You are hereBlogs / John Martin's blog / More Loyal Than Specter

More Loyal Than Specter


By John Martin - Posted on 30 April 2009

I like a lot of things about the Specter defection. First, it shows the Obama administration can work with (and handsomely reward) people who want to cooperate to get stuff done for the nation. Also, this whole disaster will probably hasten the time when we completely bottom out, if only slightly.

I also like how these events have given a platform to Christine Todd Whitman, Olympia Snowe, Lindsay Graham and other reasonable Republicans, and has absolutely, positively discredited the hard right (yet again).

Even with all those pluses, though, here’s my favorite: Arlen Specter’s move should remind everyone just how loyal Obama Republicans are to their party. When Specter announced he was becoming a Democrat, he pointed out that over 200,000 Republicans in his state had done the exact same thing last year. I’m sure some more did the same in 2009. These Pennsylvania Republicans abandoned the GOP to become Democrats, deciding it wasn’t worth sticking around to help push the party back to normalcy. We stayed.

Of course, I don’t blame ex-Republicans for doing what they felt was right, as I don’t blame Senator Specter. I just hope they’re all wrong, and that our loyalty eventually pays off in the form of a more normal party some day.

I hope so John for yours and the others on this site. I don't know if I qualify to comment on this as a Democrat, but the way I see it right now and in the near future is that it will take some major downfalls within the party before it comes to its senses. I really think with the younger generation coming of age that they will stick with the Dems or be Independent. I was almost a full Republican when I voted for GWB the first time, I believed in the principles(not the social ones), I don't see myself ever going back, if the dems ever get too out there for me or don't back up my princliples anymore I will be an independent again. I'm only forty one, but what I have seen in each generation after me is that they have become very open-minded and diverse. They  care about gay rights, they are more pro-choice and all those social things that the Republicans are not. They have to change that (meaning not force it upon people to adopt their views). They are not old fashioned in that sense. If a younger generation takes hold of the Party and all the white, old men are dwindling then I can see it becoming relevent again with a whole new outlook. Hang in there, if you can. If you can't there is always the Independent option, until it becomes what you are looking for.   

They (the hard right) can't change their ways. They've demonized people who believe in choice or tolerance for way to long. They can't stop now.

Anyway, how do we not know that those 200,000 Republicans who changed to Democrats, and then gave the primary to Hillary in PA weren't part of Limbaugh's Operation Chaos?

In which case, they would either change back or vote R (especially Hard R)?

Just something bouncing around in my weak brain.

I doubt many people switched their registration to vote for Hillary.  Maybe a handful here and there, but nothing that could make a dent in 200,000.  I think Rush's nonsense may have played a small part in open primary states.
I'm sure many of us remember the media at times mentioning Obama's "political jujitsu".

This was the political equivalent of Gen. Schwartzkopf's "Hail Mary" maneuver that turned Desert Storm's ground offensive into a cakewalk.

Well, okay, maybe not the best equivalent, but that's what this whole thing seems like.

----

It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.

Lewis Black

Speaking as a Democrat, I don't get why the Specter move is good. He's against EFC, against a public option that will compete against private insurance, voted against the budget.

I see no principles that he shares with the party. I'm glad we're a big tent party now, but even moderate/ conservative democrats like Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson etc agree with some of those issues.

 I think a primary should step up soon. Pres.Obama is backing him, could cost him politically with his base.

I know how you feel, Warsame!!  I'm very angry with Specter for opposing the public option component of Obama's healthcare plan!  This is a critical part of Barack's vision for the country (one that he wants passed this year).  Although I laud his vote for the stimulus!  

 I must aplaud John's decision to remain loyal to the party. I wish more politicians would have remained loyal to the party, and the country. In regards to this blog, I am having difficulty with Johns comments regarding the Party, and Mr Specter. Some of you may be aware of my previous posts' in which I explain balance, and the necessity for it within the party. We need the far right, as well as the moderates to maintain balance within the Republican party. Without it, I am afraid we will lose our identity.

  I can't say that Specter's decision does anything to hurt the far rights' position. In fact, I believe it only strengthens said position. Think about it this way; One less moderate in the Republican party makes room for one more conservative. It also gives the Conservative movement a little traction in the "I told you so" argument. Many conservatives believe Specter was never really a Republican, so this move makes sense to them.

 Which brings me to my next point. John said "First, it shows the Obama administration can work with (and handsomely reward) people who want to cooperate to get stuff done for the nation." I will agree that Obama is working with, and handsomely rewarding, Mr Specter. And that does bode well for the President and his administration, at least for now. But let's be honest with ourselves about Mr Specter's reasons for switching parties. Arlen Specter is an opportunist. He jumped from the Democratic party years ago because it benefitted him, not his constituency, to do so. And now, given his recent slap in the face to the GOP, finds himself benefitting once again from a convenient party switch. Arlen Specter has no regard for America, his people in Pennsylvania, or "cooperating to get stuff done for the nation". Arlen Specter cares only about political survival. I am not saying Mr Specter made a mistake. On the contrary, this was a brilliant decision. He would not have lasted in a Republican primary in his bid for re-election. He may not even last in a Democratic one. But with the President's, and perhaps the party's, support, it is his only hope. And if Arlen Specter believes he can help America more by being re-elected, this was the right decision to make. Now it is up to the fine people of Pennsylvania. We will see next year if they want to re-elect Arlen the Self Preserving Oppotunist as their Senator.

 I just pray that the Democrats do not take advantage of this fillerbuster proof majority and do anything America will regret.

"I just pray that the Democrats do not take advantage of this filibuster proof majority and do anything America will regret."

On that score, first of all, the Dems do not have a filibuster proof majority. The Minnesota Senate seat is still vacant, pending Norm Coleman's appeal to the MN Supreme Court (and who knows what, and how long, beyond that).

Secondly, the Dem caucus has always been more independent-minded (because of more varying viewpoints) than the GOP one. When asked which organized political party he belonged to, Will Rogers said "I don't belong to any organized party. I'm a Democrat." That was over 70 years ago, but his tongue-in-cheek remark still resonates as somewhat serious even today.

 

 

 

Elections have consequences. Why shouldn't we take advantage of the filibuster majority?

Republicans did the same thing with the  $1.3 trillion dollar bush tax cuts.

 If Dems don't get health care reform done, it's going to cost them dearly.

Elections do have consequences. I agree.

 Rather than use the "They did it first" excuse for behaving badly, let's all, Republicans and Democrats alike, rise above the immaturity and do what is best for the country? Let's stop harping on the Bush presidency and move on. We all know it was a rough 8 years, let's not make it another rough 4 to 8 years under this president.

 And health care reform is one of those things I was referring to. We have excellent health care now. Why the need to "fix" something that isn't broke?

We have excellent health care now. Why the need to "fix" something that isn't broke? 

Uh, no.  We don't have excellent healthcare.  Millions of us are uninsured, because of pre-existing conditions and unemployment.  Millions more have junk insurance that forces them into bankruptcy when they face an serious illness.  For starters, insurance companies shouldn't be able to retroactively deny coverage to a person who has paid their premiums.  Secondly, why should any company be allowed to make a profit off of someone's suffering.    

-----------------------------------------------------------------------     

"Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
"Or the one."

- Captain Spock & Admiral James T. Kirk

- Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Couldn't the same be said for any hospital, lab, dr's office, nursing home, etc that games the system by ordering unnecessary tests, surgeries, etc?


 

unnecessary tests, surgeries, etc?

You and I will never agree on this, so I don't know why I even bother. 

Who gets to decide when the test is unnecessary?  An claims agent at an insurance giant who receives bonuses for denials, or my primary care physician? 

What if that unnecessary test reveals something that could become terminal, but would have been missed without the unnecessary test?  

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
"Or the one."

- Captain Spock & Admiral James T. Kirk

- Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Chance there is plenty on record and posted within the various threads and from personal anecdotal experiences that there is tons of unnecessary tests ordered (especially for Medicare and nursing homes) that are only done so to gain profit for the facility.  It works both ways in that insurance companies want to make a profit and so do healthcare facilities.

From cbs: Unnecessary

I have to agree with both of you....which is why I am having a problem with healthcare being a "for profit" enterprise.  Bottom lines start driving decisions, as opposed to the well being of the patient. 

Healthcare professionals deserve to make a good living, so that is not my point.  It's the "business" aspect (insurance companies and healthcare facilities) of it that makes me crazy.

Completely agree!  Not sure you can take the profit motive out of the equation on the service provider side but as Nightwinger alluded to in another thread, the controls being placed on the price of reimbursement has lead to this type of behavior. Reimbursement in the US is essentially fee-for-service. Physicians get paid a set amount from an insurance company or Medicare/Medicaid for every service that they do. With reimbursements declining and overhead increasing, ordering more tests generates more revenue for a practice.

 

 

Excuse me Chance, but what does the problems with health insurance have to do with health care? I said we have excellent health care, not health insurance.

 Our health care is Excellent.

 And we have public aid, and local clinics, for those who are not covered currently, due to pre existing conditions and unemployment.

 And the answer to your question; "Secondly, why should any company be allowed to make a profit off of someone's suffering."  Isn't that exactly what insurance companies are in business for? A Profit? Isn't that the whole idea of a free market? It may be somewhat revolting to some, that people profit from other peoples misfortune or illness, but it is what a free market is about. Doctors profit from suffering. Hospitals, X-ray techs, Pharmaceutical companies, Band-aid companies, etc..... I mean why should Band-Aid make a profit every time a little child scrapes his knee? Why should Tylenol make a profit because my grand kids give me a headache? I guess if there wasn't a free market, we would have less Band-Aids and Tylenols for all our woes. I would suppose that it's a good thing there is a profit to be made from peoples suffering, otherwise we may be mired in that suffering forever.

A Profit? Isn't that the whole idea of a free market? It may be somewhat revolting to some, that people profit from other peoples misfortune or illness, but it is what a free market is about.

As foreign a concept this may be to some, but there are people who think that health care shouldn't be a free-market enterprise. I think that's too extreme myself, but I also think that the profit motive should be secondary to vital care.

----

It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.

Lewis Black

Actually, MR, our health care really isn't as excellent as you might think.

The World Health Organization ranks the US health system at #37.  http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

And by my count, there are 45 countries that have better infant mortality rates than the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate_(2005)

I have personally received good health care, but I would not extrapolate that everyone else in the country receives good health care.

 I have seen the study from the World Health Organization. And I am not sure I would put validity on a study conducted by the United Nations regarding world health care. I was to understand that some of the criteria used in the study was based on social programs that the United States does not have. I believe the WHO to be biased and unreliable in this situation.

 We do have excellent healthcare in this country. You are a testimony to that truth by your own admission. As am I!

 And by my count, there are 180 countries with a higher infant mortality rate. Making our rate of 6.26/1000 pretty excellent by most standards. 0.6% infant mortality rate seems pretty excellent to me! wouldn't you agree?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

 I found this snippet while doing a quick search regarding cancer survival rates. "And while the USA has the highest 5-year survival rate for prostate cancer than any of the 31 countries studied," That seems to be pretty excellent as well. And I am sure there are many more examples of the great health care we receive here in America.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080716184419.htm

But, really, anecdotal evidence means nothing.  You and I both know that.  And the fact that I have money and good health insurance helps to ensure that I have access to good health care.  And before you said, “And we have public aid, and local clinics, for those who are not covered currently, due to pre existing conditions and unemployment.”  Well, those people may have access to some health care, but not necessarily good health care.And I find it ridiculous and shameful that the U.S. has pretty much the worst infant mortality rate of all the developed countries while we outspend every single other country on the planet.  And Slovenia and South Korea are ahead of us?  Huh?

 I too have money and good health insurance. And although our public aid and local clinics do not provide great healthcare, and possibly even poor healthcare, I am reminded of a  promise of "the pursuit of happiness". What is to prevent these uninsured from obtaining great healthcare in the manner in which you and I have? It may take sometime for them to acheive good health insurance, but the public offering will do until that time. They are, and were given the same opportunities you and I were given. Nothing is out of reach, without the proper effort to obtain it.

And once again, our infant mortality rate is excellent. I remind you the percentage is 0.6%. As for Slovenia and South Korea. Perhaps we should do a little research to see why these countries have better numbers than us. Maybe it's possible that the number of drug addicted babies in Slovenia and South Korea are considerably less than the U.S. There are many factors, some of which are not related to health care, that factor into infant mortality. Like Car accidents. I wonder how many car accidents take lives in South Korea and Slovenia. Just some ideas as to why we have a higher mortality rate than those countries.

