Blue Dog Democrats

[yeahwho]

What are they? They call themselves fiscally conservative democrats. The Blue Dog democrats basically have stalled any chance at expediting universal health care in America.

WTF? Is getting something done to benefit regular Americans just become out of the question?

[DroppinScience]

They're assholes. That's all there is to it.

[RobMoney$]

Why "Blue Dog"?

BTW, a better name would be "Intelligent Democrats"

[yeahwho]

Jimmy Kimmel got it right last week when he explained what the term "Blue Dog" signifies. The "Blue" means they're from "blue" or Democratic states (not quite true, but let's not quibble), and the "Dog" means they roll over for health insurance companies.

[saz]

kimmel is spot on.

according to the blue dog logic then, and the republicans as well, public health insurance is good enough for the elected officials from the house of representatives and the senate, as well as the president and all of the armed forces. they get public health insurance, it's good enough for them, but apparently it's not good enough for the american citizen, or the american civilian doesn't deserve it. go figure.

[Documad]

Originally Posted by saz

kimmel is spot on.

according to the blue dog logic then, and the republicans as well, public health insurance is good enough for the elected officials from the house of representatives and the senate, as well as the president and all of the armed forces. they get public health insurance, it's good enough for them, but apparently it's not good enough for the american citizen, or the american civilian doesn't deserve it. go figure.

Well, I think they would say that those government employees get health insurance from their employer and the think all americans should get it from their employer. That worked pretty well for a long time in the US but it's not working so well anymore. Maybe I should add that many government employees are paid less than they would make doing the same thing in private practice. Perhaps they work for less salary because they get better health care benefits (and more vacation, etc). (I know that doesn't apply to the president and our senators -- they make way less than they would in private practice but they're hardly doing it for the health care. )

I am fiscally conservative. I know that the health care system is broken, but so far I haven't seen any suggestions that I can get behind. I'm terrified of the mindset that "we have to do something, anything, even though we don't know what the fuck we're doing or what it will cost." Not when we're still at war in two countries.

[RobMoney$]

At least some Democrats understand bills have to be paid for eventually.

[saz]

i think having a public option is a great idea. people have the choice of sticking with, or choosing private health insurance companies, or going with the public one. with approximately 18,000 americans dying every year because they can't afford health insurance, i'd say it's a very serious issue.

how about ending american empire? that would save billions. it costs approximately 100 billion to maintain 750 to about 1000 foreign military bases. i don't think the us or the rest of the world has to worry about germany or japan acting up.

[Documad]

Why would my private employer offer health care coverage if I can get it from the government? Will a public option become a nationalized health care program eventually?

I don't see how we reform the system until we decide that some people won't be treated and some conditions won't be treated. And no politician is going to do that.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by saz

how about ending american empire? that would save billions. it costs approximately 100 billion to maintain 750 to about 1000 foreign military bases. i don't think the us or the rest of the world has to worry about germany or japan acting up.

yeah, why do we have bases in japan still? i was never clear on that.

[Documad]

Bob, shouldn't you be in bed?

[Bob]

sorry mom

[saz]

Originally Posted by Documad

Why would my private employer offer health care coverage if I can get it from the government? Will a public option become a nationalized health care program eventually?

your private employer will still offer coverage, but they will receive some competition from the government. but of course, that will make corporations sad, so blue dogs will ensure that the us can't have sad corporations. so thousands and thousands of uninsured people will still die every year. i highly doubt a nationalized health care program will ever come to fruition in the states, unless of course the 72% of americans who support a public health insurance option storm capitol hill and demand max baucus' slimey, douchey head.

Originally Posted by Documad

I don't see how we reform the system until we decide that some people won't be treated and some conditions won't be treated. And no politician is going to do that.

ah yes, the private health insurance companies already do that.

[Dorothy Wood]

Originally Posted by Documad

Why would my private employer offer health care coverage if I can get it from the government?

this is something I'm concerned about. and mostly because anytime someone asks that, there's a lot of avoidance and double talk...which leads me to believe that it might be a problem that they just don't want to talk about right now.


I have no answers to the health care problem. I'm basically just in favor of things being fair, and people's lives and health being more important than a corporation's bottom line.

how to accomplish that, I don't know.

[Documad]

Originally Posted by saz

your private employer will still offer coverage, but they will receive some competition from the government.

The government isn't supposed to compete with my employer, it's supposed to compete with my employer's insurance company, right?

