Senators: Obama wants bipartisan bill

Posted: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:12 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: Barack Obama

From NBC’s Ken Strickland
The bipartisan group of Senate leaders drafting the health-care reform bill just finished a meeting with President Obama at the White House. The consensus from the group was that the president wants a bipartisan bill.

"The president made it very clear that he prefers a bipartisan solution," said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus.

The Finance Committee’s top Republican Chuck Grassley added, "I believe that bipartisanship was spoken about a lot, and I would be unhappy if it hadn't been. Bipartisanship is not a Democrat bill with five or six Republicans going along with it."

Video: Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., joins the Morning Joe gang to discuss the government's pursuit of health care reform.

Calling for bipartisanship sets a high bar for Congress, because Senate Republican leaders say virtually every one of their members opposes the fundamental concept Obama wants -- a public/government health insurance option to compete with private insurers.

Grassley said the president expressed a lot of flexibility on the contentious issues.

"If he wants a bipartisan bill he can do a lot of things to help make it bipartisan, and I look forward to that sort of cooperation," he said outside the White House West Wing.

Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee ranking Republican Mike Enzi said he was worried about the timeline the president has laid out for finishing the bill and how the massive reforms would be paid for.

"This is the biggest issue that Congress has had to deal with, because it does effect 100 percent of the American people," Enzi said.

Since HELP Committee Chairman Ted Kennedy was unable to attend the meeting, Sen. Chris Dodd has stepped into the leadership role.

"Senator Kennedy should be standing here in my place," Dodd said. "But obviously he's struggling with a health issue and my hope is, as all of us are, that he'll be back, involved and standing in this spot in the coming weeks."

EMAIL THIS

Comments

The Politico had an article yesterday that said Nancy Pelosi doesn't like talking to Republicans. Leaders like Cantor can't even get an appointment to talk with Nancy about any issues or legislation. She says she's too busy getting CIA briefings or something.

NT - Boston MA (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:19 PM)

Why in the world would the Republicans even want to be a part of this train wreck?

The way things look now, there are not enough votes in either house to pass this mess. The Republicans should just let the Democrats hang themselves. They did it with the stimulus bill, and we see where that got us. The same will be true for the health care bill.

DCoker, Jansen OK (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:22 PM)

Can someone explain to me how Congress is suppose to pass a ‘bi-partisan’ health care bill when you have 41 Senators that JUST SAY NO to anything that’s put before them?

Hell they say NO before they’ve even read or heard what’s on the table. I think the President is dropping the ball here! We Won – the PEOPLE want Quality Affordable Healthcare for all citizens… NOW!and yet Mr. President is pussy footing around with these clowns! Write it… pass it… and then RAM it down their triple chinned throats!

You can talk compromise with this bunch… the Party of NO… PERIOD!

No ideas…no alternatives… no BRAINS!

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:26 PM)

It would be interesting to find out--if the ones from the Repuke party who are against this have/are receiving monies from lobbyists from the health/drug/ insurance industries and or have other interests tied to these!

Terry, Disabled Vet, Des Moines, IA (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:27 PM)

"The president made it very clear that he prefers a bipartisan solution," said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus.

The Finance Committee’s top Republican Chuck Grassley added, "I believe that bipartisanship was spoken about a lot, and I would be unhappy if it hadn't been. Bipartisanship is not a Democrat bill with five or six Republicans going along with it."
*******************************************************
President Obama may prefer a bipartisan bill, but smart money says he won't get one even if he stood on his head and gave the Repugs every item they want. He'd better readjust his expectations.

I would be willing to wager Republicans will vote against any provision that makes sense for middle and lower class Americans and FOR any provision that favors insurance companies.

They failed to deliver a single vote on the bailout. Why would they start now when their leaders can only "hope Obama fails" per Boss Limbaugh, et al.

Ginger, Las Vegas NV (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:29 PM)

It will have to be a bipartisanship, because the senate's blue dog democrats will align with republicans.

TEC-Spring-Tx (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:30 PM)

What the hell is Dodd doing on this committee? Doesn't he have meetings with bank lobbyists to contend with? Seriously?

