Spineless Democrats, not change we voted for

Home » Opinion » Letters To The Editor

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Comment

Dear editor, I'm fed up with the health care reform debate and all the misinformation and fear-mongering committed by the right-wing conservatives with the help of the health care industry.

Unfortunately, they've already won. I predict the health care bill that Congress will eventually pass will be useless and no reform at all. There is no universal health care as in England (and with veterans here in the U.S. as well as prisons and mental hospitals in California), no Medicare for all as in Canada (and Medicare for 65-year-olds in the U.S.) and no real public option except for those who are currently uninsured and live in states that won't opt out (like blue states — all red states like Texas or Florida will probably opt out for their own irrational reasons).

That's right; there's absolutely no competition for the health insurance industry and they will raise rates as they see fit. The Democrats have done it again, gone spineless and folded. They're so desperate to pass any health reform bill that they've gutted it to please the Republicans and not one Republican will vote for it anyway. Terrific strategy. Oh, and we're still spending billions, killing and being killed, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Where's the change I voted for?

Bruce DeBell / Napa

48 comment(s)

alixzander wrote on Nov 4, 2009 12:39 AM:

" the republican base in America is striving to purge the moderates from the party. they want the most reactionary elements of the right to become the foundation for the republican party. it is a travesty that the democrats, while being the majority, yet again are completely spineless in regards to standing up to these tyrants!

but its no surprise. both parties, as far as i am concerned, are tied to the same flawed system. they both operate within the same flawed paradigm. we need to rely on ourselves and our community. we need to find solutions outside the realm of our government and economic system. both have failed us. "

napagrammy wrote on Nov 4, 2009 4:23 AM:

" I don't think it is gutted at this point..if it were, it wouldn't be to please Republicans. PEOPLE don't want it!!! Reform yes...this reform NO!!!! "

kevin wrote on Nov 4, 2009 5:01 AM:

" Absolutely correct Bruce.

If I was you I would be so upset I would vow to NEVER vote again... "

Raven wrote on Nov 4, 2009 5:49 AM:

" so if the extremes on both sides hate the bill, it must be about right.... "

antipc wrote on Nov 4, 2009 5:56 AM:

" The "change" you voted for Bruce is actually a PC term for socialism.

Don't be so hard on those spineless Democrats, the smart ones want to keep their jobs so they're listening to their constituents. That's how it's supposed to work. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 4, 2009 6:11 AM:

" I really wish I could disagree with this letter... "

Cadence wrote on Nov 4, 2009 6:58 AM:

" While bipartisanship is a worthy tool, it is only a tool. Democrats seem to believe bipartisanship IS the goal, regardless of what doesn't get done in its name. Their behavior is reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain, king of appeasement. "

alixzander wrote on Nov 4, 2009 7:44 AM:

" libraries are P.C.terms for socialism! sidewalks are P.C.terms for socialism! public schools are are P.C.terms for socialism! medicare are P.C.terms for socialism! social security are P.C.terms for socialism! bridges and roads are P.C.terms for socialism! Napa T.V. (which has the most hilarious John Birch Society documentaries) are P.C.terms for socialism!

people! i am so sick and tired of these so called tea party types running around, spewing misinformation, and intimidating the community! its only going to happen if we don't stand up to this! if not they will keep running rampant and pushing this country fathering down a nationalistic, social Darwinian, and fundamentalist right road!

i am seriously about ready to mobile the other side! "

Rocketman wrote on Nov 4, 2009 7:53 AM:

" Bruce, Unfortunately you fell for the old "bait and switch" political hyperbole. It was obvious to most of us that this democrat (and for the most part most democrats) tell you what you want to hear and when elected, fall into the party mantra. It was obvious that there was NO change in store. (except if you count the deficit spending at historical records) This will be a one term president, because quite frankly he was never prepared for this job and look at who he surrounded himself with. His ratings are in the toilet because people have come to their senses. The lastest elections in New Jersey and Virginia are the response to this fiasco.

Where is the change I voted for?? It was all cheap talk! Now we will suffer the next few years until this is eventually rectified.

Just watch what this democratic party does. You will become more disenchanted as time goes on.

Thanks for the letter Bruce. Well done! "

Nik wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:58 AM:

" You might ask yourself why you can't purchase healthcare across state lines. The answer is Government.

You might ask yourself why do all these insurance company's have coverage for items that don't effect most people. Because Government requires them too.

