ABCNEWS.com



George Stephanopoulos:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller Dumps on Baucus' Bill and No Snowe Yet
September 15, 2009 3:52 PM


Following up on his This Week appearance where he promised to fight on for the public option, Sen. Jay Rockefeller blasted the draft bill produced by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus: there is no way in its present form that I vote for it unless it changes in the amendment process by vast amounts.

Hes not alone. Fellow Finance Committee member Ron Wyden is livid too. Expect a rocky mark-up next week. As one top Democrat told me, the fundamental problem is that Democrats are being asked to support a bipartisan bill that doesnt have bipartisan support. The compromise without the cover.

Meanwhile, Republican Olympia Snowe's office just told me that the Senator is not ready to sign on to the Baucus draft. He will introduce it tomorrow without her support. But Snowe intends to keep negotiating and working with Baucus through the mark-up next week.

Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled a special caucus on Thursday for Democrats to discuss the Baucus bill. Should be lively.

UPDATE: Wyden Sounds Off on Baucus Plan

As Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Finance Committee, prepares to discuss his "chairman's mark" Wednesday at 12 noon on Capitol Hill, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, one of the Democrats who sits on the panel, has elaborated on his misgivings with the Baucus plan in an interview with Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus.

Wyden says the legislation would cost lower-income Americans too much and give many people too little choice of insurance plans.

"If the Baucus proposal passes," he said, "They're going to say, 'Huh? Health-care security means I pay a whole lot more than I'm paying today or I get to be exempt from it, or I pay a penalty?' They're not going to say that meets the definition of health-care security.'"

Read the full column here

I don't think your headline is accurate. Democrats want healthcare reform, just not this crap that Max Baucus and his Republican buddies (who now say they won't vote for it anyway) have put together.

Jan:

(Login jrooth) Re: Healthcare reform not supported by either party. September 16 2009, 4:50 PM



"I don't think your headline is accurate. Democrats want healthcare reform, just not this crap that Max Baucus and his Republican buddies (who now say they won't vote for it anyway) have put together."





What makes you think Baucus and these 3 republicans are buddies......they serve on the same committee....that's all. You are paranoid Jan.

..,so OUT of the loop.  Baucus is a known Blue Dog...therefore VERY friendly with the Republicans.

http://www.blackwebportal.com/wire/DA.cfm?ArticleID=5321

Janie:



(Login pphhrogg) Poor evelyn..... September 17 2009, 6:42 PM


"..,so OUT of the loop. Baucus is a known Blue Dog...therefore VERY friendly with the Republicans."


From the site you gave:


"Want to know what democrats are hedging on health care reform?
Thanks to OpenSecrets and OnTheIssues web sites, here is a list of the Bluedog Democrats who are consistently trying to be Republicans in terms of voting against Obama on many issues. These so-called Democrats are on record as being opposed to the Public Option in the current healthcare reform legislation.

Write them. Call them. Look up where they get their money. Check their record on the issues. And mostly, let's try to replace them if possible in upcoming elections."







I see nothing in this piece that says they are "buddies" Janie and from what I've read the republicans weren't supporting it at all and Baucus had to go it alone. Janie your attempt to "bug" me shows how immature you are. Please grow up!!!!!!!

Evelyn, The fact that you do not understand that all of the politicians in DC are buddies shows your own immaturity and or a lack of understanding of exactly how politics works. 

...that you know very little to nothing about the Blue Dog Democrats, evil-lyn.   You are one of the MOST stupid people I've ever encountered in my life.

Look in the mirror, Janie.

 

cj:


(Login cjgrill) Re: Healthcare reform not supported by either party. September 17 2009, 11:10 PM


"Evelyn, The fact that you do not understand that all of the politicians in DC are buddies shows your own immaturity and or a lack of understanding of exactly how politics works."




Unlike you cj I refuse to believe that all politicans are corrupt. Your "buddy" system would mean they make deals amoung themselves not caring about the American people. Evidently you see thru a glass darkly whereas I see thru rose colored glasses. I like my way better and put my trust in God who tells me to pray for my leaders [in the bible]. And since He tells me [in the bible] that He answers prayers and changes hearts, I feel my way is much better applied than your's as the American people will sometimes come out fine, just as we did when Ronald Reagan was president. And that's something to look forward to.

Evelyn

Unlike you cj I refuse to believe that all politicans are corrupt. Your "buddy" system would mean they make deals amoung themselves not caring about the American people

It does not take a full house of corrupt politicians to corrupt the entire system, even a few corrupt ones can succeed at that.  If you don't already believe that the make deal amongst themselves not caring about the American People in some cases then you haven't been paying attention. 

I won't get into the rest of your rant except to say Ronald Reagan didn't improve anything with his starry eyed wishfulness.

Unlike you cj I refuse to believe that all politicans are corrupt. Your "buddy" system would mean they make deals amoung themselves not caring about the American people.

