The rift is growing between Democrats on healthcare reform
I know that I shouldn’t allow this to happen, but I am beginning to get optimistic once again that the healthcare reform bill may be in trouble in the senate. The source of my optimism still revolves around the man that let us down with his vote to allow cloture on healthcare reform after he promised that he wouldn’t– Joe Lieberman.
My optimism doesn’t come from Joe Lieberman himself, but rather from the politics that have been in play by Harry Reid to win Joe Lieberman’s vote. Joe Lieberman has been a staunch opponent of the public option and last weekend the Democrats thought they had reached a “broad agreement” that would technically kill the public option while offering a “buy in” to Medicare at the age of 55, coupled with a “national plan” that would have been run by private insurers. It was hoped by Harry Reid that Joe Lieberman would support this concession, he didn’t.
In a closed door meeting between Barack Obama and Democrat leaders, including Harry Reid, Barack Obama told Harry Reid to cut a deal with Joe Lieberman. It has come to the point where none of the Democrats even care what version of healthcare reform passes or what is in it as long as they pass something. Today, Harry Reid supposedly agreed to drop both the public option and the Medicare buy in. This has apparently won the vote of Joe Lieberman.
While this should be good news for Democrats, it highlights the growing rift in the Democrat party on healthcare reform. While Joe Lieberman may now be happy, and while the Democrats may have won his vote, it appears as though this win could be offset by the loss of another vote. Roland Burris– the man who bought Barack Obama’s vacant senate seat– is now expressing his displeasure with the compromise.
Senator Roland W. Burris, Democrat of Illinois, has vowed that he will not vote for a health care bill that does not include a government-run insurance plan, or public option.
So it appears that while the Democrats gained the vote of Joe Lieberman, they lost the vote of Roland Burris. But the problems continue to grow for Democrats as Howard Dean is now saying that the Democrats should scrap this bill and start over from scratch.
This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill
Howard Dean, for some reason, seems to hold a lot of sway with the leftists in the Democrat party, so if he starts calling for a “do over” it could spell trouble for the healthcare reform bill.
This is where the true problem lies with the Democrats on healthcare reform, and this could be the unraveling of healthcare reform. Harry Reid and the Democrats are having trouble trying to find a compromise that will make everybody on the left happy. When they win one vote they alienate another.
While the Democrats like to portray the Republicans as split, and while they like to portray the Republicans as the “party of no,” if truth be told, it is the Democrats who are split and who are turning into the “party of no.” The rift in the Democrat party is growing on this issue.
But it isn’t time to become too hopeful, it isn’t time to relax on this issue. We must keep up the pressure because the Democrats still have a major card up their sleeve and they may be about to play it.
The reason that I cannot become fully optimistic in the defeat of healthcare reform is the last part of that statement by Howard Dean, he is talking about using reconciliation to pass the bill thereby bypassing the will of some members of his own party. If the Democrats resort to this trick the bill will only need a simple majority to pass it instead of a super majority. The Democrat leadership does not give a damn about the will of the people; we already know this is true or the bill would already have been scrapped. But it now appears as if the leadership of the Democrat party do not give a damn about the will of some members of their own party. They are hellbent on passing this legislation one way or the other, regardless of the polls and regardless of the Democrats in congress who do not agree with different aspects of this legislation.
This is the one and only time that I have ever agreed even partly with something that Howard Dean has said, and it will probably be the last time.
Mr Reid, TEAR UP THIS BILL.
Massachusetts student ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation for drawing a crucifix, but drawing an ejaculating penis is okay
A teacher in a Taunton Massachusetts school asked his eight year old students to draw a picture of something that reminded them of Christmas. One student decided to draw a picture of Jesus Christ on the cross. Leaving aside the fact that the eight year old appears to have mixed up Good Friday and Easter with Christmas– a more appropriate picture would have been the Nativity– what happened next to this student is beyond comprehensible.
Because he was asked to draw a picture that reminded him of Christmas, and because he actually included a picture of Christ in the picture, this student was sent home from school and ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation that the parents had to pay for before he was allowed to go back to school. The excuse given by the school was that the picture was violent and even though this student had never been in trouble before and even though he had never exhibited violent behavior before, the fact that he drew a Crucifix was a sign that the student may harbor violent thoughts.
It appears as though when the teacher asked for pictures of Christmas he or she was only referring to the pagan symbols of Christmas such as the Christmas tree, and not actual symbols that represent what Christmas is supposed to mean.