Oh and by the way, The American people don't want socialized medicine. I like not having to wait like they have to in Canada. Yes They do. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 4, 2009 10:00 AM:

" Yeah, I'm kind of feeling the same way as the letter writer.

But I'm not ready to lay all the blame on the spineless Democrats yet. I think the Republicans have developed a hefty rule of thumb, and that is: "Place securely on head of spineless Democrat, and depress forcibly."

Seems to work every time. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 4, 2009 10:03 AM:

" " libraries are P.C.terms for socialism! sidewalks are P.C.terms for socialism! public schools are are P.C.terms for socialism! medicare are P.C.terms for socialism! social security are P.C.terms for socialism! bridges and roads are P.C.terms for socialism! Napa T.V. (which has the most hilarious John Birch Society documentaries) are P.C.terms for socialism!"

I just wanted to hear it again.

Thanks, Alixzander; that was good. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 4, 2009 10:06 AM:

" "You might ask yourself why do all these insurance company's have coverage for items that don't effect most people. Because Government requires them too."

Could you please clarify that, Nik? I'm not sure what you're referring to. "

cab e-girl wrote on Nov 4, 2009 10:58 AM:

" Alixander: you are right. I think the term we should be using is Fasicm.

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[ with a corporatist economic system.

Only this time it's coming from the far left.

Sound familiar? "

antipc wrote on Nov 4, 2009 11:13 AM:

" Alix, the left is constantly espousing tolerance, tolerance, tolerance........where's yours?

I haven't seen any intimidation, but I have heard a lot of misinformation....mostly from the left. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 4, 2009 11:26 AM:

" "Sound familiar? "

Yep, pretty much what the conservative right wing offers... "

dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 4, 2009 12:30 PM:

" cab e-girl: No, that doesn't sound familiar.

I'm glad you know how to characterize the pronunciation of fascism, anyway, if not its application. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Nov 4, 2009 12:32 PM:

" Raven, LOL about your Nov 4, 2009 5:49 post. I think you've hit the nail on the head!

What we need is a new political party called "the Moderates" who are not owned by either the Democrat or Republican parties! It takes far too much energy to play tug of war between extreme groups. We need a political party that STARTS out in center. "

Hear Ye wrote on Nov 4, 2009 1:03 PM:

" Lol good luck pinning the right wing system of Fascism on the left. It's bad enough that the vast majority of people who throw the word socialist around don't even know what it means. "

napagrammy wrote on Nov 4, 2009 1:16 PM:

" Well one thing is for sure. This country was divided before, but I have never seen it so divided as it is now. I thought President Obama was going to unify everyone. "

antipc wrote on Nov 4, 2009 1:31 PM:

" socialism:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

And under these reform bills who'd be administrating health care? That's right the feds. "

alucawanza wrote on Nov 4, 2009 2:37 PM:

" antipc
Your definitions don't fit. The feds aren't going to administer health care...they're going to regulate it. For example: The insurance companies will have to accept people with pre-existing conditions. The public option, as far as I've heard, will be just that..an option. States may have the option to opt out. The majority will not be using it as they are already happy with their current coverage (which will not change).
How many factories does the government run?
What goods does the government distribute?
I own my house.
Which wineries are owned and controlled by the government?
(just an example of the means of production).
I think the third definition has an error in it. Shouldn't it be equal? not unequal? Or does this change from unequal to equal during the transitional phase?
Fascism is when you get to the right of the John Birch society. It is not leftist. Too funny.
You should all cut and paste these responses for the next posting you need on a similar subject. It goes on and on.
I'm not disappointed in how it's going with Obama. He stepped into office with a pile of problems (isn't that just too polite?) left to solve before he could begin fulfilling his campaign promises. You get enough people listening to Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity who imagine that they must know what they're talking about because they're on the air, and the news gets full of their rhetoric. Just today I heard on the radio that all the money bills that Bush signed were Democratic in origin. We need some critical thinking out there. Bush had a Republican Congress for six years to help him spend. "

freeport56 wrote on Nov 4, 2009 2:39 PM:

" burried deep within Karl Marx, Frederic Engles, and Saul Alinsky. Did you not pay attention to Barry's friends and his circle of influence????

He ran as a moderate (he is still running), but tragecially is a far-left radical. He is using federal money to coerce states into changing laws for money. he refuses to turn on the water in the central valley so our farmers can farm. He would rather see us import food rather than grow it, redistributing the wealth!

