We forgot there are 41 Republican Senators.

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009 @ 6:01 pm | Disappointing Dems, Health Care, Politics

It’s not so much betrayal as being plain wrong on the public option. But that doesn’t stop Joe Lieberman, who acted like a Republican until Obama came into office, minded himself, and waited for the perfect moment to declare himself the most powerful person in the country.

Lieberman doesn’t have a response to the facts, in that the public option will save money according to the CBO. He’s got his “gut,” on this, so there’s little arguing. The press is already lying down, with a few exceptions:

Lieberman has said he opposes a public option because of the potential burden it could place on taxpayers. However, Democrats have crafted a public option that would be financed by premiums rather than federal funds.

I suspect that he has his committees and seniority threatened, and Obama promises him he’ll say nice things about him. Going down in history as the Democrat who became the party of himself and killed real health care reform (and voting for the bankruptcy bill still isn’t forgotten) is just a recipe for losing his seat for real next time. Time and time again, the voters of Connecticut have been shown the folly of trusting Lieberman’s centrist cooings and assurances when he ran against the winner of the Democratic primary, Ned Lamont.

Make no mistake: Everybody supporting health care needs to be ready to make sure no filibuster gets pulled off by mere threats. This is a pivotal moment in our country’s history, and if the Republicans and Joe are going to demand the debate keep going, by all means they should be forced to debate.


42 Responses to “We forgot there are 41 Republican Senators.”

  1. Dana Says:

    Would this be the same Congressional Budget Office which said that the Medicare Part D plan would cost just $433 billion, before it was passed, and then saw projections skyrocket to $1.2 trillion 1½ years after it was passed?

    The notion that government ever makes things less expensive is laughable.

  2. TL Says:

    Dana what you don’t beleive that your taxes will drop and you’ll pay lower premiums? Because that would be the definition of lower cost.

    You must be a wingnut, or a glibertarian, or a randian.

  3. jeromy Says:

    Dana: Join us in the fight to be able to negotiate prices!

    Medicare Part D was designed by Republicans for their Big Pharma friends. Of course, Bush might have had a harder time passing it had he not lied about the price beforehand, no? It was already known that it would reach $700 billion.

    But the lobbyists always make sure we can’t lower prices by using the government’s power to negotiate, and you’ll probably grouse about that too, mumbling something about the free market.

    The public option strikes fear in the insurance companies’ hearts (ergo, the GOP base) because it would offer rates similar to Medicare and be too competitive.

    You also assume that sticking with private care would be a solution. Private insurers and pharmaceutical companies are responsible for our gigantic increases in cost.

  4. TL Says:

    Yes that monsterous 2-6% profit margin on health insurance is obviously the issue.

    Why is no one going after the 20% mark up on food stuffs? I mean you can’t live without food, hell helthcare is pointless if you are starving to death.

    Oh cause it’s much harder to demonize food producers, insurance companies, well that’s another story.

    Lol @ too competitive. That is sooooo cute.

  5. jeromy Says:

    TL: You must have missed every attack on the public option that claimed it wasn’t “fair” to insurance companies because it could provide the same services for less money.

  6. Dana Says:

    I have a rather difficult time with the notion that the government will make something more efficient and less expensive. Their record in doing so is how UPS and FedEx managed to start whole new businesses, in direct competition with the government, and make a profit, while the USPS has to continuallt raise prices. Even our 44th President has told us that the USPS is a joke.

    Our federal government gave us the $400 small area, flat headed manually-power impacting device, remember?

    Capitalism is the creation and spreading of wealth; socialism is the dilution of wealth and the sharig of poverty.

  7. mike g Says:

    Businesses (who make up the bulk of delivered mail) rely on consistently priced US mail to deliver all of their correspondence so in a sense, the USPS is subsidized by the tax payer so that Citigroup can send their bills out on the cheap. There’s no way UPS could deliver business mail to Bisbee at the same price as Albuquerque. And I think that it’s rather ironic that you, Dana, are holding up a union based organization like UPS as a superior alternative.

