Universal Healthcare

And guess who was against it boys & girls:

Quote :

Flashback: Republicans Opposed Medicare In 1960s By Warning Of Rationing, ‘Socialized Medicine’
Tomorrow is the the 44th anniversary of Medicare, an essential government-sponsored health care program that provides coverage to virtually all of the nation’s elderly and a large share of people with disabilities.

At the time of its creation, conservatives strongly opposed Medicare, warning that a government-run program would lead to socialism in America:

Ronald Reagan: “[I]f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” [1961]

George H.W. Bush: Described Medicare in 1964 as “socialized medicine.” [1964]

Barry Goldwater: “Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink.” [1964]

Bob Dole: In 1996, while running for the Presidency, Dole openly bragged that he was one of 12 House members who voted against creating Medicare in 1965. “I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare . . . because we knew it wouldn’t work in 1965.” [1965]

Republicans are of course recycling the same fear-mongering rhetoric today in an effort to defeat the public option. As Igor Volsky notes on the Wonk Room, conservatives have attempted in the decades since Medicare’s creation to kill it and force it to “wither on the vine.” While Medicare is not without its problems, it has dramatically improved access to health care, allowed seniors to live longer and healthier lives, helped greatly reduce poverty amongst the elderly, contributed to the desegregation of southern hospitals, and has become one of the most popular government programs

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/29/medicare-flashback/

sparks wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

sparks wrote:

I think it is really sad that a Senator whose father was such an outstanding Democrat has chosen to sell out the millions of Indiana voters who trusted him to represent our interests in the Senate. Hundreds of American die everyday because they can't afford health care. Senator Evan Bayh is an example of a politician who has been bought and paid for. It is amazing to me that he can tell us with a straight face that the $2.1 million dollars his wife received in the last three years serving on the boards of health care companies has no influence on his votes to fix our health care system.
http://www.post-trib.com/news/elections/1686061,susanbayh0727.article

Yeah. Well do you have any proof that his wife's associations have had an effect on any of his votes on legislation? I certainly haven't read anything that suggests that Bayh is going to oppose health care insurance reform, but perhaps I missed it.

If you have any links that prove your assertions, please post them. Thanks!

In addition to the $2.1 million dollars his wife has accepted from health care companies, Senator Bayh himself received $500,000 in campaign contributions in 2008.Here is a link where Senator Bayh is quoted as saying that he is "agnostic" about including a public option as part of health care reform. IMO, truly reforming health care must include a public option. What I should have said is that while Senator Bayh does support some health care reforms, he is opposed to including a public option as part of the reform. I believe his position stems from all the campaign contributions he has received from corporations connected with healthcare, along with the millions his wife has received.

Yeah, well I don't really want to belabor the point, but Bayh said he was agnostic, which means that he was unwilling to take a position either way on the public option. It's not correct to conclude that he is against the public option.

Look, I don't even like Bayh. But I don't think that there is enough evidence to say that he is "bought and paid for" by the private insurance industry. It's fair to point out the connections, of course, and you have a right to your opinion.

At this point, I'm not sure that the "public option" is going to happen. It looks like the "cooperative" idea has gotten some traction in the House. There is still a lot of wheeling and dealing going on at this point.

I will make one prediction, however. If the "public option" ends up in the final bill when all is said and done, then Bayh will vote for it.