AHIP is the powerful insurance lobby that spends 5 million dollars a week trying to kill health care reform. Billionaires for Wealthcare is a grassroots network looking to stop them – with song.
• AHIP and other insurance and HMO interests spend nearly $5 million per week undermining real health care reform, including a public option.
• AHIP has resorted to out-right lying and scare tactics to block health care reform. They sent letters that lie to seniors about what health care reform means for Medicare, and they issued a report on the costs of health care reform legislation that is so misleading even the reports embarrassed authors distanced themselves from the way AHIP used their work.
• Every year, 45,000 people die because they cant get access to the health care they need. Yet AHIP continues to stand in the way of health care reform that would provide coverage to millions of Americans because the industry is more concerned with protecting profits than saving lives.
Tell your Representative to Support the Public Option:
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/publicoption
Lyrics to “Public Option Annie”
(to the tune of “Tomorrow” from Annie)
SINGER #1
No, thank you!
FOR KILLING THE PUBLIC OPTION
AND BLOCKING ANY HOPES OF ITS ADOPTION
THANK YOU, SIR!
SINGER #2
Sure,
BUT WHAT ABOUT COMPETITION?
IT’S AN OLD AMERICAN TRADITION
OR SO I’VE HEARD?
SINGER #1
Meh.
SINGER #3
WHEN OLYMPIA SNOWE
SAID NO,
IT CROAKED
Right?
SINGER #2
NO, THE OPTION’S NOT DEAD
SINGER #3
OR RED!
SINGER #1
EXPLAIN!
Who let these hippies in here?
SINGERS #2 AND #3, and CHORUS MEMBERS
IF WE GET A PUB-
LIC OPTION
WE CAN SNIFF OUT WASTE
JUST LIKE A DACHSUND
COSTS COME DOWN!
SINGER #1
Hey, those “costs” are my profits!
SINGERS #2 AND #3, and CHORUS MEMBERS
THE OPTION
THE OPTION
THE PUBLIC WANTS options
WITHOUT IT,
IT’S A GIVEAWAY
SINGER #1
Exactly. To us. Am I in the right room?
THE OPTION
THE OPTION
THE PUBLIC WANTS AN OPTION
SINGERS #2 AND #3, and CHORUS MEMBERS
OR REFORM IS A CORP’RATE GIVE-A-WAY!
SINGER #1
Well, I’ve heard enough – my helicopter is parked in a handicap space.
Duration : 0:1:59
sedatedlife18 …
sedatedlife18 google mortgage bundling and securitization to find out how the mortgage/banking collapse actually came about.
lol, is singing …
lol, is singing against the law?
For over a year I …
For over a year I thought it might be a good idea if my state took on HCR for citizens here. Not that I need it, it looked like a solution to some economic disadvantages in manufacturing. I’ll declare this close enough and go to bed. peace.
A step in the right …
A step in the right direction by Obama, but not there yet. Bush took a bid dump on the constitution.Neocons are idiots and break constitution if it fits them too.
drugs and all of the things you mentioned should imo be states issues (one state can outlaw them, while others can make them illegal or regulate however they want). in the same way i wouldn’t make any constitutional arguments against state run SS or Health insurance etc or schools too, but I would be against them for other reasons.
States treat drug …
States treat drug enforcement differently and now the Fed is going to back off a bit and allow them to do it more so. Hmmm, under Obama’s watch and not Bush or Reagan; how will the neocons spin this?
A lot of things are “regulated”, or “prohibited” that aren’t mentioned in the Constitution. “Do not call lists”, child labor laws, gay marriage, cloning, talking during movies, etc.
this is the …
this is the underlying problem in our country, the fed government doesn’t follow the constitution because no one is calling them out on it. And if someone does it’s just ignored and people point to “general welfare” and they think it’s ok. well it’s not ok but that’s just the way things are right now. It just turns out that pointing out if something is constitutional turns out to be the weakest argument, or sometimes disregarded completely.
