typed “George H.W. Bush,” but if you could find any George W. Bush quotes in support of an individual mandate, that would be impressive too.

                    • John Konop says:

                      Henry Waxman,

                      Who is delusional on this topic?

                      1) You blow off the Heritage foundation which is a conservative think tank funded overwhelmingly by REBUBLICANS and is one of top source sighted in debates by the GOP!

                      2) You blow of a video of a leading candidate in the GOP for PRESIDENT (Romney) and a former governor that implemented OBAMAcare!

                      3) You ignore multiple sources showing the idea was promoted by McCain, Bush, Nixon, Frist…….. And your only counterpoint of the many sources I posted is that you did not like the one of many sources?

                      I was clear that I did not think this bill did a good job dealing with the cost containment issues that will BK our country. But I am not delusional as to the source of the idea and the politics behind it.

                    • Henry Waxman says:

                      Have you found the following?:

                      Republicans supporting (1) a mandated expansion of Medicaid to over 90 million Americans, (2) a mandate that all states create an insurance exchange that strictly regulates the health insurance industry, (3) a multi-billion increase on taxes on investment income (3.8% in the bill), (4) the elimination of almost all Health Savings Accounts, (5) the elimination of 3 million Americans from Medicare Advantage (which Republicans created), (6) a requirement that all employers with more than 50 employees must purchase Washington-bureaucrat-approved health insurance or face a $2,000 fine per employee fine, (7) create a new legal entitlement to outcomes for Medicaid beneficiaries that will create billions of dollars in lawsuits against states (see Section 2304), (8) the requirement that the HHS Secretary define a required benefits package that every health insurance plan must include, (9) guaranteed issue for all insurance plans in the nation, (10) community rating for all insurance plans in the nation, and (11) a national, government run health insurance plan run by the OPM.

                    • John Konop says:

                      Henry,

                      The irony how you support a Medicare entitlement that pays out 3 dollars for every 1 dollar it takes in. As I said the lack of adults on both sides is killing our country.

                    • Henry Waxman says:

                      I don’t see any irony in supporting prescription drug coverage in a program that covers every other major medical item and service. We as a country are going to have to curtail Medicare spending, but its laughable to think that cutting the 3% of Medicare spending that goes to prescription drugs is the answer.

                      If you can find a single physician that thinks that cutting off prescription drugs for seniors won’t cause a massive increase in hospitalizations, please let me know.

                    • Henry Waxman says:

                      The solution to the ten of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities for the Medicare program is incrementally pushing back the age of eligibility for Medicare benefits, and you have to do this far enough in advance to allow people to plan for the eventuality. For example, the government could tell people who were born after 1970 that they are going to have wait until they are 70 to enroll in Medicare and people who are born after 1980 that they are going to have to wait until they are 75 to enroll in Medicare. This is exponentially more effective than eliminating the 3% of spending for prescription drugs, which would almost certainly increase overall outlays in the Medicare program.

          • Henry Waxman says:

            The Democrats had a 75 seat majority in the House of Representatives (253-178). Is it truly failure to come as close as we did to defeating this bill given those odds???

  5. Republicans and conservative Democrats need to move aggressively to repeal this debacle. While some have suggested it will not withstand a court challenge, I doubt it. A court challenge wouldn’t fully address it until 2018. I’m willing to bet money the SCOTUS will overturn it. Like Roe v Wade it will continue on destroying our economy. Heck, by 2018 the destruction to the insurance industry, let alone the manufacturing community, will be imploded. Government will be larger than anyone can conceive and the ability to sustain itself will be mind boggling.

    REPEAL IT!

    Vote Jim Marshall and John Barrow out of office!

    • ByteMe says:

      PLEASE Republicans, run on repealing it. Let’s make sure the last vestiges of “moderates” are removed from the party, because that’s the best way to gaining power and being able to implement your platform.