I guess I don't understand your point. Perhaps my employer pays for my private coverage now because they want me to be able to work for them even if I need some major medical care because it's worth it to my employer if I come back to work at some point. My employer wants me to be able to have surgery without going bankrupt. But why would my employer pay $10,000 a year for my coverage if they know that they can drop my coverage, pay zero, and I'll still get on some government plan? Why won't that lead to most people being on the government plan -- a la the nationalized system that most americans don't want?

Originally Posted by saz

ah yes, the private health insurance companies already do that.

Not enough to balance the system. With the way we're living now, we have fewer and fewer people paying for more and more retired and sick people. I don't want half my money to go towards health care and social security for retired people. I don't see how we can pay for health care unless we make hard choices and decide that we're cutting costs. We can't pretend to cut costs unless we cut coverage.

[RobMoney$]

If you think Health Insurance is expensive now, just wait 'til it's free.

[Bob]

there ain't no such thing as a free bootstrap

[saz]

Originally Posted by Documad

The government isn't supposed to compete with my employer, it's supposed to compete with my employer's insurance company, right?

right.

Originally Posted by Documad

I guess I don't understand your point. Perhaps my employer pays for my private coverage now because they want me to be able to work for them even if I need some major medical care because it's worth it to my employer if I come back to work at some point. My employer wants me to be able to have surgery without going bankrupt.

understood. but there is that possibility that if you needed some sort of procedure, or operation, your insurance provider will go through your medical history, and for some lame ass reason deny you coverage.

Originally Posted by Documad

But why would my employer pay $10,000 a year for my coverage if they know that they can drop my coverage, pay zero, and I'll still get on some government plan?

that depends on your decision. the legislation hasn't even passed yet, but if it does, you may tell your employer that you want to stick with your current insurance provider.

Originally Posted by Documad

Why won't that lead to most people being on the government plan -- a la the nationalized system that most americans don't want?

it very could lead to a nationalized plan, and most americans aren't against one.

Originally Posted by Documad

Not enough to balance the system. With the way we're living now, we have fewer and fewer people paying for more and more retired and sick people. I don't want half my money to go towards health care and social security for retired people.

but you're okay with your money going towards two endless, foreign wars, one in which was based on total b.s. and outright lies? you're okay with paying for bush's tax cuts for rich people? you're okay with paying for the american empire? you're okay with paying for a bloated, wasteful defence budget? you're probably not okay with those, but this is what outsiders don't get about many americans, that they don't want to pay into a system that benefits the entire society, it's this "me-me, fuck everyone else" mentality.

Originally Posted by Documad

I don't see how we can pay for health care unless we make hard choices and decide that we're cutting costs. We can't pretend to cut costs unless we cut coverage.

how about cutting the waste out of the defence budget? how about ending the illegal occupation in iraq, which is costing approximately nine billion a month?

[yeahwho]

yeah what brought this on is a Krugman Op/Ed piece in yesterdays NYTimes, An Incoherent Truth and I have to be honest with you, I had never heard of the Blue Dog democrats until now.

It seems as if they haven't a fucking clue to any solution other than "We have to hold down costs" whatever the fuck that means? Because you know what? The more I read about the Blue Dogs the more I realize what they should be saying is "We have to keep corporate interests above our citizenry's health interest".

My mom has worked in health insurance her whole life, it's busted and it will bankrupt this nation if we do not get a handle on it. That handle isn't about corporate profits and CFO's running hospitals.

I agree with Krugman when he states, Now, however (the blue dogs), they face their moment of truth. For they can’t extract major concessions on the shape of health care reform without dooming the whole project: knock away any of the four main pillars of reform, and the whole thing will collapse — and probably take the Obama presidency down with it.

Is that what the Blue Dogs really want to see happen? We’ll soon find out.

[yeahwho]

On another note, remember "Privatizing Social Security: The $10 Trillion Opportunity" ? George W. Bush and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke almost fucking convinced us to give our money away to what undoubtedly would of been a total fucking corporate bailout of proportions 10 fold of our current fucked up economy the bitches left us.

We currently have a $108 billion dollar surplus while paying out $608 billion dollars in 2008.

Fuck just imagine what would of happened had the corporate machine convinced these assholes to just go ahead and fuck the average citizen out of their paychecks monthly.

I equate a lot of what is happening currently with healthcare to retirement benefits. It is the closest way to examine our current state of healthcare. Unless someone can come up with a better comparison.

