And when the bill goes back to the Senate for reconciliation, don’t expect any Alabama votes there, either. Both of Alabama’s senators are on the record as opposing the bill, but that’s not surprising. As staunch conservative Republicans, they stand with their party, which has zero support for health care reform.
The only surprise “no” votes — and the surprise factor there is quite small — are from Bobby Bright of Montgomery and Artur Davis of Birmingham, the only remaining Democrats in the state’s congressional delegation. Parker Griffith of Huntsville — himself an oncologist — disappointed and disillusioned his Democratic constituents when he changed parties in January rather than support health care reform.
Our congressional delegation would have us believe that this reform effort is not in our best interest, that it would somehow hurt us, that we are better off keeping our insurance-driven health care — or, all too often, lack of health care — just the way it is.
In this state, 555,100 people do not have health insurance, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Only 10,000 of that number are older than 65 — remember, Medicare kicks in for retirement-age folks — but 70,500 of them are children.
Imagine the combined population of Talladega, Sylacauga, Childersburg, Waldo, Mignon, Winterboro, Munford, Lincoln, Riverside and Pell City as sick children with no access to a doctor. That’s how many kids in this state are without health insurance.
Think of the crowd of fans at one of the races at the Talladega Superspeedway, all sick at once with no doctors on site. Now double that picture, and you approach the number of people in the state who live in poverty and are uninsured, 370,000 whose only option when they are sick is to wait in a crowded hospital emergency room or stay at home and hope they get better on their own.
Now consider the number of residents in the state’s two largest metropolises, Birmingham and Montgomery. Push them all into one bundle, tie a ribbon around them, and hand them to the Republican minority in Congress who believe that half a million Alabamians do not need or deserve health insurance.
The health care bill awaiting passage in the House would make health insurance available to 32 million Americans who do not now have it. It would stop insurance companies from refusing to cover people who are already sick. And the Congressional Budget Office, which works for both parties without allegiance to either, has reported that the bill would reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over the next 10 years.
To pay for the expanded coverage, starting in 2014, Americans would for the first time be required to buy health insurance, just as they are now required to buy car insurance. No longer could they opt out of health coverage in favor of hanging out in the ER and letting the rest of us pay their hospital bills when they should have been treated in a doctor’s office or clinic.
Large businesses would be required to offer coverage for their workers or pay a fine, and families making less than $88,000 a year would receive government help to pay for health insurance. The Nebraska Medicaid plum has been eliminated in favor of more Medicaid money for all states, and Medicare recipients who have gaps in their prescription drug coverage would get the first benefit of this reform bill, a $250 rebate this year.
It’s a popular fallacy that the United States has the “greatest health care system in the world.” If this is so, then why is it that when you call a doctor’s office, the first question you’re asked is not, “What are your symptoms?” but, “Do you have insurance?” For people who have to answer “No,” that’s often the end of the conversation. Why is it when you walk into that doctor’s office, even if you have insurance, you can’t get past the waiting room without shelling out $15 or $20 up front as a “copay?” Why, when you do have to go to the hospital, do you face bills for months or years to come because your expensive insurance covers only a fraction of the cost?
Health care reform was needed 20 years ago, and it is needed more now. We are the generation to fix this mess, and this is the time to do it.




That's a great argument, except that ACORN is shutting down.
Check out the story here
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/us.acorn.closing/index.html?hpt=T2
And Birdy, shooting people over their political beliefs is still illegal in this country -- a bit on the unChristian side too, there was a commandment in there somewhere about murder. Heck, it's even illegal in Alabama. Might also want to go back and re-read that part about German politics. Did you know that the Nazi party actually had a militia wing, the SA, whose job it was to carry out violent attacks against opposing parties. At one point, the Nazis actually created so much violent discontent that parts of the country were on a war footing?
But wait Birdy and hunch, there's more -- "During 1921 and 1922, the Nazi Party grew significantly, partly through Hitler's oratorical skills, partly through the SA's appeal to unemployed young men, and partly because there was a backlash against socialist and liberal politics in Bavaria as Germany's economic problems deepened."
Sounds familiar. Hitler and the Nazi party based their initial rise to power on attacking liberals. Same thing was going on in Italy. Seems you all have a lot in common.
On another post, BG, some interesting points there. One in particular, the attack on the Second Amendment, we can rest a bit easier on. Most political analysts say because of the power of the NRA and the gun lobby, gun rights should be safe, especially at the federal level. The NRA is too good at getting its message out and rallying the vote for for pro-gun politicians for there to be any successful opposition. The D.C. case was especially helpful. Such a move is proof the political system can actually work to protect our rights as long as we hold the politicians accountable.
We are great at doing it for the Second Amendment, but not so much on other parts of our civil rights.
Why is it that we can so effectively protect our right to own guns, but let things like property rights or protection from unreasonable search and seizure or due process fall by the wayside?
Just a thought.
Great input, BG. I'm glad you're feeling better and are posting again.
Any chance you are the same people? Your writing looks a lot alike. I'm just sayin...
As for sucking up to Civlized, not a chance. The point, if you are catching it, is to actually debate the issues, not just spout angry rhetoric. Everyone stays so angry over things we used to be able to talk about civilly that we can't really do anything to move the country forward.
Soooo, as long as people are going to behave like that, there are going to be people like me to give them grief. It's time to take back the country from the pudding-heads.
NO ONE, including me, objects to helping truly poor people who can't afford things. I just don't like that it's dictated and spent from my paycheck without my choice and without any accountability.
You might end up in the pit yourself. "Judge not lest you be judged."