  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Posted on 08/20/2009 1:14:44 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Pelosi: No bill without public option
Foreshadowing a House-Senate showdown, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday there is "no way" the House can pass a health care bill without a government-run insurance option.
Speaking at a news conference in San Francisco, Pelosi told reporters that a public option will "keep insurance companies honest."
“There’s no way I can pass a bill in the House of Representatives without a public option,” the California Democrat said, according to wire reports. "Unless someone comes up with a better idea, that's how we're going forth in the House."
Pelosi reportedly added: "If someone can come up with a better idea, let them put it on the table, we haven't heard that yet. ... So we're fighting very hard for the public option."
Obama on Thursday told liberal activists and a conservative talk show host that he continues to support a public option, but said it was only a piece of a broader health reform package and continues to signal that it's not a make-or-break issue for him.
Meantime, the Senate seems likely to drop the controversial plan from any bill it proposes. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-S.D.), a key negotiator on the Finance Committee, has emphatically said there aren't enough votes in the Senate to approve a bill with a government-run option.
"It's very clear that there are not the votes in the United States Senate for a public option," Conrad said Thursday on Fox Business Network.
Who will win this game of chicken?
Excellent, Nancy. You stay completely out of touch with the American people so they can plainly see what a political (as well as medical) freak you are. This bodes well for the Dems to give the majority back. Now, we just have to pray the pubbies would finally understand what to do with it.
---<>---<>---<>---<>---<>---
Intentional or not, you nearly force me to repost my thoughts about this... Apologies to those who have seen much of this recent rant before. It does include some modifications to what I've written previously.
I have finally come to the understanding that the political system now being touted by the left as "PROGRESSIVE", to deflect criticism of them being liberal, is actually a synthesis of two previously existing government forms: Communism and Fascism.
When many use the word “fascist” they are simply using it as a pejorative. When people were calling Bush “fascist”, that was simply a smear. When I challenged them to define fascist, and they were unable to respond, I educated them. That reduced them to calling him monkey instead. Dear Leader has been RULING as a fascist (most recently demonstrated by his town hall antics) as I will demonstrate.
When I labeled Dear Leader and Pelosi, etc., Fascist, I was NOT using it as a pejorative. It's an attempt to describe as accurately as possible the system of government they espouse and are trying to bring about. I ran into a problem, though, when researching the question.
I excerpt part of http://open-encyclopedia.com/Fascism as a base for the analysis.
The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that
- exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
- uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
- engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and
- espouses nationalism and sometimes racism or ethnic nationalism. ,
... The purpose of the government under fascism proper was to value itself as the highest priority to its culture in just being the state in itself, the larger scope of which, the better...
... The Nazi movement spoke of class-based society as the enemy, and wanted to unify the racial element above established classes. The Fascist movement, on the other hand, sought to preserve the class system and uphold it as the foundation of established and desirable culture...
...Fascism rejects the central tenets of Marxism, which are class struggle, and the need to replace capitalism with a society run by the working class in which the workers own the means of production. ...
[Fascism includes] capitalism ... This was a new capitalist system, however, one in which the state seized control of the organization of vital industries.
Look at the agenda the Progressives have undertaken since gaining control of Congress in 2006, and indeed before that time. Control of business, reduction of personal liberty, using propaganda and censorship to suppress opposition, social regimentation, higher taxes which again reduces personal liberty, expanding national government everywhere, even severe regimentation passing laws about light bulbs and on and on. Much of their agenda and methodology is VERY fascist.
However, bullet points 1 & 4 give us a problem whether we use nationalism or racism. Progressives certainly never goad people into a frenzy by extolling the virtues of the United States so are not nationalists in the typical sense of the word. They don’t use racism that way, either- they merely use it as a pejorative. Thus, we are not quite accurate in equating Progressivism with Fascism.
A digression concerning Nazi (National Socialist) vs. Fascist: Nazi is a subset of Fascist, but that subset does not include any more Progressive traits than Fascist.
What actually is needed to describe Progressives is Fascism that is NOT nationalist, at least nationalism in the sense of promotion of their nation as superior.
They are not Socialist (Marxist), either. When have you EVER heard a Progressive politician or any of the Democrats extol the virtues of having a classless society? Certainly they don't desire that for themselves or their rich donors! They are definitely in favor of a classes, with themselves in the highest class.
This brings up the following, from the same main source: http://open-encyclopedia.com/Communism
In terms of socio-economic systems, communism and socialism are two different things. For example, socialism involves the existence of a state, while communism does not...[and] abolishes private ownership altogether.
I’ve heard it argued that Communism has never been implemented, as a result. Apologies to Marx and Engels, but it is the supporters of communism who make that argument. Communism as it is now defined requires that there be NO “state”.
This helps us gain some ground. Communism shares this major feature of "no state" with Progressivism! So, where are we now?
These super-liberals, including Dear Leader and those who are currently running congress, have been pushing CapNTax, ObamaCare, apologies for the US, making nice with sworn enemies, international law, eliminating military superiority, etc.. In nearly EVERY area of our culture or economy that they have been pushing most fervently, they push for a leveling of the US with other nations, and attempt to remove national differences and boundaries. These fit with Communism, except that they have NO DESIRE to eliminate "classes" of people, or that the state OWN business- they only wish to CONTROL business as in Fascism (they have stated that they don't want to run the banks or auto companies) and they don't mind that their favored elites are billionaires, just as in fascism. Like fascism, they desire to control individual thought and behavior and forcibly suppress dissent.
Either we stipulate that the “whole world” is the “nation” for Dear Leader et al, to accurately describe their government philosophy, and state they are "ONE-WORLD FASCISTS", or we need a new word to describe their desired governmental system.
A word that would accurately synthesize their thinking is:
CommuFascist
The important point, though, is that whether this philosophy is labeled CommuFascist, or “Progressive” or One-World Fascists, analysis reveals that Dear Leader, Pelosi, and these super-liberals are espousing a MORE EXTREME FORM of Fascism and VERY extreme form of liberalism. Dear Leader is a “one-world” Mussolini.
Far from being pejorative, analysis reveals I was being generous when I was describing them as Fascist, not pejorative. I might be calling them something more extreme instead, “Progressive” or equivalently, CommuFascist.
Yo Nancy, stand on your principles. I’m behind you all the way on this issue.
Tort reform, Nancy, tort reform, but you don’t want to endanger your prime source of graft.
Actually, you can score political points by trying to tack on amendments that you know the Democrats will vote down. Such as pro-life planks, anti-euthanasia planks, tort reform planks, etc. Nancy will then cut off debate and make it so no amendments can be passed, which might actually work to our benefits. A lot of people still don't know how heavy-handed Pelosi gets trying to have her way. She's about as anti-democratic as it gets.
June - Pelosi “We’ll pass this before summer recess”
July - Pelosi “We’ll pass this bill before August”
August - Pelosi “We’ll pass this before the August recess”
August - Pelosi “We have the votes to pass this by Friday”
August - Pelosi “No bill without public option”
1. Why believe you now?
2. You don’t have the votes
3. Move on, try again with the next Demoncat President
we wee
If Death Panelosi and the Dems can railroad this through as a Democrat only bill, then only Democrat voters should have to live with socialized healthcare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A PETITION ON FACEBOOK FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RESTORATION
A 4TH OF JULY TEA PARTY SPEECH
...and on the lighter side, take your mind off the Obamanation for a few minutes and enjoy some beautiful Western US scenery slideshows.
If her mouth is open Pelosi’s lying.
Well I think we gave them too much credit, like we all thught mcCain campaign had a “Secret Weapon”. They are this dumb. Obama is winging it and I am sure he is hearing..”Please Mr. President just go on vacation, even Mr. Alinsky would tell you take a break and reformulate a cogent strategy”
No matter what they do, 0bama and the Democrats are the losers. Democrats are split over the “public option.” For some Democrat voters, it is the most important part, and the only part they really care about. For others, it is a government takeover that will forever divide them from the Democrat party.
Republicans, on the other hand, are universally united against it. 0bama and Pelosi will learn in 2010 that a House divided cannot stand.
It’s already too late for them. The damage has been done. The only question is whether they alienate one side or both.
Hey Nancy, given your poisoned mind set, I bet it never occurred to you that the same goal can be reached by changing the laws and removing restrictions on the private insurers.
What, you never thought of that? I am shocked. /s
Please allow me to adjust your statement to reflect the truth, "Pelosi told reporters that a public option will "keep insurance companies honest in bankruptcy"
Bill?
We don’t need no stinkin’ bill!
>I’m kind of afraid of whats under all that botox!<
I think her botox has some of that brown acid from Woodstock in it.
"Portrait of Nancy Pelosi"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.