[RobMoney$]

I bet we're all happy that initiative was put to an end.
And I hope Obama's National Health Insurance Plan meets the same death.

[RobMoney$]

Originally Posted by saz

how about cutting the waste out of the defence budget? how about ending the illegal occupation in iraq, which is costing approximately nine billion a month?

Pffthahhaahaaaa.

How can anyone raise an issue about the wars being a financial concern at this point while keeping a straight face.
The exit plan is in E.F.F.E.C.T. brother.

HOW ABOUT OBAMA'S TRILLION DOLLAR CORPORATE WELFARE PROGRAM?
You kinda forget to include that in your list of financial concerns.

[Documad]

Originally Posted by saz

that depends on your decision. the legislation hasn't even passed yet, but if it does, you may tell your employer that you want to stick with your current insurance provider.

We're having a basic misunderstanding. Perhaps you have never had employer-provided health care? My employer doesn't let me make the decision. My employer decides whether to provide health care coverage or not. And if they decide to provide coverage they tell me what sort of plan I have. If I like Blue Cross, that's tough because it's not offered. If there is a national plan that employers don't pay for, then employers have an incentive to not offer any private insurance at all. I can say "hey, I choose to stick with my old plan" and they can say "fuck you, we're not offering insurance anymore."

If this is really about nationalizing the entire US health care system, then let's have that discussion. But Obama, and the people in congress who support "health care reform" are telling me that it isn't about nationalization. I'm being told that I will have the same great plan I have today, and I don't see how they can guarantee that. I suspect that they're lying to me. Until I can trust what they're saying, I can't get behind any legislation. Again, I think it's dangerous to say "we have no idea what we're doing but we need to do something so aaaaahhhhh, we're going to pass a bill we haven't read." I know it's happened before, like with the republicans' prescription drug bill under Bush, and I opposed that bill too, for the same reason.

I want to insure poor kids, I really do. But tell me the truth about the cost and what we're going to cut to pay for it. There are many, many things that I'm willing to cut. I haven't heard anything that Obama or Pelosi want to cut yet, at least nothing significant. And the argument that we can pay for this by cutting "waste" is silly. This is where McCain was an idiot. Waste is a tiny percentage of the budget compared to entitlements. We have to cut entitlements. And defense of course.

Originally Posted by saz

but you're okay with your money going towards two endless, foreign wars, one in which was based on total b.s. and outright lies? you're okay with paying for bush's tax cuts for rich people? you're okay with paying for the american empire? you're okay with paying for a bloated, wasteful defence budget? you're probably not okay with those, but this is what outsiders don't get about many americans, that they don't want to pay into a system that benefits the entire society, it's this "me-me, fuck everyone else" mentality.
how about cutting the waste out of the defence budget? how about ending the illegal occupation in iraq, which is costing approximately nine billion a month?

I was against the war from the get go. I was also against the first Iraq war. But I didn't get to make those decisions. If Obama and Congress are going to keep funding those two wars, then there is an opportunity cost (and has been for years). We can't do everything. I'd rather have the money going to poor kids than to Afghanistan, but I don't want it going to poor kids AND Afghanistan. So far, it seems that this president and this Congress want to do everything at once, and the deficit is scaring the shit out of me.

[Documad]

Rob, those wars are still costing a shitload of money every day and we rarely hear anything on the news about it anymore. Americans are oblivious to the cost. It's been going on for years. We can't get it back. We have to pay the interest on that money. It ties our hands. We have to acknowledge that. It's similar to when Bill Clinton got into office with all his big plans and learned that he couldn't pay for any of them because the budget was in worse shape than expected.

I don't blame Obama or Pelosi for the situation we're in, but I do blame them for not having a frank talk about what is possible in the near future. Americans are delusional. The easiest thing to do is to tell them that we can do everything at once. Politicians know that so they don't tell us the truth.

[saz]

Originally Posted by RobMoney$

Pffthahhaahaaaa.

How can anyone raise an issue about the wars being a financial concern at this point while keeping a straight face.
The exit plan is in E.F.F.E.C.T. brother.

HOW ABOUT OBAMA'S TRILLION DOLLAR CORPORATE WELFARE PROGRAM?
You kinda forget to include that in your list of financial concerns.

there's currently only one exit plan in effect, and the troops won't be out until what, 2012 or 2013? there's also afghanistan which seems to be endless as well. and it's also bush's corporate welfare concern too, as his administration started the bailouts.

