by Mark C. Eades for www.opednews.com

A bipartisan group of six “moderate” US senators, dubbed the “Gang of Six” by news agencies, issued a demand July 17 for a slowdown on Democratic health care reform. These senators – including three conservative Democrats, one conservative Independent who caucuses with Democrats, and two moderate Republicans – asked for a slowdown on health care reform not because their constituents wished it so: recent polls show that a clear majority of Americans want health care reform now including a public health care option such as that proposed by President Obama and progressives in Congress. No, these senators asked for a slowdown on health care reform because the for-profit health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries have bid them to do so in the hope that reform can be stopped, and because these same industries have generously provided them with career campaign contributions totalling more than $11 million.

These six senators – whom I’ll call the “Gang of Sickos” in honor of Michael Moore’s film on America’s health care crisis similarly titled – are Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Ron Wyden of Oregon; Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut; and Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine (Paul Krugman calls them “the six deadly hypocrites”). Their career total and average daily contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries are summarized by Paul Blumenthal at the Huffington Post based on figures from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).

Sicko #1: Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the ringleader of the group, has raised more than $2.2 million in campaign contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries over the course of his career according to Blumenthal, averaging more than $700 per day since taking office in January 2001. Public Campaign Action Fund (PCAF) gives a slightly lower career total of just over $2.0 million for Nelson, and provides extensive detail on his ties to the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries. Before entering politics, as PCAF notes, Nelson spent his career as an insurance executive, as an insurance company lawyer and, early in his career, as Nebraska’s state insurance regulator. As PCAF also notes, a number of Nelson’s former Senate staffers have moved on into lucrative careers as health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists. Comments may be addressed to Senator Nelson via his Senate contact page (Nebraska residents only) or by direct e-mail at: senator@bennelson.senate.gov (CRP: Ben Nelson).

Sicko #2: Democrat Mary Landrieu of Louisiana has raised more than $1.6 million in campaign contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries over the course of her career, averaging more than $300 per day since taking office in January 1997. PCAF provides extensive detail on Landrieu’s ties to the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries. Like Nelson’s former staffers, several of Landrieu’s have also gone on to work as health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists. Landrieu’s opposition to the public option was attacked in a TV ad from MoveOn aired in her home state. Landrieu is also listed as one of the twenty most corrupt members of Congress by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Comments may be addressed to Senator Landrieu via her Senate contact page (Louisiana residents only) or by direct e-mail at: senator@landrieu.senate.gov (CRP: Mary Landrieu).

Sicko #3: Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon has raised more than $1.4 million in campaign contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries over the course of his career, averaging almost $300 per day since taking office in February 1996. Comments may be addressed to Senator Wyden via his Senate contact page (Oregon residents only) or by direct e-mail at: senator@wyden.senate.gov (CRP: Ron Wyden).

Sicko #4: Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut has raised almost $3.6 million in campaign contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries over the course of his career, averaging more than $500 per day since taking office in January 1989. This former Democrat has been the bane of progressives since his signing onto the Bush war program and his opposition to Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. Comments may be addressed to Senator Lieberman via his Senate contact page (Connecticut residents only) or by direct e-mail at: senator@lieberman.senate.gov (CRP: Joe Lieberman).

Sicko #5: Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine has raised more than $1.1 million in campaign contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries over the course of her career, averaging more than $200 per day since taking office in January 1995. Unlike the “Democrats” listed above, Senator Snowe and her junior Republican colleague from Maine, Susan Collins, can perhaps be partially excused for their actions based on the fact that they are Republicans, and are only doing what all Republicans do: Deny the needs of the poor, working, and middle classes in favor of the wealthy, while pretending in Bush-Palin fashion to be the champions of “Real Americans.” Nonetheless, comments may be addressed to Senator Snowe via her Senate contact page (Maine residents only) or by direct e-mail at: olympia@snowe.senate.gov (CRP: Olympia Snowe).

Sicko #6: Republican Susan Collins of Maine has raised almost $1.6 million in campaign contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries over the course of her career, averaging more than $300 per day since taking office in January 1997. Comments may be addressed to Senator Collins via her Senate contact page (Maine residents only) or by direct e-mail at: senator@collins.senate.gov (CRP: Susan Collins).

