Left vs. Left: Liberals Brawl Over Health Care
EmailABC News’ Rick Klein reports: Now we see who blinks.
As the Senate's health care bill lingers in its latest CBO-forced semi-exile, it's growing increasingly obvious that the public option will be the terrain for the ultimate showdown after all — and not in a way that liberals will like.
The bill's shift to the center brings the left back to the fore; after all these months of obsessing over the whims of the Ben Nelsons and the Joe Liebermans, it's time to care about the Russ Feingolds and the Sherrod Browns again.
If the Senate bill indeed eliminates the public option for most intents and purposes, somebody's going to have to break their word if the health care bill is to become law.
The fight isn't just right vs. left, or center vs. left: It's testing the relationship between committed liberals in Congress, and their erstwhile allies in the grass-roots.
It fits into the broader context of a president who's tacking right — with a Nobel speech that Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin liked, and economic plans that might seem downright Republican (if congressional Republicans stood ready to admit as much).
"The political headline this week is that President Obama appears to be attempting to move toward the center, or what he believes is the center," Peggy Noonan writes in her Wall Street Journal column. "The disadvantage of a pivot is that it will further agitate the president's base, which feels he's already been too moderate. (This actually carries some benefits: When the left rails at Mr. Obama, he looks more moderate.) The upside is clear. In a time of extended crisis, voters are inclined to reject the radical. And a shift will represent a challenge to the president's competitors."
Nice to have a net, when you're in the midst of a downward swing: "It is impossible to say precisely which one thing or combination hurt the president. But his standing in the polls has clearly deteriorated a bit," Charlie Cook writes for National Journal. "Many of Obama's most ardent supporters are apoplectic over his plan to substantially increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan, while some of his most vociferous critics find themselves uncomfortably agreeing with him on one or more issues."
Back on health care — If Medicare expansion is a good substitute for a public option, not everyone got the same memo: Howard Dean is one side, and MoveOn.org is on the other.
Et tu, Nancy? "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed support Thursday for a Senate Democratic proposal to expand Medicare, raising prospects that the two chambers of Congress can work out differences on health-care legislation," Greg Hitt reports in The Wall Street Journal. "The proposal would open Medicare to some people ages 55 to 64, and is a key feature of a deal among senior Senate Democrats that would abandon efforts to enact a big government-run health-insurance program."
"The speaker stopped short of embracing the broader contours of a fragile compromise worked out by liberal and moderate Senate negotiators in an effort to nudge forward broad changes to the health-care system. Still, she said: ‘There's certainly a great deal of appeal' to expanding Medicare," The Washington Post's Amy Goldstein reports.
Bernie on board, too? Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., still wants the public option, but: "The question is what kind of trade-off will take place," Sanders said on ABC's "Top Line" Thursday. "There is some discussion, as you know, about lowering the age for what is called a Medicare opt-in. … This is a strong — this is an important step forward."
Unless it isn't: "If your progressive Democratic member of Congress decides to support the corporatist agenda and vote for a health care bill that makes the insurance companies say ‘we won,' they probably need to be challenged," Jane Hamsher writes at FireDogLake.com.
"The case that the White House failed to achieve a public option because it was inept is much stronger than the case that it failed to achieve one because it wasn't progressive enough," Nate Silver writes at FiveThirtyEight.com.
Before you sign and seal any agreements — remember that nobody's actually seen the deal in writing yet: "Two days ago, the Medicare proposal appeared to be the elusive bridge between liberals, who were being forced to give up a public health insurance option, and moderates, who said they couldn't vote for a bill that included one. But by Thursday, the shine had dimmed, as senators grew restless over a lack of information and declined to commit their vote until they could review the legislative language and the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate," Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown reports.
Not that there's any danger of getting Republicans on board in significant numbers… "Coming up with a new idea three weeks before Christmas and jamming it through the Senate may well be what party leaders do best. But it's no way to write important legislation," Stu Rothenberg writes in his Roll Call column.
Shifting, already: "Senate Democrats are considering changing a proposed expansion of Medicare to address complaints from doctors and hospitals and defray costs for consumers, officials said Thursday, two days after party leaders hailed it as part of a breakthrough for health care," per the AP's Erica Werner.