Originally Posted by Documad

We're having a basic misunderstanding. Perhaps you have never had employer-provided health care?

yeah, i'm not american and i don't have to rely on tentative health insurance with strings attached provided by a corporation.

Originally Posted by Documad

My employer doesn't let me make the decision. My employer decides whether to provide health care coverage or not. And if they decide to provide coverage they tell me what sort of plan I have. If I like Blue Cross, that's tough because it's not offered. If there is a national plan that employers don't pay for, then employers have an incentive to not offer any private insurance at all. I can say "hey, I choose to stick with my old plan" and they can say "fuck you, we're not offering insurance anymore."

okay, than that's the cold reality of the private or corporate world.

Originally Posted by Documad

If this is really about nationalizing the entire US health care system, then let's have that discussion.

i agree. polls have consistently shown that americans want it.

Originally Posted by Documad

But Obama, and the people in congress who support "health care reform" are telling me that it isn't about nationalization. I'm being told that I will have the same great plan I have today, and I don't see how they can guarantee that. I suspect that they're lying to me. Until I can trust what they're saying, I can't get behind any legislation. Again, I think it's dangerous to say "we have no idea what we're doing but we need to do something so aaaaahhhhh, we're going to pass a bill we haven't read." I know it's happened before, like with the republicans' prescription drug bill under Bush, and I opposed that bill too, for the same reason.

I want to insure poor kids, I really do. But tell me the truth about the cost and what we're going to cut to pay for it. There are many, many things that I'm willing to cut. I haven't heard anything that Obama or Pelosi want to cut yet, at least nothing significant. And the argument that we can pay for this by cutting "waste" is silly. This is where McCain was an idiot. Waste is a tiny percentage of the budget compared to entitlements. We have to cut entitlements. And defense of course.

there is a lot of waste. i've already mentioned the two wars and the defence budget. incidently, one piece of really good news in regards to this is that a bipartisan effort, led by obama and mccain, resulted in the scrapping of the f-22 raptor, with mccain citing president eisenhower "It's What Eisenhower Warned us About," tweeted McCain before the vote. there's also of course the fact that kickstarting the hemp industry would provide an economic goldmine, as well as legalizing, taxing and regulating marijuana would provide more billions. but of course that would mean that obama would have to truly be a "change" guy, which i doubt he is. hopefully this sort of specific change, ie sane and practical marijuana policy, will begin at the state level with california leading the way. a majority of americans seem to be okay with raising taxes (page 4) for healthcare. they seem to have had enough with the private insurance companies and want coverage without strings attached, nor having to jump through hoops. man, to pay for bush's two massive wars, his tax cuts for the rich, bush's and obama's bailouts et al, and more and more retirees etc, shouldn't taxes be raised? i can understang obama's plan to raise taxes on the much more wealthy, that seemed to really connect with the electorate, but when was the last tax hike, under bush senior? i'm fiscally conservative too, so in order to pay for services that everyone wants, as well as somehow balancing the books, you need revenue, especially tax revenue. i know this doesn't include you, but so many people want services and their humble pie, but they don't want to pay for it. well, at least in the case of healthcare, americans are willing to pay for it. but again, will i think that it will ever become a reality in the us? probably not, because there are too many jackasses like max baucus, big health insurance industry money, lobbyists et al who don't give a crap about what the electorate or taxpayers want.

[yeahwho]

I'm perplexed why the corporate health insurance companies can profit as much as they do. The similarities to the mortgage crisis are there, the lobbying by pharmaceuticals and health insurance companies is equal to creditors and bankers.

The Blue Dogs are telling us one thing by saying they are fiscally conservative yet on the other hand they are personally fiscally liberal on corporate handouts.

Just on a human level, I find the profit motive to be fucked up on health care here on earth. In the long run we have filled emergency rooms with homeless and transient people, we're storing mentally ill people in jails and when they're out of jail they're looking at you for the next ticket back to a cot and a hot meal.

That is dangerous, expensive and morally bankrupt. This is America?

[DroppinScience]

Thanks for summing everything up perfectly, sazi!