I know I was schooled on his non participation in the Executive Pay hooplah; but I can't stand him. Is he really an expert on both Finance AND Healthcare?

Put Claire McCaskill in there, at least she is pragmatic!

Clara Kansas City, MO (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:30 PM)

Who cares about the private insurance companies? They have been making millions off of the health of Americans for far too long. And clearly, Senator Grassley is in their back pocket.

CdV LA CA (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:31 PM)

Well at the very least everyone has been offered a hand in this piece of legislation. If the republicans were smart they would get involved. This is the most important issue we face. Everyone is entitled to the same health care our government employees are guaranteed. I'm quite sure the average American citizens have earned it more that these career politicians.

dan Austin, tx (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:31 PM)

Yeah, well I "prefer" affordable health care.

So if the Republican Party doesn't wanna participate, it is just FINE by me.

P.S. Is it just me, or does Senator Grassley like to hear himself talk? lol
==================================================
Reprinted for relevance:

I keep hearing the question "How are we going to pay for the Democratic healthcare plan?"

Here's the thing - we will pay for it the same way we have ALWAYS paid for health insurance - out of our income.

The difference is that the government will offer a more AFFORDABLE plan for those who are priced out of the market currently, and will offer subsidized care to those who currently cannot afford any insurance.

Why will the government plan be more affordable? Because the government will not have to charge enough to make a PROFIT off of its health care plan, it will by definition not be as expensive!

One of the biggest money saving features of having a majority of Americans on a similar health plan is that it will save a lot of the Administrative work that physicians currently have to do trying to discern what is and isn’t covered under the hodge podge of plans we have currently, and trying to collect medical debts from people who are simply unable to pay.

To those who already have top notch health care at a price they like, they will be unaffected. The consumer looks at the plans available to them, selects the one the prefer, and life goes on.

So what’s the problem?

Nashville_fan (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:33 PM)

From the previous post:

There was talk during the Bush Admin about 'killing thee beast'

Grover Norquist used to talk about RUNNING UP DEFICITS so we'd HAVE TO CUT SOCIAL SPENDING and dedicate our budget to invading 3rd world nations and various 'smart weapons'

I've always wondered if the Bush deficits WERE DELIBERATE !
Were the Deficits used to KILL GOVERNMENT ??

Remember Dick Cheney: 'Reagan proved that deficits don't matter'

WHY would you CUT TAXES for the RICH while fighting TWOo WARS ?

Why would you CUT TAXES while EXPLODING SPENDING ??

WERE THE DEFICITS DELIBERATE ?
Were the Republicans attempting to 'Starve the Beast' ??

Reagan, Bush & Bush are responsible for 90% of our NATIONAL DEBT !!

MSierra, SF (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:34 PM)

Loud mouth losers NEVER have a plan (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:35 PM)

Of course he wants a bipartisan bill. It gives him cover. Democrats don't need Republican support to pass this; they can do it on their own. I sure hope no Republicans sign on to this disaster.

Emily, Natick MA (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:36 PM)

Let me guess, a tax cut to pay for insurance that is neither high enough to reflect the true cost of private insurance and doesn't address the issue that you would need to have the money up front which is why most of the uninsured are not insured. I know that I would have to pay around 500.00 (that is a low guess, in California you can assume double to triple your group plan insurance) per month and that is assuming I can get private insurance which I can't because I have pre-existing conditions which of course, I can't afford since I have not had a raise in 5 years and will not be getting one anytime soon.

Julie, Palm Desert, A (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:38 PM)

>>Can someone explain to me how Congress is suppose to pass a ‘bi-partisan’ health care bill when you have 41 Senators that JUST SAY NO to anything that’s put before them? <<

Well, it business as usual for the Democrats. It's a different day, but they are putting out the same old crap. How in the world can the Democrats keep spending like this? It's obscene what they are doing, they are raping the country of any remaining wealth it has.

