Whipping the Public Option in CT: 57 Dem Reps Step Up, Zero From CT

Rosa (0.00 / 0)

.

Missing from the list of signatories? Any single Member of Congress from Connecticut, including Progressive Caucus member Rosa DeLauro.

Well, remember this crap?:

http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/di...

"If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." ~~Howard Zinn

---

by: lakezoarian @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 19:53:44 PM CDT

insurance compromise (0.00 / 0)

I'm wondering how the folks feel about including lots of money for millions of illegal aliens
getting their health care coverage paid by US taxpayers
who are paying for their own and other citizens care.

---

by: retired yes @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 20:12:55 PM CDT

Will we hold our own delegation accountable??? (0.00 / 0)

Kudos to these 57 real patriots for standing up FOR the people and AGAINST the industry (Note: CIGNA today reported a 60% increase in second-quarter profits).

Now . . .  the REAL question:

Do progressives in Connecticut have the courage/chutzpah to call out our own **silent** delegation of Dems? And hold them accountable at election time?  If NOT, then their decisions to take no risks will prove to have been the right ones (politically-speaking).

Well??

---

by: iBlog @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 08:47:54 AM CDT

My vote (0.00 / 0)

will NOT go to my Congressman if he doesn't pledge to support a strong public option.  (And the operative word is "strong.")  

Many Democratic candidates assume that progressive voters have no choice but to vote for them, no matter what they do or don't do. "Who else are they going to vote for, eh?"  But there is the "none of the above" choice.  I made that choice throughout Lieberman's reign, and I made it when Diane Farrell ran.  A bad candidate is a bad candidate, no matter which party they're from. I have no obligation to give them my vote because they're wearing a (D), knowing full well they're going to act against my best interests when they get to DC.
 

---

by: chele @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:48:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Activists rally on Capitol Hill for a major healthcare overhaul (4.00 / 2)

LA Times Photo and article: http://www.latimes.com/news/na...

Concerned citizens from Connecticut rallied with many others from around the country for single payer.  The photo shows a few people holding signs but I estimate the crowd at 1000-1500 citizens.  At least 10 from Connecticut - a showing but lots more support needs to be shown to stem the tide for getting any old bill passed at any cost, at any presumed actual benefit to health.

We heard from Rep Conyers, Sen Saunders, the California Nurses, Obama's Doctor, and state legislators.  Then Rep Larson, Rep Murphy, Rep Courtney, and Rep Himes heard from us.

The country would be best served by single payer H.R. 676.  At a minimum any "Public Option" needs to be "medicare like" and have set rates - not negotiate rates.  We have to cover everyone.

As Senator Saunders pointed it out single payer is progressive and conservative.  Progressive as it covers everyone.  Conservative because it is proven to deliver the most benefit for each dollar spent.

A lot of petitions have been circulating in support of H.R. 3200.  However, its not now the bill it was a couple of days ago.  It is too fluid to know what it really is from one day to the next or what it might end up saying and doing.

because Connecticut voters count: http://www.CTVotersCount.org

---

by: BlastFromGlast @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 09:33:49 AM CDT

fair share (0.00 / 0)

I have heard previously about the best money makers paying their fair share.
If the top 1% of successful people are paying 40.8% of the taxes and 50% pay nothing, what does fair share mean?
Taking more and more from people who have top money making jobs (why do they have those jobs anyway and not others?) has never produced the tax revenue planned.
Humans lose the incentive to earn if they cna't keep much of it.
If everyone paid at least a little a bit (even low wage earners) all voters may be more careful in what they plan on govt spending. When we have more than half the people getting benefits and not paying taxes, they'll push for many things that are not the best decisions for our population and long term  financial stability of the US.

If 5 in 100 of us is paying for most of what the govt. is spending that becomes a big problem.
Pressure for  more and more benefits paid for by fewer and fewer citizens is a recipe for short sited decision making.
So what is fair share?
 

---

by: retired yes @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 09:58:49 AM CDT

. (4.00 / 1)

The top 1% pay a disproportionately large amount of their income in income taxes, while the bottom 50% pay a disproportionately large amount of their income in FICA taxes. The top 1% get estate taxes, while property and sales taxes sock the poor and middle class.

Don't sell that "50% pay nothing" bullshit around here, it's pure nonsense and you know it.  

–7.25 / –7.28

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:14:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Top Money Makers All Quit Jobs in Tax Protest (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, we'll see that headline real soon.

---

by: chele @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:54:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

fair share (0.00 / 0)

So you would say okay if you paid 50 to 60% income tax plus fica/medicare and then property and sales taxes and estate taxes.
For every $1000 you keep $400. (and just on the income tax cut.)
If you make $500 you keep much more percentage-wise.  

