-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/11/congressman-artur-davis-the-only-member-of-the-cbc-to-vote-against-healthcare-reform/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
No explanation from him is needed.
While it is true a few progresssive whites might vote for Davis I can state categorically the most of the white people in the state of Alabama WILL NOT BE VOTING FOR ARTUR DAVIS.
Not in this lifetime.
Alabama District 7 is 61.7% African-American. 72.2% live in urban areas (primarily Birmingham, Bessemer, Tuscaloosa, Selma and Demopolis). The district’s median per capita income was $26,672.
NO group is disproportionately uninsured than Black folks, and he voted AGAINST healthcare reform.
Uh huh.
Edit/addition:
I can't believe you would classify military benefits as if they were not earned. Telling.
My folks did as good a job as they could raising me, LOL. Maybe with a little state direction they could have done better, no? I don't know any of your family, so I can't really judge much about them other than you espouse socialist beliefs.
An apt quote for you: "How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." R. Reagan LOL
But alas, you do. It's today's politics. It's the politics of race which you try to use to your advantage. My upbringing may have nothing to do with my political stand, but you would impugn both for your political purposes. If you personally knew me or my family then I could accept you criticism at face value....but it might as well be "your mama so ugly..." next. Adieu
http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2009/11/con...
I told y'all Artur had other plans and would vote accordingly. The CBC Monitor has had him in their sights as the worst offender to his Black Constituents since Harold Ford, Jr.
http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2009/11/con...
"I am a supporter of health care reform who believes that the House leadership's approach is not the best we can do. Because we risk a disaster if we get this wrong, I have voted no on the House legislation and continue to root for a final bill that fixes the holes in our health care system and contains soaring costs in both the private and public sectors.
While the Senate Finance Committee bill needs work, there are three reasons it comes closer to achieving the real reform we need. First, the Senate bill tries to roll back some of the aggressive government subsidization of the private health care industry, a trend that has made that industry much too bloated and inefficient. The Senate bill would take the savings and use them to pay for many of the reforms in the package. Second, while there is no ideal way to raise new revenues, the Senate's proposed excise tax on insurance companies is the best of the imperfect options. It will help rein in the profit spiral in the insurance industry. Finally, while the Senate does not mandate that companies insure their workers, their bill would make companies share with the government the cost of subsidizing any of their workforce that is uninsured. In contrast, the House bill sets a mandate on businesses, but allows larger companies to walk away from it by paying a limited penalty: this will surely drive some companies to drop coverage they already provide.
These are all factors that should make even my more liberal constituents cautious about the virtues of the House bill. By the way, its much discussed public option will actually cost more than most private insurance plans. It is also estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that fewer than 2% of Americans would end up in the public option."
http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?S=11466784
That answers my question on why he voted no.
Do you live in an alternate reality?
From my perspective, there were lots of reasons to vote against this bill.
We've entered slippery slope territory with the new amendment attached to this bill. Because it expands the playing field, who's to say the same hospital I list above will be disqualified for federal funding because it performs abortions paid by private insurance or out of pocket?
If I'm wrong on this, so be it. But I still would like to know why he voted against it.
1) He's running for governor, and it's a conservative state
2) He's running for governor
3) He's running for governor
4) His vote wasn't needed, although he had come out against it long ago.
Past that, please note this out of the congressman's own mouth "By the way, its much discussed public option will actually cost more than most private insurance plans." Maybe, just maybe he is showing some common sense.......or it could just be posturing for the governorship. We'll see.
WILL NOT HAPPEN IN OUR LIFETIME.
If I believe that even some of his more conservative positions were forthright, I would consider voting for him. We'll see. The field so far (D) or (R) is not looking too promising. Other than Davis. I don't think I'm alone, caucasian or not.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Kansas City Chiefs running back Larry Johnson was suspended last month after criticizing team officials and posting two homosexual slurs online.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Larry Johnson's record-breaking career as a Kansas City running back is over.
The Chiefs confirmed Monday that they had run out of patience with his off-the-field problems and released Johnson the day he was due to come back from his second suspension in a year.
Johnson, who turns 30 on Nov. 19, was just 75 yards away from breaking Priest Holmes' team rushing record.
The decision by the Chiefs (1-7) was not a surprise.
"A part of him is excited and a part of him is very regretful," Johnson's agent, Peter Schaffer, told The Associated Press. "There's a lot of feelings going on right now. It's analogous to breaking up with a girlfriend. Maybe you saw it coming, but it still hurts when it happens."
A No. 1 draft choice out of Penn State in 2003, Johnson was one of the best running backs in the NFL in 2005 and 2006, rushing for more than 1,700 yards in each of those Pro Bowl seasons.
But often angry and sullen, he was dogged by controversy and frequently at odds with coaches and fans. On Oct. 25, in what turned out to be his final episode with the Chiefs, he posted on his Twitter account several insults to fans, questioned coach Todd Haley's credentials and used a gay slur.
He repeated the slur the next day to reporters and was suspended for two weeks. At Schaffer's urging, the Chiefs cut the financial penalty in half, saving him about $315,000.
Johnson was the subject of an online petition last week calling on the Chiefs not to let him break the team rushing record. He was never a fan favorite and his apology for the online comments came almost exactly one year after issuing a similar apology for alleged incidents involving women in Kansas City night clubs.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573225,00.html
Given the vote was 220 to 215 w/ 32 white Democrats running from it. Davis is insignificant. There are 258 D members 6 are delgates and can't vote. That means that 33 didn't vote for the healthcare bill of 13%. The CBC consists of 41 members in the House(not coounting the non voting reps) which means 2.3% didn't vote for the bill.
This shouldn't even be a post given his reasons were the same as many other D's running for state wide office w/ the sinecure of the House awaiting them should they fail and whom were given a pass.
I'd like everybody to take a look at this video. it encapsulates the problem w/ healthcare. They are multiple; ideology, what is healthcare, what is reform w/in healthcare-insurance to pay for it, who pays if you don't have it, what role does technology play, what does each service cost.
The reason I think we are twisted up in knots is that we never went in w/ a multi tiered concept of what it meant. We never got everyone on the same page. For me it was to get everyone health insurance to pay for preventive care and it's associated issues. I am not even sure now I can flesh out what that means.
For a start it meant a doctors visit once a year to check for the most obvious issues and remember this is going to change or sex and age; vaccincations, checks for prostate cancer, drawing blood to check for the diseases it can eveal, breast cancer, diabetes, diabetes, high blood pressure and the ability to get surgery for the accidents of life-broken bones, tetanus shots, slicing you hand open in the kitchen and burns. This probably doesn't even cover the things a doctor would like in an ideal world or what they would except as a minimum.
As a result the attacks against the bill focus not just on whose ox is gored but what it is supposed to do. You may want to argue presenting a clear goal wasn't politically feasible. To me without it you could never and have never rallied everyone to what healthcare reform is "FOR"; i.e. how does it benefit everyone immediately and in the future.
As a result you can have arguments like socialized medicine means you can't have dialysis if you are over 60(steve forbes in the video) when the real issue is if we catch a kidney or related disease that effects ones kidneys doesn't that give us a way to provide dialysis for the FEW that need it. You can't have a discussion about how insurance works period. Then the discussion of how insurance works when it comes to healthcare.
So I am still waiting to see what we receive. I am not optimistic because I just can't accept that this was the best we could do. I don't think we'll get the public option in any form that sets a national minimum standard and that's the issue that has to be resoved to solve all the other issues.
THE SCAM OF HEALTH CARE REFORM: http://thoughtmerchant.net/2009/11/09/the-scam-...
Artur Davis might be smarter than we give him credit for. Check the blog post above.