Retired Joe (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:38 PM)

I, for one, pray that Senator Kennedy lives long enough to see a government OPTION to/with private health care passed into law.
It is interesting to read, day after day, the comments of no joe and those like him with their, "pull themselves up by their bootstraps or die trying" attitude. They never give a thought to the truth that some of us have no bootstraps to pull on, and if we don't, then we should die as soon as possible. These people have only their point of view and will not allow any other point of view as a possibility.
Even though I can use my computer at work, I wonder what poor people, young and old, who have no access to this form of information would think about some of the elite classist remarks that come forth? Oh, I guess the last election gave a clue to that question. With the volunteers that went door-to-door, we didn't need computers to let our poor voices be heard. Our president should be able to depend on the entire Congress(both parties) to do what is necessary for the entire American population, rich and poor!
As for the ilegal? For all the talking, ranting and raving, the situation exists! Fact! Where is the practicle solution to stop it? They have all the questions, but none of the workable answers. In the meantime, our healthcare system takes up the slack at the expense of us all. Most of these people have no bootstraps either. We are not Nazi's to gun people down at the borders. Have a little compassion even if you have no empathy.

A Voice from Michigan (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:44 PM)

The party of no has drawn the line in the sand.They have chosen to stand with there insurance company's who don't want anything changed,they like the money they are stealing,it makes it a lot easier to pay off Senators,and lobbyist when the money comes from us.And when will someone from the left shut up the wack job Judd.First he comes a begging for a WH job,then when he gets it he runs like a chicken,back to the roost to run his yap,he is a reminder of what the party of torture is all about.All gum bumpers,and a full tank of Gasbags.I just love when someone refers to a republican as ranking(smelling)

jesse St Paul MN (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:44 PM)

Count Newt (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 12:59 PM)

Taxes have been cut to such a deep level that we are clearly in the 'diminishing returns' quadrant of the grid. Get real.
Clara Kansas City, MO (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:26 PM)

Taxes for people, in Michigan, New York, and California will exceed 50% of their income this year. Think about that. People in those tax heavy states will work from January through June to pay their taxes. Other states like Illinois, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts are closing in on the same 50% level. And you have the gall to say taxes are low?

Count Newt (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:46 PM)

So what's the problem.

Obama is the problem. Because anything he's ever done or will do in the future will be wrong.

Cosmo G. Spacely (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:46 PM)

Why in the world would the Republicans even want to be a part of this train wreck? - DCoker, Jansen OK
==============================================
Because they are unemployed, and their family needs healthcare, and the doctor won't accept tea bags?

Just a guess.
---------------------------------------------------
And after all, it's the government's job to give someone healthcare, isn't it?

Rep Paul Ryan and Sen Coburn rolled out a pretty good plan last month. But of course, only the Wall Street Journal reported on it. Why don't the Democrats sit down with their plan and the GOP plan and work out a compromise? Don't bother answering, I already know why.

Because it's their way or nothing (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:48 PM)

"Well, it business as usual for the Democrats. It's a different day, but they are putting out the same old crap. How in the world can the Democrats keep spending like this? It's obscene what they are doing, they are raping the country of any remaining wealth it has."-Retired Joe
*******************************************************
The last part of your statement is the most telling, Joe. We're in the position we're in because REPUBLICANS spent like a drunken sailor on 2 Wars that have made us less safe, no-bid contracts to Halliburton, and Tax Cuts (to the bone) for the wealthy. Not to mention the egregious self-dealing and blind-eye-to-regulating CDO's etc.

The real rape occured during the 8 years of the Bush/Cheney regime-and I do mean regime.

Ginger, Las Vegas NV (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:55 PM)

I think, if the Republicans don't compromise, then Obama will push the reform through with 51 votes.

No one will care with how many votes it passed. People want affordable health care. And if it doesn't happen now, it will never happen.

I am getting sick of the GOP saying no. They got everything they wanted for the last 8 years. They lost. It's Obama's turn now.

And Blue Dog Democrats can be easily voted out of office if they screw this up. They are as bad as the REpublicans who just say no.

Chandler W. (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:00 PM)

Pelosi and the rest of the democraps have already shown that they won't go along with Obama... they just used him and will override anything he vetos. Congress is now King and Queen.

Fed Up (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:01 PM)

Here's who Obama put in charge of GM: Edward E. Whitacre Jr. built AT&T Inc. into the biggest U.S. provider of telephone service over a 43-year-career. By his own admission, he becomes chairman of General Motors Corp. knowing nothing about the auto industry.

That's okay. Obama is President, and he doesn't know a thing about the economy, foreign relations, energy, healthcare, business in general, or, just like Whiteacre, cars.

Blind Leading the Blind (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:01 PM)

"joins the Morning Joe gang..." that's for sure. It's a gang alright. A gang on one blowhard (Joe) and one fawning princess (Mika) with a couple of stooges. Can anyone tell me how that Dylan guy is getting a show? And why can't Joe let liberals talk? O'Donnell was shoving it down his throat, so as usual, Joe talks over him. I think Joe actually believes that people like his stupid book! Why does he have to take Mika along, and why does she say WE have a book signing? Did she write it? Please MSNBC, give us a liberal in the morning so we don't have to dvr it and rush through all the parts where Joe is talking (about 90% of the three hours....)

LB, Virginia (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:02 PM)

The party of NO will continue to be the party of No on this bill as well. Once they remember that they are no longer the majority and they can't have things their way we country will progress...until then, Mr. President it would surprise me if they were to sign on to Health Care Reform.

Anita, Birmingham, Alabama (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:02 PM)

Julie, Plam Beach, CA - I have not had a raise in 5 years and will not be getting one anytime soon.

You must not work for the government.

LL, Newton Texas (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:03 PM)

Well, it business as usual for the Democrats. It's a different day, but they are putting out the same old crap. How in the world can the Democrats keep spending like this? It's obscene what they are doing, they are raping the country of any remaining wealth it has. Retired Joe (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:38 PM)
====================================================

Under the previous administration they had to raise the debt cap no less than three times. The national debt trippled, going from roughly 3 trillion dollars to nearly 10 trillion dollars.

And Democrats are the spendthrifts? Where was your outrage over the last decade? Where were you when Bush started spending 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq? Where were you when the Bush regime was handing out no bid millitary contracts to Dick Cheney's formor company Haliburton and their subsidiary KBR?

But now that an administration wants to spend tax payer dollars on something that directly benefits millions of Americans without badly needed access to medical care, wants to responsibly sheppard companies that employ hundreds of thousands of hard working Americans through bankruptcy, and has passed a stimulous package that has already started to staunch the bleeding from the recession that deregulation and inept Republican rule caused... oh well, NOW you're a budget hawk!

Hypocrite thy name is Republican.

The Rational Hatter (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:03 PM)

Loudmouth losers NEVER have a plan.

Please don't mention "tabags" again. I went to a teabagging party a few weeks ago and was I ever disappointed! These teabagging parties are not the way I remember them. Oh, I miss the good old days when teabagging was really teabagging.

Larry Craig, Idaho (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:04 PM)

Well, it business as usual for the Democrats. It's a different day, but they are putting out the same old crap. How in the world can the Democrats keep spending like this? It's obscene what they are doing, they are raping the country of any remaining wealth it has.

Retired Joe (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:38 PM)
====================================================
What?????
Nothing has been spent yet Joe. You must be one of those delusional souls who bury themselves in party lines and uneducated opinions. If you were to open your eyes and ears you would see and hear that it isn't just the evil Dems or just the Evil repubs. It's both. There are members on both sides who have sold their souls to big corps. and big banks. They've continued raping our country because everyone gets distracted in the partisan side of politics. If you stood back and actually viewed it as a whole, you'd see that America has arguing over the same silly things for the last 30 years. Abortion, health care, etc etc. While they take all the money and laugh at you. Wake up.

dan Austin, tx (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:06 PM)

I have resubmitted the following because it was not posted yesterday.

Well, Senator Mconnell, I must be "virtually no-one," because all I want to do is buy into the same plan you and your fellow federal government workers get for free. Why is this not possible? Are you afraid to put a price tag on the government plan?

As a second choice, why not let me pay to get medicare benefits before I turn 65. Those over 65 require more care than those younger, but I'll pay the average cost per patient of the system as it stands and still be far better off than the lousy care I get from my provider at a half the cost.

We need to get a system that brings the cost per procedure in line. That is what will make the private insurers more competitive. The cost of everything is now up for haggling. Why should those with no insurance be billed ten times more for a procedure than a health care provider is?