Looks like it has …
Looks like it has gone to court and has basically passed Supreme Court scutiny; guess that “unconstituional” argument may have to be retired.
the answer is …
the answer is simple, constitution is dead, no one follows it anymore except a few people in congress (like ron paul). A good example of that was the alcohol prohibition in 1920s, to have a prohibition we passed an amendment, then to repeal it we had to pass another amendment – all of that was done according to the constitution. now look at today, we have a national prohibition on many drugs but where’s the amendment?? exactly
Does the …
Does the Consitution say we had to put a man on the moon? Or was that a states right issue? What specifically about Social Security separates it from the hundred other programs Congress enacts evey year? And if it is, as you say, un-Constitutional, why has no conservative at any time in the last 70 years managed to squelch it? We both know, there are people who would love to terminate it, so why haven’t they canceled it on Constitutional grounds? Unless, I thought of it first….
i missed that reply …
i missed that reply, what makes it unconstitutional is the fact that it is not specified in the constitution that the federal government shall run a retirement program for the elderly. like I said, if it’s not in the constitution then it’s unconstitutional. Also look up 10th amendment, anything not specified in the constitution is a states issue or just an issue for people to resolve for themselves (which i think is the case, SS is simply saving for the retirement)
No reply to my …
No reply to my comment on your take on the unconstitionality of Social Security? Conceding the point?
Again, no reason an …
Again, no reason an amendment is required; Congress enacts all kinds of programs without requiring amendments for each. The “general welfare” wording in the preamble doesn’t say it has to come in the form of an amendment. HCR does not have to be treated as a civil rights or states rights issue. And the ‘enough’ I’m talking about was the 2008 election and HCR is one of the results.
yes that’s the goal …
yes that’s the goal, but that “enough” you’re talking about is having enough votes to amend the constitution, which is not what is happening in this case.
Also i can argue that the goal doesn’t matter but the actuall effect of the HCR for the general welfare clause, then we have to look at the actual effect and as you can see conservatives argue that it will hurt the wellbeing of this country.
“Whatever states/ …
“Whatever states/people decide must have a goal of improving the wellbeing of the country” sounds like the goal of everyone pushing for HCR. “does not say that anything that improves the wellbeing of the country is allowed”; True enough, but if enough of the populace decides it should be allowed, guess what happens.
What makes Soc Sec …
What makes Soc Sec unconstitutional? Your saying so brings exactly zero reasons. If it was unconstitional, why hasn’t some neocon or right winger gotten a case in front of the Supreme Court and terminated it?
I accept the …
I accept the general welfare clause, but you are not interpreting it in the proper way. General welfare means that whatever states/people decide must have a goal of improving the wellbeing of the country, it does not say that anything that improves the wellbeing of country is allowed. What is and isn’t allowed is more specified in the rest of the constitution.
just because SS or …
just because SS or other progms. are unconstitutional doesn’t mean this one should be also.(const. limits what fed gov can do, not the other way around)
I think your “could …
I think your “could be considered as part of” makes assumptions that runs afoul of your later strict contract requirements; contracts don’t ‘consider’ anything not specifically spelled out. On another point, if you accept all of the Constitution, that would include the “promote the general welfare” wording in the preamble. In our time, that means addressing our system of health care. Soc Sec did not require an amendment, so shouldn’t be necessary for HCR.
human rights are …
human rights are not granted by the government, they exist even if there was no government and no constitution, and the rights are life,liberty, and pursuit of happines(some call it property). government is only supposed to protect those rights but it fails doing that too.
It’s now quite …
It’s now quite obvious that you need to re-read my comment, or at the very least educate yourself. How many sub-prime loans do you think were issued before the regulations put in place? Very few because lenders knew that problems could easily arise. In 1998 a man stood in front of Congress and testified to the fact that if we did not remove the current regulations on the mortgage industry that we would eventually see a collapse. Hmm I wonder if he was right….
Yeah you sure do …
Yeah you sure do because now you’re putting words in my mouth. Oh and one more thing… since we agree that greed isn’t a human right, then why are we arguing about wealth redistribution to help subsidize health care which also happens NOT to be a human right?
You apparently need …
You apparently need to re-read my comment.
I love this . …
I love this . Better than a show of anger. we can disagree and have fun at the same time without a show of Guns.
sedatedlife18 And …
sedatedlife18 And BTW, greed is not a human right
sedatedlife18 …
sedatedlife18 Prolific predator greed requires MORE regulation, not less