The latest huge obstacle to slow things to a crawl: "Expanding access to low-cost prescription drugs from overseas might look like a sure winner in the effort to make healthcare more affordable. President Obama supports the idea, as do many Democrats and several Republicans," the Los Angeles Times' Janet Hook and Tom Hamburger report. "But the seemingly popular proposal brought the Senate healthcare debate to a standstill Thursday, as Democrats divided over whether they should bow to the drug industry's fierce opposition."
Nobel fallout, as President Obama and the first lady head home.
ABC's Jake Tapper: "What we heard articulated today in the president's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech was nothing short of the Obama Doctrine — the most comprehensive view we've been offered yet of how the president views foreign policy — and how he sees himself within the pantheon of world leaders."
One big theme — echoes of Bush: "The Norwegians weren't applauding the peace-prize acceptance speech President Obama just gave in Oslo and I know why. The speech in many ways could have been written for, and delivered by, a man they loathe: George W. Bush," Newsweek's Howard Fineman writes. "Of course American politics was involved…."
"If any further evidence were needed of the distance between running for president and being president, it came Thursday in Oslo as President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize," Dan Balz writes in The Washington Post.
"He delivered a mix of realism and idealism, implicitly criticizing both the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as inadequately appreciating the dangers of the world, and President George W. Bush as too quick to set aside fundamental American values in pursuit of security," The New York Times' Jeff Zeleny writes. "In that way, he continued a pattern evident throughout his public career of favoring pragmatism over absolutes."
Or maybe the crowd was just waiting to burst into applause: "There is something remarkably gutsy about using Martin Luther King Jr. as a foil before the Nobel Committee, which elevated King, and his movement, into an international moral crusade. But Obama brought it off," Time's Joe Klein writes.
"The address set a new tone for his young administration, which been accused by foreign-policy hawks of being too accommodating to overseas powers and too quick to seek favor abroad," Elizabeth Williamson and Jonathan Weisman write for The Wall Street Journal.
Sarah Palin liked what she saw from Obama — as well as what she's seen on her book tour: "I'll be doing some speeches across the country in these coming months," Palin said in an interview with USA Today's Kathy Kiely. "I'll be taking people up on their offers to assist them in campaigns. … My thinking is still 2010 and helping candidates get elected there."
On Obama's Nobel speech (is she accusing the president of having read her book?): "Wow, that really sounded familiar," Palin said. "I talked, too, in my book about the fallen nature of man and why war is necessary at times."
Also a fan — Newt Gingrich: "I thought in some ways it's a very historic speech," the former House speaker said on NPR's "The Takeaway."
Rallying the Republican troops — a familiar face, with a newfound GOP loyalty: "For years, [Sen. John] McCain relished being an outsider and a maverick, a style that often led to battles with his own party's leadership," Politico's Jonathan Martin and Manu Raju write. "Today, for reasons that friends and McCain observers say could range from unresolved anger to concern for his right flank as he seeks re-election to genuine dismay about Obama's agenda, he is helping lead a fiery crusade of GOP loyalists against Democratic priorities — and irked some of his Democratic colleagues in the process."
Said John Weaver: "His political epitaph is going to be dictated by how he conducts himself in next six or 13 years."
Easy targets: "A $1.1 trillion spending bill laced with budget increases and more than 5,000 congressional pet projects passed the House on Thursday amid criticism from Republicans and watchdog groups," USA Today's Andrew M. Seaman reports.
Now on the House floor: "The House is slated on Friday to pass wide-ranging financial overhaul legislation as Democratic leaders look to overcome an effort to scuttle a new federal consumer protection agency," The Hill's Silla Brush writes.
"House Democratic leaders said they expected to have enough support to approve the measure when it comes to a vote, perhaps today," The Boston Globe's Michael Kranish reports. "The sweeping legislation is the most significant overhaul of financial regulation since the 1930s. It would create a federal agency to protect consumers from questionable loan practices, give government the power to seize control of financial institutions under certain circumstances if they are deemed ‘too big to fail,' and require hedge fund traders to register with the government."
Unless: "House Democratic leaders struggling to advance a bill to overhaul the nation's financial regulatory system have been hit by an unusual push back from a sweeping range of party interests determined to have their say," Sean Lengell writes in the Washington Times. "The intraparty squabbles, coupled with strong opposition from big banks and Republicans, have threatened to derail one of the Obama administration's top domestic priorities."