Congress is less than transparent and not even close to being honest. Abortion is in the House bill, but states no federal funding for it. Says it is to charged directly to the patient. But yet, we federally fund abortions overseas. Go figure.

Barry is no unifier, he is a divider by choice. The more distracted we are, the more he can get away with!

Why is not supporting our troops? Why has he not decided to send the necessary reinforcements as request by McChrystal? He is punishing McChrystal for speaking openly about his needs. He is letting men and women die to please his ego. Not to mention offending the Arabs, heaven forbid. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 4, 2009 4:01 PM:

" "I thought President Obama was going to unify everyone. "

It takes two to tango. You can't say the man didn't try. He's getting roasted left and right. The left feels he's been too conciliatory to the right and the right acts as if it won the 2008 election. "

Hear Ye wrote on Nov 4, 2009 4:19 PM:

" Freeport-

If you say you were outraged at the lack of support of our troops by the Bush administration for failing to act on a troop request that sat on his desk for his last 8 months in office then your argument would have a leg to stand on. Since I didn't hear a peep from you about it I'll assume you won't. "

freeport56 wrote on Nov 4, 2009 4:38 PM:

" a teacher-

when barry first took office he met with the republicans. You know what he told them, "we won, get over it!" There may have been one or two meetings since.

It is Nancy and harry that are really creating the divide. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 4, 2009 4:40 PM:

" "I thought President Obama was going to unify everyone."

No, if you recall, that was Bush II. "

AmCanBlogger wrote on Nov 4, 2009 4:49 PM:

" I am very, very proud of the opposition to Barry Soetoro's sociailstic tendencies, and his inability to B.S. We The People by shoving that rotting whale of a health care bill take over down our throats! Mmm, mmm, mmm! "

cpslowine wrote on Nov 4, 2009 6:19 PM:

" "Oh and by the way, The American people don't want socialized medicine. I like not having to wait like they have to in Canada. Yes They do. "

Nik- I have private insurance and it has taken me over 6 months to get treatment for a resident kidney stone. They don't want to offer treatment because it is costly for them and they want to see if it will come out on its own. Like I said it has been 6 months and it is still there. I have to wait because doctors are not making the decisions. Corporate America is. When was the last time you asked a banker to look at your sore throat? Never. Why would you trust them to manage your health care? The reason why health care is in the tanks is because it is being run by overpaid corporate giants and not the doctors who are administering the care.

The good part about national health care is that it keeps profits from insurance companies. Why should we pay a third party for health care when they get to choose if we get the care and not doctor? In our current insurance system we trust corporate bankers to approve who gets care and who doesn't. Crazy, when you think about it. "

kevin wrote on Nov 4, 2009 6:29 PM:

" Amcan,

It's being shoved in an orifice somewhere, but it's not our throats... "

antipc wrote on Nov 4, 2009 6:42 PM:

" Really Alu, so then why does Pelosis' new bill have 111 new agencies & bureaucracies?

Services are considered goods. And look at what government regulation did for the collapse of the housing market, in case you've been asleep regulation was the cause of the current recession.

It's no secret socialism happens over time for obvious reasons. Reference Alinsky & Marx.

Your DNC talking points have past their prime. It's just hard to tell if you don't comprehend the big picture or if you're a supporter of socialism. "

Raven wrote on Nov 4, 2009 7:03 PM:

" 111 new agencies & bureaucracies..

and where exactly are these 11 new agencies...I have the bill and can't find them..so where in the bill are they?

talk about the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to 'talking points'...jeezzzzz..have you actually looked at the bill and found the 'new' agencies....? almost everyone of these suppsoed new agencies is to be admisntred5t6 through existing offices and agencies...so how is that new? "

alucawanza wrote on Nov 4, 2009 7:32 PM:

" Too funny antipc
Let me see, is it lack of comprehension or I'm a supporter of socialism...or am I asleep.
Well, I have a Master's Degree in Education and I am not nor have I ever been a member of the Socialist Party. It must be something else. Oh yeah...I'm not a rght wing type. I believe in honesty in government, health care for all Americans, gay marriage, women's reproductive choice, ending the two dumb wars and bringing all the heroes home, global warming, public schools, and the Constitution of the United States. I fly a flag on patriotic holidays, have voted in every election since 1968, believe in some conspiracy theories, lost a lot of money in the recession, and am a loyal Democrat. I'm also a Niner's fan.
You and I will never agree. It's o.k. You are entitled to your opinion. I believe in that, too.