Tim Stocken, Highland Lakes, NJ (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:09 PM)

Well, it business as usual for the Democrats. It's a different day, but they are putting out the same old crap. How in the world can the Democrats keep spending like this? It's obscene what they are doing, they are raping the country of any remaining wealth it has.

Did'nt you just read msnbc previous post on the NYTimes. Our prevous administration and rubber stamp congress are the ones who raped the country. They are also the ones who started the bailouts with no accountabilty what so ever. Those are the facts, but it's clear a few refuse to acknowledge. Amazing! Keep your head in the sand, it appears it belongs there.

American Joe (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:10 PM)

"Bipartisanship is not a Democrat bill with five or six Republicans going along with it," said Sen. Grassley. Actually, yes, it is. The majority party gets to set the agenda, and if they want to they can involve those of the opposition who are willing to offer their ideas without that agenda being utterly compromised. That's how democracy works, and that's how government gets things done. The president was elected on a platform of healthcare reform. The public wants it, and the Republicans are going to be in danger of suffering yet further defeats if they stand too strongly for government doing nothing yet again.

And, senator, it's "a Democratic bill," not "a Democrat bill."

Paul, Danville, KY (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:11 PM)

The republicans are simply not interested in any kind of bill that would provide for universal health care. They're against helping average, every day Americans. How can a compromise be reached with a party this completely out of touch with the economic nightmare that lack of health care has caused for tens of millions of Americans?

Steve Graff, Woodbury, NJ (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:17 PM)

How is it bipartisan when Obama has closed-door, Democrat-only decision-making meetings? One after the other. His definition of bipartisan is not to have input from both sides, but to have the Republicans cave into whatever idiotic scheme the Democrats come up with.

God Help US - Obama Won't! (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:34 PM)

Pres Obama is right to ask for bipartisanship but he knows that the odds for that are near zero. He knows that when he specifically calls for it, and the republicans vote against it, it reminds everyone who the obstructionists are--it's strategy.

Even if the posted comment about Pelosi not liking to talk with republicans is true, my thought is that why should she--the GOP has treated her with complete disrespect and distain, called her names and made pretty derogatory remarks about her. They used her during the 2006 campaign as a person to "fear". Republicans complain about how poorly Sarah Palin was treated but show their own colors when it came to Pelosi and Clinton. Somehow I don't sympathize with many of the republicans. They literally refused democrats any access to meetings and conferences when Gingrich was in charge and even less when it was Bush 43. What goes around, comes around. This is the party divide that Pres Obama wants to change but it is not easy because too many on both sides have long memories.

Just heard the news about the 89 yr old man who shot at least one guard at the Holocaust Museum; he was born in 1920, was a white supremacist and anti-government. Remind me again why the right felt such "outrage" over the Homeland Security terror assessment of increased activities in right wing groups. I'm democrat but I take reports like this whether about the right or left seriously and not personally. Two right wing groups and at least one murder possibly three in less than two weeks.

Jody, Iowa (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:36 PM)

Everyone seems to forget that only congress can spend money not the president so all of this Bush bashing is quite amusing. Who spent money the past 2 years off the Bush administration including Iraq? The Democrats. Who had a lower approval rating than Bush the psst 2 years? ? The Democratic congress. Who rejected the Bush proposal to provide oversight to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when they saw it was in trouble? Barney Frank and the democratic congress. Somehow you conveniently leave this out in your rants. But then again, the lefties will not let a good lie get in the way of their agenda.

MB, Valpo (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:38 PM)

you want to know why private health care doenst work it is simple when i was young you would pay the doctor 80 bucks for a visit without insurance. the doctor would set his price based on what the public could pay. insures come in and and tell you to pay them some money once a month and your vists will only cost 10.00. the problem is the doctor sees there is more room for his profits so he increases his price this makees the insureance rise they price then your back paying 80.00 bucks for a doctor vistit

mike ca (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:39 PM)

What will we do if healthcare reform doesn't happen? I guess we'll have to self-ration care even more than we do now - kids first then the sickest? The 'healthy' will have to hope they stay lucky, I guess. I can see a time when people carry "Do Not Treat" cards in their wallets so that if they are in an accident, the ER won't treat them and they won't go bankrupt from the hospital stay. It looks like we're headed back to the early 1900s as far as getting treatment for chronic disease and cancer - the average person simply can't afford it and isn't willing to go bankrupt to pay for it. As far as the politicians, is it better to vote anti-incumbent, not vote at all, or just not pay attention any more? Maybe we'd all live longer that way. Luck to us all.

