Pelosi: Single-Payer Amendment Breaks Obama's Health Care Promise

[joeycola]

Source: Huff post




Pelosi: Single-Payer Amendment Breaks Obama's Health Care Promise
digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Pelosi: Single-Payer Amendment Breaks Obama's Health Care Promise stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


An amendment to allow states to pursue single-payer health care without incurring insurance-industry lawsuits was stripped from the House bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday, adding that it would break President Obama's commitment to people keeping their current insurance plan if they like it.

She also said that she had yet to decide whether to allow a vote on a separate amendment from Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) that would replace the entire health care bill with a single-payer system. "We are probably going to be addressing some of those issues in the next 24 hours," she told HuffPost.

Weiner is outwardly optimistic he'll get a vote. "She made a commitment back when the consideration of this bill was first contemplated. She agreed to have a vote on single payer then because we didn't have it in committee. I'm looking forward to it," he said. "She's an honorable person and she's a good Speaker and she supports single payer. She says it over and over again."

The amendment to allow states to individually implement single-payer was sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and passed the Education and Labor Committee's version of the health care bill. There were shenanigans involved, with Republicans joining Kucinich not because they supported the bill but because they wanted to create mischief. (Asked about the GOP position, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said that the party's opposition to single-payer health care trumps its support of states' rights.)


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/pelosi-single-payer-amend_n_347017.html&cp

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/pelosi-single-payer-amend_n_347017.html&cp

---

good lord, what a lame excuse Nancy.

[pfitz59]

1. Any of Pelosi's kin work in health care or Finance?

just wondering what hooks the corporatists have in her....

[saracat]

5. Apparently the same ones that control the WH!

[liberation]

43. Maybe we should stop pretending to be shocked when a San Francisco socialite...

... acts, walks, and quacks like a, wait for it, a D.C. socialite.

Just put an amendment putting price caps on botox dependent on single-payer being enacted, and you will see how quickly a single-payer legislation gets passed by the house. Then piggyback any aid package for Israel to the same bill, and you will see Lieberman championing it in the Senate.

win-win strategy, jeez I should contact the DNC.

[Ruby the Liberal]

2. On what planet does this stop people from keeping their own insurance?

If anything, the bill says "if you have employer coverage, you don't qualify to change".

Isn't that what we have been railing about for months now?

*sigh*

[gorfle]

44. So what would employers do?

If anything, the bill says "if you have employer coverage, you don't qualify to change".

You don't understand. If your state decided to have a robust, competitive single-payer plan on its own, every employer in your state would cancel their employee insurance plan, letting their employees go to the government plan instead. This would destroy private insurance in that state. Can't have that now, can we?

[Egnever]

60. thats not what the bill says at all.

[No Elephants]

81. Maybe not in so many words. And the poster did preface the statement with "if anything."

On the other hand, without a strong public option, who but the rich will buy their own insurance instead of sticking with whatever the employer chooses to go with?

[robinlynne]

89. talking about the kucinich amendment which was removed from the bill, not the house bill.

It would allow a state to choose single-payer, which would in fact provide health care to the entire state. California is ready to switch. Yes it would remove some profits from the insurance companies. Do we care? no. So we would need "optional single-payer" to satisfy Pelosi's criteria.

[kenny blankenship]

3. It's not fair to Saperstein!

[No Elephants]

65. Kudos on the visual.

[polichick]

4. Wouldn't Weiner's amendment break the same commitment?? nt

[Cleita]

6. If this is true, then it's the dumbest excuse I've heard yet. n/t

[joeycola]

7. Call Pelosi to urge her to fulfill her promise on a vote for single payer: [phone] or....

Call Speaker Pelosi to urge her to fulfill her promise on a vote for single payer: [phone] or [phone]


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/pelosi-single-payer-amend_n_347017.html&cp

[cap]

9. you can't call the speaker... you will be routed to voice mail

eom

[No Elephants]

66. Voice mail, flunky, what difference does it make? Maybe they count up

the sentiments expressed in the voice mails? But, we should call our own Rep, too. Mine is progressive, but also highly loyal to Pelosi, which normally works in his favor, in terms of ability to get things done. But, I'll call both.

[4dsc]

84. So fill her voice mail up!!

I'm making the call now..