BTW: It's passed their prime. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 4, 2009 10:17 PM:

" The late, great humorist Jean Sheppard used to say that you could tell a professional pan handler when they asked for a strange sum of money (I need 47 cents to catch the bus to Hoboken). It would be to strange not to be true.

Same with the 111 new agencies, it's just so strange it could be true... "

nik wrote on Nov 5, 2009 4:41 PM:

" cpslowine,

You actually think that public healthcare will be better? Let me repeat that, You actually think that public healthcare will be better?

Doctors will NOT make the decisions. The people 'helping' you at the DMV will be making the decisions.

In addition, they are planning on partially funding this thing with savings found in medicare. WHAT! Why don't they go and save that money first before you spend it. Why is it being wasted in Medicare to begin with? "

Raven wrote on Nov 6, 2009 2:14 PM:

" The people 'helping' you at the DMV will be making the decisions. ..

how trite can you get....the same people who make them now will be making them.....jeezzzzz...nik, do you think non-health care people in the health plans are not making decisions on health care now? "

109823 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 9:58 PM:

" alucawanza, most of the platforms that you support were very predictive but a niners fan? I've lost all respect. "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 10, 2009 4:23 PM:

" 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (semi-check)

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (check)

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. (semi-check)

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (nope)

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (mostly-check)

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. (semi-check)

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (semi-check)

8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (not yet)

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country. (semi-check)

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. (double-check)

The language is archaic, and converting it to modern terms makes it closer, but Bruce is right: They are not there quite yet. "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 10, 2009 4:51 PM:

" Raven & Teach:

Count 'em

http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/09/11/02/new-federal-bureaucracies-created-in "

Raven wrote on Nov 11, 2009 9:59 AM:

" again Mr4, most of those are in existing offices and agencies so how are they new? "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 10:42 AM:

" Raven, are you serious?

Tens of thousands of new government bureaucrats, hundreds of thousands of pages of new administrative code, millions of confused patients and doctors who will be mired in the system, billions of dollars spent by hospitals in an attempt to maintain compliance with the new codes, and trillions of wasted taxpayer dollars.

For starters. "

Raven wrote on Nov 11, 2009 1:15 PM:

" Tens of thousands of new government bureaucrats..

evidence Mr 4, no assumptions, where is the evidence....the bill hasn't even been finished and you know how many people will be hired and how many pages will be printed....even the CBO hasn't done projection on that so where is your insider info from...gop.gov? "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 3:44 PM:

" One cannot produce "evidence" of a future event. An absurd notion.

But one may make reasonable inferences based on logic and experience.

Having studied administrative law under Kenneth Culp Davis, and having been an editor of the California Regulatory Law Reporter, I gained a better than average understanding of the administrative rulemaking and bureaucracy growth that follows enabling legislation. And specific to healthcare I have spent almost thirty years in the field dealing with a myriad of state, federal and local administrative agencies every day.

Based on this experience I believe that my estimates are too modest. That is why I said "for starters".

The ramifications of the House's proposed regulation is far more widespread than simple bureaucracy growth. Unfortunately there is not enough room in this forum to lay out the legislation's certain negative impact on medical research and development, physician supply, overall employment, etc. .

Turning it back to you, can you provide any evidence of federal enabling legislation that empowered an administrative agency, but did not result in the expansion of Federal Code and a larger bureaucracy? Hmm? "

Raven wrote on Nov 11, 2009 6:33 PM:

" don't think I ever said it wouldn't be larger, Mr4, I have always been questioning the numbers thrown out as fact...

(and I am sure we all bow to your better understanding then most on such matters...alas I am just a poor working stiff) "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 8:19 PM:

" The math is not that tough.

If you assume each bureaucracy has only one person per state to administer it, you are already over 5,000.

Ten per state? You know that is too light, and that puts you over 50,000.

Maybe I should have said hundreds of thousands of new bureaucrats. Sounds more accurate. "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 9:49 PM:

" And Raven,

You are the one who asked for evidence. I won't apologize for knowing what I am talking about.

We ain't all gun tote'n, bible thump'n, banner wavin loons, you know? "

Raven wrote on Nov 12, 2009 8:06 AM:

" No facts then, well, so be it Mr4....be it...life goes on.

Loons...another fine members of the avian family "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 12, 2009 7:14 PM:

" That explains it - the avian connection to the loon.

:) "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: