The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Blue Dogs May Get an Earful

Text Size

The Politico is reporting on an overnight deal between Blue Dogs and liberals that will allow the House Democratic health care bill to clear the Energy and Commerce Committee. But as Blue Dogs return home during August recess, they may be facing a backlash among their constituents. While there's no polling data that breaks down support for health care legislation by Congressional district, what we do know is that legislation is even less popular among independents than it is among the national at large, and independents are more abundant in Blue Dog districts. According to Pew survey, just 34 percent of independents said they support the health care plans currently being discussed in Congress, compared to 49 percent who are opposed. But the actual break down of the numbers is even worse. Among those who say who they are following the issue closely, just 27 were supportive, compared to an overwhelming 70 percent who were opposed. And presumably, those who are paying more attention to the issue are the ones more likely to be attending town hall meetings and calling their members of Congress.

View all comments (25) | Leave a comment

Gerald| 7.31.09 @ 4:53PM

Must see videos sent to me by a twitter follower. Mass email these suckers to everyone you know. Really gets the point across.

http://www.thesubstratum.com/general-politics/two-must-see-videos-on-healthcare-best-ive-seen-to-date/

Gerald| 7.31.09 @ 4:56PM

Old Texican,

Good to know others no about teapartypatriots.org. You can find a list of reps along with committee assignments and whether they are blue dogs here:

http://teapartypatriots.org/TPLM12.pdf

Jeremiah| 7.31.09 @ 5:14PM

They're going to have to call out the National Guard! LOL!!

Liberal Reader| 7.31.09 @ 8:29PM

Blue Cross Democrats can expect an earful from Democrats who've had it with their equivocations.

Folks, our health care system -- to call it that -- is going haywire. If you have insurance now, you'll probably have it tomorrow. But in five years, in ten years, there's a very good chance you will have been dropped our priced out of the market.

The prices are going up so fast the idea that "free market solutions" could arrest them is laughable. Either the government will stabilize prices and offer competition to insurance companies, or the middle class will soon find that health care has become a luxury beyond its reach.

Blue Cross Democrats, cheek by jowl with the insurance industry, need to rejoin the party and try to contend with enormous economic disaster waiting to happen.

Julie| 7.31.09 @ 9:11PM

Blue Dog Democrats were elected in districts won by McCain--they know their political careers are over if they vote for this health care Obomination.

Just wait until their conservative constituents get hold of them!

Julie| 7.31.09 @ 9:16PM

LibReader/Jeremiah, you're such a liar! Everyone knows that the Insurance Industry has jumped on Obama's health care bandwagon. Look what good it did them with libs like you attacking them anyway.

Nancy Pelosi took millions from the insurance companies in campaign contributions and the hobag still vilifies them. You fascist libs have no shame.

Solo| 8.1.09 @ 9:14AM

Liberal Reader,

The issue is not our "Health Care" per se...it's really health insurance, or more appropriately, the cost thereof.

I agree that it has become prohibitively expensive but the reason for that is not entirely due to excessive profit taking by the insurance companies. We all know this (including you, I suspect).

Why not take this occasion, put our collective heads together and devise a real solution to the problem devoid of ideological preconditions (to borrow a term)?

What the democrats are doing is using this "crisis" (both perceived and real) to institute a socialist authoritarian regime that, in the end, will not reduce costs but will reduce quality and availability of service.

The stated motivation for democrats in approaching this "crisis" is servicing the 45 million to 54 million uninsured. The premise being that these uninsured place an expense burden on the American taxpayer/health insurance customer.

How is it possible to add 45 million to 54 million people into the system- most of whom pay no taxes in the first place- and REDUCE costs for the taxpayer/health insurance customer?
It's irrational!

They're biggest stumbling block is that they can't make the numbers work- even with the most rosey estimates! Well.....DUH! What a shock!

There are good solutions to be applied that will reduce costs considerably that can be offered by BOTH sides of the isle- without sacrificing quality of service. But...allowing a complex problem like this to be massaged and then foisted on the country by a cabal of radical leftist ideologues is a recipe for disaster!
A 'disaster' that we can ill afford.

Johnno| 8.1.09 @ 1:20PM

Our older folks and the infirm will shoulder the burden of rationed health care. They will be pressured to die, as a duty to die for their country.

This is so sick in so many ways it makes me ill.

Liberal Reader| 8.1.09 @ 1:59PM

Solo --

You make some good points.

First, it's just not true that the people who are uninsured pay "no taxes." This is a bit of propaganda repeated endlessly by conservative talk show hosts illustrating their contempt for the working class.

These people pay all kinds of taxes, including income tax. Though the "principle" is mostly returned to lower wage earners, they loan -- interest free -- their tax dollars to the government. That is paying taxes, my friend.

Now, the reason why so many people -- probably a huge majority of people reading Am. Spec. -- have health insurance through work is a tax credit assigned by the government. Health benefits are a form of untaxed compensation for most people.

The government, in other words, is already involved.

Drawing 45 million new people into the system -- many of whom are HEALTHY (that's the point) -- would bring costs down for the average consumer.

In order for any third party system to work, they healthy have to be paying in.

There's just NO way it can work if they don't.

Also, those uninsured who aren't healthy cost tax payers about 100 billion dollars a year: if they are brought into the system, those costs will be radically REDUCED because their care will be better. The more healthy people, the cheaper the costs for everyone.

Finally, health care reform is partially about the "uninsured," but it's also about the about-to-be-uninsured: that is to say, many of the people now reading this website.

The costs are going up so fast -- and no, this has nothing to do with the government -- that a large percentage of those covered now will NOT BE COVERED in five to ten years.

The costs are going to break the American economy unless they are brought down.

Liberal Reader| 8.1.09 @ 2:03PM

Johnn0

Sounds to me like you're falling for some absurd, paranoid propaganda from people trying to scare you into -- as usual -- voting against your own economic interests.

There is NOTHING in the legislation, nor would there EVER BE, that "puts seniors to death," as the idiot from NC said this week.

Think, just for a second, Johnno:

Even if you were so cynical to imagine that Democrats had no grandmothers or grandfathers, and themselves somehow believed they would never get old, -- set this aside:

How do you become president? How do you get elected to anything in this country?

You make seniors happy. They elect our government. They have the highest voting rate. The Democratic party lives to please seniors.

Don't be fooled by scare tactics.

There are plenty of good debates to have about health care, and I'm sure conservatives have some very important points to make.

Obama's going to kill the old people isn't one of them.

Johnno| 8.1.09 @ 2:58PM

I didn't say seniors would be put to death, you did. I said seniors would be pressured to die by being forced into mandatory death counseling every five years after 65. You know this is true, troll. Shame on you for lying.

Do you have parents over 65? I guess you' rather obey your Marxist masters than protect your parents. You are a heartless monster.

Liberal Reader| 8.1.09 @ 3:58PM

Johno --

O.K. I'm a heartless monster.

But still. The line that old people would be "put to death" comes from a Republican representative from N Carolina -- a stupid woman who is trying to scare seniors, as you are.

There is a provision is one bill that provides funding for seniors to write living wills. That's all.

Do you not know what a living will is?

If not, just ask.

But don't spread irrational, paranoid rumors.

You need to liberate yourself from this demented echo chamber, where accurate information is regarded as heresy.

There is a world out there, Johnno. Try to learn something about it before announcing your opinions.

Johnno| 8.1.09 @ 4:14PM

You said it, I didn't--you're spreading false rumors Or maybe not. Perhaps Obama will try to put seniors to death. He's already a rabid proponent of infanticide, so it wouldn't surprise me.

Are you denying that ObamaCare forces seniors over 65 to have mandatory end of life counseling? If you are, you know you're a liar.

It seems the only one around here who is lying is you troll, LibReader.

Shelia| 8.1.09 @ 4:16PM

Too late, LibReader--the seniors are already scared witless about ObamaCare. Your loser lib politicians will find this out when you get your @sses kicked during August recess.

Johnno| 8.1.09 @ 4:24PM

That's mandatory end of life counseling every five years after the age of 65. Encouraging the elderly and infirm to die earlier is the only way you can try to cover an additional 45 million uninsured.

Even then it's impossible because there won't be an increase in the number of doctors and nurses. Health care will be severely rationed, there will be long wait times and the quality will be severely degraded. And costs will skyrocket.

We will encourage our elderly to die prematurely so that 20 million illegal aliens will have health care. That's the fascist liberal way.

Liberal Reader| 8.1.09 @ 5:38PM

Johnno,

I just explained to you your mistake. Persistence in vice leads to perversity.

One more time.

There is NO provision to "counsel" old people to die.

There IS a provision that allows seniors IF THEY WISH to work with THEIR OWN DOCTOR (Sir, do you know anything about Medicare?) to write a LIVING WILL.

Again, if you need any of these terms explained, look it up or ask.

Liberal Reader| 8.1.09 @ 5:42PM

Johnno --

Obama provided a birth certificate.

There is no provision like you've described.

Evolution explains biological change.

I know facts are difficult for you. The way they menace the fragile and trembling ideological membrane of the Fox Newsopia in which you dwell prompts anxiety in you.

The faith-based world is safe; all its pieces reassure and confirm the others. The pain of thought and using reason is lifted.

But reality based life is what we embrace when we grow up. It requires an intellectual maturity difficult to embrace, but you can do it if you apply yourself.

Johnno| 8.1.09 @ 7:49PM

I didn't say anything about Obama's birth certificate, libtard. You're losing what few marbles you had, moron.

Nobama| 8.1.09 @ 8:22PM

LibReader/Jeremiah, prove that the mandatory death counseling provision doesn't exist. C'mon--do it now; back up your absurd statement, liar.

Liberal Reader| 8.1.09 @ 8:52PM

Nobama --

Perhaps you haven't studied debate or logic, but it's impossible to prove a negative.

The onus would fall on you to prove that it does exist.