[slipslidingaway]

53. I disagree, we do not know how Weiner changed HR 676 ...

too late.

[Deja Q]

8. To whom is the promise broken?

Many people probably like their existing plans... and some of them are the elected officials too.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DireStrike]

10. How is it a lame excuse?

It's a perfect excuse. I'm sure she's very glad of Obama's anti-leadership on the issue.

[joeycola]

11. This is a decision that has to be made by Congress......Kucinich

I am glad someone is still fighting for a decent bill.

...........Kucinich, told about the Speaker's comment, said he hasn't given up. "The Speaker's a friend of mine. The president's a friend of mine. I talked to the president about this on several occasions, including last week. This is a decision that has to be made by Congress. And I'm hopefull we'll be able to get the Kucinich amendment reinstated," he said.

The president, Kucinich said, didn't commit one way or the other to his amendment, but understands how important it is to progressives.

"There's a national movement behind us. There's tens of thousands of calls that have been directed into this Capitol in the last few days in support of protecting the right of states to pursue their own single payer plan," Kucinich said, pledging to continue the pressure. He had a meeting scheduled with the Speaker for one p.m. Thursday, along with other progressives, he said.

House leadership may not have realized, Kucinich ventured, how important the amendment was to securing the support of a number of progressive members. If those votes are needed to move the bill to the president's desk, he said, the amendment could come back in play.

"There's still a chance that it could get back in the bill," he said.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/pelosi-single-payer-amend_n_347017.html&cp

[abluelady]

12. She Is So Full of It

Obama had no right to make those statements and Pelosi shouldn't be allowed to perpetuate them. I can't make a decision and keep what I like if my employer chooses another plan. Only people who buy their own insurance have that possibility. And that isn't the majority of us.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Well, Nancy, I assume that means NO personal mandates?

Obama also promised that there would be mandated purchase only for parents to cover children.

[aquart]

14. That's utterly pathetic.

[bread_and_roses]

15. It's Obama's and Congress's promises to the Insurance & Pharma Vampires that's the issue here (n/t)

[AnOhioan]

16. OK...The Speaker has gone over the edge

Her statement is inane.

[rollingrock]

17. Time to strip out the mandates then

they break Obama's promise too.

[No Elephants]

67. Ding, ding, ding, ding. And we have a winnah!

[bertman]

18. Why why why do I send money to Democrats??!! This pisses me off so much.

[rpannier]

20. When the DSCC and the DCCC send out their request, write in zero dollars without single payer

and send it back in their prepaid envelope.
They're out 42 cents.

If enough people do it, maybe they'll get the message

[Jackpine Radical]

29. That is a damned good idea.

[Plucketeer]

51. I've been doing this for some months now.

I usually write that if they can't listen to the folks that vote them in, they should get the money they need from the industry that controls them.

[AllyCat]

56. Additionally, you may enclose small pieces of sheet metal for their personal collection

And that costs more than 42 cents. Up to $6, they have to pay the postage. I've shoved other junk mail in those envelopes, taped them to the fronts of smallish phone books, you name it. As long as it's safe, I've done it. Works in about 6 months to get you off numerous mailing lists. make sure you enclose the part with your name and address or they just keep sending the garbage to you.

[emilyg]

41. I don't anymore.

[No Elephants]

68. Good question. Why do you?

My money is now going to Amnesty International, ACLU, PBS and will also soon go to Media Matters.

I've been proud to be a card carrying member of the ACLU for years., but I added the others when I decided to stop donating to the DNC. I donated over my legal limit to Obama. That's what finally taught me my lesson. I could actually get a criminal record for someone who, in operations, is not too far to the left of a sane Republican. ("Fool me once....well, you can't fool me again." Even Dummya learns eventually.)
What Democrats and pundits say about us: "Democrats don't have to worry about the left. Democrats know they'll get their votes anyway. Where else are they going to go?"

I care about my country and therefore about progressive principles, not about people who talk a progressive game during the primaries, run to the center if nominated and then vote/act Republican when it would help me instead of them. I'd still donate to Kucinich in a heartbeat, though. Maybe Grayson, too, though I think the House is going to come down hard on him, juding by his apologies.