Judy (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:40 PM)

When someone goes into a supermarket and stuffs a steak into their pants, the store must raise prices to account for the missing steak. "Shrinkage" is every bit as much an expense as the truck that delivers the products and the salaries of those who work in the store.

A person without health insurance can not be turned away from a hospital emergency room. The cost of treating that individual is now passed on to other patients of the hospital.

It would make far greater sense to give that person preventative care in the form of clinics or out patient facilities than the much more expensive emergency room care.

The SCRIPS plan for children is a perfect example of how it is cheaper to ensure that children are healthy than to treat them after they get sick. The Republicans do not understand this because poor children are, "not their base," and do not vote yet. The Republican Party better get with the program that even poor people are Americans and thus the country is responsible for their welfare.

Tim Stocken, Highland Lakes, NJ (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:43 PM)

Nashville_Fan your explanation of a subsidized healthcare plan is the clearest I've yet heard. It should be articulated that way to the general public.

Lucious Kees, Chicago, IL (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:47 PM)

So what’s the problem?

Nashville_fan (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:33 PM)

*****************************************************

Not piling on something I haven't seen, but the problem is the companies that give insurance now. This insurance is not done out of their generosity. It is done to give them an edge to get the best and brightest people.

Having public insurance takes that away, especially when they have to compete against a company who does not offer health insurance, and can sell their goods for less as a result.

So how do you implement a program that doesn't penalize companies now? I'm sure the last thing we can afford is to have more companies abandoning their program to cut costs, buy why wouldn't they?

Sean (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:49 PM)

The stimulus bill was intended to be bipartisian - that was a joke. The result was a watered down version to entice the republicans - which they rejected. They're not interested in health care - just ask mr. coburn - who's in the pockets of the insurance industry. He'll take care of them long before he takes care of American citizens.

Jilli, Houston, TX (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 3:01 PM)

Obama will get this passed. No doubt in my mind. Republicans will be in up in arms in moral, and faked fiscal outrage. America will proper and Republicans will continue to look like a dying cancer upon this country.
This is the way it is.

Captain Obvious (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 3:03 PM)

Every year, 26,000 Americans die of lack of health insurance. Not only that this is a violation of Americans' civil and human rights, it is the definition of criminally negligent conduct. Congress has openly defied their Constitutional obligations under Article I, Section Eight, Clause One of the Constitution by not mandating national health insurance.

Any Member of Congress who does not want national health care should be charged with reckless endangerment of Americans' lives and negligent homicide. Congress stop playing around, human lives are literally at stake.

I have a question: Why do they think they can take our tax dollars to pay for their health care benefits and not take those same tax dollars to pay for ours? It is pass high time for those ingrates in DC to reciprocate.

D.A.Reuter, Bremerton, WA (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 3:11 PM)

You know my Dad makes about double what I make as a single male per year. I work in Information Technologies and do quite well. He doesn't spend a lot of money and he has saved and done what he needed to provide for retirement. In some ways more than most people do. The only reason he can't retire is he is worried about the cost of health insurance taking every penny they have ever saved. My mom has had some cancer problems and having healthcare is necessary. I wish my Dad could retire in dignity but he has to continue to work and it is a damn shame. Universal Healthcare may seem like some talking point issue to many of you but for some of us who pay our taxes and have no debt it is a serious issue too. I want my Dad to be able to retire and enjoy some years not working his butt off. This would be a huge improvement to security and the wellfare of so many. I'm willing to invest in a smart healthcare system that protects us from the Insurance companies that drop coverage for pre existing conditions and raise rates to unpayable levels. Isn't it time we had some security?

Rod, SC (Sent Wednesday, June 10, 2009 3:12 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1959072