      • B Balz says:

        BytMe speaks to a point that a true GOP pragmatist ought to agree upon: Although opposition to the HC Bill will play well to populist, right-of-center opinions, strident attempts to repeal the HC Bill are going nowhere. Eventually, such attempts may hurt the GOP in 2010/2012 election cycles.

        Any pragmatic thinker will acknowledge the HC Bill is flawed. Although almost any Bill may be flawed, this Bill has the distinction of a $1T price tag and affects virtually everyone.

        The Bill may or may not be un-Constitutional, but that is for another venue, one with the power and authority to adjudicate. The answer to this question is currently unknowable.

        I know that the HC Bill will help millions of Americans. We will see countless Dem commercials to this effect prior and during upcoming election cycles. For example, inclusion of the CLASS Act may be a huge benefit to many. It provides for a longterm care insurance option:

        http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2009/12/health-care-financing-reform-75-the-class-act-and-its-costs/

        as well, has its’ detractors:

        http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/03/news/economy/health_care_class_act.fortune/index.htm

        Until now, I bet most PP readers thought Sandra Bulloch was the only class act in the American lexicon. My point is that our GOP is going to be portrayed as the Party on “NO!” Will we be seen sporting our “Bring Back Pre-exisitng Conditions” bumper stickers? NO!

        I have said this for years, we need Statesmen/Stateswomen to roll up their sleeves and work toward resolving our Nation’s largest and most pressing issues.

        If this HC Bill is the paradigm of how the US will resolve its’ largest and most pressing challenges, we ALL have even larger issues to worry about.

        • ByteMe says:

          Retiring Republican Senators (6):
          George LeMieux of Florida
          Sam Brownback of Kansas
          Jim Bunning of Kentucky
          Kit Bond of Missouri
          Judd Gregg of New Hampshire
          George Voinovich of Ohio

          Retiring Republican Representatives (18):

          Arkansas’s 3rd congressional district: John Boozman
          Arizona’s 3rd congressional district: John Shadegg
          California’s 19th congressional district: George Radanovich
          Delaware’s At-large congressional district: Michael Castle
          Florida’s 12th congressional district: Adam Putnam
          Florida’s 21st congressional district: Lincoln Diaz-Balart
          Georgia’s 9th congressional district: Nathan Deal
          Indiana’s 4th congressional district: Steve Buyer
          Illinois’s 10th congressional district: Mark Kirk
          Kansas’s 1st congressional district: Jerry Moran
          Kansas’s 4th congressional district: Todd Tiahrt
          Michigan’s 2nd congressional district: Peter Hoekstra
          Michigan’s 3rd congressional district: Vern Ehlers
          Missouri’s 7th congressional district: Roy Blunt
          Oklahoma’s 5th congressional district: Mary Fallin
          South Carolina’s 1st congressional district: Henry E. Brown, Jr.
          South Carolina’s 3rd congressional district: J. Gresham Barrett
          Tennessee’s 3rd congressional district: Zach Wamp

          • Henry Waxman says:

            People running for other offices don’t count as retiring, and most of those guys are not our moderates. Have heard John Shadegg

            Boozman, Putnam, Deal, Kirk, Blunt, Fallin, Wamp, Hoekstra, Tihart, and Gresham Barrett are either running for Senate or Governor (and there could be more; that was just the list of people I knew without looking it up).

            The list of Democrats I gave was true moderates retiring and not seeking other office within the party.

            • Henry Waxman says:

              I meant to say “Have you ever heard Shadegg or Brownback debate on the floor? They’re nowhere close to moderates.”

            • ByteMe says:

              If the (D)’s really felt like the party was leaving them, then they would have switched sides like Griffith did. But they didn’t, they decided they’d rather be elsewhere… like the other retiring (R)’s.

              And there are other (D)’s who are also retiring and they are moderates or on the far left. Your underlying point doesn’t hold water.

              • Henry Waxman says:

                Senator Zell Miller, Rep. Parker Griffith, Rep. Virgil Goode, Rep. Ralph Hall, Rep. Deal, Rep. Jimmy Hayes, Rep. Greg Laughlin, Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Rep. Billy Tauzin, Rep. Mike Parker, Rep. Ed Whitfield, Sen. Richard Shelby, Rep. Vito Fossella, Rep. Walter Jones, and Governor Sonny Perdue might disagree with you, but what the heck do they know.

                As long as you and Arlen Specter (who is going to lose his primary regardless of which party he is in) agree on this issue, I guess I’ll have to agree with you as well…

                • Henry Waxman says:

                  I have a few friends who work for Blue Dog Democrats in the House and complain constantly about how the Democratic Leadership is driving their party into the far left ditch. I’ll make sure to tell them they are wrong for you.

          • Henry Waxman says:

            So, Democrats like Keith Ellison and the other 52 “progressives” who promised not to vote for a bill without a “robust public option” don’t face any trouble for not keeping that promise because everyone to the Left is now super happy with this bill that Dennis Kucinich was a $70 billion per year bail out of the evil private health insurance industry?

            Remember what happened to Al Wynn?

            • Henry Waxman says:

              Since the premium subsidies don’t start until 1/1/2014 but some of the provisions that will cause the cost of private health insurance premiums to rise very rapidly will become effective six months from the date of enactment (9/23/2010), the public isn’t going to like ObamaCare very much at the polls in 2012.

                • Henry Waxman says:

                  I would start with the insurance regulations in Section 1001, as modified by Section 10101 of Public Law 111-148. Essentially all of them except for the mandated, modified community rating and the guaranteed issue (for those 20 and older) will begin on 9/23/10.

                  The bill also allows states the option to expand Medicaid earlier than 2014. Of course, Medicaid often pays providers less than their cost to deliver care, so employers and individuals dropping private health insurance coverage in exchange for Medicaid will lead to higher costs. The consulting firm Milliman has found that government payers (specifically Medicaid and Medicare) shifted a total of nearly $89 billion per year in costs on to private insurance payers. As a result, families with private health insurance spend nearly $1,800 more per year—$1,512 in higher premiums (paid by both employers and employees) and $276 in increased beneficiary cost-sharing—to cover the below-market reimbursement levels paid by the government run programs that will be expanded by ObamaCare.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      I won’t contest you on Medicaid or Medicare paying below current “overpriced market price” for services… however, your contention that businesses will drop health insurance and place more people on their roles and somehow that’s going to raise private premiums… you can’t start with that conjecture and assume I’m going to agree to follow along.

                    • Henry Waxman says:

                      You don’t have to. The Congressional Budget Office has already projected that millions of employers will drop their current coverage, and everyone who loses coverage with a family income under 138% of the Federal Poverty Level (using modified adjusted gross income – i.e., gross income minus certain deductions) will be forced into Medicaid (See Section 1311 of Public Law 111-148 for the screen and enroll requirement on the states)

                    • Henry Waxman says:

                      It’s called “crowd out.” Employers and other purchasers of private health insurance discontinue these purchases when taxpayer-funded options become available.

                      The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) conducted a literature review in 2007 to estimate crowd out due to previous SCHIP and Medicaid expansions. CBO found that crowd out for these expansions is between 25 and 50 percent. In other words, one quarter to one half of newly enrolled individuals in these programs would have otherwise had private coverage.

                      See Page 11 of the link for a more full explanation: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/80xx/doc8092/05-10-SCHIP.pdf

                      I can also send you the link to some of the CBO work on H.R. 3590 that talks about the millions of employers dropping coverage under this bill if you would like to get further into the weeds.

                    • Henry Waxman says:

                      BM,

                      Please let me know if you still think that crowd out is merely conjecture.

                      Thanks.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      You looked at the CBO numbers (so did I about three weeks ago with B Balz in another thread) and invented a sinister causation for them when alternative explanations — like the demographics of an aging population along with near a low number of new hires due to the economy — are more plausible.