Needless to say, but unfortunately it has to be said, a child drawing a picture of Jesus in no way is a violation of the freedom of religion. It is not the establishment of a religion, but this boy’s prosecution could be considered the state prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That is where the constitution is being violated.
But should we really be surprised that a teacher in a Massachusetts school should be so upset that a student would draw a picture of Jesus when asked what Christmas meant?
While drawing a picture of Jesus on the cross will get a student put into the care of a psychiatrist, we have an example from Massachusetts earlier this year of a drawing that is perfectly acceptable.
Earlier this year a Massachusetts school gave its eleven year old students a homework assignment. That assignment was to draw an erect, ejaculating penis. When parents found out about this assignment they protested to no avail. The school board simply did not care about this issue.
Massachusetts has told us with their actions that it is a perfectly normal idea to have eleven year olds draw ejaculating penises as a homework assignment but if you follow the directions of a teacher who wants you to draw pictures of Christmas and you draw Christ, you need a psychological evaluation.
I agree with one thing here, an evaluation needs to be done. We need to evaluate the entire school system.
The Obama administration is withholding information on the Fort Hood terrorist attack
Two weeks ago the Fort Hood report was delivered to Barack Obama but so far Obama has not been willing to brief members of the House intelligence committee. Pete Hoekstra is beginning to wonder why this information is being withheld by the administration.
As a member of the Gang of 8, Hoekstra and the other seven committee members are supposed to be briefed on classified intelligence reports but as of yet the president has not briefed them at all.
It’s now three and a half, four weeks later,” said Hoekstra. “I would assume that in the last four weeks we’ve gathered lots of info that should be shared with the intelligence committees.”
There is a “lack of transparency here,” Hoekstra said, and “it is unbelievable the material and the information that they’re withholding from us, from the American peopleThey are not willing to share it with the intelligence committee. Wouldn’t it be nice to know what his—shouldn’t the intelligence committee know what his relationship was to Aulaqi, what other foreign people he would be talking to? No briefing
Hoekstra then goes on to make a great point:
We’re looking at a homegrown radicalized jihadist and Congress and the President are unwilling to do anything and we’re looking at the people who gate-crashed the party, and (I) guess I read this morning that subpoenas are going to be issued. So, hey, we’re—I guess we’re working on the things that are important
More emphasis appears to be placed on the White House party crashers than on a homegrown terrorist who carried out an attack on American soil. It is obvious to me that the president is putting off the Fort Hood briefing because the report shows that Hasan was motivated by a radicalized version of Islam. He was a radical muslim extremist terrorist and the administration does not want that information getting out to the public.
The question is why? Why is Obama afraid to tell us what most Americans already know– that the Fort Hood massacre was indeed a terrorist act? There can only be two reasons that I can think of. Either he is afraid that he will offend Muslims if he calls Hasan a terrorist or an extremist. Or he is afraid to admit that a terrorist attack happened on his watch.
40 congressmen ask for the charges to be dropped against Navy SEALs that punched a most wanted terrorist
Three Navy SEALs captured one of the United States’ most wanted terrorists– Ahmed Hashim Abed, who masterminded the Blackwater USA killings in 2004 in which four Americans were murdered, burned, and their bodies hanged from bridges– and for their heroic actions they are facing a court martial.
Abed filed a formal complaint against the SEALs because during his arrest one of them punched him in the stomach, so instead of these brave men being haled as heroes they face a court martial. This is a travesty of justice and this should never happen to those who are only doing their job in an effort to bring terrorists to justice.
It looks like these brave men may have a little help in their corner after all, 40 congressmen have signed a letter asking Gen. Charles Cleveland– the man who brought these heroes up on charges– to drop the charges against the Navy SEALs.
In our opinion, prosecutorial discretion should have been exercised,” the 40 congressmen said. “Failing that, we respectfully and strongly urge you to exercise your leadership authority, stop the impending court martial and exonerate these men
It is certainly good to know that these men, who have dedicated their lives to looking out for us, have somebody in congress looking out for them.
Rep. Rob Wittman sums it up better than I can when he states the following:
After hearing the case of these three Navy SEALs, one of which is a constituent of mine, I and many of my colleagues were concerned with the message this would send to our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen who serve in harms way every day,” Wittman told CNSNews.com in a statement.
“These service members often risk their lives in dangerous and uncertain situations, and in this case, they captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq. I am eagerly awaiting the secretary of defense’s response to the letter I signed in defense of these SEALs,” Wittman continued. “While I do not believe that the prosecution of these men is warranted, I do have full faith and confidence that the military justice system will bring all the facts to light
Let us hope that these men never go on trial, but if they do, let us hope that justice will be served and they will be cleared of any wrongdoing. For they have done nothing wrong.