My money has been going to the ACLU (for years, gladly), Amnesty International, and, to get the truth out, PBS. I will soon add Media Matters.

I also used to donate to HRC. Then I realized HRC was donating to elect Democrats and not simply lobbying for human rights for the GLBT community, which I see as today's civil rights movement. And, worse, IMO, I learned that HRC was somewhat complicit with tamping down the outcry about DADT discharges until Congress and Obama are ready to deal with it, which, according to BARNEY FRANK will be after mid-terms (when Democrats will very likely have lost seats in both houses, IMO). So, I stopped donating to HRC.

I'm now looking around for a good anti-paid lobbyist organization now. It may require a Constitutional amendment, but I see that as the key to all our other problems with the Demlicans and the Republicrats. If we don't fix that, this country will forever be way above the shark, unless it implodes first.


Sooooo, I hope you answer that excellent question to your own satisfaction before you write another check. And, if you hear of an organization that is effective and fighting for radical lobbying reform, please let me know.

[ChiciB1]

19. What Is Being Offered As Health Care Reform Has Devolved Into Some

piece of SHIT! It's not REFORM and I don't think it has much to do about HEALTH CARE!

It keeps getting worse and worse!! Scrap it, it's just plain CRAP!!

And No, I don't feel better for saying that!! I'm PISSED OFF!!!

[Roland99]

21. Oh? Like that same campaign stance Obama took AGAINST mandates that is now in the bill? FUCK YOU!!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Thickasabrick]

22. That is an excellent point. nt

[No Elephants]

70. Self delete.

[avaistheone1]

23. The Democrats particularly the leadership is a bunch of lying turncoats.

Fuck 'em, especially you Nancy and your friend Harry Reid.

[jtrockville]

24. Guess What? My EMPLOYER just broke Obama's promise.

We can NOT keep our doctor unless they're "in" with the new insurance company. If we had a single-payer system I'd never have to switch doctors.

So how would a single-payer system be breaking Obama's promise, when I'm at the mercy of my employer's whim right now?

[Lasher]

62. Mine too.

In January I'm being forced onto a different employee medical policy. There is not much difference except that my premiums and copays will be much higher.

Quick, Nancy, insert legislation that prohibits employers from doing this. Otherwise you're making Obama out to be a liar.

[jtrockville]

64. Since your premiums are higher, I think Nancy will not mind.

As long as industry profits are protected, promises can be broken.

Can you keep your doctor?

[Lasher]

75. Yes, I think I can keep my doctor.

I'm still in the process of checking that out. In addition to our general practitioner, we have several doctors: Optometrist, cat doctor, etc.

[Tunkamerica]

79. BCBS is raising our employee benefits 30% unless we

switch to them unilaterally. My employer also offers United. At the same time they are sending out mailers (on our dime) lobbying against healthcare reform.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. Lame.

[debbierlus]

26. I can't stand her and her phony self. I really can't.

[bvar22]

27. In 2006...

In 2006, Nancy Pelosi parlayed her Congressional Seat into a Seat at the Rich Man's Table.
She has NEVER looked back.

Sad.
I used to like her.

[No Elephants]

69. So, Pelosi turned herself into rich man? Neat trick.

Nancy's been very wealthy for a very long time. But I always thought of her as a rich woman.

[Iowa]

28. What a bunch of corrupt fucks.

I'm done with them. I changed my registration from Democrat to No Party. I'll vote for progressive Democrats like Tom Harkin, but the rest can go to hell. I'll either vote third party if there's a progressive candidate, or not vote. And that also goes for the conservative, corporatist, DINO we have in the WH. The people have zero representation now - the corps own the politicians in both parties.

[No Elephants]

71. Some people think the Teabaggers represent them. We could have an

equivalent of that on the left. Maybe we should go to four viable parties? The lesson of NY 23 is that we may already have 3 viable parties. If not, the teabaggers are at least ahead of us on that one.

Maybe that is where the focus of the left should be and also one a Constitutional amendment forbidding paid lobbyists.

[scentopine]

30. Spineless democrats just proving why so many people vote republican....

we refuse to defend our principals. Whether it is impeachment of Bush or torture or other matters of national disgrace, our dem leadership always find excuses to do the wrong thing for America while lining their bank accounts with corporate cash.

