Yesterday the Senate Finance Committee voted against a government-run public insurance option. Fuckers. Democrats Kent Conrad (ND) and Blanche Lincoln (AR) refused to support a public option, but they did vote to restore federal funding to a program that has been proven to not only be ineffective, but downright dangerous.
When even Texas admitted abstinence-only “education” is a failure, I figured it was done for. But abstinence-only is the Energizer bunny of bone-headed programs. I cannot believe the hypocrisy. Congress might as well throw $50 million into a bonfire on the Senate floor to keep themselves warm this winter. The measure to restore funding still has to pass the full House and Senate.
This is so ridiculous. Thanks Orrrin Hatch, my shitastic senator, for sponsoring this. I campaigned in Utah for comprehensive sex-ed all summer, gathered 10,000 signatures, and this is what happens? Really?! Good God, hopefully the rest of the House and Senate see reason.
I came home last night and found out about the the public option being killed. What the hell? And the money for ignorance is just a kick in the huevos. Do you think some Senate types actually believe the abstinence-only BS, or are they just stumping for mouth-breather votes back home?
@PhDork: I can guarantee that Mormons like Orrin Hatch entirely believe in the virtues of abstinence-only ed, and that probably goes for a number of right-wing religious types. And yeah, the red-staters who don’t buy into it entirely still have constituents who do.
I called Sen. Casey’s office to yell at them about his efforts to kill the “compromise” on abortion in the health care bill — the aide actually had the audacity to say to me, “Well, Sen. Casey has always been a staunch pro-life advocate, he’s very consistent on that”. I’m thinking, “Yes, and as one of his bosses, I am telling him that I don’t like it.”
Can we have a vote of no confidence for like 75% of the legislative branch?
*whimper*
Forgive my ignorance, but can I still hold out some hope that we will get a public option? Or does this mean no-way, no-how?
What happened to all that hope and change?
We can still get a public option (though I don’t think it looks great). What happened is they voted down two amendments (Chuck Schumer’s and Jay Rockefeller’s) with the public option. It’s a confusing process but I think the public option could still be included in a House bill and make it through.
@rainy_day: “What happened to all that hope and change?”
I was thinking about this yesterday, about the fact that health care reform was one of the pillars of Obama’s election platform. We elected him knowing that; by doing so we endorsed that need for reform. And now I am reading polls that (purport to) tell me that outrageous numbers of people are “unsure” or “uncomfortable” about actually changing things. It’s as though by electing Obama in the first place we’ve used up the entire Change Quota allotted for the next decade or so. Like ohmigod, but we’ve changed things so drastically by just electing an African-American and any more change is just too much, it’s too scary, it’s too unknown, ack, ack, ack!!!1!1
That’s a really unsophisticated and one-dimensional analysis; I know it’s more complicated. But I do think it matters that, in general, many people fear change and sometimes would rather be stuck in the same, familiar pile of shit than risk something new. So opponents make sure to not only vilifying the actual reform measures, but also Obama himself. It’s like they’re saying, “See? See what “change” got you? Hitler! A socialist! A fascist! Change is bad, and we certainly don’t want any more of it, now do we?”
We can still get a public office, the finance committee bill is the ONLY bill that is coming out of committee without a public option. The way I understand it is, it will be raised in the general session if this mark-up ever ends.
I’ve been watching some of health care debates in the US with interest, given I’m not from there.. the one thing I still don’t understand is that some US citizens seem to equate, public health care and socialism..
Australia is a fairly conservative country, and is not socialist by any means or stretch of the imagination, yet we have publicly funded health care (free and accessible to all citizens), and there is a private health insurance if you want it and can afford it..
It’s not dead. Y’all need to watch some Schoolhouse Rock (America Rock). These things take (lots) of revisions. I’m thinking we’ll see a final bill before the Christmas break.
@Mackey: Thanks a lot. Don’t rub it in, willya? /sarcasm/
The thing that is really making me sad and bitter right now is the utterly transparent cowardice and selfishness of our Congresspeople, a few noble exceptions notwithstanding. They are addicted to the money that gets them elected, and so they will always be more attentive to insurance companies and big pharma than to the voters themselves.
Is leadership really that hard? Really? I was never a fan of term limits, but if the Supreme Court and the Congress can’t bring themselves to remove money from the electoral process, I see no other alternative. If they’re not constantly thinking about how to keep their jobs, maybe elected officials can do what they were, in fact, elected to do.
It seems, at least to a person across the ocean, that maybe some election reform is needed, especially on contributions to either individual and/or party election campaigns.
Big Pharma/Health Insurance seem to be HUGE contributors to individual and party campaigns, and there seems to be issue capture by those running for election.
So, is there a way to restrict particular organisations from making direct contributions to campaigns?