You can't, because it doesn't. The only provision that could possibly be provoking this moronic rumor is the one I outline above.

Liberal Reader| 8.1.09 @ 8:54PM

Johnno --

Sounds to me like you're conceding the point. That's manly. Now I think if you look back you'll say I was simply illustrating the certainty by which you can rest assured that the provision that's got you wetting your pants does NOT exist.

Johnno| 8.2.09 @ 3:39AM

Libtard Reader/Jeremiah, provide a link to the living will provision in the AbominationCare legislation. It's your statement so back it up. Now.

Johnno| 8.2.09 @ 3:41AM

Just as I thought, you've got nothing, troll. Bet Axelrod makes you go wet as spring, pervert.

Solo| 8.2.09 @ 8:33AM

Liberal Reader Wrote:

"Drawing 45 million new people into the system -- many of whom are HEALTHY (that's the point) -- would bring costs down for the average consumer. "

First, Lib Reader...thank you for your measured response.

Now...this is where we disagree.
Bringing in 45 million new participants will NOT bring costs down.
As I stated (and you actually acknowledged) most of these 45 million pay no income taxes. We agree that they pay some taxes, Soc Sec, Medicare and probably State taxes- but they pay no Federal income tax. I'm sorry but I think you're being a bit squishy to suggest that un-recovered interest monies on Federal with holding is a tax. They get their withholding back at the end of the year so, they pay no tax. Plus...many get an "Earned Income Credit" which is actually welfare under another name.

In fact...the top 50% of wage earners in this country pay over 90% of all Federal income taxes. That doesn't come form some "talk show host". That comes from the IRS website.

It is, therefore, mathematically impossible to add these 45 million people onto ANY health insurance roll (government or otherwise) and reduce costs. It's absurd in the extreme.
"They" won't be paying anything. We'll be paying for ours....and theirs, as well.

The second aspect of your operational premise with which I disagree is the notion that having the healthy paying into the system will reduce costs. It will not.

The costs of medical care are what they are. They don't change based on how many people aren't using those services. Those who have no medical insurance are already accessing the system when the need arises. The government mandates that hospitals must service those people regardless of ability to pay. This cost is then shifted to those who do have coverage.

Those on medicare and medicaid who access those services get treatment but the government mandates the rates paid to the health care provider that are only a percentage of their actual cost. The balance is recovered from patients who have health coverage-thus raising the cost of care for the rest of us and raising our insurance rates.

In addition...government (both State and Federal) dictates the type of coverages that insurance companies offer. For example: The Federal government mandates that ALL health insurance policies cover the cost of Mammograms. Well....as a man, I'm never going to need a mammogram, but I'm paying for it in my insurance policy.
This is but one of dozens of examples.

Further complicating matters, I'm not allowed to use an insurance company outside my own home state. I'm being held hostage by a relative handful of companies thus eliminating competition. The end result of this is that there isn't a penny's worth of difference between them.
They're all too high in price.

These are the real reasons that health care coverage has gotten prohibitively expensive. Government is actually the problem! Now they would have us believe that MORE government is the solution!

But...I realize that we are never going to get the genie back into the bottle.
We're in trouble. The government is what put us in trouble in their zeal to 'be all things to all people'.

Medicare (alone) is $30 Trillion in the hole! $30 TRILLION! It's only been in existence for 40 years! That's almost $1 Trillion per year! In losses!

Look around at other countries who have tried this government run solution. It never works. EVER!
It is always an abject disaster-ever time it's tried.
It inevitably leads to rationing of care with rising costs. Treatments needed are delayed and the illness progresses well beyond what it would have otherwise (in many cases) thus creating additional expense and placing additional burdens on an already stressed system- thus creating more delays for others and additional expense....and so on.....

It a vicious circle. A vicious circle created by government and the only way to break the circle is to get the government OUT!

This is the mind-set with which we all must approach this problem.

Here are my suggestions:

1st: Everyone pays taxes. Everyone! If you make $10 per year, you owe a percentage to the Federal government. Period!

2nd: No more anchor babies! If you show up at a hospital to have a baby and you're not an American citizen, we'll treat you but then you and your baby are out of here!

3rd: No government mandates as to what coverages a health insurance company can offer. Let them tailor policies based on what the customer wants.

4th: Allow competition of insurance companies across state lines.

5th: Place a cap on awards in medical malpractice suits and eliminate the ability of tort lawyers to take a percentage of the award. Straight fee only!

6th: Phase out Medicare. Gradually shift Medicare payments into personal Health savings accounts that can be passed on to your heirs.
Let's do the same with Soc Sec, as well. We could eliminate generational poverty right there!

7th: Government pays full price! No more short-sheeting health care providers who then shift the costs onto the rest of us.

As an anecdote to demonstrate the source of the problem:

I was born in 1953. My father was a milk truck delivery man and he didn't belong to a union. My mother stayed at home. When I was born, they paid the hospital and doctor bill out of pocket. It cost about a month's wages- so they tell me. I received state of the art treatment (for its time)

Try that today! What's the difference between then and now?

Take a wild guess!