No matter what happens in this case, there is a lesson to be learned. The next time any United States service member is faced with the option of either capturing or killing a high level terrorist, he’ll know which option to choose.
Joe Lieberman claims he is against the Medicare buy-in option
Depending on whom you listen to, the Democrats may have abandoned the public option in favor of a “broad agreement” that would allow people to buy into Medicare at the age of 55 and set up a national healthcare platform that would be run by private insurance companies. It was hoped that this “broad agreement” would give the Democrats the 60 votes needed to pass the healthcare reform bill, but it appears this may not be the case.
Senator Lieberman– who stated that he would not allow any bill that contained a public option to even make it to the floor for debate, only to break his word and do just that– has now publicly stated that he will not support this bill even with the “broad agreement” that may or may not have been reached.
After admitting that he– much like everyone else who will be voting on the bill– doesn’t know what is in the bill, he told CBS that he will not support the bill with this “broad agreement” in it.
I certainly would have a hard time voting for it because it has some of the same infirmities that the public option did.”It will add taxpayer costs. It will add to the deficit. It’s unnecessary
After telling CBS that he would not support the bill, he apparently said the same thing in a closed door meeting Harry Reid. I would like to take Joe Lieberman at his word, but he has already broken his word once on this very same issue, and he may have to choose between voting for the bill or losing his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. There is no doubt that he will be faced with the threat of losing this chairmanship if he votes against the healthcare reform bill. He will be faced with a tough decision and it will be interesting to see if he puts his principles above his prestige.
Chuck Schumer calls healthcare reform the most difficult issue America has ever faced
While reading this article about the healthcare reform bill I saw a quote from Chuck Schumer that caught my eye.
We’re struggling to come together on the most difficult issue America has ever faced
The most difficult issue that America has ever faced? Really Chuck? Are you serious? There have been at least two depressions in America– the Great Depression and the Depression of 1893– along with the Panic of 1907. We have had a second war for independence– the War of 1812– and a civil war, and World War II. Then there was the civil rights movement and women’s suffrage. But Chuck Schumer declared the healthcare reform issue more difficult than any of these issues.
Either Chuck Schumer does not know his American history or he is trying to make excuses for Barack Obama’s inability to pass the legislation that he considers his landmark legislation. In stating that the healthcare reform issue is the most difficult issue America has ever faced he has greatly exaggerated the healthcare crisis and in the process he has degraded all of the struggles that past presidents had to overcome, and he has done it solely to prop up this failing president.
The administration’s mixed message on the recession
Barack Obama’s top economic adviser, Larry Summers, has given us some good news on the economy. He stated that “everybody agrees that the recession is over” and we would see job growth beginning sometime in the Summer. This is certainly would be good news if it were true. However, contrary to Summers’s claim that everybody agrees the recession is over, not all of the administration’s economic advisers see it quite the same way.
When asked about the economy and whether or not the recession is over, another of Obama’s top economic advisers, Christina Romer, said “Of course not. For the people on Main Street and throughout this country, they are still suffering, the unemployment rate is still 10 percent.”
The similarities to the global warming alarmists’ argument are striking, for years we have been told that everybody agrees that global warming is real. According to the alarmists, the debate is over and it is man’s fault the earth is heating even though there are many people who are much more realistic about man’s role in warming the planet, which records show is not warming at all, and has actually been cooling for the last decade. Climategate has shown us that the books have been cooked, the CRU and the IPCC coined the phrase “hide the decline” in order to keep the truth about global warming from the people.
As in the global warming argument, the message coming out of Washington is mixed and confusing. Is it any wonder why people are still nervous about the economy? When there are such contrasting opinions coming from the administration it leaves Americans wondering if anybody in this administration has any idea what the hell they are talking about.
On one hand we have Larry Summers– the same man who tried to claim the recession was ending because less people are googling the term “economic depression” than before– trying to carry the president’s water and push an opinion that the administration wants the people to believe about the economy, while on the other hand we have Christina Romer confirming what most Americans believe is the truth– that there has been no change in the economy despite the president’s feeble attempt to stimulate the economy.
It cannot instill confidence with the American people in this administration when they hear two vastly differing opinions coming from the same administration.
You would think that if this administration was competent in the least, they would at least get on the same page with their message on the economy, but they can’t even do that.
If this mixed message is any indication of how this administration operates, how can the American people be expected to believe anything that this administration says going forward? They are caught between telling the American people the truth about the economy and trying to make the president’s policies look good.
In the end the American people will judge the economy on how they are doing, not on how the administration claims they are doing. The American people will be the judge on the recession and so far Christina Romer has a more realistic analysis than does Larry Summers, the man whose job it appears to be is trying to make the president look good.
Larry Summers is trying to “hide the decline.”
Journalist removed from Copenhagen summit for asking about Climategate
How often have we heard that the debate is over, the science is settled and man is causing the earth to warm? It seems like we have heard it at least a million times. But Climategate has rocked the global warming alarmists’ world; their world came crashing down upon them just a week before the big Copenhagen summit. They have tried to ignore Climategate but they cannot ignore the story so they have to try to silence the story.
That is exactly what happened earlier this week at the big Copenhagen global warming summit. One reporter– who is a filmmaker and a global warming realist– pressed the gathering at Copenhagen on Climategate only to be taken away by armed guards for having the audicity (of hope) to ask a question about the global warming scandal.
It was a press conference. Climategate is a major story – it goes to the heart of the Global Warming debate by calling into question the scientific data and the integrity of many scientists involved.”“These questions should be answered. The attempts by UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistant to remove my microphone were hamfisted but events took a more sinister turn when they called an armed UN security officer to silence a journalist
This is what the alarmists mean when they say the debate is over. The debate is over because they will not listen to the realists’ side, the debate is over because they are forcibly silencing the opposition. They cooked the books to gain the outcome that they wanted to achieve and HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THEM!
With Climategate exposing the climate change myth for the hoax that it is, and with the Copenhagen summit continuing on as if nothing has happened, it seems to me that this would be the perfect platform for the alarmists to stand up and prove to the world that global warming is real and that Climategate is the real fraud. But they are unwilling to to that, they can only stoop to silencing the opposition by bullying them and forcing them into silence.
After a test vote earlier this week that won approval 60-36, the senate looks ready to approve an additional $1.1 trillion in additional spending. A final vote could come as early as tomorrow.
This bill would increase spending in many federal agencies by 10% and comes during an “unprecedented” economic crisis that one would think would mean less money should be available to these agencies. We are constantly told that we must sacrifice, the least our government could do would be to sacrifice also. I would suggest that if the administration is unwilling to cut money from the budgets of these agencies that the least the administration could do would be to freeze the budget of these agencies at the current level. That would be the responsible thing to do, but this administration is not responsible.
The additional $1 trillion would also provide a pay raise for federal officials. Again, shouldn’t these officials be asked to sacrifice? Also included in the funding bill is more help to the automakers, evidentally the bailout and federal takeover og General Motors and Chrysler didn’t work, so more money is going to be pumped into the struggling automakers while ordinary Americans are left wondering why the government is ignoring their problems.
But the bill gets even worse as it also overturns the ban on federal funding for abortion and needle exchange programs in the District of Columbia. The senate is using this end of the year appropriations legislation to ensure that its agencies and employees are taken care of, as well as forwarding two liberal ideals– abortion and needle exchanges– at a time when the government should be doing the same thing that average Americans are doing– cutting back.
When Sarah Palin made her infamous “death panels” comment that has given her opponents ammunition to try to denigrate her, this is what she was referring to.
There is a potential loophole in the healthcare reform bill that is being debated in the senate that would allow insurance companies to put limits on how much medical care is covered per year. This loophole was closed in the original version of the bill but has seemingly been removed from the current version of the bill.
This means that people who are suffering through diseases and inflictions that cost a lot of money– cancer for example– could see their insurance company cut of funding on a yearly basis once that person has reached a limit that is “not unreasonable.”
The bill doesn’t define what that term means or put a value on what that term could mean. That will be left up to the insurance companies.
The primary purpose of insurance is to protect people against catastrophic loss,” Finan said. “If you put a limit on benefits, by definition it’s going to affect people who are dealing with catastrophic loss.” The cost of cancer treatment can exceed $100,000 a year
This means that once a limit has been reacheed a patient will have to pay out of his or her own pocket or face the prospect of not getting the treatment that they need in order to live. When Sarah Palin made her “death panel” remark she was not referring to an actual panel, she was referring to this type of language that in effect would let insurance companies decide that a person’s life saving treatment might be too expensive, given a person’s health, to make it worth the cost of the treatment to save that person’s life.
If that is not a version of a death panel, I don’t know what is.