Based on the average daily contributions given here, Paul Blumenthal estimates that in a 70-day delay in health care reform such as that proposed by the “Gang of Six,” these six senators stand to gain a further total of more than $170,000 in contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries, or an average of more than $28,000 ($400 per day) for each senator. While they and their families remain fully insured throughout this period, many of their less-fortunate constituents including children will remain uninsured and at risk, some will grow ill and be unable to receive care, and some will die unnecessarily. But that’s not your problem, is it, Senator Sicko?

Throughout this period of bipartisan “moderate” foot-dragging on health care reform, Americans should be encourged to watch or to re-watch Michael Moore’s film, Sicko, by which the title of this blogpost was inspired; and which lays bare the reasons why the United States still ranks far below the rest of the developed world in health care for its citizens. With all due respect to Mr. Moore and his intellectual property rights, I think that the urgency of the moment merits mentioning that Sicko may at present be viewed in its entirety for free at Google Video, a link to which should be sent to anyone who has not yet seen it or who may need to see it again.

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

35 Comments

  1. John Nichols on July 20, 2009 at 2:20 pm

    Replace the Gang of Sickos! Find honest candidates in favor of Single Payer Health Care and Replace those who vote after accepting money from the Health Care Industry. Get every state’s citizens together to contribute the only support that is honest and valid TO SUPPORT CANDIDATES IN THEIR STATES TO OPPOSE THEM.

    VOTE THEM OUT! WATCH THEIR EVERY MOVE AND CATCH THEM DOING WHAT THEY SHOULDN’T. EXPOSE ALL OF THEIR TRICKS AND DEVICES.

    John Nichols



  2. John Nichols on July 20, 2009 at 2:22 pm

    If they don’t support single payer, they don’t support citizens. They support the Health Care Industry.



  3. Adam on July 20, 2009 at 2:22 pm

    This Health care “reform” is a joke. And you Mark C. Eades are a fool. These politicians that are bulldozing this reform through are non other democrats with money in mind. And shouldn’t you be pointing out how President Obama had an earmark in the bail out that supposedly gave 225 million in tax cuts to Disney Pixar, his number one campaign attributer.

    Health care does need reform but not a nationalized socialistic approach. If we go in that direction we will no different from Canada, a country that’s people wish they could have our health care system. Sometimes I wonder where you left wing nuts come from? Do you not care about the people of America or are you too stupid to understand what the outcome will be? Look up history and tell me where nationalized health care has worked. It’s simple, we have the best health care in the world, Why should we overhaul it? Just fix the little issues.



    • Andrea Fish on July 24, 2009 at 5:56 am

      Stop listening to the ads on TV! Start listening to the people in Canada, France Gt Britain just about all of them are happy! No one would trade in their present system for USA healthcare version! Get life and get informed!



      • A Rand on July 24, 2009 at 11:55 am

        yep…all happy with no choice, higher taxes, long lines, rationed care

        thats what they are all happy with. they all know no better anyway

        Healthcare is not a right. It is not my responsibility to pay for someone else’s healthcare coverage because by hiking my taxes government infringes on my rights to keep what i earn.



        • jr on July 26, 2009 at 3:43 am

          Those in favor of the new ‘socialized medicine’ need to take a few courses in economics. It is the pay check of everyone of us that will end up paying through the nose for this socialized medicine, should it pass.

          I agree that health care needs reform. Mr. Nixon, and yes he was a ‘crook’, allowed for the health insurance and hospitals to go off non-profit status for profit. That was the beginning of the end of reasonable and affordable health care. Then Medicare added to the fiasco of fraud. Doctors, hospitals and every other health care provider got on the dole and began charging 5-10 times the value of whatever they were providing. Then the hospitals and insurance companies had to keep jacking up their premium to cover the ever increasing charges.

          Never has any government been able to manage money. History is fraught with proof that whenever government gets involved, they inevitably FUBAR whatever they touch.

          The problem is that far too many want something for nothing. But, there are NO FREE LUNCHES. We are all going to pay, and dearly, for this one.



        • pacificapatriot on July 26, 2009 at 11:45 am

          That’s what I like about some Americans: I got mine, so screw you!
          With solidarity like that we’re headed for third-world status in a hurry. Wake up!



      • todd on July 25, 2009 at 3:10 pm

        can you provide a few links to those happy stories please. I would be interested to read those. Personally I don’t understand how people believe that anything the government runs would be more efficient and cost less.



    • billy on August 3, 2009 at 5:00 pm

      What good is a Health care system only the rich can afford?For every 1 story you hear of rationing in other countries you can find 50 in the states. Having the best health care system in the world is only good for those that have access to it. The emergency room isn’t access,and what of those people after they leave the emergency room? This isn’t about the uninsured. This is about the middle class now getting hammered by the industry while our congress makes it law and legal for them to do it. All while taking in millions to get reelected.

      We already don’t have choices, we already have rationing and yes you already pay for all those illegals you are so worked about( as am i)

      Do you have anything better to say then rationing and lack of competition?

      What good is a health system that ties it all to your job? Then you lose your job from many different ways including injury, then what?Please dont say cobra. People like yourself don’t get it till it happens to you.



    • Someone who cares on September 23, 2009 at 4:56 pm

      This guy cracks me up and makes me so upset and angry at the same time. I don’t know what to do anymore. The media has ruined this guys mind :( I’m surprised he even reads because it sounds like exact recording of the bull crap propaganda that is fed to him. A top insurance executive was recently caught saying something like “It’s amazing what we have done. This is like getting starving people to say they don’t want food”. Wake up bro, insurance companies are raping it’s “customers”, if you can even call them that.



  4. Tom Hagan on July 20, 2009 at 11:57 pm

    “Canada, a country that’s people wish they could have our health care system”

    Q: Who is known as “the father of the Canadian healthcare system,” which he pioneered against stiff opposition 50 years ago?

    A: Tommy Douglas

    Q: In 1994, Canadians voted to name “The Greatest Canadian of All Time” Who came in first, with the most votes?

    A: Tommy Douglas.



    • Tom Hagan on July 20, 2009 at 11:59 pm

      Oops. It was 2004 that Tommy Douglas won the competition for “The Greatest Canadian of All Time”.



  5. Rosalie Stafford on July 21, 2009 at 11:16 pm

    It’s not going to pass — THANK GOD! Educate yourselves, you infant socialists, on this issue … and tahk God that wise conservatives have saved your future for you.



  6. Spytheweb on July 22, 2009 at 1:55 pm

    If republicans could today vote down social security and medicare, they would. 14,000 a day are losing their health coverage. Republicans are protecting profits not the citizens, they should be voted out and get a real job.



    • corners on August 3, 2009 at 5:10 pm

      They would also be all gung-ho about sending jobs overseas.How bout lowering capital gains,there’s a free check/tax break.

      Maybe the “Bankrupt the Consumer Act”?

      MediGap D did so well for big PHRMA.GOP love to spout off of how it came in under predictions but they never tell everyone that many on Medicaid were switched to medicare where they ended up paying more for the same drugs. It also made it illegal for medicare to bargain for lower drug prices. Capitalism at its best. Oh, you mean that’s not capitalism? Capitalism is fine for congress until it effects their donors and bottom line.

      Does it make any sense to anyone that the party of free markets is defending the biggest case of non free markets ever? Between decade + long patents on drugs, no negotiating from parties with bigger buying power and the health insurance industry where in over 40 states only 2 companies control over 50% of the market in every one of those states. Many have market shares if 75% 85% and even 98% in one state. Nice free market…..my ass. Im all for free markets with rules, but this is nothing short of a robbery of the American public by our congress and their buyers.



  7. Bob Marston on July 22, 2009 at 2:07 pm

    John Nichols wrote: “Replace the Gang of Sickos! Find honest candidates in favor of Single Payer Health Care and Replace those who vote after accepting money from the Health Care Industry.”

    Look who at who is talking ! The man who bashed Single Payer Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader in the pages of The Nation last year and acted as a shill for the Insurance Industry’s Candidate Barack Obama.

    Duplicity thy name is Nichols !



  8. dingbats on July 23, 2009 at 5:01 am

    So let me get this straight. The government that can’t run anything efficiently is going to run health care and you fools think this is a good thing?

    Canada Canada Canada.. What is their tax rate like????? Did you forget that health care has a COST? It’s not free..



    • Healthcare-NOW! on July 23, 2009 at 11:11 am

      Average tax rate in Canada: 33.3% and national health insurance covers everyone for life. Average tax rate in the US: 30.4% an we leave out 47 million people. Not only that, they get better quality of care, and have better outcomes in key statistics like infant mortality and life expectancy.

      No one has argued that single-payer is free. You might pay more in taxes, but it will be less than what you’re paying for private insurance now. Try out this calculator to see if you’d be paying more for healthcare under the current, profit driven system, or under a non-profit single-payer system: http://www.mirelestech.com/CalcWizard/HealthcareCalculator.aspx

      (http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3665)



      • Helmie on July 28, 2009 at 4:01 pm

        United Health Care just reported record profits. I lost my job the end of last year, and went on my husband’s employer provided plan with UHC. They increased our part of the monthly premium from $830 to $1,100 a month last April (family plan is now $1,700 a month). My husband was not given a choice, it’s UHC or no insurance. I hate to brake your heart, all you skeptics out there, but we are already paying for all the uninsured, and underinsured. We are also paying for the million $$$ salaries and bonuses the health insurance execs get paid. We are also paying for the $1.4 mill a day the health care industry spends to fight health care reform. “Lewin Group” an “independent, non-partisan” Think Tank, according to Republican members of Congress, states that a public option would not work. It turns out the Lewin Group is owned by United Health Care.
        I don’t know how long my husband and I are able to pay these high health insurance premiums, they represent about 14% of our gross income, and we’re not even counting the co-pays for office visits, and the prescription drugs.
        I lived in Germany for the first 36 years of my live. I can assure you, I never had to worry about the cost of health care, I never had to wait in lines, or had to wait longer than a week to get a doctors appointment. Here, if I want an appointment to see my Gynecologist, I usually have to wait about 6 weeks to 2 months. Here, 62% of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills. In Germany there are none. If you work in Germany, you get about 7% deducted from your paycheck for health and disability insurance. You employer also pays 7%. However, there is a maximum amount, and you can’t be charged more, no matter how much you earn. If you are unemployed, the government pays the employer part, and you pay the 7% out of your unemployment compensation. If you make over a certain amount of money (the ceeling is not very high), you can opt out of the public insurance plan and select a private health insurance plan. The public plan always includes all your dependens, while the private health insurance options only insure one person at a time (good option, if you are single). We here in the US do not have the best health care system in the world, we rank about 37th or so. So, all you skeptics, start waking up. Health insurance companies are in business to make money, and show huge profits, so their stock prices go up.



        • Ben on August 3, 2009 at 5:14 pm

          Stop making sense, you will start scaring the anti reform people.



  9. AlexG on July 23, 2009 at 6:00 am

    Enough of winning, healthCare is NOT a right! Before opening once mouth, refer to your Constitution. BTW, you must impeach The Thug-In-Chief, while you still have a chance, and take your country back – window of opportunity will close rather quickly. I came here from Soviet Union, take my word for it: I know communist pig when I see (and hear) one.



  10. Fossil on July 23, 2009 at 7:48 am

    Wow! The ole’ socialist argument crops up from people who are tools of the for-profit health denial industry? Health insurance puts a clerk between you and your doctor in order to siphon off 30% of every health care dollar to CEOs and stockholders.

    Here in Illinois, health insurance costs has increased over 70% since 2000, yet incomes only increased 13%. And that is what these people using the tired fear mongering cry of socialism support.

    I once heard the joke that government administered health care would have the efficiency of the Post Office and the compassion of the IRS. My thought – Gee, is it going to improve that much!



  11. Jim on July 23, 2009 at 10:57 am

    You all are starting to wake up and realize the scapegoat and strawman Republican argument is a distraction. The party that is in real control is the K Street Lobbyi$t party, that is made up of an equal amount of greedy Democrats and Republicans. Thank you “moderate” Democrats like Ben Nelson for being a patsy to the big business interests. Just to be spiteful, I hope that these Dems get “squeezed” between the Obama camp and Republicans in the next election. Just like “moderate” Republicans like Chris Shays almost no longer exist, I hope that “moderate” Democrats like Ben Nelson become extinct.



    • Ben on August 3, 2009 at 5:16 pm

      Im starting to think many blue dogs are just that, republicans pretending to be dems.



  12. Shabba on July 23, 2009 at 12:29 pm

    The problem is that COSTS are out of hand. This does NOTHING to control COSTS. All this does is transfer money from people who work their arses off, to illegal immigrants and others. The majority of the 47 million everyone quotes as uninsured are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Another large chunk is people who can afford it but choose to go without.

    Since when has the government run anything more efficently or better than the private sector? Name one example. I’m a conservative and I’m all for controlling costs, but this bill IS NOT about that. It’s unreal how stupid and naive this country has become.



    • Ben on August 3, 2009 at 5:19 pm

      FYI you already pay for illegal immigrants health care. The ideal that a large chunk of uninsured are young healthy people who just don’t want it is a crock of crap. Most people who don’t have it, more then likely cant afford it. Why do i say that? Because a large chunk of the insured are severely under insured and overpriced. Those same people even with a great plan that their boss pays for are still one accident away from coming to these boards voting for a public option.

      If you think the private health care industry is doing a great job you need to pull your head out of the sand because your wallet is missing.



  13. Shabba on July 23, 2009 at 12:38 pm

    And to add to what I just said, the OMB came out and said this bill does NOTHING to control COSTS. The OMB is a non-partisan government agency that estimates the cost of legislation. They do an estimation for all spending bills. Does this make sense now? People don’t have insurance because it COSTS too much. Therefore we need to control COSTS. Having the government take over Health Care and dictate how everything is run does nothing but create more problems and destroy a good (but too expensive) health care system.

    Wake up people, your liberties are being stolen. This is nothing but one part of a socialist takeover. Cap and Trade, the auto and bank takeovers, the massive deficit spending are the other parts. And I’m sure there will be more to come.



  14. Kingdombulder on July 23, 2009 at 1:13 pm

    I heard this yesterday; “someone who resorts to name calling is someone who ran out of ideas.” I read here the same ideas since Clinton on Health Care…Nothing new under the sun. So, they just call the opposition, or those that still have ideas names.

    Check this out for a different perspective that might spark new idess.

    http://www.youtube.com/stevencrowder



  15. Adealia Artist on July 23, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    Progressives are the new Brownshirts. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you is evil and gets called names. You are children. Single payer is just an idea, but is something that Progressives have become obsessed with and don’t care that most people understand what government run heath care would be like would reject it.

    The USA is going down the tubes, we are broke and bankrupt. We don’t have the money and if this bill and cap and trade are passed we will have a revolution in this country, not because of opposition to either one but becuaser of gross poverty, lack of employment and a standard of living on par with the third world. People will be angry and they will go after the people who put them their, ie Progressives.

    It is a fact that cold and hungry people will burn down the forests for warmth and eat every endanger species with relish. The people of the USA will do the same if pushed. Note to progressives if you think you will get your way think again.



  16. Why Bother on July 23, 2009 at 11:43 pm

    The truth of course lands somewhere in the middle of the left/right argument. One only needs to follow the money. The first thing to remember is that health insurance is actually rather cheap when you think about it. Family coverage costs $10k on average. When employer contributions are taken into account the average American has a take home of $50k. So the average American pays 20% of his or her take home for health insurance for a family of 4.5 individuals. That’s really not terrible when you think that this gets you coverage against cancer, car crashes, etc. Do we have other important things to spend money on? More big screen TVs? (The real problem in the US is actually the high cost of real estate but that’s another issue).

    This said, we have 47 million uninsured. The vast majority of them cannot afford the $10k because these individuals are below the average income level. (Interestingly, individuals who get hit with catastrophic illness who do not have coverage largely end up not paying due to bankruptcy. Those who cannot pay anything end up covered medicaid. So no-one should construe the situation as people being uncovered for catastrophic illness. Individuals are not left to die in either private or nationalized systems. It is however a legitimate case of financial devastation in private systems which could be offset by a more modest *nationalized catastrophic coverage fund* which would not suffer the pitfalls of nationalized care).

    Ironically the primary reason why healthcare costs are lower in nationalized systems is not because of the elimination of insurance bureaucracy. In fact paperwork costs are roughly equivalent between the two systems. (And in fact there are non-profit insurance companies such as Kaiser Permanente who’s rates are competitive with for-profit insurance). In fact insurance works to lower the costs of health care in catastrophic cases. Only insurance companies have the brawn to negotiate at scale with hospitals. So ironically the reason why healthcare costs are lower is because socialized systems intrinsically break the medical monopoly. Doctors have a legalized monopoly over the practice of medicine. This works to increase the cost of health care by reducing the supply of health care professionals. If one digs deep into the savings achieved in Europe and Canada one finds that it occurs in routine care. This can be seen for instance in the field of obstetrics where birth occurs with lower paid midwives almost everywhere except the US. Doctors do make less money of course which contributes to lower costs (arguably better care in this case as well).

    There is also an argument which is probably sound that states that the US inadvertently subsidizes the rest of the world’s health care. Expensive treatments are pioneered in the US and then cherry picked in the other countries. So an interesting side effect of the US socializing medicine might be a rise in cost in the other countries. Or alternatively an overall lowering of availability of expensive care, innovation, etc.

    Rationing does occur in all socialized medicine systems. One can argue whether this is good or bad but one cannot argue that it doesn’t happen. Ethical dilemmas that are solved by the free market (law of the jungle?) must now be solved by legislation or bureaucrat such as end of life issues which cost between 3% and 10% overall of US health costs depending on the estimate. I’ve never seen a study of EOL issues in socialized systems but I don’t think I’m going on a limb by saying one would probably get a few more hours in the US than in Europe (please don’t use the life expectancy argument because it is specious. Life expectancy is a product of lifestyle and genetics – not of health care).

    My own personal perspective is that governments (any large organization really. If you’ve ever worked for one you know this.) are not good at execution. It is a problem of scale. Any policy ends up morphing due to the millions of microdecisions made by individuals at various levels in an organization. A better approach for government is it’s use of capital and legislation to increase fairness in the system and, if following a progressive agenda, to provide a safety net for the unfortunate. A nationalized catastrophic and chronic illnesss insurance fund would serve this function at greatly reduced cost and without the pitfalls of a nationalized health care system.

    Why do I bother posting this on a board where right and left just lob rocks at each other? Well, no-one else wants to listen.



    • todd on July 25, 2009 at 3:23 pm

      Very well stated…and without any political mud. Why can’t the discussions be more like this. Fact instead of opinions or left/right talking points.

      If Washington would have discussions like this instead of the blah blah no one is watching nonsense we get now, our county would be far better served.

      How about some good old fashioned round table discussion. You compromise a little, I compromise a little. Pretty basic.



    • Billy on August 3, 2009 at 5:24 pm

      How can you really say only insurance companies can lower costs by negotiation of prices where year in and year out they try to pay to pass laws making it illegal? MediGap D did just that.



  17. Pookie on July 26, 2009 at 9:08 pm

    Agreed about the polarized rock lobbing. Look, what does everyone expect? Without campaign finance reform this sort of thing happens in all directions. H-NOW simply focuses on this (its key) issue.

    I’m not in support of such politix-for-bux schemes. But until there are meaningful limits on campaign spending and finance, and until the MSM are required to give free and equal time to ALL persons on ballots, this sort of idiocy will continue.

    I would love to see basic health care services for all Americans. But the same governments (state and federal) that give us the miseries of public housing would be giving us public health. I don’t feel terribly positive about this. The US needs much more complex, and less politicized answers. For starters, creating jobs that do real work investing in American productivity and infrastructure.

    But that’s hard work, not as easy as making speeches, having press conferences, and throwing money at problems.



  18. Zeppelin on July 28, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    I don’t want to share My Doctor with More People who are too dumb to get a Good Paying Job, with Good Health Insurance.

    That is what is Wrong with America, Failure is becoming a REWARD!

    If you think I Should Pay for these Illiterates, I think you are just one of those Lame Fence Jumpers, down in California or Arizona.

    Obama just wants to Kiss all of the Illegals Butts, so he can then offer them Amnesty, so the Liberals will have a Continuous Flow of Hispanic Voters.

    He should MOVE to Mexico and FIX Their Country.



    • Billy on August 3, 2009 at 5:27 pm

      This isnt about the poor. They have medicaid already. This is about the “Dumb” people that have jobs and health insurance but are FORCED to buy it or stay at their job because they have no other choices.Most of the people that get their insurance subsidized by the government from their employee’s don’t really see how much is being spent on their plan.So its cool to subsidize your health care thru your work but everyone else can just go shove it because your not “Dumb” right?