[No Elephants]

72. Right now, I don't think it matters much how the left votes. I certainly will not vote Republican.

But you are correct that votes hate seeming ineffectiveness and weakness almost more than they hate anything else.

Why do I say seeming? Because I don't think Democrats are spineless or dumb or anything of the sort. I think they just know which side their bread is buttered on.

[ProSense]

31. Kucinich and Conyers don't want a vote on single payer

here

[dflprincess]

33. This is not a vote on single payer

as your link says

"We are now asking you to join us in suggesting to congressional leaders that this is not the right time to call the roll on a stand-alone single payer bill. That time will come. And when it does"

What Pelosi has removed from the bill is the Kucnich amendment that would allow states to pursue their own plans. An option legislatures in some states have been looking at.

Killing this amendment is just another step to keeping us bound to the insurance companies.

[ProSense]

50. Really? When did the

Weiner proposal become not single payer?

Urge your rep to vote 'Yes' for single payer!

[slipslidingaway]

52. That was back in the summer, obviously Weiner has made enough...

changes to the Conyers/Kucinich bill and there has been no mark up, debate or even a published estimate.

[dflprincess]

93. My error. Because of the title of the OP & the first paragraph as well

as most the discussion in this thread, I was thinking only of the Kucinich Amendment which would allow states to develop their own programs and which Pelosi is not claiming would "break Obama's promise".

I didn't realize you were changing the subject.

[No Elephants]

73. Very deceptive post without adding the words "this very minute."

[bvar22]

85. A "deceptive" post from NonSense?

..with a link to something that has nothing to do with the discussion topic ????

Shocked I tell you.

[unkachuck]

32. "She agreed to have a vote on single payer..."

....absolutely....we need to get these traitorous anti-single payer Dems on record....

....when the full aromatic shittiness of the enacted bill becomes apparent, healthcare reform could make the IWR vote look like childs play....

[dysfunctional press]

34. what about people who DON'T like their insurance...?

what are their options?

[Liberty Belle]

36. BINGO! See my post below. We are screwed, per Pelosi - please SCREAM this to every media outlet !

[Egnever]

61. Depends on the size of the company they work for or

Where they get their insurance in the first place.

[No Elephants]

74. Be born into a rich family or marry someone as rich as Paul Pelosi? Or both?

There are family values, as then there are valuable families. Apparently, some families are more valuable than others and they have a right to all the health care they want to need.

Apparently, the rest can pound sand, as far as the Demlicans and Republicrats are concerned.

[Liberty Belle]

35. I hope this letter will get her attention:

Dear Speaker Pelosi –

I am the editor of EastCountyMagazine.org, which gets well over a million hits a month in San Diego County and was recently voted best general interest website in San Diego, the nation’s sixth largest county.

As someone losing insurance and struggling to find an affordable option after my husband changed jobs, I am outraged at your comment that stripping the healthcare bill of the Kucinich amendment is necessary to avoid breaking Obama’s promise to people who want to keep their existing insurance. The Kucinich amendment would protect states’ rights to enact stronger healthcare reforms than the federal government.

California, your home state, passed single payer healthcare TWICE which would have provided decent medical, dental, eye care and mental health care to every man, woman and child in California – with NO exceptions! Only one man (Schwarzenegger) stood in the way of this becoming law. This could easily become law if a Democrat is elected our next Governor.

But NOT if Congress passes a healthcare bill that prohibits this.

It is NOT breaking a presidential promise to protect state rights to enact better reforms than Congress. If any states choose to do so, the people should praise or criticize their state Legislatures – since these would be state actions, not federal. For Obama to disrespect states’ rights would be tantamount to totalitarianism.

Due to my husband’s job change, I am being forced back onto an HMO where I sued two doctors for malpractice. I have ZERO confidence in their competence and do not want to place my life in the hands of these quacks again. I can’t afford private insurance and can’t even find any due to preexisting conditions. I can’t qualify for the federal plan you’re supporting as I’m not poor enough. So I live in fear and pray I won’t get sick. Friends are in even worse shape; one just died because her insurance—supposedly a “good” plan—refused to pay for chemotherapy drugs after she developed a reaction to the cheapest version. Another friend had an insurer refuse to pay to reattach his colon after an emergency colostomy to save his life. Our daughter suffered with broken bones in her foot for two months because an HMO refused to authorize scans needed for diagnosis. ANYONE in America who hates their healthcare (or has none) should have the option to buy into a public plan ---we should not be limited by income, health status, or what state we live in. That said, those of us who live in states willing to do better for its citizens than the federal government ought to be allowed to retain that option, too.

