This doesn’t sound good at all for Pelosi:
U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch, says a proposed parliamentary move to pass health-care reform would be “disingenuous” and harm the credibility of Congress.
In a sign of how tough it’s been for Pelosi to round up votes for the massive bill, Lynch – a South Boston Democrat who supported a House reform package last year – said he’ll probably vote against a key Senate version of the legislation, unless unexpected major changes are made soon.
Lynch, who serves as one of Pelosi’s key vote counters, said he also can’t support a proposed “deem and pass” procedure that would allow Democrats to vote to strip out controversial portions of the Senate bill and then “deem” that the entire package has passed without a second, direct vote.
“It’s disingenuous,” said Lynch, who considers unfair a Senate provision to tack a surcharge on higher-end health plans. “It would really call into question the credibility of the House.”
Stephen Lynch is a member of the Whip team, he is one of the guys who is responsible for getting votes on board. This is a bigger blow than any of the other Dems who have come out against it thus far.
Quit screwing around and get something done. Canada, England, France, Germany seems to be able too manage their health care. We need to force the health care cost down at the hospital, doctors,and drug companies. This country is a country of greed and is going down the tube in a heartbeat. Wake up Washington.
““It would really call into question the credibility of the House.”
Its hard to lose credibility when you dont have it in the first place.
Vote time! Regardless of whether or not you want the health reform bill to pass, do you think it will?
I think it will.
“Canada, England, France, Germany seems to be able too manage their health care”
If you believe that then you don’t know a hell of a lot about the health care systems in Canada, England, France, and Germany.
Even if they were good systems, it’s completely irrelevant. We are a nation built on individual freedoms and liberties, not collective. If you want a collective society then go live in Canada, England, France, or Germany and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. You can’t be free and be dependent on the government at the same time.
As for the evils of greed, that’s a just a talking point born out of jealousy and envy towards others having more than you. An indulgence of greed isn’t healthy, but it is greed that is the motivator to constantly strive to innovate and improve the human condition.
My goodness Ken. I guess you have missed the a of the protests last summer in France over the government’s move to raise premiums because the system cannot support the outlays. Or maybe you missed the fact that France has a two tiered system where those that can afford it by supplemental insurance to cover services that the government rations. I’ve been to Germany as a military brat. Yes, you can get government provided health care, but when I saw the better care and services provided by practitioners that take private insurance or self pays, I made the decision to be treated in the private sector than the public one.
Kenneth… you apparently missed the pieces recently in Canadian newspapers describing how the Canadian federal government is allowing health care privatization to occur through the backdoor.
American healthcare costs are high for two reasons. First, our Medicare system is bloated. Nowhere else in the world does seniors get as much care as they do here. At a certain point, other countries quit throwing money down into a bottomless pit where as we are idiots and will spend $10,000 a day on someone whose going to die in three months. Second, Americans live unhealthy lifestyles. So if you are not ready to pull the plug on seniors, which I would be willing to consider, and tell people how to live their lives, which is not feasible, you should just sit down, quit whining and deal with it.
I think john is right about the prospects of HCR getting enacted. Sadly.
I agree with Sam. It seems to me that greed is what motivates the financing of innovations in treatment for health problems. If there weren’t a prospect of getting rich financing these developments, it would be much harder for those developments to come into being. Treatments now for various problems are, I believe, more effective now than they were when there were fewer (or less-developed) treatments. Someone had to pay to bring those new or improved treatments into existence. Someone was hoping to make a buck. So in this context, thank goodness for greed.
Oh, another crazy idea–is it possible that the more the government insists on paying for medical treatment for various groups of people, the higher the cost of treatment will be? Just curious; I don’t know anything about economics, really.
As for the seniors, we simply can’t financially afford to give them what we’re emotionally incapable of denying them. (”We’re” excluding me, since more and more seniors are from my least favorite demographic group–the Baby Boomers. I personally wouldn’t feel even a little bit sorry about cutting them off.)
Alan… I agree with you on the babyboomers. The greatest generation had the worst generation for children.
“Alan… I agree with you on the babyboomers. The greatest generation had the worst generation for children.”
And each generation has been progressively worse.