            • ByteMe says:

              Your point that I blew up was that 60% of the public was against it. You don’t refute that and changed the target. I’ll pass shooting down your conjecture on what might happen in the future.

              • Henry Waxman says:

                Sorry for the round up from 59 to 60.

                CNN/Opinion Research, 3/21:

                Favor: 39
                Oppose: 59

                • Henry Waxman says:

                  I am skipping the Rasmussen polls since I know the Left doesn’t like his work very much.

                  However, here is the most recent poll I could find. I truly hope the Democrats run on a policy supported by 32% of the public supports.

                  CBS News, released yesterday at 6:30 pm:

                  Favor: 32
                  Oppose: 53

                  • Henry Waxman says:

                    But please feel free to tell me how I am wrong regarding insurance premiums increasing rapidly over the next few years.

                    Of course, you would be arguing with everyone’s favorite Lefty too: “This bill represents a giveaway to the insurance industry, $70 billion a year and no guarantees of any control over premiums, forcing people to buy private insurance, five consecutive years of double-digit premium increases…I just don‘t see that this bill is the solution.” –Rep. Dennis Kucinich, March 8, 2010.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      In earlier threads, I stated that I believe that in the next 3 years, healthcare premiums would go up slightly faster than without HCR as the additional risk involved with removing rescissions for kids and removing the lifetime limits on care received would increase costs faster than without those two changes. However, I think the difference is between an annual premium increase of about 12% (which is what most of us experience now) and 15% for some policies. There’s absolutely nothing else in the law that will change the market drastically enough until mandates and the exchange start in 2014… unless the new Medicare oversight board comes up with some serious revisions to the way that doctors get paid for ordering too many tests and those changes are ratified by Congress.

                      As I’ve also written elsewhere: this round was about access. Next round will be about containing costs and continuing to fight about this round will be a losing proposition.

                  • ByteMe says:

                    Latest polls I’ve also seen that actually break down the “oppose” side also say that 13 points (or thereabout) of the 53 are from the liberal camp and it’s because HCR didn’t go far enough into “single payer” territory. Those folks aren’t likely to deep-six Democrat-based representation in the next election, so you can’t read too much into a single number.

      • Henry Waxman says:

        I truly hope the Democrats run on a bill that the vast majority of the public opposes.

      • ByteMe says:

        And I’d take it a step further:

        Not only should the Republican party address the issues of what exactly is wrong with the bill that they would change, but they should state the concrete changes that would actually lower costs in a significant way. Republican-favorite “tort reform” (also known as “screw the patient again”)? Estimated to save about 2-3% of costs. What else you got?

        Eliminating mandates? Premiums increase faster for people who do have coverage and we’re at the same place we are now with runaway costs.

        Standardizing common procedures across the country, so an appendectomy costing $8000 in Dallas doesn’t cost $15,000 in Atlanta? A great place to start, but how do you insist on that to the private insurers?

        You can certainly win some seats being the “Party of NO” provided the economy doesn’t get better (oh, but it is getting better, unemployment is a lagging indicator), but you win more having concrete plans that will lure independents.

        • The free enterprise capitalistic system has a unique and a miraculous way of providing quality service to consumers be it healthcare or anything else. Quality or inferior health services will always have a marketplace. I have more confidence in the delivery system of those services through insurance, health savings accounts and HMO’s than I do a politcal apparatus that is ever changing and ever growing.

          Name one governmental service, other than the military, that is efficient, profitable and renders the full scope of services within its budget? This year Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the revenues it is taking in.

          • ByteMe says:

            The same free enterprise capitalistic system that created the Wall Street Meltdown? That allowed rescissions? That allowed the concept of “pre-existing conditions” to deny healthcare? That has 16% of our GDP going toward healthcare costs — higher than ANY other country, including all countries with a national healthcare plan?

            Good luck selling that to the public.

            • Yeah, that’s the one! I surely prefer risk and reward against the suckling pig scenario you all are creating. Each according to his means. It’s been tried many many times. Doesn’t work. Capitalism may not be pretty for the lazy.

              Healthcare, Bon Bons, Toyota’s or Chevy’s, it really doesn’t matter. Free markets work, even for handicap folks. This legislation is not about healthcare, it’s about control.

              • ByteMe says:

                As I said: good luck selling that to the public who are just fine with things like regulations for clean air and water, regulations to keep the banks from stealing from us, and regulations to keep health care companies from using their money to strangle the system while we bleed.

                • oh yeah, corporate America the big bad dirty bear. That same dirty corporate pimp that pays your salary, provides the organizational structure so you can spend the money you earned from your corporate pimp. Much rather have free enterprise than Hugo Chavez, Putin or The Messiah Obama.

                  • ByteMe says:

                    You’ll be so much more amazed at the world around you once you stop thinking there’s only two sides to every situation, the one you like and the one you don’t.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      Or perhaps there’s another way and you just haven’t thought of it. I’m ok with that. I’ll pass on enlightening you, since you are so positive you know anything about me.

                    • Sure. Contrary to the whining you see about the economy, opportunity is all around for those who have ambition. But don’t look for those Wall Street corporate types to provide health insurance. They really only want to bleed you dry.

                      I’m amazed that the bashing ignorant people take to Wall Street, but they love em when their investment is ripe. Right now I’m loving em a whole lot.

        • benevolus says:

          Tort reform drives me crazy. How can anyone with a conscience limit compensation to a VICTIM without also limiting profit of the PERPETRATOR?

          • ByteMe says:

            There are at least three paths to “tort reform”:

            1. The Georgia Republican (unconstitutional) way, which is to limit the payout that a jury can choose.

            2. Provide a “gatekeeper” for determining whether a lawsuit can proceed to a judge or jury for hearing.

            In this scenario, the gatekeeper could be a board of retired medical doctors with experience in a broad range of medical procedures. If you can convince a majority of that board that negligence or malpractice might have been involved, your case can go forward and you can collect as much as the judge/jury decides.

            3. Have three tiers of damages: direct economic (what income did the patient lose going forward), indirect quality-of-life (pain and suffering), and punishment (over and above to keep the doctor from doing it again and to “teach his insurance company a lesson”). The patient keeps the first two (after attorney fees) and the third goes to pay the lawyer’s bill and any remaining money adds funds to the state for Medicaid/Medicare. In other words, you’ve taken the economic incentive out of it for the patient, but not made it impossible for the patient’s lawyer to get paid without further screwing the patient.

      • B Balz, I’ve been posting on this site since its inception. I make no bones about my conservatism or partisanship. I’m a Republican and only voted for 2 non-Republicans in my 30 years of voting. I voted for Ross Perot (the kook side came out of me in ’92) and Bill Henry for Mayor (he was a certified kook and a thorough loon, but the Republican, I felt, was corrupt).

        What I have seen in this administration and Democrat controlled congress has been nothing short of the dismantling of the American way of life. We’ve become a society of dependent people on someone else’s wallet. If we don’t think we can do it ourselves, no worries take it from someone who has the abilities to achieve. The debacle of a health care bill in essence has nothing to do with healthcare but control and power. 16,000 new IRS agents to control people is not my idea of a free and open society.

        Yes, I’m a REPUBLICAN and very much a conservative. I also have a chronic neuromuscular disease that has no cure, so brand me as an insensitive loon. I’ll gladly harp and goad legislators who prefer to scam yours and my money simply to gain more power. I want to keep what little I have, thank you very much.

  6. “”””My point is that our GOP is going to be portrayed as the Party on “NO!” “””” SO WHAT?!

    This massive shift in taking from private enterprise and piling it on to the federal government is simply nuts.

    What larger issue is their than fighting against the government takeover of a massive amount of the economy? Politicians (R, D and I) all SCREW their programs up. This year is the first time Social Security is paying out more than it is taking in. It’s broke.

    Private enterprise at least operates on a profit margin and attempts to keep their stockholders in the black. Not everything is perfect, but it is far better being served by an organization who attempts to garner market share by quality customer service than constantly getting a rectal examine by the federal government.

    What product, good or service has the federal government ever mandated that an individual purchase? With all the illegal immigration, it will still be broken. SUCKERS!

    • RuralDem says:

      ““”””My point is that our GOP is going to be portrayed as the Party on “NO!” “””” SO WHAT?! ”

      Well, you can only scream no so often until you’re actually put in a position to propose something. That’s the point. You’d rather sit in the corner and cry “NO!!!!” over anything the Democrats propose than to offer a better solution. It might work temporarily, but you’ll be swept right back out of power just as quickly as you were swept in by going that route.

      • “Hear no evil see no evil.” “Stupid is as stupid does.”

        The fact is the Obama train has hit the skids. Just like ’06, when y’all took the reins again because of Republican corruption, an unpopular war and high oil, this time folks have wised up to the rhetoric.

        I hear a fat lady warming up her vocal chords…. We don’t need no socialism, communism or fascism. We need lower taxes, a robust econoomy built on free enterprise and limited government.

        • RuralDem says:

          I’m not sure why you’re throwing out random phrases.

          “The sky is blue.” “It’s springtime.” “Hey, I’m posting on PeachPundit.”

          That’s great that you think people have wised up to the rhetoric. Ok, we all know about the GOP platform of lower taxes and limited government. That’s fine, and most sane Republicans push those ideas. However, you’re one of the Republicans that are too busy screaming no to everything instead of pushing these ideas.

          If you’d actually propose solutions instead of saying “hey, the Democrats are worse!!!!” then you might actually get somewhere.

          Yeah, the fat lady might be warming up her vocal chords, but apparently you’re too busy yelling “no!!!” over her to understand what she’s saying.

          • Republicans have proposed healthcare reform initiatives that were shut out never to see the light of day.

            November is a coming and the Democrat majority will long be history. What is happening reminds me of a class I attended a few years ago. We sat in Whit Ayer’s (RNC pollster) in May 2006. Mr. Ayers accurately predicted the November ‘06 election. The issues were: Political Corruption, an Unpopular War and High Oil. He said worst of all there wasn’t a darn thing anyone could do about it. The public angst was nothing compared to what we see today. So, if frustrated masses are any indicator, these congressmen have a long row to hoe. It ain’t going to be pretty.

            I’m going to do everything possible to rid these worthless “politicians” and help quality, competent folks get elected.

  7. B Balz says:

    Losing Ranger Hall of Famer, Rep. Jim Marshall’s keen intellect, maturity, work ethic would be a loss to his District, Georgia and the Republic. And I am not in his District, nor in his debt, nor employ in any way.

    Passions run hot on the HC Bill. People are entitled to their opinions, though I imagine those opinions lack the benefit of actual facetime with the Representatives mentioned.

    If Mr. Atkinson has an opportunity, I urge him to make an appointment with Kyle, in Rep. Marshall’s office to get a clearer understanding about how the good man from Macon feels about this Bill. You will be enlightened, Sir.

    Not agreeing with a Bill is one thing, leading a charge into a political Donnybrook is another.

    • There are close to 1,000,000 people in the 8th congressional district. Of that population some 250,000 people will be voting. I am certain there is a quality individual when is educated and cares about this country. I will not support Marshall, who seems to dance around every issue. My sources tell me Marshall wants to win this election to secure his federal pension and then not seek re-election. That is mere self service.

      There are two quality people I admire that are seeking the Republican nomination. I am actively supporting one of them. I believe the Republican nominee will be either DeLoach or Hicks. Whoever emerges will have my full support and labor.

      Political Donnybrook, here we come. It definitely will be loud.

Comments are closed.