Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama Tells House Democrats He Supports Senate Tax On Cadillac Health Care Plans

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 08:40 AM
Original message
Obama Tells House Democrats He Supports Senate Tax On Cadillac Health Care Plans


WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama signaled to House Democratic leaders Wednesday that they'll have to drop their opposition to taxing high-end health insurance plans to pay for health coverage for millions of uninsured Americans.

In a meeting at the White House, Obama expressed his preference for the insurance tax contained in the Senate's health overhaul bill, but largely opposed by House Democrats and organized labor, Democratic aides said. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private.

House Democrats want to raise income taxes on high-income individuals instead and are reluctant to abandon that approach, while recognizing that they will likely have to bend on that and other issues so that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., can maintain his fragile 60-vote majority support for the bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and four committee chairmen met with the president Wednesday as they scrambled to resolve differences between sweeping bills passed by the House and Senate. The aim is to finalize legislation revamping the nation's health care system in time for Obama's State of the Union address early next month.

Despite the dispute over the payment approach, Pelosi, D-Calif., emerged from the meeting expressing optimism.

"We've had a very intense couple of days," Pelosi said. "After our leadership meeting this morning, our staff engaged with the Senate and the administration staff to review the legislation, suggest legislative language. I think we're very close to reconciliation."

Congressional staff members stayed at the White House into the evening to continue work, and a conference call of the full House Democratic caucus was scheduled for Thursday. Obama is taking a more direct role than ever, convening Oval Office meetings Tuesday and Wednesday of House Democratic leaders.

The House and Senate bills are alike in many ways. Both impose first-time requirements for almost all Americans to purchase health insurance, providing subsidies for lower- and middle-income people to help them do so, though the subsidies in the House bill are more generous. Both establish new marketplaces called exchanges where people can go to shop for and compare health insurance plans. Both would ban unpopular insurance company practices including denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions.


Differences include whom to tax, how many people to cover, how to restrict taxpayer funding for abortion and whether illegal immigrants should be allowed to buy coverage in the new markets with their own money. The House bill covers about 36 million uninsured Americans over 10 years, costing more than $1 trillion, while the cheaper Senate bill covers about 31 million.

House Democrats are steeling themselves to abandon establishment of a new government insurance plan opposed by moderates in the Senate, but in return hope to get the Senate to rescind insurers' antitrust exemption, make subsidies more affordable and agree to establishment of national rather than state health insurance exchanges, among other things. Obama has signaled his support for the House position on the subsidies and other areas, aides said.

The difference in how the bills are paid for is emerging as among the toughest disputes.

The House wants to increase income taxes on individuals making more than $500,000 and couples over $1 million, which would raise $460 billion over 10 years to pay for the bill. The Senate wants to tax insurance companies on plans valued at over $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for couples, raising $150 billion. Most analysts say the insurance tax would be passed on to consumers, and organized labor is strongly opposed, as are House Democrats, some of whom contend that the tax would violate Obama's campaign pledge not to tax the middle class.

"We did in our house bill something that protects middle class Americans from having to pay more for health insurance," Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., a member of the House leadership, said Wednesday. "So far we want to stay to that principle."

House members "have been very clear on that issue and working with the president to stick to what he said when he was campaigning for president, we're trying to make sure this does not affect middle class Americans," Becerra said.


Obama has defended the tax as a way to drive down health costs.

"I'm on record as saying that taxing Cadillac plans that don't make people healthier but just take more money out of their pockets because they're paying more for insurance than they need to, that's actually a good idea, and that helps bend the cost curve," the president said in an interview with National Public Radio just before Christmas. "That helps to reduce the cost of health care over the long term. I think that's a smart thing to do."

In the end the House likely will have to accept the insurance plan tax at some level – say starting with plans valued at $25,000 or more, with carve-outs for certain union professions – but it might not happen without a fight.

A provision in the Senate bill to increase the Medicare payroll tax on high-earners could provide some middle ground, although that measure would raise only $87 billion over a decade.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/07/cadillac-tax-health-care-obama_n_414285.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. Every day it becomes clearer that Obama wants the Senate version to pass.
And the House leadership, at least, seems willing to cave on most if not all of the provisions supported by progressives and originally promised by the president.

No open hearings either.