You act like it's okay for all these adults to decide what to spend money on and how much to spend if they pay none of it.
The point is that the incentives to start the new business, expand the factory, take the risks are just not there. Then jobs suffer.
What businesses do  effect the economy.
They are not the enemy, but the job provider.

Try having a club with 20 members and all 20 decide to spend the clubs funds. But only one is supplying the funds.
And that one is required to put in the next money chunk as well.   The weight of how to spend the money when you know more is coming, is clearly different on those not supplying it.

Human nature is definitely at play in the actions of all people in this pot.  Spend others' money, sure why not. Give money to people who aren't paying? slow down.
the more the fight goes on this have and have nots pitting taxpayers against each other, divide and conquer makes govt. take over of more and more of peopel's decions about their lives.
Where does govt get the money to pay its employees? not from making or selling anything. You can only take so much from the workers before they stop working productively.  

Incentives keep big money makers paying more and more taxes because they do things that make them richer, and they pay more taxes.  
Kill that goose and we all die.

---

by: retired yes @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 10:45:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey that is why everyone but a Careless Insurance exec should be for Single Payer (0.00 / 0)

It costs 1/2 what we are paying now.  And the government is already paying 60% of health care costs, so it would save us all money.

One side benefit that may appeal to all of us, retired or not, is that it will keep us healthier and living longer.

PS: Obama is not going to ask us how we want to die.  But for the record, I want to die:  Healthy, Solvent, Happy, and Old.

because Connecticut voters count: http://www.CTVotersCount.org

---

by: BlastFromGlast @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 15:25:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

cost is half? better care? don't read it, trust me. just vote for it!! (0.00 / 0)

What do you mean the cost is half what we're paying?
How can cost be cut in half suddenly with so many people added to the plan. BTW, I pay my own at close to $700 per month.

Medicare is nearly broke and medical students know that the profession won't pay to match their profession's prep costs much longer. Who will go into medicine down the road?
We do not have enough practitioners now. And primary incentives will be lost with this legislation.  
The government committee will set proper care protocols and the fees that may be charged as well.

How will it keep us healthier if we can't get timely care?
And why are we each paying for all the illegals who can sneak in for the best health care anywhere.
Yes, even our Rep. Murphy also voted in committee to pay for illegals getting govt. health care at our expense.

We may be allowing our congressmen to vote on huge changes to the USA without seeing or reading the plan. It's a concept without details.
We can not allow the vote on this bill without having a printed copy to be read through before voting!  

---

by: retired yes @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 15:52:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Canada, Europe... (0.00 / 0)

..pay about 50% of what we do and get better care and results.  We pay through the nose with 30% overhead in insurance and the uninsured going to the emergency room when a crisis hits the government(we) pays.

I agree with all you say when talking about the bill H.R. 3200 - we don't know what is in it and the implications, like most complex legislation - after last Wednesday's "Blue Dog compromise" I suspect the value is questionable, possibly even worse than what we have now, unless it is fixed.  I am talking about simple single payer, also called improved medicare.  

because Connecticut voters count: http://www.CTVotersCount.org

---

by: BlastFromGlast @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 18:53:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Democrat Congress members are under (0.00 / 0)

attack with a coordinated effort from Tea Baggers and others -

as I discovered when Himes visited my town - they literally took over the place and dominated his time. I have asked Mr. Himes to take the pledge, and this is what he stated to me that he won't take a pledge until he has a chance to see a bill.

Our conversation:

"Do you support a public option?"

"It's important that I see a bill first before I can agree to vote against it, but yes, I do support a public option for health care. Any bill I support will be national, not regional, and it must be accountable to Congress and the voters."

I asked his chief of staff several times if Mr. Himes would make a public statement regarding the pledge, but I haven't seen anything.

However, the CT Post has this article today about those fancy fliers that I keep getting about Himes and healthcare ~

So where does the former banking executive get off linking himself to the health-care debate? The answer is simple: he isn't.

Himes has nothing to do with these health-care missives to his constituents. He hasn't approved them. He never saw them before they hit the mail, the newspapers and television, he and his staffers say. Nor is he paying for them. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Healthcare Leadership Council are.

The tag line at the end of the mailings, print ads and commercials, which are running for the next five weeks, directs viewers to call Himes at his main office number and "thank him for bring better health care home to Connecticut."

What's behind the campaign?

PhRMA has spent $6.2 million in the first quarter of 2009 on lobbying Congress with a portion of that on advertising associated with health-care reform.

He's getting negative, coordinated nasty pressure from the tea-baggers wherever he shows up, and positive financial support from the drug industry.  

---

by: Sue @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 13:45:47 PM CDT