No signs of bipartisanship yet, on the economy. House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, in a Washington Post op-ed: "When the president said this week that we need to ‘spend our way out of this recession,' he made clear that he is not willing to admit the $787 billion ‘stimulus' isn't working. A bunker mentality won't put people back to work. Mr. President, it's not the GOP that's scaring people — it's your job-killing policies."
From the other side: the Congressional Black Caucus holds a news conference on "job creation and economic growth priorities," at 11:15 am ET at the Capitol Friday.
Coming Sunday, on "This Week": White House chief economic adviser Larry Summers, on "how much more economic pain the American people will endure and how long it will take to replace millions of lost jobs," per ABC's George Stephanopoulos, your new "Good Morning America" co-host.
Also on "This Week" Sunday: House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., and the roundtable: George Will, Ed Gillespie, Arianna Huffington, John Podesta, and April Ryan.
And not to be missed the Sunday schedule: Oprah's "Christmas at the White House."
The Kicker:
"This is all one big overblown latke." — Rabbi Levi Shemtov, on the hubbub over the White House Hanukkah party.
"She's going to surprise a lot of people." — Former Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska, predicting that Sarah Palin will run for president in 2012.
For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note's blog . . . all day every day:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
What an abysmal failure. The health care bill needs to be stopped at all costs. The democrats are depending on a double cross where they alter it in committe after it passes the senate. Remeber the House side had the public option. Also if you are going to CUT medicare how are you going to add more people to it? It was also noted on NPR that health care increases the cost of YOUR regular health care which makes up the lack of payments.
Posted by: ChicagoBob | December 11, 2009, 9:16 am 9:16 am
ChicagoBob: Please could you share the details of the new health care bill agreement. You seem to be ranting against an unknown. As the details will be made available with the CBO estimate early next week.
Posted by: New Wave | December 11, 2009, 9:18 am 9:18 am
It was also noted on NPR that health care increases the cost of YOUR regular health care which makes up the lack of payments. This is called a hidden tax. One thats paid for everyone on top of the FICA you already pay for. The government is stealing from everyone so heavily and we lay down like lambs to slaughter. Where is the tea party now?
Posted by: ChicagoBob | December 11, 2009, 9:22 am 9:22 am
Please could you share the details of the new health care bill agreement. You seem to be ranting against an unknown. >>>> Here is what I am ranting about. One the original bill passed with medicare cuts. It passed with the public option. What happens when it goes to committee? You know Pelosi and Reid in their closed door meetings, (really transparent isnt it?) Then no one will read and vote on the new bill. If they trash the old bill the house will have to vote on a NEW bill which leaves out the public option. Then that is the garuntee’d starting place. I am so against the 2000 page boon doogle.
Posted by: ChicagoBob | December 11, 2009, 9:25 am 9:25 am
Speaking of what you heard on NPR. Did you also hear that without any change in US Health Care, we will be having double-digit increases in insurance premiums?
Some small businesses have reported receiving over 25% increases in each of the past 3 years.
Posted by: New Wave | December 11, 2009, 9:29 am 9:29 am
The democrats are looking at running single payer candidates now. It’s about time. I support them 100%
Posted by: rightbehind | December 11, 2009, 9:30 am 9:30 am
If you want a great idea ruined let the White House debate over it. Insurance companies have driven cost’s up so high, no one can afford health care.
Posted by: J Lopez | December 11, 2009, 9:43 am 9:43 am
I would pay to see a Pelosi vs. Reid cage match. I think Pelosi would take the little man down.
Posted by: Huh | December 11, 2009, 9:54 am 9:54 am
The Gallup poll shows Obama gets 39% support for his health care reform ( compare with 47% for Hillary care proposal in 1992-93) and 34% voted yes on the question if Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.
Posted by: austin | December 11, 2009, 9:58 am 9:58 am
There’s no doubt that the Democrats are a far more diverse party than are Republicans. The Dems have a big tent. The Republicans line up like lemmings saying “tell me how I should vote.”
Posted by: Archie | December 11, 2009, 9:58 am 9:58 am
Yes, who even knows what the bill is nowadays. Democrat transparency, what a crock!
Posted by: jonny | December 11, 2009, 9:59 am 9:59 am
Speaking of what you heard on NPR. Did you also hear that without any change in US Health Care, we will be having double-digit increases in insurance premiums? >>>>>> I want change badly but not the change in this BILL. This bill is a Elmer Gantry nothing more. TORT reform pass it and make it the same as Texas NOW. Pre-Existing conditions. Lets make sure that if someone is insured for 90 days no pre-existing conditions apply. Portalbility. YES lets make all health care portable so you dont have to switch. POOLING. Lets allow states to make POOLS for small business and individuals that offer a set group of policies. SO you can buy a policy that costs the same. FICA. Lets just raise the tax and tell the truth. Medicare is a LIE it hides the tax passed down to ALL of us via our health care premiums. IN SHORT Medicare is a Hoax it doesnt COST less. Each of these things can be done in seperate BILLS with NO amendments to PAY off states like Louisiana. ENOUGH of the BRIBARY in Washington.
Posted by: ChicagoBob | December 11, 2009, 10:07 am 10:07 am
new wave. In regard to the current bill being proposed with the lowering the age for medicare limits now has the AMA, doctors and nurses against it. They all say that it will create poor services and bankrupt the medical system. So you keep putting your blind faith in this government plan. All you have to do is see the status of California to reject anything that Pelosi endorses. That state is broke because of her politics with the implementation of a government run insurance plan called health families and a cap and trade legislation that is driving businesses out of the state. So she was responsible for destroying the 7th largest economy of the world.
Posted by: Jason | December 11, 2009, 10:08 am 10:08 am
There’s no doubt that the Democrats are a far more diverse party than are Republicans. The Dems have a big tent. The Republicans line up like lemmings saying “tell me how I should vote.”>>>>> WOW what a lie that is. Did you note that there are more conservatives than democrats or republicans? Dems are the lemming party you dont even read the BILLS and are proud of it. Its a shame the party of Kennedy turned into this.
Posted by: ChicagoBob | December 11, 2009, 10:08 am 10:08 am
Aahh..Tort Reform, the GOP stalking horse of a proposal that has not lived to hype when tried.
How about removing the antitrust exemption that insurance companies currently have. An exemption to break the law.
Posted by: New Wave | December 11, 2009, 10:10 am 10:10 am
Just kill the bill, and stop wasting time and money over something the public opposes.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | December 11, 2009, 10:11 am 10:11 am
Jason: I don’t know if you are aware that Pelosi is not and has never been the Governor of CA. Try another rant.
Posted by: New Wave | December 11, 2009, 10:12 am 10:12 am
The Republicans line up like lemmings saying “tell me how I should vote.”
———-
Archie, I am a Republican and I don’t remember telling you that. In fact, that’s not what I do at all.
Although it is true that SOME Republicans and SOME Democrats blindly follow the party, there are intelligent, thinking people in both parties along with the Independents.
So, I guess that makes your comment….(how do I say it?)……non-true.
Posted by: malcat | December 11, 2009, 10:14 am 10:14 am
New Wave, You are aware of the fact that they have pre-released some of the particulars that will most likely be in the bill right?
Posted by: honey92345 | December 11, 2009, 10:26 am 10:26 am
Archie, I agree with malcat to some extent. But if you saw the latest polls that showed those who said they were conservatives (a separte group from Republican), the numbers put the Republicans at the bottom. Republicans like Lindsey Graham selling out his constituents on Cap N Tax are hardly endearing people to vote as the Rep party says to.
Posted by: deanbob | December 11, 2009, 10:28 am 10:28 am
Stimulus at WORK..
For feds, more get 6-figure salaries
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
>>>> Now we know where the BRIBE money went. Gee I thought it was to reduce unemployment.
Posted by: ChicagoBob | December 11, 2009, 10:29 am 10:29 am
New Wave …..Medical malpractice reform in Texas has (among other benefits) reduced malpractice insurance significantly. There are rural counties that have a doctor for the first time (in some cases, ever). The reason Democrats don’t talk about it is too much trial lawyer money influencing them.
Posted by: deanbob | December 11, 2009, 10:34 am 10:34 am
I have a hard time understanding how cutting medicare by 500 billion and then loading it up with those 55 years of age and older, is a good idea.
Posted by: david | December 11, 2009, 10:37 am 10:37 am
The number of Federal employees make more than $150,000 is 66,000 and that number has more than doubles since 12/2007.
Posted by: deanbob | December 11, 2009, 10:38 am 10:38 am
The UNFUNDED Medicare liability is > $73 trillion. Does anyone have any idea how that debt is going to be repaid? And how about the additional more than $33 trillion of unfunded liability?