Spare change, anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. I think Obama wants "a" Health Care Plan to pass
He knows he needs 60 Senators for that to happen. He knows there are four or five Democratic Senators that won't vote for it if there is a tax on the Wealthy instead of the middle class. He is caught in bad situation which I feel sure is not really to his liking. Obama is not the bad guy here, it is Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman. These are two of the very worst Senators with zero convictions. They need to be replaced. There should be a concerted effort to get rid of these guys..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. I am not at all sure that he is the "good guy" anymore...
Edited on Thu Jan-07-10 10:31 AM by freddie mertz
I suspect this is the plan he wanted all along, or at least since the summer.

The signal that he was willing to dump the public option was sent with the "sliver" speech in August.

At the time, this was an attempt to lure a Repub or two into cooperating, but it didn't work.

At the same time, he sent an open door invitation to Lieberman and Nelson that he would cave without a fight, which is exactly what he did.

He also counted on the progressives like Feingold and Sanders' unwillingness to stand in the door on the rush to the SOTU speech "victory."

And thus our fate was sealed.

We were sold out without a fight, and now he denies he ever made those promises.

A pitiful performance at best, with dire consequences for the nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
2. Can we do better?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. This is a lousy idea
When you cut back on the plans, you get higher co-pays and deductables. The theory is that an employer who spends less on healthcare will make it up in higher (taxable) wages, but that remains to be seen.

Without indexing the "Cadillac" limits to inflation, eventually, we'll all be in that category.

This is handing the Rethugs all the ammunition they need to get elected and toss the whole thing out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
4. Seems pushing the Senate "Cadillac Plan" tax is a twofer for this President
Screws the union workers and protects the wealthy from a tax increase. The House plan to tax individuals making over $500,000 and couples making over $1,000,000 raises 3 times the money and doesn't punish middle class workers. What next? We decide not to let Bush' tax cut expire?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Could they get away with this if thy were FORCED to do it in front of the cameras?
And WHERE are the voices of our supposed House progressives as this monstrous sell-out takes shape?

Mr. Weiner?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whosinpower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
6. makes no sense to me
And here is why -tax the "cadillac plans" which will encourage people to shop around and get a less expensive plan - and after they do that - the tax income stream dissapears....so then how is this sustainable long term???

Then there is the supposition that big companies that do get a less expensive plan, will generously give the employees the difference in a wage increase. In a recession - there is plenty of incentive to reduce costs and no incentive whatsoever to increase wages. You are in la-la land if you believe your wages will go up as a result of a less expensive health care premium.

This whole bill fiddles around the edges but never confronts HEALTH CARE COST. It fiddles with premium cost - but not HEALTH CARE COST. And the one chance to reduce health care cost in pharma was eliminated by a back room deal.

Can't see the forest for the trees.....the focus has been lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. It does not make sense
If the true intent is to get rid of expensive health insurance plans and it is successful, you're right, the revenue disappears. It's like the taxes on cigarettes. One purpose is to raise revenue and the other is to encourage people to quit. If you succeed in the second goal, you fail in the first.

And you're correct that the cost of health care was not addressed at all by this bill.

I'm not certain they lost focus. I have come to believe the focus was always just to keep the insurance companies afloat and protect their profits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
7. Today's exercise in futility-an email to the White House
I suppose by now I should be over my disappointment at the selling out of the American people by your administration on health care reform. It became obvious around August you were not interested in fighting for any type of bill which would really protect any average Americans from the abuses of the health insurance industry. I should have known sooner after reading articles about Karen Ignagni's confidence the White House would honor their agreements with her but I did have faith in you as a man who did understand and care about the working classes.

Now, to read about your defense of the tax in 'high end'' insurance plans is just another example of an administration which has gone off the rails in its protection of the wealthy ruling class and its disdain for workers and middle class families. I know it can't be a secret to you that many insurance plans, especially for those over 50, have premiums in the range you want to see taxed and the plans are not 'gold plated' by any means. They are the result of gouging by the industry whose profits this bill protects and I see nothing in this bill which will stop that gouging.

Again, everything falls on those who have spent 3 decades watching their incomes decline and struggling just to keep their heads above water and those who have more than enough are protected. The House plan to tax individuals who make over $500,000 a year or couples who make over $1,000,000 a year raises 3 times the money to pay for this alleged reform of our health care system and, yet, you are against it. Is there a point at which the people with the most will be required to pay their fair share and the working class will have someone in the White House who will stand up for them?

I believe writing you has become an exercise in futility for those of us not well heeled enough to make big campaign donations but I suppose I still believe the people do have a right to seek redress from their government for grievances. Quaint and old fashioned, I know but there you have it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beltanefauve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
40. Excellent letter!
I wish I could write as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. Many thanks
:blush:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don Caballero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
9. I support our President on this plan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Oh, well, that's a shock nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. Why? Because he endorsed it? Or because you think it is good policy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don Caballero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. The President has been correct on almost all policy matters thus far
For that reason I support it. He has a high batting average.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. I do not agree. IMHO, he has been a near total disappointment.
Edited on Thu Jan-07-10 10:15 AM by freddie mertz
Did you support him when he was FOR a public option, and AGAINST the HC benefits tax?

Cause I did, THEN.

This is another man entirely.

Then there was his position on mandates, also abandoned without so much as a blink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoSnqofelsQ

I supported the Obama of 08 through August 2009.

Then he turned into John McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don Caballero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. I support the President period
Every man has his flaws but our President is trying to do what is best for our democracy. I trust him more than I have trusted any other politician in my life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. So you don't care about serial, 180 degree policy shifts?
Edited on Thu Jan-07-10 10:18 AM by freddie mertz
I wonder if you have any real interest in public policy at all.

Kind of like the "new" president Obama (who is not the one I voted for you know, the guy who opposed mandates, opposed taxing benefits, insisted on a public option, etc).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. The president hasn't had any policy shifts
Remember, when he gets called on any, he just denies he ever really campaigned on it. You know, like the public option. He never really campaigned on it. Next we'll hear he never campaigned on change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. To bad he can't erase all that video evidence, though, eh?
He can tell us "we have always been a war with Eastasia," but we have the tapes!!

He's not even a good "dissembler."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoSnqofelsQ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #16
26. Yeah, he has a high batting average, all right
As in knocking the working and middle class upside the head with a baseball bat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. He was right on mandates before he was wrong.
He supported the public option before he was against it.

He campaigned against taxing HC benefits before he began insisting on it.

I guess you could say he has a pretty "expansive" record on HCR policy, since he's been on all sides of the issue, in a very short period of time.

This is not the kind of "Change" he campaigned on, though.

Not at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kansas Wyatt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #16
42. Put the crack pipe down!
And step away from it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudy23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #9
30. Dude, at least change your screen name, it's an insult to indie rock.
Your position and role in this is as corporate as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TransitJohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
10. It's so obvious that after this tragedy of Health Care 'Reform'
that they're gonna come gunning for Social Security and Medicare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Yes, they are
Bernanke already talking 'entitlement reform.' Bet a lot of us thought that privatization of SS was dead once we got the Democrats back in power. The health care reform bill contains the seeds of privatization of Medicare. But, carry on. Growing tired of trying to warn people to get off the tracks before this train wreck hits them head on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thotzRthingz Donating Member (585 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
14. k&r -- freddie... as a registered independent voter, living in VA:
I supported and voted for: Senator Jim Webb (DEM - elected in 2006), Senator Mark Warner (DEM - elected in 2008), Rep. Glenn Nye (DEM - elected in 2008), and President Barack Obama (DEM - elected in 2008). Why? Because there were no viable "Independent" candidates ... and the offerings of the republiCON party were not only unacceptable, they were (expletives deleted)!!!

1. stopping the WARS in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN was my first priority (my preference is for a worldwide cooperative intelligence-sharing and surgical military/police actions ... where terrorists are concerned)

2. (related to stopping these unnecessary WARS FOR OIL SECURITY) getting our BUSES+CARS+TRUCKS OFF OIL period... engines which run on hydrogen OR even plain old compressed-air... are not only feasible, they are in production today

3. publicly investigating, prosecuting, and sentencing... WAR CRIMES committed by those within the BUSH administration

4. getting good affordable health care to every single American, period (the best way is to completely eliminate "profit-mongers" and have the federal government administer a single payer system)


Well, of those four TOP PRIORITIES of mine... so far: Obama, Webb, Warner, and Nye have FAILED MY EXPECTATIONS (on all but "movement toward" getting us out of Iraq). I am not yet ready to VOTE for any republiCONs... but I am also not very enthusiastic about supporting those whom I have, in the past.