  8. mike g Says:

    socialism is the dilution of wealth and the sharig of poverty.

    Unless it goes to parties you deem worthy, of course. When was the last time the National Guard turned a profit?

  9. jeromy Says:

    But Medicare is already more efficient than private insurance.

    Insurance does not present a lot of real work. It’s collecting money and redistributing it among those performing the work. The government does it without the need to lavish mega-millions upon a few top employees, or lobby. The hospitals remain private.

    Again, Dana, you’re missing the fact that private care is the source of our cost increases, and it’s only going to get worse. Staying private is not a solution, it’s ideology, as you’ve demonstrated. It’s mostly a matter of your suspicions, and the number of people you can get together with the same suspicions, most of it groomed and stoked by Limbaugh and his copycats.

    We simply cannot continue as we have.

  10. Group2012 Says:

    Cash for Clunkers cost taxpayers $24,000 per car, and Iowa Liberal thinks government getting MORE involved in our healthcare is a good idea.

    Healtchcare costs have skyrocketed since the goverment mandated the current HMO/PPO system, and Iowa Liberal thinks government getting even MORE involved in healthcare is a good idea.

    The government promised Amtrak would be self-sufficient but it loses money on 93% of its routes – and Iowa Liberal thinks government getting more involved in healthcare is a good idea.

    There are PLENTY more examples folks……

  11. Glenski Says:

    How much money has the stretch of I80 that runs along Coralville and Iowa City made?

  12. Group2012 Says:

    What’s your point Glenski, that the government isn’t SUPPOSED to make money? I couldn’t agree more and exactly why government SHOULD NOT get involved in the free market. Build some roads, provide clean water, provide for public safety and other basics – all proper roles of government and no reasonable person objects to paying related taxes to support those things. But trying to run a passenger train service (Amtrak), getting in the mortgage business (Fannie/Freddie) are NOT proper roles of government. And why anyone thinks conceited government officials who have absolutely no real business experience can take over 1/6th of this nation’s economy in healthcare simply isn’t thinking things through. Look at healthcare history, the more government gets involved, the more expensive it gets. Do some homework folks. Look at healthcare pre-government mandated HMO/PPO and compare it to today.

  13. Glenski Says:

    What’s your point? That it’s okay for the government to lose money on projects you like? Why is it the Iowa taxpayers liability to make sure that Coralville gets a three lane stretch of interstate? I never voted on that initiative. Of course the gravy is always justified when it goes to big government Republicans like you. For instance: Where’s all of your fiscal concern about $400 per gallon of gas going to Afghanistan? This is just more Republican hypocrisy, ladies and gentlemen. You know, if your party actually practiced what they preached you might win an election now and again.

  14. Group2012 Says:

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has unveiled a whopping 1,990 page House health care bill (H.R. 3962). Dems supporting it like puppets on strings won’t bother to read it. Party before country.

    Sidebar: HR3200 was 1,017 pages long….

  15. TL Says:

    I love how J just outright ignores every single post that he has no pat answer for.

    me- insurers make 2-6% profit, food has a much bigger markup, and is more important,

    jeromy – You must have missed every attack on the public option that claimed it wasn’t “fair” to insurance companies because it could provide the same services for less money.

    Yeah there are no non-sequitors here.

  16. jeromy Says:

    TL: People can afford food. And where they can’t, we provide ways for them to eat.

    My reply pointed out that the government can provide insurance with way less overhead on top of not needing profits.

  17. TL Says:

    So you really believe that the government will have less than 6% waste, or fraud, or abuse?

    I mean if you do that is fine, I don’t think you are going to come up with any facts of history that can back it up, but without that, you’d be relying on faith without evidence. Again that is fine I guess but it has nothing to do with reality.

    My problem with most people isn’t that they believe things w/o evidence, people believe silly assed things all the time. My problem is anyone doing that AND attempting to say they have a logical or even objectively moral basis for their irrational beliefs.

    If one could prove that our (or any) government had ever done ANYTHING with less than 6% waste, or fraud, or abuse. I don’t understand even from a purely altruistic view how anyone thinks they can wish something into reality. Just because we want everyone to have healthcare doesn’t mean there is a way to do it. The idea that everyone wants it is false. The idea that everyone will have it if we fine them for not having it is false. The idea that if you could round up everyone without healthcare into one building and tie them down and give them it whether they like or not is false.

    There is always going to be 15% of people that simply aren’t going to have healthcare, no matter what anyone wants, wishs, hopes or dreams.
    Altering healthcare of the 85% of people who do have it to attempt it is illogical.

  18. jeromy Says:

    Why do you think insurance companies hate the public option?

    This 15% of people who don’t want to go to the doctor…do you have any particular evidence for that?

  19. mike g Says:

    insurers make 2-6% profit, food has a much bigger markup, and is more important

    I didn’t know that private health insurance was such a crummy business to be in. I guess that would explain why they’re so reluctant to defend the practice.

  20. Larry Says:

    I’m new here but, do you guys always ignore relevant questions? Or misstate them for your own benefit?

    The person up top said that you can’t/won’t be able insure a percentage of the population. Which is demonstrably true with almost any human need. You, Jeromy, change the statement to say “This 15% of people who don’t want to go to the doctor”, do you think that is what the person said? Do you think it is not different from what the person said? Or are you just lying to avoid the point?

    In answer to the same post mike g doesn’t bother to even attempt an answer to the facts that “insurers make 2-6% profit”, he just makes a stupid comment attempting pretend it isn’t true because, what, no one would work for 2-6% profits?

    I’ve only read back about a weeks worth of posts, but you guys are coming off as a couple of uninformed, 20 something, mouth pieces, that rehash whatever their leadership tells them to.

    Liberals and Iowans alike should be ashamed to have you claiming to speak for them. And this 2012 person should have Conservatives and Iowans alike screaming for his/her head too.

  21. mike Says:

    In answer to the same post mike g doesn’t bother to even attempt an answer to the facts that “insurers make 2-6% profit”, he just makes a stupid comment attempting pretend it isn’t true because, what, no one would work for 2-6% profits?

    Most insurers, whether they be auto or health, only make 2-6% margin on their product but that still isn’t a valid argument against a public option. You’re free to argue that point if you’d like.

  22. jeromy Says:

    Larry, what makes you different from 2012? You come in here with lectures and accusations of dishonesty on our part, yet without any real substance of your own. If you don’t step it up, you’re going to get embarrassed here very quickly. Let’s look at what points you attempt:

    1. The 15%: TL said, “There is always going to be 15% of people that simply aren’t going to have healthcare, no matter what anyone wants, wishs, hopes or dreams.”

    First off, TL didn’t offer any substantiation or explain why 15% will simply never have health care, despite the fact that every other Western country has lower numbers, usually 0% (people are covered…whether they choose to go to the doctor or not is another issue).

    To me it sounded like he was saying people wouldn’t want health care, but most importantly, I asked for substantiation, and have received none. Alternative explanations the 15%? Still waiting.

    Larry’s contribution? Zilch. Awesome, Larry. Let’s have another lecture!

    2. 2-6%: Our position is not one of concern for CEOs pulling in $10-20 million dollar bonuses (http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/05/20/health-insurance-ceos-total-compensation-in-2008/). Our concern is making sure everybody gets health care. You guys can have your fun with your “tiny” profit percentage, but it’s a percentage of a massive, massive pile of money. More importantly, it’s not the only ineffeciency in private insurance.

    It must also be considered that insurance industries attain these numbers by eliminating virtually every risk they can track down, while premiums have skyrocketed over the past decade. The people who comb through cases and find loopholes that allow them to cancel payments, whether future or retroactive, are well-paid for their efforts. All of them are, of course, which makes us wonder why we should weep because the massive pile of money they’re left with could be even bigger if they had profit margins comparable to the drug companies.

    Our point is that government insurance can perform the same service, which is essentially little more than shuffling money from a wide pool to cover costs, for much less. And we need it all the more for those who would threaten private insurance’s profit margins with their illnesses.

    On the other hand, I asked why insurance companies fear the public option, and have yet to receive an answer.

    Larry’s contribution? Jack shit. Thanks, Larry!

    3. “Iowa Liberal claims to speak for Iowans and liberals.” And Larry engages in his own making up of facts. Larry, the blog is titled Iowa Liberal because we’re Iowan, and we’re liberal. We argue with other Iowans, and we argue with other liberals. If we claim Iowans, liberals, or Iowan liberals believe something and someone wants to cite a poll telling us we’re full of shit, let’s have it.

    Larry’s contribution? Nothing whatsoever.

    Larry, obviously you’re filled with your own sense of self-righteousness, and you’re quick to point the finger, but all we ask is that if you’re gonna debate here, you partake in honest debate. You’ve served up a bunch of conclusions to start off, and then started lecturing us based on those conclusions. Which, I can assure you, can only amuse and annoy us, but not sway us.

    Where you’ve tried to offer actual points, I have made honest efforts to address them. Let’s see if you can rise to the challenge, Larry, or if you’re just another blowhard!

  23. Larry Says:

    In our apparent nerd rage at my calling you out on being too young and uninformed to answer anything, you still don’t answer to any of the points of your other posters.

    I came here, I read, and I offered my opinion not on your points, but on your tactics, which again in some fit of anger you are trying to morph into a point against me, saying that I made no contribution to the debate, when, unless you are an absolute idiot, was clearly not my intention.

    Grow up, learn to actually debate your posters on the merits of their arguments, and make this a site worth a second view. it clearly isn’t right now.

  24. Nate W Says:

    No Larry, I think jeromy answered all of the points you were trying to make and now you’re looking to backtrack. If not then what points went unanswered?

  25. jeromy Says:

    I’m pretty sure we’re just supposed to listen and shut up when Larry talks…

    I mean, not sure I was really angry or “nerd raging,” but Larry said it, so it stands;)

  26. Larry Says:

    No Nate, jeromy didn’t answer my question.

    “…do you guys always ignore relevant questions? Or misstate them for your own benefit?”

    A simple yes, would have sufficed. But anger, cursing, and sarcasm seem to be the currency of this site, and that really isn’t that interesting to me. So, I am truly sorry to have wasted your time, and more importantly my own.

  27. jeromy Says:

    How quickly Larry becomes the dishonest one.

    “No,” is the answer, Larry. And you were provided explanations, as I attempted to address the questions you claimed I was ignoring/misstating. You quickly lost interest in proving your point.

    Larry, if you came here to make pronouncements and have them swallowed without question, you sure as hell did come to the wrong place. Go form a cult or something.

  28. jeromy Says:

    Forgot to add LOLZ at “Yes” being the only acceptable answer for Larry…

  29. Nate W Says:

    Why do you expect people to answer such a blatantly rhetorical questions, Larry? Big LULZ on the sad bitching-about-name-calling-while-simultaneously-calling-names maneuver, btw.

  30. TL Says:

    Wow guys, way to chase off new readers. Gratz on that! It is the way of the day though isn’t it? I mean taking a cue from the Admin when someone dares name your tactics, a hissy fit of euphamisms and non-sequitors ensue. Don’t like the message-discredit the messenger.

    Ironically his point about you coming off as young (didn’t even say you were, just said you come off that way), gets proven when jeromy launches into a tirade of ad-hominems and cussing. Why not just roll your eyes and say “whatever!”, it’d have been every bit as adult.

    The real lolz here for me, was the ‘if you think we are wrong cite a poll response.’ I seriously laughed out loud at that one. Well at least you are entertaining me, if no one else.

  31. cbmc Says:


  32. jeromy Says:

    TL: Or, rather, Larry had your back and you’ve got his.

    Neither you nor Larry have “named my tactics.” You just come in saying loads of shit, whining about cussing, and then go running off when I ask you to substantiate your claims.

    I directly responded to the two claims that Larry made. He said no more and ran out the door talking smack. That’s a fact. Now you’re back, talking more smack, with not a single point. Content-free noise. That’s not some wild accusation I’m throwing at you because I have emotional problems with surrender, it’s a plain fact. There isn’t a single substantive point you’ve raised regarding the issues.

    And yeah, both of you can go to hell. I welcome anybody here who’s ready to actually tussle, but I hate people who come in with flimsy arguments, get shredded, and then sit and bitch and moan about what a bad person I am. It’s not my problem that Larry couldn’t back up what he said, or that you can’t back up what you’re saying. It’s your fault. Stop saying stupid things, display some intellectual honesty when you’re caught, and strive to formulate a stronger argument.

    The messenger in both your cases and Fox’s has discredited itself. Fox can’t actually pretend its news isn’t purposefully shaped to benefit the GOP either. The messenger is corrupt, and resorting to cliches will not change that.

  33. jeromy Says:

    Let’s take an example.

    The real lolz here for me, was the ‘if you think we are wrong cite a poll response.’

    But what did I actually say?

    If we claim Iowans, liberals, or Iowan liberals believe something and someone wants to cite a poll telling us we’re full of shit, let’s have it.

    So I said if we are wrong about the opinions of others, cite a poll to prove us wrong. Which is, of course, the precise resource you would use, since polls measure…the opinions of others.

    So once again you completely screwed up, TL, read something utterly wrong, and then blamed your reading comprehension struggles on me.

    But I guess I’m “blaming the messenger.” Do you ever run out of excuses for your failings?

  34. TL Says:

    Oh, I’m sorry:

    The real loz here for me was “If we claim Iowans, liberals, or Iowan liberals believe something and someone wants to cite a poll telling us we’re full of shit, let’s have it.”

    Not sure why you would think there is a difference there, but hey it’s fixed now.

  35. jeromy Says:

    Ok, good, now explain where the lolz are.

    Perhaps you thought I was expecting a poll where the question is, “Do you think Jeromy and Mike at Iowa Liberal are full of shit?”

  36. TL Says:

    I say that Iowans beleive that there are pink unicorns dancing on the moon.

    Cite me a poll that disputes this fact. Can’t? Must be true.

    There was a fallacy, which I found humorous, in your comment. Sorry if you thought I was being offensive or something. Yeesh.

  37. jeromy Says:

    And now we’re back at the part where you descend into gibberish. Do you know what a fallacy is?

    I do, and you created a straw man. I made a simple statement, in that if I declare, “Iowans agree with me on issue X,” and they don’t, a poll would be the method by which this could be demonstrated.

    Now were I to start making “X” something that had not been polled on yet, like, say, pink unicorns dancing on the moon, I certainly could not cite the lack of a poll as proof of anything, because that would be a fallacy. Of course, I’ve done no such thing.

  38. TL Says:

    Me – Sorry if you thought I was being offensive or something.

    You – you descend into gibberish


  39. jeromy Says:

    Okay, so ignore everything I wrote after that.

  40. TL Says:

    Listen I wrote in another htread, that i am sick of this name calling shit, and the first thing you come back with after that, is the above post. Writen after I apologize for thinking something was funny that you clearly seem to be taking personally.

    You know what, cool, make this place your own personal masturbatory den, where you get off on everyone agreeing with you, or bashing those that don’t rather than attacking their positions. It is your house, your rules, that’s fine.

    I can go somewhere else and have discussion with folks that have different opinions than mine. Places where they at least feign honesty.

  41. jeromy Says:

    Except I explained why I thought it was gibberish.

    If you’re gonna just sit there and whine some more, then stop wasting my time.

  42. houndstooth Says:

    Yes, anyone can go to the ER when needed and they won’t be turned away. But if they’re uninsured they may never make it out alive.

    This comes from a study published in the Journal of Public Health.