[RobMoney$]

Originally Posted by saz

there's currently only one exit plan in effect, and the troops won't be out until what, 2012 or 2013? there's also afghanistan which seems to be endless as well. and it's also bush's corporate welfare concern too, as his administration started the bailouts.



yeah, i'm not american and i don't have to rely on tentative health insurance with strings attached provided by a corporation.



okay, than that's the cold reality of the private or corporate world.



i agree. polls have consistently shown that americans want it.



there is a lot of waste. i've already mentioned the two wars and the defence budget. incidently, one piece of really good news in regards to this is that a bipartisan effort, led by obama and mccain, resulted in the scrapping of the f-22 raptor, with mccain citing president eisenhower "It's What Eisenhower Warned us About," tweeted McCain before the vote. there's also of course the fact that kickstarting the hemp industry would provide an economic goldmine, as well as legalizing, taxing and regulating marijuana would provide more billions. but of course that would mean that obama would have to truly be a "change" guy, which i doubt he is. hopefully this sort of specific change, ie sane and practical marijuana policy, will begin at the state level with california leading the way. a majority of americans seem to be okay with raising taxes (page 4) for healthcare. they seem to have had enough with the private insurance companies and want coverage without strings attached, nor having to jump through hoops. man, to pay for bush's two massive wars, his tax cuts for the rich, bush's and obama's bailouts et al, and more and more retirees etc, shouldn't taxes be raised? i can understang obama's plan to raise taxes on the much more wealthy, that seemed to really connect with the electorate, but when was the last tax hike, under bush senior? i'm fiscally conservative too, so in order to pay for services that everyone wants, as well as somehow balancing the books, you need revenue, especially tax revenue. i know this doesn't include you, but so many people want services and their humble pie, but they don't want to pay for it. well, at least in the case of healthcare, americans are willing to pay for it. but again, will i think that it will ever become a reality in the us? probably not, because there are too many jackasses like max baucus, big health insurance industry money, lobbyists et al who don't give a crap about what the electorate or taxpayers want.

Show me these polls that show Americans consistently want Nationalized Healthcare.
Because I dispute that. Obama's approval ratings are dropping faster than the Titanic. He's trying to push this through before they can get any worse. It reeks of desperation.
Hell, even Obama's own party isn't sure they want it, how can you claim it's what most americans want?

[RobMoney$]

Originally Posted by Documad

Rob, those wars are still costing a shitload of money every day and we rarely hear anything on the news about it anymore. Americans are oblivious to the cost. It's been going on for years. We can't get it back. We have to pay the interest on that money. It ties our hands. We have to acknowledge that. It's similar to when Bill Clinton got into office with all his big plans and learned that he couldn't pay for any of them because the budget was in worse shape than expected.

I don't blame Obama or Pelosi for the situation we're in, but I do blame them for not having a frank talk about what is possible in the near future. Americans are delusional. The easiest thing to do is to tell them that we can do everything at once. Politicians know that so they don't tell us the truth.

So what would you do?
We're taking steps to end the war in Iraq. We can't just up & leave on a moments notice because we now decide we want a nationalized health insurance program.

[saz]

Originally Posted by RobMoney$

Show me these polls that show Americans consistently want Nationalized Healthcare.

"When given a choice of the current system or one "like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers," voters overwhelmingly chose the latter. A solid majority (59%) say they would prefer a national health insurance program that covers everyone, over the current system of private insurance offered to most through their emloyer."

link



Americans are more likely today to embrace the idea of the government providing health insurance than they were 30 years ago. 59% say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems.

link



"....local ballot initiatives supporting single payer and opposing individual mandates passed by landslide margins in all ten legislative districts where they appeared. With almost all precincts tallied, roughly 73 percent of 181,000 voters in the ten districts voted YES...."

link



9. Do you think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone in the United States has adequate health-care, or don't you think so? In Pennsylvania; Yes 65%, No 31%, NA/DK 4%

link



"...59 percent of them 'support government legislation to establish national health insurance,' while 32 percent oppose it and 9 percent are neutral."

link



14. "Which comes closest to your view?
34% - The United States should continue the current health insurance system in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance
65% - The United States should adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers
2% - Refused / Not Answered"

link



30. Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes?
64% - Yes,
35% - No,
2% - No opinion

link



27. Do you think the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, or isn't this the responsibility of the federal government?
64% - Guarantee
27% - Not responsibility
9% - DK/NA

30. If you had to choose, which do you think is more important for the country to do right now, maintain the tax cuts enacted in recent years or make sure all Americans have access to health care?
18% - Cutting taxes
76% - Access to health insurance
1% - Neither
2% - Both
4% - DK/NA

link



49. Which would you prefer – (the current health insurance system in the United States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance); or (a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers?)
62 % Universal
33% Current
6% No opinion

link