Politicians have been making "deals" (without a thought for the general public) for CENTURIES, evelyn.  If you don't choose to believe that, then you have made the decision all by yourself to remain in the dark.  Most of us know just how corrupt most politicians are.  The thing that most of them are interested in is being REelected.

The founding fathers didn't foresee the career politician.  They thought regular citizens would serve a term or two and then go home and let someone else do it.   You can see how well THAT worked......................NOT!

Look in the mirror, Janie.

I'll put my IQ up against yours (or evil-lyn's) any day of the week, carolyn.  I was carrying a 4.0 GPA the last time I went to college (in the mid 1990s).  

Bump...

I would love to see you reply to my post to you above in this thread, Evelyn.

Janie:
(Login pphhrogg) How naive can you get? September 18 2009, 8:23 PM


"Unlike you cj I refuse to believe that all politicans are corrupt. Your "buddy" system would mean they make deals amoung themselves not caring about the American people.

Politicians have been making "deals" (without a thought for the general public) for CENTURIES, evelyn. If you don't choose to believe that, then you have made the decision all by yourself to remain in the dark. Most of us know just how corrupt most politicians are. The thing that most of them are interested in is being REelected.


The founding fathers didn't foresee the career politician. They thought regular citizens would serve a term or two and then go home and let someone else do it. You can see how well THAT worked......................NOT!







Janie I see you have been listening to Rush Limbaugh. OH HOW FUNNY. These were his exact words last week:
"The founding fathers didn't foresee the career politician. They thought regular citizens would serve a term or two and then go home and let someone else do it." Keep listening Janie maybe you will learn something conservatively to your liking.




Evelyn

Oh how funny of you Evelyn, people on this board and others have been posting the old "founding fathers didn't plan on career politicians" mantra for several months that I have noticed.

The reasons our founding fathers didn't have an expectation of career politicians is because most men who gave their time to politics back in the day.... were wealthy (compared to commoners) individuals who needed to keep focused on making money so that they could remain as one of America's upper crust. Those who stayed too long in politics usually paid the price, by which I mean they died poor or with much less of their (pre-politics) personal fortune. If the U.S.A. had lobbyist back in our founding fathers day handing politicians billions of dollars every year.... they would have expected all politicians to be in it for life. IMO It was a money thing back in the day and it remains a money thing.

  I was carrying a 4.0 GPA the last time I went to college (in the mid 1990s).  

And?  That is really not hard.  Especially since in the mid-90's you were what? 50???  pfffft.  You should have been magna-freaking-cum laude....

~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~

It does not take a full house of corrupt politicians to corrupt the entire system, even a few corrupt ones can succeed at that.  If you don't already believe that the make deal amongst themselves not caring about the American People in some cases then you haven't been paying attention. 

I didn't get the impression Evelyn was saying none of them did...just that not all of them did...could be wrong though.

~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~

That is really not hard. 

It was certainly "hard" for MOST of the students.   What was your GPA in college?  The first time around (when I was 18-21) I graduated Magna Cum Laude.  I suppose you think that was "easy", too...right?  I'll match my college grades against yours any day of the week.

PS to evelyn....I never listen to Blimpo Limpballs.  IMO, he is nothing but a HUGE bag of hot air.

It was certainly "hard" for MOST of the students.   What was your GPA in college?  The first time around (when I was 18-21) I graduated Magna Cum Laude. 

Wow...but we all KNEW that already, right?  You also split the first atom...you pasturized milk, and you created DNA testing.  Over the last 10 years we have heard all of your accomplishments, IQ results, and grades...but you still come off as a freaking idiot that can't carry on a civil conversation. 

 

 I suppose you think that was "easy", too...right?  I'll match my college grades against yours any day of the week.

Match them, I don't care...I didn't memorize them.  I won't claim I was a 4.0 student when I was 18....I was much too social.  But when I got my last degree as an ADULT...I did have a 4.0.  ****sigh****such is life. Even the last guy in the class gets to be called DOCTOR.....

~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~

You also split the first atom...you pasturized milk, and you created DNA testing.  Over the last 10 years we have heard all of your accomplishments, IQ results, and grades...but you still come off as a freaking idiot that can't carry on a civil conversation. 

Talk about HYPERBOLE!   You have that perfected, sue.  I can carry on MANY civil conversations with people who are not rude inbred morons like YOU are.

PS...care to PROVE your 4.0 GPA?  I'm listed as being on the Dean's list at SLU in Hammond, LA if you merely google my name.  One must have a 4.0 GPA to get on the Dean's list there.

PPS....that "last" doctor in the class is why there are many malpractice suits, too.  As an RN who scored in the upper 5% on her state boards, I often WARN people about those doctors (and lawyers, and accountants, and other professionals) who graduated in the LOWER half of their class.