Posted by: deanbob | December 11, 2009, 10:41 am 10:41 am
Tort Reform, a proposal that has not lived to hype when tried. New Wave
>>>>>>>>>>> That is basically a lie. You have not checked out Texas where malpractice insurance has fallen and this changes a LOT of things. In IL doctors are leaving because they cant afford or wont pay the insurance any more. WOW thats smart. Adopt the Texas legislation.
Posted by: ChicagoBob | December 11, 2009, 10:43 am 10:43 am
And still Washington want to budget 12% more than they spent last year – excluding the stimulus and TARP and Clunkers. These people do not care about you and I. If they did, they’d be looking for solutions, not more problems.
Posted by: deanbob | December 11, 2009, 10:49 am 10:49 am
The UNFUNDED Medicare liability is > $73 trillion. Does anyone have any idea how that debt is going to be repaid? And how about the additional more than $33 trillion of unfunded liability?>>>> Sure first you have state run banks then you have state run doctors then you have state run business. You seen everything run by the collective. Its called communisim where cronnies can do whatever they want and the elected become permanent members instead of having to worry about being elected. And we live under Obama’s BOOT trying despreately to figure out how our own lazy tv watching beer drinking, I’m OK your OK society got there. Enjoy your grey organic government issued wool suits. We cant have anyone but the FED enjoying wealth and prosperity.
Posted by: ChicagoBob | December 11, 2009, 10:50 am 10:50 am
It turns out Reid has a 1,000 plus per plate fundraiser scheduled for Saturday in New Orleans, according to one local paper, which also reports that Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-LA, a key swing moderate in the health care debate, will also be in attendance. >>>>> See how this works She gets a BRIBE in the health care bill HE gets a BRIBE for re-election. Gee people in his state are not interested in giving him money to run eh? LOL.. What CROOKS
Posted by: ChicagoBob | December 11, 2009, 10:54 am 10:54 am
ChicagoBob and deanBob: I live in TX, our health insurance costs are among the highest in the country. So have your facts right before spining benefits of Tort Reform in TX.
The usual GOP Plan B when pointed to this fact is to blame illegal immigrants. Try other excuses.
Posted by: New Wave | December 11, 2009, 10:55 am 10:55 am
And those Fake Democrats should run and hide.
Posted by: sara | December 11, 2009, 10:55 am 10:55 am
I wondered why the turnover was low. If I made $150K, I’d be happy. What jobs do Federal employees worth $150K and the Federal insurance program. What’s the Fed retirement plan?
Posted by: deanbob | December 11, 2009, 10:57 am 10:57 am
New Wave | Dec 11, 2009 10:55:28 AM…..I too live in TX. My wife and I paid less than $6K for our family plan with high deductable.
Posted by: deanbob | December 11, 2009, 10:59 am 10:59 am
New Wave…..speaking of immigrants, did you know that up until LBJ, the average annual legal immigration # was 250K. But since LBJ its averaged more than a million. In addition to doing something about ILLEGAL immigration, we should get the legal immigration number down – at least until unemployment is no longer an issue.
Posted by: deanbob | December 11, 2009, 11:03 am 11:03 am
“Left vs Left”?
Who would call the red-dog Dems and some centrist Dems “liberals” unless he was trying to shift the perspective of everyone and make the far right seem like “conservatives” instead of the extremists they are?
A cheap attempt at brainwashing, Rick!
Posted by: The_Mick | December 11, 2009, 11:07 am 11:07 am
We need jobs – long term or permanent jobs. But if you were a small business owner, would you hire right now knowing that Cap n Tax, Obamacare are, credit is tight to non-existent, and tax hikes are hanging over your business?
Posted by: deanbob | December 11, 2009, 11:07 am 11:07 am
The_Mick | Dec 11, 2009 11:07:30 AM….How do you define the “far right”?
Posted by: deanbob | December 11, 2009, 11:18 am 11:18 am
Oh, I just noticed….it’s the silly season down on the Potomac again…this time it is the increasingly IRRELEVANT legislative branch of our government….who, if they had the brains and moxie could simply tell the President to shelf his damned “Healthcare Reformless” plan until a later date. I really hate to see Reid and….what’s her name…yeah…Pelosi….groveling in the Oval Office while they take His orders…….these folks represent US, not HIM….and it looks like it is time to give up the ghost on Obamacare….when we start playing Childrens’ games to push some bad legislation through to keep the Executive branch happy, something is wrong….shelf the damned thing, and Mr. President, come back again when we know what the hell we are doing economically to ourselves in this country. We can’t affort to shift much more expense to Medicare for funding a war, healthcare “reform,” cap and trade, blah blah blah now, can we. Weren’t we told medicare was on the brink itself……..but I guess you, Reid, Pelosi and others can change anything you want into loaves and fish, can’t you? Shelf this reform … come back and see us when we know how financially stable this nation is, ok?
Posted by: justj joey | December 11, 2009, 11:46 am 11:46 am
Sessions has an amendment to ensure that illegal aliens are not draining public resources through the healthcare bill.
And passing the Sessions amendment will NOT help the healthcare pass in the end. But if the bill does pass, the amendment will ensure that illegal aliens are not draining public resources through it — and that the bill won’t entice more illegal aliens to come.
Posted by: deanbob | December 11, 2009, 11:47 am 11:47 am
Key reason for the boom in six-figure salaries:
• Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended — and Congress approved — across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes — called steps — that average 1.5% per year.
Posted by: gary | December 11, 2009, 11:50 am 11:50 am
Dear Senator Lieberman…..you suggested that you might be forced to filibuster the Obamacare if it had a public option……….well, it looks like we have a public public option in it called Medicare. This whole Obamacare thing has turned into a monster……..please do your thing, Joe!
Posted by: justj joey | December 11, 2009, 11:51 am 11:51 am
Just read something interesting in a story on CBS’s web site.
“As currently written, the Senate Democratic health care bill would permit insurance companies to place annual limits on the dollar value of medical care, as long as those limits are not “unreasonable.” The bill does not define what level of limits would be allowable, delegating that task to administration officials.”
Story goes on to state: “Adding to the puzzle, the new language was quietly tucked away in a clause in the bill still captioned ‘No lifetime or annual limits’.”
This is why so many Americans are insisting that any bill be posted in its FINAL form for all citizens to read. Many say 72 hours; I prefer 7 days. No changes allowed after posting.
How else can we citizens know if we DO want our Congressional representatives to vote YAY or NAY?
Also, I think all Congressional members voting on the FINAL form must be required to state they have READ and UNDERSTAND the bill before voting.
Posted by: malcat | December 11, 2009, 11:51 am 11:51 am
Last night, a congressman from Illinois said Medicare will be insolvent not later than 2017 – before any changes.
Posted by: deanbob | December 11, 2009, 11:53 am 11:53 am
LATEST POLL : 54% of Americans OPPOSE the healthcare legislation currently under consideration. 34% Approve. Our Reps. in Washington are clearly not paying attention to those they supposedly represent.
Posted by: Ron | December 11, 2009, 11:55 am 11:55 am
Also, I think all Congressional members voting on the FINAL form must be required to state they have READ and UNDERSTAND the bill before voting.
Posted by: malcat | Dec 11, 2009 11:51:17 AM
The Democrats voted this down along party lines
Posted by: deanbob | December 11, 2009, 11:56 am 11:56 am
That is a problem. Other than calling, emailing and faxing (or showing up in person!) to tell them you’ll do everything in your power against them in the next election if they continue to support it, what else can a misrepresented constituent do?
Posted by: deanbob | December 11, 2009, 12:00 pm 12:00 pm
Ron | Dec 11, 2009 11:55:47 AM….my previous post was a comment meant to be directed to you.
Posted by: deanbob | December 11, 2009, 12:01 pm 12:01 pm
Other than calling, emailing and faxing (or showing up in person!) to tell them you’ll do everything in your power against them in the next election if they continue to support it, what else can a misrepresented constituent do?
\—–
Short of some things that would probably land me in jail, can’t thing of a thing right now.
Posted by: malcat | December 11, 2009, 12:06 pm 12:06 pm
“54% of Americans OPPOSE the healthcare legislation currently under consideration”
The way they derive that figure is by adding together those that oppose it from the right “It goes too far! socialism!” with those that oppose it from the left “it doesn’t go far enough, I want single payer!”
The Kaiser Health Tracking Poll has support for expanding Medicare in the 70% range.
Posted by: gary | December 11, 2009, 12:43 pm 12:43 pm
Gary – You left out the other part of the story which explains a little more than what you posted.
“Jessica Klement, government affairs director for the Federal Managers Association, says the federal workforce is highly paid because the government employs skilled people such as scientists, physicians and lawyers. She says federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs.”
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | December 11, 2009, 12:45 pm 12:45 pm
Gary – Your quote also has a glaring error in it. It states that “Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes — called steps — that average 1.5% per year.”
This is not an accurate statement, as it gives the impression that an employee receives a step increase every year. The following is provided as reference to clarify the actual law per 5 C.F.R. § 531.405:
§ 531.405 Waiting periods for within-grade increase.
(a) Length of waiting period. (1) For an employee with a scheduled tour of duty, the waiting periods for advancement to the next higher step in all General Schedule grades (or the next higher rate within the grade, as defined in §531.403) are:
(i) Rate of basic pay less than the rate of basic pay at step 4–52 calendar weeks of creditable service;
(ii) Rate of basic pay equal to or greater than the rate of basic pay at step 4 and less than the rate of basic pay at step 7–104 calendar weeks of creditable service; and
(iii) Rate of basic pay equal to or greater than the rate of basic pay at step 7–156 calendar weeks of creditable service.
(2) For an employee without a scheduled tour of duty, the waiting periods for advancement to the next higher step of all General Schedule grades (or the next higher rate within the grade, as defined in §531.403) are:
(i) Rate of basic pay less than the rate of basic pay at step 4–260 days of creditable service in a pay status over a period of not less than 52 calendar weeks;
(ii) Rate of basic pay equal to or greater than the rate of basic pay at step 4 and less than the rate of basic pay at step 7–520 days of creditable service in a pay status over a period of not less than 104 calendar weeks; and
(iii) Rate of basic pay equal to or greater than the rate of basic pay at step 7–780 days of creditable service in a pay status over a period of not less than 156 calendar weeks.
(b) Commencement of a waiting period. A waiting period begins;
(1) On the first appointment as an employee of the Federal Government, regardless of tenure;
(2) On receiving an equivalent increase; or
(3) After a period of nonpay status or a break in service (alone or in combination) in excess of 52 calendar weeks, unless the nonpay status or break in service is creditable service under §531.406 of this subpart.
(c) A waiting period is not interrupted by non-workdays intervening between an employee’s last scheduled workday in one position and his or her first scheduled workday in a new position.
Basically an employee would advance from step 1 to step 10 over a period of 21 years if he received only within grade pay increases.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | December 11, 2009, 12:50 pm 12:50 pm
Simply – the American people do not want passage of this bill. Anything passed by these Democrats and signed by Obama will be “unconstitutional” and a just court would throw the bill out.
Posted by: Peter King | December 11, 2009, 1:16 pm 1:16 pm
Sandcrab, Any idea when this “26%” number was calculated ? Does include a ‘benefits differential’ as we know Fed healthcare is better than most private.
Posted by: deanbob | December 11, 2009, 1:22 pm 1:22 pm
When is Obama going to live up to his transparency promise? In addition to the non Democrats in the House and Senate, I’d like to see what’s going on (CSPAN).
Posted by: deanbob | December 11, 2009, 1:23 pm 1:23 pm
Polosi is about to raise our debt to 14trillion and tag it on the bill for the troops. What a crook and liar the dems are. Where is the open door Obama promised??
Posted by: Jim Rod | December 11, 2009, 1:35 pm 1:35 pm
Where is the open door Obama promised??
——
Well, they’ve invited 50K guests to the WH during December.
Posted by: malcat | December 11, 2009, 1:50 pm 1:50 pm
I won’t begrudge the president a Christmas party, even with the record deficits; but 50K guests? I guess he figures (like everyone else in Washington) that ‘Its not my money’?
Posted by: deanbob | December 11, 2009, 1:58 pm 1:58 pm
What a miserable jerk this Obama
Posted by: ng | December 11, 2009, 2:05 pm 2:05 pm
deanbob – Don’t know when the number was calculated. My understanding is that they compare say an electrical engineer working in an area of the country for a large employer and a similarly skilled electrical engineer working for the federal government in the same area and that it includes the benifit package. Many large employers offer health plans which are comprable to the governments. The main advantage of the government health insurance is that they get group rates based on the large pool of employees. Although there are over 250 different plans available to the federal employee any one employee will only qualify for between 4 and 10 plans (based on his location). Additionally older federal employees ,those hired prior to 1984 do not pay into or receive Social Security (if they work another job and meet the requirements for Social Security then there federal retirement is reduced by the amount Social Security pays). Those hired after 1984 (and all Congressmen) pay into Social Security. Those hired after 1984 also have a portion of their wages (believe that it is somewhere between 7-10%) with held for retirement. The also have the option of participating in the Thrift Savings Program which is similar to a 401K which also is for their retirement. You can Google FEHB for the health plans, CSRS for retirement of those hired prior to 1984 and FERS for retirement of those hired after 1984 if you want to do further research.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | December 11, 2009, 2:07 pm 2:07 pm
Just kill the bill, and stop wasting time and money over something the public opposes.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | Dec 11, 2009 10:11:01 AM
Finally, a common sense approach. This bill as it currently stands does nothing for the American people (with or without health insurance) and will likely make health more costly and inaccessable than it has already become.
It is a bad bill, period. Axe it and start fresh.
Posted by: Andy in Atlanta | December 11, 2009, 2:11 pm 2:11 pm
I don’t get it. Could one of you Obomabats please explain? Thank you.
Posted by: LongT | December 11, 2009, 2:13 pm 2:13 pm
For the liberal posters here who want to convince us that the health care “reform” is supported by most Americans, I suggest you go over to Politico and take a look at 3 DIFFERENT polls regarding health care, how people think it will affect them, and how they think Obama is handling it. After you’ve seen those numbers, come on back over and make your argument again. It should be fun.
Posted by: Shoe | December 11, 2009, 2:29 pm 2:29 pm
Shoe, I went over to Politico, where I found out the following
CNN poll
15. Now thinking specifically about the health insurance plans available to most Americans, would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?
favor 53%
oppose 46%
CBS/NYT
95. Would you favor or oppose the government offering some people who are uninsured the choice of a government administered health insurance plan–also known as a public option — that would compete with private health insurance plans?
favor 59%
oppose 29%
Fox makes up their numbers, I couldn’t care less what they say. And they didn’t ask about the public option anyway.
Posted by: gary | December 11, 2009, 2:43 pm 2:43 pm
You idiot Democrat’s that support the health care bill have no idea of its contents. Yet you are willing to accept the bill without ever reading it. That shows how stupid you are. All Democrat’s are programed to blame Bush.
They can not accept their own failures.
Their own self ego is blind to reason and truth. Thats why Democrat’s are called liberals. Their progressive movement is a movement backwards that enslaves and oppresses the poor and middle class citizens.
Posted by: John Demeter | December 11, 2009, 2:54 pm 2:54 pm
Hey, I see it’s Opposite Day again for our friends on the right.
John, the progressive movement stands for the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim it stands for.
Posted by: gary | December 11, 2009, 3:00 pm 3:00 pm
How do you like that. Barack Obama with the same foreign policy goals as GASP! Sarah Palin. Figures since they are the same personality cult, masquerading as a cheif executive… Is the left finally waking up to the fact that what they love about Obama, the right loves about Palin. Namely what’s on the outside vs. what’s on the inside. Hypocrites of the world… unite!
Posted by: jafo | December 11, 2009, 3:26 pm 3:26 pm
“Left vs Left”?
Who would call the red-dog Dems and some centrist Dems “liberals” unless he was trying to shift the perspective of everyone …
Posted by: The_Mick | Dec 11, 2009 11:07:30 AM
This is a very good point.Not all Dems are liberals, and not all Dems are progressive–
___
Their progressive movement is a movement backwards that enslaves and oppresses the poor and middle class citizens.
Posted by: John Demeter | Dec 11, 2009 2:54:30 PM
___
You know it’s the conservatives I hear talk about getting back to our roots and turning the clock back to the late 1700s– when women weren’t allowed to vote and slavery was still going strong. American liberals and progressives believe that society can and should be improved. Also, that the best way to improve it is to apply human intelligence to social and economic problems. Meanwhile conservatives,including some in the Dem party, oppose efforts at purposeful change — especially when they threaten the existing distribution of power and wealth — because s/he believes that things are about as good as they can be reasonably expected to be, and that any change is more likely than not to be for the worse.
We’ll sort out health care. Meanwhile, financial reforms take another step forward.
Posted by: Serafina | December 11, 2009, 3:29 pm 3:29 pm