Monday, November 09, 2009

Scott Murphy Gives Bullshit Explanation

Rep. Scott Murphy explains why he voted against the Health Care Reform Bill.

“I remain committed to the goal of providing quality, affordable health care and I will continue to fight to change the broken health care system for America’s families.”

Bullshit! At least you could be honest with those constituents that supported and voted for you. You voted no because it would have been more difficult for you to be re-elected in the 20th district. I understand that would have been the case. But I didn't support you and vote for you only to have you cast votes that can get you re-elected. You've lost my vote and my support. I am seriously thinking of leaving the Democratic party and becoming an independent. I've had enough of gutless Democrats.


Brian said...

Unfortunately, fiscal conservatives (among which Murphy counts himself) have decided to oppose meaningful health care reform. Now, what passed the House really only has one truly meaningful provision: the public option. As imperfect a step as that may be, at least that is something that might be a "game changer." Sadly, I fear the Senate will strip even that modest improvement.

Brian said...

To be completely honest, I probably would've voted against it myself. There are some things in it I liked, others I thought were insufficient but acceptable, like the public option (you try to get as much good as you can but take what you can get).

But the deal breaker for me would've been the fines against individuals who didn't have health insurance. I've always found this totally unconscionable. To me, it's basically a fine against the poor and others who've fallen on difficult times. You tell them they must have something but that it's up to them to figure out how to pay for it or otherwise be fined for not being able to afford it. It's incomprehensible to me.

It's different than single-payer where everyone pays for it via their income taxes (which are graduated, thus taking into account individual financial situations).

To me, basically fining people for being poor is worse than doing nothing at all.

PCS said...

My understanding is that lower income individuals would be covered under medicaid. Those that aren't covered under medicaid would be required to purchase heavily subsidized health insurance.

I just don't buy Murphy's explanation. He voted against the health care bill because he wants to be re-elected in 2010 period. He must believe that those people thankinghim on the Daily Enterprise comments will actually vote for him in 2010.

Brian said...

How heavily subsidized?

Sorry, I don't think insurance should be required unless we get a single payer where everyone pays for it via their taxes.

Brian said...

"It is estimated that approximately 60 percent of poor Americans are not covered by Medicaid."

Clare said...

I have been working my butt off for health care reform. The House Bill is a piece of crap bill. I think it's a good thing that Murphy voted against it. Especially with the "Stupid" amendment attached. This bill will do more harm than good. The "public option" has no teeth. It will not bite. I think any progressive who voted for this bill should have his "Progressive" title stripped away. This health care bill is a boon to the insurance companies and they are dancing in the streets.

PCS said...

I agree that the bill is a piece of crap as it now stands. We need to wait and see what the actual bill looks like. I recently read that the original medicare and medicaid acts were mere shadows of what they are today. Obviously, if a health reform bill actually gets passed, it will be improved upon or reps will be voted out of office. I'm still leaning towards the something is better than nothing. Nothing means nothing for at least another generation. I still believe Murphy voted as he did because he wants to be re-elected.

Brian said...

Frankly, I agree with you on what Murphy's real reasons probably were but giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he has a point. According to Dem rhetoric, one of the main points of the bill is to control health care costs. Even otherwise, I fail to see how the bill accomplishes that. But even more so when you consider the tax on medical device companies. Isn't it incoherent to raise the cost of medical equipment under the guise of lowering/controlling health care costs?? I mean, is Sarah Palin the intellectual heft behind this provision?

Anonymous said...

Murphy needs to learn to listen to a majority of his constituents and not the loudest ones. He lost his Democratic base on Saturday night. He's the only New York democrat from an Obama-friendly district to vote no. That's pretty stupid. And his press release on Monday was an insult.

He's toast.