The bill in Congress won’t help me or millions of others who are neither rich nor destitute, yet who have no money left to pay healthcare premiums or who simply distrust/dislike/loathe their current insurer. I am a strong single-payer proponent personally, but if Congress feels it must kowtow to the right-wing in order to get a weak-meat compromise measure through with a public option covering at best 10% of Americans, I believe it is WRONG to hamstring the states and prevent those more enlightened legislatures from providing real healthcare reform for ALL of their state’s citizens, not just a very small percentage of the populace.

It is unconscionable for a Democratic leader from California to sell out citizens in her own state who desperately need the kind of real healthcare reform that California’s Legislature, in its wisdom and compassion, actually passed. The same measure is being reintroduced and could well become law next time – if you will only add back in the critical amendment to protect the lives and health of millions of Californians.

In our first year of publication, I have thus far refrained from editorializing, since as a nonprofit and nonpartisan media outlet, we are limited in how often we can do this. But I can think of no more worthy cause than saving the lives of Californians.

Please reconsider this ill-thought-out stance, and I hope to hear soon that the Kucinich amendment protecting states’ rights to enact stronger healthcare reforms will be reinstated. If it is not, I strongly oppose the bill and will urge my readers to call for its defeat.

I would greatly appreciate the courtesy of a personal reply, not a form letter, to show the legions of readers at our site.

Miriam G. Raftery
Editor and Founder
www.EastCountyMagazine.org
a nonprofit, nonpartisan publication
winner, “Best General Interest Website in San Diego” – San Diego Press Club 2009

[Roland99]

39. +Infinity! (But Obama calls it "too radical")

[Doremus]

45. Great letter! Please let us know if you get a reply.

[TacticalPeek]

37. Bastards.

:grr:

[Crowman1979]

38. Why do we have spineless dems leading both chambers of congress?

[AllyCat]

57. Because that's who the corporations said could be in charge.

[Amonester]

58. Because they love the smell of tons of cash coming from the big...

Health-Insurance-And-Pharma-Industrial-Complex lobbyists in the morning?

[Divine Discontent]

59. overall, that is the case. We did get a Human Rights bill through that was fought against LOUDLY in

vain, but other than that, I do agree that Speaker Pelosi is not our best option, and Senator Reid has far too many connections that I don't, shall I say, appreciate?

[No Elephants]

76. Because Democrats in the House and the Senate elected them. Why do you say "spineless?"

It must take a lot of guts to put up with so much criticism from Democratic voters. Then again, they think we'll never vote for anyone else. So far, we've proven them right. Er, I mean correct. They proved themselves "right."

Maybe we're the ones who are spineless?

[bvar22]

87. NO.

In 2000, a handful of voters in Florida had had enough "Centrist Corporatism" from a Democratic Administration.
They voted their conscience.

Instead of learning the lesson that The Democratic Party had moved way too far to the Right and abandoned their Left Wing, they took the easy way out and blamed the voters.
:shrug:

History will repeat until the lesson is learned?

[BeatleBoot]

40. 'Tis Sausage Being Made

Ugly to watch being made.

Hope it tastes good when finished.

[jgraz]

42. You say that like we have no part in it.

:shrug:

[No Elephants]

77. Ah, yes. Hope.

[SandWalker1984]

46. Enough of the LIES, Ms Pelosi!

I've been a registered Democrat for over 25 years, but I am at the point where that may change, and soon. I too am seriously considering abandoning the Corporate DLC Democratic Party in favor of becoming an Independent and will do so, if Ms. Pelosi and the Dems continue to lie to us, telling us that their corporate written Insurance Company Wealthcare bill is health care reform that benefits us while they hold their hands behind their backs so the insurance lobbyi$t'$ can grease their palms with stacks of money, money the corporations have collected from us the people in premiums that were supposed to pay for our health care.

Anyone with the IQ and time to read the proposed legislation knows that the public option being offered is weak, offered to only a very limited number of people (mostly with pre-existing conditions) and it cannot survive or offer the corporate insurance plans any meaningful competition. It will die quickly and Ms. Pelosi not only knows it, she and the others wrote the public option so that it would indeed fail.

That leaves us with the rest of the bill. The bill that breaks Obama's campaign promise (if you follow Pelosi's line of reasoning) that his health care reform would mandate parents buy insurance for children but NOT mandate adults buy private insurance. That was Clinton's plan, which we Democrats rejected in the campaign.

The proposed legislation will then consist, after the early death of the faux public option, of MANDATES TO BUY PRIVATE INSURANCE FROM THE VERY CORPORATIONS THAT HAVE CREATED THE HEALTH CARE NIGHTMARE WE ARE SEEKING RELIEF FROM. There will not be any meaningful regulation of the premiums they charge their "captive" customers, no regulation of the deductibles charged, no regulation of the paperwork they can generate to confuse you, nothing to stop them from making your life a living hell if you should be so unfortunate to actually have to use your insurance for a medical illness or emergency. Yes, pre-existing conditions will be covered -- but nothing stops them from jacking up the deductibles or rates until you are forced to voluntarily give up that insurance because you can no longer afford to pay for it and keep a roof over your head.

What's happened to the Representatives that were for a robust public option? One that would cover more than 3% of the population? Have they been bought off too, or just quieted into submission by Pelosi?

If the House on Saturday votes for a bill with a weak public options, a bill with mandates for me to buy insurance from these blood-sucking isurance corporations without any real protections or premium price protections for us, then
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CAN GO TO HELL.

I expect this bullsh*t from Republicans, I will not tolerate it from my own party.

Enough!

My only remaining hope is that there are a small handful of House Dems that have the courage to oppose this corporate giveaway of a bill and propose changes that will reflect some true health care reform.

If the party fails me this time, I will stop listening to the lies, I will stop funding them so they can go to Washington and tell me lies while they serve their corporate masters. You cannot change things if you do not accept that they need changing.

[psychopomp]

82. Yours is a very incisive and insightful take on this unfolding fiasco

Seriously starting to think that Lieberman may have been right, in a sense--no bill may be better than one without a strong public option.

[No Elephants]

88. If it is is available only to those with pre-existing conditions, it will be very, very

expensive for those covered and/or for the taxpayer. Either scenario will set back real health are reform for another forty or so years.

[Javaman]

47. The continual erosion of the public health option, marches on.

are we really all that surprised? Did we honestly believe that we would get what the people actually demand?

I have a warehouse full of bridges waiting to be moved. They are going fast. Don't miss out! By one now!

[dflprincess]

94. I wonder how much it cost the insurance companies to get Kucinich's amendment removed from the bill

and did Pelosi get all of it or did she have to share?

[Eric J in MN]

48. If an employer switches to another private plan...

...then employees can't keep what they have now.

[jacksonian]

49. what this is

is Nancy Pelosi falling on her sword for Obama. This is Obama's doing, and I wish he would undo it. He has no right to negotiate my states rights away.

[StreetKnowledge]

54. This is Betrayal, Nancy.

Some state can provide single-payer to people, and have the will to do so. If California can, and it may not be able to with how broke it is, then they should be allowed to do so. If you vote to stop this, you'll be condemning those of us who ARE fighting for single payer, and to avoid the dirtbags who run the insurance companies. This action will not improve America's healthcare situation at all, it's become less of better health care and more about shoveling taxpayer dollars to the pigs who you are now forced to send money to, but don't have to actually pay you when you need health care.

If we want a corporatist party, we'll vote for the GOP. And in case you haven't noticed, much of the reason that Tim Kaine and Jon Corzine have GOP successors is because the base, who elected Obama president, decided to stay home. If you came out right now and said "We're gonna have a real public option in this bill, and we're gonna fight it all the way through", you think that the people who came out in numbers to support Obama won't rise again? The GOP is still alive because the base is alive and kicking. And you're pandering to them. Work with us, give us what you promised us, and we'll have your back. Why do you think liberal Dems like Kucinich get re-elected like the sunrise? Because they fight for what their constituents believe in, not the fifty thousand motherfucking lobbyists in Washington and the pigs in the health insurance industry who give you all the coverage you want until you actually need it.

Do what you promised, and we'll make sure you are re-elected.

In 1973, a Dem candidate entered a Senate race against a highly-favored Republican. This Dem had no money and most of his party felt his candidacy was a lost cause. But that candidate made his promises, and he went to his people and asked them what they wanted, and pledged to give it to them. That candidate pulled off an upset victory, and became the then-youngest Senator in US history.

Who was that brave soul, that slayer of a Goliath?

Joe Biden. The current Vice-President.

Politicians who get results for their constituents get re-elected, Miss Pelosi. You should learn that. Far too many of your colleagues need to learn it, too.

[Grinchie]

55. Nothing to see here, please move along.

Typical unintelligable rhetoric from Nancy "Off the Table" Pelosi-Corleone.

No insult to the real Corleone's, but we all know Connie was messed up.

[No Elephants]

80. Why is it unchallenge-able? Congress is the legislative branch and, in that

sphere, Constitutionally empowered to act independently of the other two branches.

I am not saying Congress should never do what the Executive or the Judicicary wants. Sometimes, those are good things, even great things. I am just saying Congress has a Constitutional obligation to excerise independent judgment about each law it passes. And therefore, Congress has full and exclusive responsiblity for each and every law it passes. She should not have been allowed to pass the buck to Obama without that challenge.

If Obama then signs a bad bill, or vetoes a good one, sure, he gets responsiblity for that, as Clinton knows from having signed repeal of Glass Steagall. But, Congress gets full responsiblity for what gets to the desk of the President, regardless of what happens on that desk (or under it).

[Grinchie]

90. Don't overcomplicate things...

The amount of Political manipulation over the past decade was unmistakably criminal in Nature and scope.

When one see's the Pelosi and Bush are in the same league, it doesn't take a detective to see collusion when it comes to protecting the Fraud for as long as Possible.

Unfortunately, the Government see's fit on taking the "Tough Shit America, you should have known better" approach, and sadly, most Americans are saying thank you.

It continues with Appoinments of Monsanto Lawyers to the USDA, Waffling on the 2 simultaneous Wars that somebody is paying for, and the increased War drums in regards to Iran, while the Bailed out GM get's to screw German Autoworkers, funded with our tax monies.

[No Elephants]

78. Nancy was for Constitutional separation of powers before she was against it.

So much for three separate and equal branches of goverment. What the hell were the Framers thinking?

We have Obama blaming Congress when the people don't like what he is doing (or not doing) and Congress blaming Obama when people don't like what Congress is doing. How very conveeeeenyut for both Obama and Congress.

So, if Obama's promises force Congress's hand, where the hell is the bill that repeals DOMA And DADT?

A pox on deception and responsiblity-shirking, from wherever they may originate.

[pleah]

83. The white house, house and senate dumbed down the healthcare bill.

They could have passed single payer in the beginning, but let the thugs control the debate for far toooo long. Now, we are left with a fraction of what the bill could have been. I hate our government sometimes.

[No Elephants]

86. BTW. when did Obama promise states could not choose singly payer, even if

they wanted it? And can't that amendment be fixed to call Pelosi's bluff by saying that those who wish to be covered by an employer plan, and only an employer plan, can opt out of single payer coverage?

Medicare requires disabled folk under 65 to pay for Medicare--UNLESS they are already covered by a plan that gives them benefits that are substantially equal to those Medicare would give them. Why wouldn't adding something like that to the amendment call Nancy's bluff?

[mike_c]

91. more lame bullshit excuses....

I am at a loss for words. :puke:

[ej510]

92. I bet it will be funny when the base stays home in 2010.

Keep talking like this and the repukes will get back the house and Senate.

[LWolf]

96. If the base stays home,

it's because the Democrats in Washington deserve it.

[LWolf]

95. The House can't break Obama's promises.

Only Obama can break Obama's promises.

Is a "commitment" the same thing as a promise?

Obama can't write the bills that are sent to him; his only recourse is to veto if he doesn't get what he wants.

Would he? Really?

That amendment was one of the few redeeming pieces.