It is decision time for the United State Senate. The Senate Democrats have a moment of truth before them: given our new system of government by 60, what sort of health insurance reform will they deliver?
Will the Democratic team be held hostage by a handful of conservative Senators, who are willing to deny their teammates the right to even vote for a truly affordable healthcare plan? Are they willing to thwart the rest of the caucus, and most importantly, what the vast majority of Americans want?
Will the majority be asked to compromise even more to accommodate the minority of the Party, preventing a strong bill that would actually work? Will two or three holdouts stand with their fellow Democrats to allow a real vote on one of the most critical issues before our nation, or will they stand in the way of the change this country voted for last November?
SEIU members -- janitors, nursing home workers, child care providers -- have spent years knocking on doors, making calls, and donating their time and money to elect candidates who promised to deliver quality and affordable healthcare for every man, woman and child in America.
And for decades now, Democratic Senators have raised campaign funds by promising that with 60 Democratic Senators, they could deliver real change for our country. Last fall, we were all repeatedly asked, "Dig deeper! We just need 60 - we have never been closer."
Well Democrats, it's show time. America elected the 60 you asked for, and America is waiting for results.
But here is the problem with reaching the magical 60: if Democrats can't deliver the meaningful reforms that they have repeatedly promised, then what's the point of 60? Why should anyone believe that knocking on doors, making calls, or donating another dollar changes anything if with 60 votes they cannot deliver real reforms?
The Democrats must not squander their 60-vote majority. And after the promises that were made to the American people, there is no excuse for a single member of the Democratic caucus to stand in the way of every member having the opportunity to vote for the health insurance reform this country needs.
Here's the bottom line -- there is no such thing as a Republican filibuster. Right now, the only ones who can stand in the way of giving the American people meaningful healthcare reform, like the bill in the House, are our elected Democratic Senators. Democrats cannot be the ones to destroy meaningful health insurance reform and the hopes Americans had when they voted last November; reform that guarantees the middle class isn't forced to spend 20 percent of their income for healthcare. Reform that makes the insurance industry compete by offering people real choices.
The White House, Majority Leader Reid and the Democratic caucus, and the House have an incredible opportunity: show the American people (and silence those naysayers) that they are willing to fight -fight to make healthcare truly affordable for the middle class, fight for a real public option that gives people actual choices and drives down costs, and fight to end the insurance industry's stranglehold on our healthcare.
The danger isn't that Democratic Senators will be criticized for failing to deliver bipartisan healthcare reform. The real danger is that they will be judged for failing to lead and for failing to deliver the change they have long promised. To state the obvious: this spells disaster in 2010...and even in 2012.
Real leadership does not govern out of fear - fear of losing the next election, fear of what might be used in an ad, fear of being too partisan. Leadership is not thinking about the next election - but the next generation.
It's decision time for the White House, Majority Leader Reid and each member of the Senate Democratic caucus: will they deliver?
Visit SEIU.org for more updates on the campaign for healthcare reform.
With all due respect, of the four enquires I have submitted regarding your article no one can tell us unequivocally if the SEIU or any other Union has been granted a better healthcare solution whether that be in the form such as lower co-payments as an example or a differing plan all together than the rest of us?
Between the date of this article that was an excellent piece but needed a bit more information and that of today a little something has come to our attention. You have been a guest at the Whitehouse more times than any other individual at 22 visits. This looks ominous but let’s give this the benefit of the doubt. Let me repeat one more time my question regarding Unions and the healthcare position you are telling us to assume. Do the Unions and yes the SEIU have a different healthcare plan in any way than what you are trying to sell the rest of us?
Respectfully,
Tina
home decor guy
http://www.homedecornew.com
Anyway, thinking about the broader picture, does anyone else think it's a little weird that 18% of the population concentrated in 26 states is represented by 52% of senate seats? Yet the 9 largest states with 51% of the population are represented by the same amount? Something is off....how can Max Baucus's constituents and a handful of other tea baggers hold back PROGRESS?
Now, they are the obstructionists, and the Conventionally Wise mainstream media pretend that there's been some new Constitutional Amendment that I hadn't heard about; requiring 60 votes, so they won't have to say that the Repubs are violating their own standards.
take names later.
I mean kick the Hold Out Butts of the Democrat's that are scared of their shadow and are looking around corners to see which Repube is coming.
What is fascinating is how little affect this change of power has.
The federal government has become its own machine moving forward irregardless of what voters do.
Interesting that Health Care Insurance Cos. will keep their anti-trust exemption. What vile "representatives" thought it was good for people that insurance cos. had this to begin with?
It was easier for congress to approve the iraq war. But no matter what passes, if anything ever does, it will only benefit "representatives" and large corps.
Rationing already exists. It’s called the private insurance system.
Inefficiency already exists. Ever call your insurance company with a problem? The private sector is not more efficient. That’s a myth.
Profit has no place when lives are at stake. Profit is a fine motive when it comes to shoes and cell phones, but not who lives and dies.
A single payer system makes more sense because insurance is all about spreading risk. When the entire nation is in the pool of lives covered, the risk is spread as broadly as possible.
Taxes might go up? Sure, as they should, to provide a Medicare for all type of system. I’d rather pay another, say, 10% of my income to the government for Medicare coverage than the 20% of my income I currently pay.
To me, and I’d guess for most Americans, a single payer system would be a net gain in disposable income. This could even HELP our economy.
The Democrats might not be all that great, but look at the other alternative.
I think the answer is to attempt to vote in more progressive Democrats where ever possible. That's my goal.
Vote against your blue dogs (but try not to let a Republican sneak in in the process.)
My view is that this is what the people want (no public option- no more government intervention in our lives)
My view further is that if it passes, say goodbye to the freedoms we have become accustomed to, and thank God that our democracy is still working.
I'm really confused by your post.
And, you're wrong. Far more than a majority do want a public option. (Actually, progressives want a single payer system, like most of the rest of the civilized world.)
What "government intervention"? Provide an example of what you mean by "intervention."
What FREEDOM are you losing, or what Freedom do you think you'd lose? Provide an example.
The intervention I dislike comes from my insurance company, who demands that I can only see one doctor out of the 20 choices in my town. Now, who's intevening in my life, again?
Its the fatal flaw of the democratic party. As Dick Morris says Republicans are like minded people so they can work toward a common goal. Democrats are voting blocks who's only tie are their position against republicans. Its like herding cats. Once the republicans are removed these blocks will consume each other. The eco greens for example are different than the feminists who are different than the union democrats etc. and all with different priorities and agendas and all willing to throw the other blocks under the bus.
So the only thing the democantz will accomplish is to spend more of our money and our children's money on more an more horribly inefficient government programs.
Can you back that up?
I don't really know too many government workers, personally, but I can tell you the mail carrier who lives next to me is quite conservative. Is he the exception?
There is a key point that's correct: the Democrats are now in a position where they have to govern. They can do it entirely within their own caucus, giving inordinate leverage to Lieberman and a few other extreme right-wingers in the Democratic caucus. Or they can do it with a few relatively-moderate Republicans, having to be just as bipartisan as ever. If the Republicans were interested in participating in government, instead of siting on the sidelines hoping for the worst, then Democrats would have the option of negotiating various to arrive at a truly bipartisan set of policies. But they have to govern, now that they have 60 in their caucus.
However, no one should pretend that it's possible to govern without making compromises with some right-wing extremists, or that the Democrats are progressive. If you want progressives in power, you have to elect progressives. It helps to elect some conservative Democrats instead of equally-conservative Republicans, but it won't get you all the way.
After the theft of the 2000 presidential election, and decades of other unmitigated Republican malfeasance, I think the Republican Party should be completely destroyed -- even if it means letting the Democrats go way too far to the right, and letting the Conservative Party or the Libertarian Party or whoever get too influential.
Leadership is not thinking about the next election- but the next generation."
Despite assuring us they can be effective leaders with their words, lets look at the actions taken by the Republican members of Congress. They have offered individual ideas, such as MORE tax cuts for the wealthy, and tort reform. Both have been tried, and both have failed miserably.
We are still awaiting THEIR health care plan, which they promised to deliver many months back.
Their refusal to act, coupled with their inability to act ( due to their paralyzing fear of angering their far right base, Rush , as well as their insistence on maintaining the status quo for the robber barons of the insurance industry), has paralyzed our country.
They held the vote for our Surgeon General, trying to force the Dems to give the health insurers who have been financially ra p in g Americans and forcing our citizens to an ear ly de ath, even MORE perks.
The fact that this was done during a Pandemic is inexcusable. Our citizen's are dying yet the Rs continue to play political games.
And these people want to lead? No Thanks!
So how again is this all the Dems fault? I see it being nothing more than R obstructionism at work, to the detriment of our country and our citizens.