What is to prevent these uninsured from obtaining great healthcare in the manner in which you and I have? It may take sometime for them to acheive good health insurance, but the public offering will do until that time. They are, and were given the same opportunities you and I were given.

MR, please forgive me, I don't want to seem rude, but this is a ludicrous thought process.  Either you are really disconnected from the realities of povery, or you just plain don't understand it's cycle and limitations.

As a matter of fact, it sounds like Sean Hannity...work hard and invest wisely.  Sadly, that doens't work for everyone.

Excellent. I am being told my thought process is ludicrous while being compared to Hannity. Thank you.

 Is it wrong to believe that hard work and perserverance will get a person out of poverty? Is it "ludicrous" to believe in an American dream that so many people flee other countries to pursue? How is it that we have so many success stories in this country that are atributed to hard work and perserverance? Wealth and Health are not unobtainable.

 I am not rich by any means, but I worked hard in my life to achieve certain goals, and now live a relatively comfortable life. As for your postulation that I am disconnected from poverty, and just don't understand it's cycle and limitations. You are wrong ma'am. My personal history has more than it's share of days without a meal and nights without a roof. But ultimately, I chose to work my way out of it.

That's odd. I thought it takes hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to pay for treatment of illness or injury without medical insurance. I thought that individual plans are, as a rule, prohibitively expensive for those on low-paying jobs.

I think what Suzi was getting at is, not everyone ends up working their way out of poverty. Is everyone in the USA able to find exactly the same circumstances and opportunities as you did? One of the things about the diversity of this nation suggests that this probably isn't the case. How about those who are perfectly able and willing to work but are rejected for a stupid thing they did in their youth? How about those who are forced to quit their jobs because they must care for a loved one with rising health care costs?

It's a pervasive problem, and I don't know if all the "work harder" messages will get people out of it.

----

It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.

Lewis Black

Is everyone in the USA able to find exactly the same circumstances and opportunities as you did? No, each person is different with different skills and different dreams. So their circumstances may be different, and their oportunities may vary, but they do have the opportunity to not be poor.

 How about those who are perfectly able and willing to work but are rejected for a stupid thing they did in their youth? Keep looking. Perserverance was the key for me. Not letting the fight get the best of me. And if all else fails, seek employment elsewhere. I'm sure not every employer is interested in mistakes of your youth.

How about those who are forced to quit their jobs because they must care for a loved one with rising health care costs? These are choices we make that put us into this situation. And although these decisions are tough, they are ours to make. And their are consequences for our decisions. But that doesn't mean that person needs to stay impoverished. We cannot pass laws because some people choose not to work, for whatever honorable reason they make that choice. Otherwise, we would have many people with new and inventive reasons that choose to be unemployed. Like we do now, with welfare, only worse.

 I believe I understand Suzi's intent. I just disagree. And I most definitely believe that hard work and perserverance will definitely "get people out of it". All of them, should they so desire. Look at Chance's story. That should be inspiration enough. I'm sure Chance has daily struggles with health and wealth, but perserveres to improve his/her position through hard work.

Is everyone in the USA able to find exactly the same circumstances and opportunities as you did? No, each person is different with different skills and different dreams. So their circumstances may be different, and their oportunities may vary, but they do have the opportunity to not be poor.

I mentioned this because while it may be the same country, circumstances vary wildly from locality to locality. This is a great nation as you say, but I'm not as confident as you that everyone has "the opportunity not to be poor". But I'm probably just being cynical.

----

It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.

Lewis Black

It appears you and I may agree more than we think, but while you may be cynical, I am more optimistic. I believe there is very little more durable and determined than the human spirit. And given the right motivation, I feel everyone can obtain health and wealth. I believe limitations are what we set on ourselves, not what society bestows on us.

Thank you, Suzi. 

I didn't choose poverty.  I did all the right things, but poverty still happened.  I went to the best schools and earned a degree.  Then, had a lucrative job that I worked very hard to achieve success.  I didn't choose to develop two chronic illnesses that took two years (and thousands of out-of-pocket dollars despite a premier Blue Cross/Blue Shield coverage package) to find a diagnosis and often meant that spent days in pain unable to work, unable to hold onto my lucrative job, and unable to find a replacement source of income for more than two years.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 

"Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
"Or the one."

- Captain Spock & Admiral James T. Kirk

- Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

 "and unable to find a replacement source of income for more than two years. "

 But you seem to have found that source of income, and are possibly on your way back to wealth and health, correct?

 I am not saying people choose poverty. I know I didn't personally choose it. But I did choose to get out of poverty, much like you, Chance. There will always be people who fall into poverty through no means of their own. But how they handle that poverty is the true beauty of this country. Each and every one of us have the ability to pursue happiness. There are no restrictions on how wealthy one person can become in this country, should he or she choose to become wealthy. I am all for equal opportunities, but don't we have that? What exactly is stopping the uninsured and poverse from digging their way out of the hole they are in?

But you seem to have found that source of income, and are possibly on your way back to wealth and health, correct? 

Yes, part-time work with the possibility of 3/4-time in one year, unless the employment outlook in social services (or higher education) improves greatly in the next year.  Health varies from day to day.  Wealth will take a few years to recover, but it will happen.   

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
"Or the one."

- Captain Spock & Admiral James T. Kirk

- Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

"....but it will happen."

 That is exactly my point. And why should we expect less from others? Opportunity is there. Life is not easy. I know mine hasn't been.

 I congratulate you on your recent turn for the better, and I wish you all the luck in your future!

MR, the reason that our infant mortality rates are higher than others is because of the lack of prenatal care in large areas in our country.  It is because of premature birth.  There actually are places in this country that are a bit like a third world country.  It is not because a lot of babies die in car accidents.  As a matter of fact, very few babies die in car accidents due to child care restraints.

And, not everyone is given the same blessings for opportunity in this country.  I can tell from the fact that you are able to write and spell, you were actually given more opportunities than many children.  If you were born to a 13 year old crackhead who didn't know how to read, you might not have the same opportunities as other children.  Not all children are told that they can be anything they imagine.  Not all children are even taught proper English or even imagine that they should speak proper English.  If your mother feeds you Mountain Dew in your baby bottle, you might not end up with the same opportunities as many other people.  Honestly, the biggest predictor of what a child will become is what they are born into.

There are a few people who I would love to take on a tour of southeast Texas or southern Louisiana.

 Although I am sure you are correct regarding the numbers, you cannot argue that we have more accident related infant deaths than the other countries you mentioned. (South Korea and Slovenia) simply because we have more opportunity for accident. And as I mentioned before, we also have more babies born addicted to drugs than those countries. A point you elaborated on quite well, and I thank you. I am sure there are many reasons for our numbers being higher than those of other countries. And I would honestly love some information you may have regarding your areas need for attention in this matter. I have a friend who would definitely be interested, and he may be in position to help. This is a matter close to his heart.

 But all these figures aside, and the ugly truth about many places in our country, we still have only a 0.6% infant mortality rate. And that is no reason for alarm, and certainly no reason for universal healthcare.

 In reference to my ability to write and spell,, things are not always as they appear. I am in my 50s, and it has taken a lot of my years to develop this command of the english language. I was born very poor, and was not afforded many opportunities. Much like the children you speak of. In fact, I cannot submit a post without my thesaurus and dictionary open in 2 seperate tabs. And I must re-read my posts each time before I submit them to make sure they are mostly gramatically correct and understandable.

 So I have to disagree with your statement "not everyone is given the same blessings for opportunity in this country. " Although we may not be born into the same opportunities and blessings, we are all able to obtain them. You just have to perservere.

from this article:

In the United States between 1940 and 1980, most states had laws requiring hospitals to be non-profit organizations and to treat all who came through their door. The philosophy was that we want doctors making decisions on what is best for their patients and not what makes the most profit.

Then along came Ronald Reagan, followed by Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. Health care became a privilege and not a right. The local example is the loss of the Washoe County Medical Center as it morphed into Renown Health Care. Now if you have a lot of money you can get the necessary health care. If you aren’t rich, you get what won’t cause a loss to the medical corporation. People in power made huge profits off of the privatization of hospitals by milking all of the money out of them when they made the transition to a private entity.
http://dailysparkstribune.com/pages/full_story?article-Health-care--A-right-or-a-privilege--+=&page_label=full_story&id=55520&widget=push&open=&

 

I thought most hospitals were not for profit?  All the ones in my area at least are.

Just researched the ones in Austin.  Some are non-profit, some are for-profit, and some are a partnership of non- and for-profit.

First of all, Specter has already said that he will "not be a loyal Democrat".  Just as he has voted his beliefs and constituency in the past as a Republican, I see no reason to expect him to do otherwise now.  If his constituency (the people of PA) is now mostly Democrat, I see it as a wise political move for him personally, although I hate losing one of the very few moderate Republicans in Washington. 

You talk about the need for balance in the party, and I agree.  Then you wrote:  Think about it this way; One less moderate in the Republican party makes room for one more conservative.

There is so little balance now, as the party is terribly weighted to the hard right.  If you really think we need balance, why don't you want more moderates instead of more hard core conservatives?  It is this very imbalance, and the messages from the far right, that are destroying the party today.

 

 I never made mention that I wanted more conservatives. In fact, that was exactly my point. Moderates lost that seat in the senate to the democrats, and now, a conservative MIGHT get that seat. I was pointing out how the far right may view this is a good thing, rather than the bad thing John suggested. I think you did not understand my point. I think if you re-read that sentence as if a moderate wrote it, you will see it the way I intended it.
Not to mention the problems with trying to win back conservatives (the Goldwater kind, not the Gingrich kind):
  • Some might not be so keen on a party that is screaming for fiscal responsibility after spending like drunken sailors for 2 wars. These were prime targets for Libertarians.
  • After concentrating the conservative base of the GOP, I don't know that there are many people identifying themselves as conservative outside the party. So continuing to appeal to hard-right conservatism when one probably has the lion's share, especially with all the moderate voters out there identifying as independent, might not be the strongest strategy.
----

It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.

Lewis Black

Poor Arlen...he is destined to be a victim of party hacks...lol  Now the Dem party is starting to make some of the same noises the GOP made because he wouldn't vote lock-step with them.  Dean and Carville have both spoken out about it.  From the HuffingtonPost:

Less than a week into his tenure as a Democrat and Sen. Arlen Specter is already stepping sharply on the toes of party elders. Key Democratic figures warned on Monday that their newly minted colleague, despite having the backing of the White House, could face a tough primary challenge should he continue to oppose key tenets of the party's agenda.

"I'm pleased that he saw the light and decided he would be a better fit for the Democratic Party and I think you have to allow for his political views to evolve," said former DNC chairman Howard Dean in an interview with the Huffington Post. "But he won't win the Democratic primary by taking the position that you should not have [the Employee Free Choice Act] or a public option for health insurance... If he takes these kinds of views, of course there is going to be a Democratic primary."

Ahhhhh, politics....under the skin, they are all the same.

 

 I think he may be viewed as an opportunist by both parties, and neither of them will take him very seriously at this point because of his seemingly self preserving nature.

 Either way, I think you are right. He is a victim. He just so happens to be a victim of his own decisions.

As for health care and opportunity, I used to believe the Rush Limbaugh talk about "anyone can make it in this country. People that don't make it are just lazy." But after doing some research and working with students of poverty, it is quite a steep climb for many in that boat. When students enter school without having exposure to books or or knowing letters, they are at an extreme disadvantage. When you get knocked down over and over, sometimes it's hard to get back up. In my personal relationships, I have known "middle class" people to suddenly find themselves in extreme debt due to high medical bills or a disability. It is truly sad. We need to stop talking about it in terms of stats and look into the eyes of our fellow Americans who are suffering. I think we need some compassion here as we work to overhaul our health care system. Sorry if that sounds liberal.  If you want to stick with numbers, surely we all know that many changes we are talking about (for example computerized sharing of med. records)will save us money in the long run-big time-on top of saving lives. Sure we could list some positives of our health care (easy for me since I have coverage) but let's all agree that we do need to overhaul the broken parts of our system.

As for Spector, I think he'd beat any ultra-conservative. What he needs to worry about is a Dem. (who might get union support) challenging him. How easy would it be for soemone to use the "I never said I'd be a loyal Dem" quote against him? Or someone like Tom Ridge being his Republican opponent (but would conservatives allow a Pro-Choice guy on the ticket?) 

 

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook

RSS

 

 

RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for republicansforobama.org. We will never share or sell your email address.