I am MAD AS HELL, because in my world, "words matter"! OBAMA has not been true to HIS WORD (regarding a "public option") and I do not take such behavior lightly...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abelenkpe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #14
23. Unfortuanately
I think there are many who feel as you do disappointed by the leaders put in place. Some are discouraged and claim they are unwilling to participate further. Some are looking for alternative candidates outside the two parties. We are dangerously close to electing some fucking lunatic like Ron Paul who would like to strip all unions and government workers of their pension plans, privatize all aspects of our government, and is cozy with racist white supremacists. Heck, even Rachel has been giving time to this bigoted nut-case.

Be careful, next time change may truly be for the worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #23
33. Any candidate has a least a bottom-line responsibility to his or her constituents.
And first among those is to be as honest and forthright as possible.

How can we vote for people who don't have principles, who reverse policy to endorse what they campaigned against, then deny that they have done so?

I'm no Ron Paul supporter, but it would be refreshing to be able to vote for an honest candidate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abelenkpe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. yeah, that would be nice.
I'd like to be able to vote for an honest person who would follow through on their campaign promises. It'd be nice to get to that place without dangerous social upheaval.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
17. How very, very hopeful and changealicious! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
21. He's channeling John McCain.
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. On HC policy, he has BECOME John McCain.
Who I voted against.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #24
32. Actually he is a combination of Hillary and McCain.... if you recall
candidate Obama was against mandates, whereas, President Obama supports them.

How many extra votes did he get in the primaries against Hillary because of mandates?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. He took the votes he needed, then forgot about them.
Honestly, I cannot imagine why the president is doing all this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. I can. He told everyone what they wanted to hear to get elected. I voted for him
but only with the slimmest of hopes that I was wrong about him. The moment he selected Rahm as COS, I knew we were royally screwed.

His meteoric rise raised red flags for me. The fact that Ryan was discovered in a sex scandal during the senate race and the GOP replacing him with the insane Keyes was telling. The moment he voted to recommend Rice as SOS in committee just bolstered my feelings about him and prior to the election, his vote for FISA and telecom immunity.... my vote was against McCain...not for Obama.

I am now firmly in the camp that we have a controlled one party system. The "Democrats" are a bit more kinder and gentler, but in the end, the agenda of both parties align. It is Kabuki theater at its very best. The Republicans might be howling about how awful the HCR bill is, but that's for show. Their corporate masters are sitting back, grinning from ear to ear.

The only way we can exorcise this is to have real campaign finance reform and to boot for-profit lobbyists out of DC altogether. Without that, we will remain, as it is apparently is now, a corporatist state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. You won't get any argument on this from me.
I'm done with the lot of them.

Fool me once, like Bush tried to say...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DisgustedInMN Donating Member (956 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
27. Time to waste some more time..
... writing the WH and my Senator.

But then, I've got plenty of time, as I can't get so much as a callback for the hundreds and hundreds of applications I've put in for ANY job, AT ALL. I'm almost as disappointed in Barry the Liar as I am with myself. After 4 decades in the workforce, a lifetime of learned skills, an exceptional work record, and a willingness to take ANY job...

...I'm relegated to the scrap heap. I wasn't raised to be a "quitter," but I really don't know how much more of this I can handle.

Shame on you Barack Obama. Shame on you Senate Democrats.

You are killing this nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
29. This hurts to say: Obama favors not taxing the rich--hit union workers
instead. He is a DLC, Third Way New Democrat.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kansas Wyatt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #29
44. New Democrat = DLC = DemoRAT
Reagan would be so proud of Obama.

Bill Clinton thinks this is just the best idea, since NAFTA.
RAH! RAH! RAHM!

We are all fucked and NONE of the Democratic Leaders gives a flying fuck about us... They have become Republicans.

And there you have it. A year after the Republican Party had their ass whipped and the Democratic Party finally had a mandate to run the government for the American People for several years to come... The Democratic Party Leadership has cut it's own throat and invited the Republican Party to come back and beat them up again, so they could crawl back in bed with them and cry about being abused.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
37. Obama prefers the Lieberman-Nelson-Baucus plan to his own version.
The House bill is much closer in terms of public option and financing structure to Obama's original plan, yet he is pushing for the Lieberman-Nelson language.

Why should anyone in the House trust him again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
39. Kicking.
Lest some forget.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadesofgray Donating Member (350 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
41. Obama clearly wants to be a one-term president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 04:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC