'Blue Dog' Democrats: Current health bill not acceptable

[Soylent Brice]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Democrats' push on health care legislation hit a snag Thursday when a group of fiscally conservative Democrats, known as "Blue Dogs," put on the brakes, pressing the Democratic leadership for significant changes to the draft bill.

As the Democratic leaders worked feverishly to finalize details of the legislation for a planned Friday rollout, the Blue Dog Coalition sent a letter late Thursday night saying the bill "lacks a number of elements essential to preserving what works and fixing what is broken."

Forty of the group's 52 members of the group signed the letter, making it clear that a major block of the House Democratic caucus wanted some concessions in order to get their votes. Shortly after the letter's release, a group of the Blue Dogs huddled in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office with other leaders for nearly two hours.

more: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/10/house.health.care/index.html

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. I'll call my blue dog rep today

Thanks for the heads up.

[Soylent Brice]

2. anytime.

[bif]

3. Never mind that they have the best medical care in the world

But we can't have it too. Let them Pay for their own coverage and we'd have universal health care tomorrow.

[marmar]

4. The Blue Dirty Dawgs up to their usual antics....

..... We need the dogcatcher.

[Lasher]

5. Me: Blue Dog Democrats unacceptable.

[sandnsea]

6. Point one, fix the regional disparity in Medicare

Before you create a public option based on Medicare reimbursement. Now that sounds reasonable.

Let's find what IS reasonable in their "demands", and help them get it. Maybe then they'll be willing to listen to things like national negotiating clout, etc.

[Soylent Brice]

8. i'm apprehensive of what could possibly be

considered reasonable in their demands.

it's one thing to say, "hey, let's fix medicare" and another thing to say, "hey, we won't support a public option because it 'looks' like medicare".

goofy. if that's their concern they should just propose legislation to "correct" medicare. of course, i personally don't know anyone that does get medicare that isn't happy with it though, so i'm lost on there cause anyways.

[sandnsea]

14. That's not what the article said

I will take the time to go through his remarks later today. I've gone through some of Blanche Lincoln's. She simply wants it to be set up so its self-supporting, the way rural electric co-ops are. There will still be subsidies, same as for private insurance. But she doesn't think it's honest to say a public option is cheaper if the actual costs are hidden by constant federal funding increases.

[Soylent Brice]

18. gotcha

quick question, what type of increases are you referring to?

just trying to understand.

[sandnsea]

20. Presenting *Her* position

Medicaid, Medicare, VA, IHS, various publicly funded health programs. To some extent, if more treatment is needed, Congress just raises the amount of money that goes into the programs. If we have to borrow, we borrow. They're taxpayer funded no matter what. (theoretically) In the mind of the Blue Dog, liberals will just keep "throwing money" at any public option, whether it's economical or not. I disagree with that, but it's tough to fight ingrained beliefs about government. Regardless, there is a reimbursement problem with Medicare that any doctor or hospital administrator would verify, anywhere. So if we're doing health care reform, it's reasonable to include that and it has been discussed by everybody, including Kennedy, iirc. And it is reasonable to implement some kind of cost analysis of a public plan that really works. So even though I think it's possible to implement a public plan that is self supporting, I think it's reasonable to make sure we have an accouting process that verifies that it's actually happening.

[annabanana]

7. Clearly they are more concerned with those "constituents"

who shovel Insurance Industry cash into their coffers.. rather than the flesh & blood people they are supposed to be representing.

[peace frog]

9. +1

Clearly! Send 'em all to the dawg pound.

[imdjh]

10. Here's an idea- in exchange for their support, promise them stuff in the next term. nt

[Soylent Brice]

11. or the possibility of a next term, rather.

more progressive challengers need to be put up against these folks.

i don't see representation of the people.

[Kingofalldems]

12. The only blue dog I've ever communicated with is incredibly sneaky--

hopefully the congressional blue dogs are up for honest discussions.

[mmonk]

13. The Trojan Horse speaks.

[Enthusiast]

15. How is it exactly

that Blue Dog Democrats differ from Republicans? Would you want to be a member of a political party that was comprised primarily of these "blue dogs"? Fuck these assholes and the rest of the GOP.

And while I'm at it fuck anyone that would water down a desperately needed healthcare bill.

[jody]

16. Apparently Blue Dogs are voting the wishes of their constituents and that helps them get reelected

so the Democratic Party can retain control of the House in 2010.

Obviously Pelosi understands that.

[Soylent Brice]

17. control of 'what' though?

it's a fucking circus.

[jody]

21. A Circus it is but at least Pelosi is ringmaster. n/t

[jody]

22. dupe deleted

[Tim01]

19. Maybe we should just get rid of the blue dog type democrat.

And the areas that elect blue dogs would never elect a democrat to anything ever again. Without blue dogs those areas would be entirely republican. But if some democrats would rather just outright loose, that is an option.

[bobbolink]

24. You really believe that?

[jody]

28. Yes I do because they keep getting elected. n/t

[spanone]

23. i've got another name for the bdd.....republicans

[jody]

29. My name is "Those who let Democrats control the House". n/t

[redqueen]

25. The constituents of these blue dogs need to step up the pressure.

Move from phone calls and emails to in-person visits to offices.

[spanone]

26. 60 votes my assssss

[redqueen]

27. +1