Olympia Snowe: “When History Calls, History Calls”
Olympia Snowe made this statement upon being the only Republican on the Senate Finance Committee to vote for health care reform, enabling it to pass committee. But Snow is still hedging her bets.
“When history calls, history calls,” Snowe said at the committee hearing, but she reiterated her opposition to a government-run insurance option and cautioned that she does not want the bill to get any more expensive as the process moves forward.
“My vote today is my vote today. It doesn’t forecast what my vote will be tomorrow,” Snowe said.
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon put it in perspective.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., had also said he was concerned that the bill doesn’t provide affordable coverage and choice to all Americans.
“We clearly have more to do,” Wyden said, but he voted yes to the bill.
“My vote today is my vote today. It doesn’t forecast what my vote will be tomorrow,” Snowe said.
-spoken like a true maverick!! Take notes McCain if you still think you’re a maverick.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
I’d say Snowe was history.
So basically Olympia Snowe is a liberal who votes for wars. Are you going to run Ned Lamont against her in the next election netroots?
crh3e Reply:
October 13th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Well Mr. Lamont would have to move to Maine and establish residency first before running against Snowe. But my money says Lamont will challenge the governor of Conn. in their next gubernatorial election.
Lib Patriot Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 12:13 am
“I’d say Snowe was history.”
Not in a state like Maine, she’s not. And how come you right-wingers think everybody in the Republican party must dance to your tune on every single vote, anyway? Is the Republican party now a dictatorship?
October 13th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I always thought Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins made quite a Maine pair.
I saw the WellPoint lobbyist lady (she was also thick in the Medicare, Part D corporate giveaway) sitting behind Baucus feeding him the “reform” legislation and I couldn’t help but wonder why the corporations didn’t assign a mole – uh, I mean lobbyist – to “help” Olympia as they did Max. Couldn’t Olympia use a few lobbyist sawbucks in her wallet to grease her vote like Max did?
Without a Public Option, this “reform” is only another corporate Trojan Horse. Recent industry criticism of the bill rings awfully hollow to me. Me thinks they doth protest too much.
Washington has sold out to Wall Street and the corporations and this is likely no different. With all the energy in DC devoted to looking out for the best interests of various corporations, it’s a shame there’s no one in DC watching out for the public good.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Look, it comes down to this:
If we claim that we are at point, say 100, today in terms of providing health care, I offer you a choice.
Would you rather choose a system that moves the poorest from 100 to 130 and the richest to 160? Or would you rather choose a system that moves the poorest from 100 to 120 but keeps the richest at 135?
In system A the poor do better but the rich do much better. In system B, the poor do less well but so do the rich.
Budda Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 1:01 am
No John, it doesn’t come down to your scenario of just two choices. In your illustration I believe you are trying to say the ‘rich’ are entitled to more that the poor ( I could be wrong in this assessment).
How about this scenario. Everyone gets adequate health care and the rich can purchase more exclusive care if they wish to. They can also pay more in taxes for universal health care because they can afford to much more than the poor. Sounds fair to me.
John Galt Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 7:32 am
How about this scenario. Everyone gets adequate health care and the rich can purchase more exclusive care if they wish to.
Even if that care that everyone gets is substandard care to that which they would otherwise have been able to buy?
So as long as it’s free, you don’t care about the quality?
OldLefty Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 7:37 am
“Even if that care that everyone gets is substandard care to that which they would otherwise have been able to buy?”
…………………
There is no evidence for that.
If anything, it is the opposite….when profit depends upon providing less while charging more, it is less likely that you will get a better product.
And it is not, “free”.
John Galt Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 8:00 am
There is no evidence for that.
Other than the fact that America has the best medical care in the world. That a vast majority of innovations come from America. That most drugs are created in America. That drug companies allow their drugs to be sold to the poor around the world knowing that their market in America will give them their [robber baron 3.3%]profit. That the very best doctors the world over escape from the oppression that is their system to move to America.
That evidence?
And it is not, “free”.
Trust me Lefty, I know. It is most certainly THE most expensive boondoogle we have considered in a long time.
OldLefty Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 8:17 am
What innovation comes out of America has nothing to do with how and who insurance companies over for how much.
Much or most of the innovation comes from the NIH and universities.
American drug companies actually sell the same products cheaper in Canada than here and depend upon OUR government to “forbid “ Americans shopping for the best price.
Drug companies usually engage in the late stages of government sponsored R & D, buying some of the chemicals and trials that are needed. In return, then they own the exclusive rights to manufacture and profit from the resulting medicine for years. Nobody else can make it.
Here’s the latest example: factories across the poor world are desperate to start producing their own cheaper Tamiflu to protect their populations – but they are being sternly told not to. Why? So rich drug companies can protect their patents – and profits.
EVERYBODY A$$umes they can say: “trust ME, I know…”
John Galt Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 10:42 am
American drug companies actually sell the same products cheaper in Canada than here and depend upon OUR government to “forbid “ Americans shopping for the best price.
No. Canada regulates the price of the drugs, the US does not.
Budda Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 11:13 am
John, I never said it was free or that the quality would be poor. You are entitled to your opinions but you are not entitled to make up your own facts.
John Galt Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 11:19 am
You are entitled to your opinions but you are not entitled to make up your own facts.
No fact making up here Budda. You just think that you can legislate laws that break the laws of mathematics? That you can simply make things “cheap” and they will, in fact, just be cheap?
It’s not me, Budda, that’s making up facts. It’s you.
OldLefty Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
“No. Canada regulates the price of the drugs, the US does not.
……………………
No what?
I said, “American drug companies actually sell the same products cheaper in Canada than here and depend upon OUR government to “forbid “ Americans shopping for the best price.”
It is a violation of federal law for anyone other than the drug’s manufacturer to reimport prescription drugs….even if they don’t enforce it that strictly.
I don’t see what difference it makes, who regulates the price, clearly the drugs do not HAVE to be as expensive as they are.
John Galt Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I don’t see what difference it makes, who regulates the price, clearly the drugs do not HAVE to be as expensive as they are.
Because America;s have such a high standard of living, we are able to afford to spend our discretionary money to keep us healthy [weird, i know, spending on things ya like]. As such, the market in the US is high enough to allow companies to recoup their costs of development.
When regulations force drug makers to sell at below the “all in cost” of making these drugs they do. And they do it because they cover their costs here.
And yes, of course we are not going to allow the selling of foreign regulated goods across the border. It would be like allowing the Chinese to sell boot leg DVDs here.
OldLefty Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
John Galt,
It is not a question of standard of living….it’s about gouging.
And increasingly, the middle class can not afford the obscenely wild costs of many Rx drugs.
In 2007, one in seven American (under the age of 65) went without prescribed medicines because they couldn’t afford them, according to the nonprofit Center for Studying Health System Change. In general, about 36.1 million children and adults under the age 65 didn’t have prescriptions filled in 2007 due to cost.
As For:
“companies to recoup their costs of development.”
They do very little development…they do mostly lobbying, advertising, and wooing physicians.
And it would NOT be like “allowing the Chinese to sell boot leg DVDs here.”
It IS, like Company A makes the drug illbegone , sells it in Canada for $X.00, for a hefty profit, and sells it here for $2X.00, for double the profit, because the US government works for Company A, NOT for the people.
Ultimately, it means that corporations who write big checks to politicians get to shop for the lowest wages, but they require the government’s help to prevent the people from shopping the lowest price.
anonymouse Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 1:31 am
How about a system that moves the poorest from 100 to 50 and takes the richest to 200?
What fun is it to be “rich” if no one is really, really poor to favorably compare yourself to?
Budda Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 1:51 am
Ah, the ego thing. Yes, you are so correct.
anonymouse Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 2:06 am
Wealth is a relative thing.
John Galt can’t really be sure he’s rich unless there are lots of poor nearby to gauge his wealth against.
John Galt Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 8:18 am
How about a system that moves the poorest from 100 to 50 and takes the richest to 200?
I would agree that such a system would be a bad one; one that we want to avoid. However, I challenge you to compare America’s poor to the poor in all other countries in the world.
Tell me how we rate.
OldLefty Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 8:24 am
“However, I challenge you to compare America’s poor to the poor in all other countries in the world.”
…………
True but aside from the fact that we were only “born” AFTER colonization, and have not had to deal with the rapacious plunder that accompanies foreign empires, our poor are better off because of government policies that were resisted every step of the way by the ‘robber barons’.
Budda Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 11:42 am
I never said cheap John. You are making projections and then acting like they are facts.
Mathematics or economics? One is an exact science and the other, like politics is an every evolving and moving subject.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
True but aside from the fact that we were only “born” AFTER colonization, and have not had to deal with the rapacious plunder that accompanies foreign empires, our poor are better off because of government policies that were resisted every step of the way by the ‘robber barons’.
No Lefty. We are better off because we are the most economically free country in the world; or were.
OldLefty Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
“No Lefty. We are better off because we are the most economically free country in the world; or were.”
………………
No, John Galt, Somolia is the most economically free country in the world.
We have thrived because we regulate capitalism, a la Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Eisenhower.
Our middle class grew because of trust busting, and the New Deal.
John Galt Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
No, John Galt, Somolia is the most economically free country in the world.
No Lefty. It is not. I do, however, appreciate you attempt at taking the call for limited government to it’s extreme; no government.
In order for their to be economic freedom, there must be the protection of the rights of property and of contract. Currently, in Somalia, there is none–or very very very little.
We have thrived because we regulate capitalism, a la Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Eisenhower.
Did you ever hear of the Great Depression of the 20’s? Me either. Wanna know why? FDR wasn’t elected President until later. It wasn’t until he was that the country faced the financial ruin that we all remember. While he didn’t cause it, he without doubt, extended it many many more years than it would have lasted otherwise would have.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Snowe is some of the last of the GOP who is still sane.
It’s a shame their party has become nothing but a racist machine of lies and slanders.
Snowe is a real American. A true patriot.
I spend too much time on the negative, this is a rare change to be positive in this political climate.
Snowe is awesome.
She is what all the other clowns in the GOP should be aspiring toward.
Instead they brow-beat her for not being a mindless anti-Obama jackal.
Morons ahoy!
October 14th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Snowe is a “Cla’awn”
October 14th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
John Galt:
“Did you ever hear of the Great Depression of the 20’s? Me either. Wanna know why? FDR wasn’t elected President until later. It wasn’t until he was that the country faced the financial ruin that we all remember. While he didn’t cause it, he without doubt, extended it many many more years than it would have lasted otherwise would have.”
I have.
It started in 1929.
FDR was elected in 1932, in part to fix the damage encouraged by the previous President.
And guess what?
He fixed it.
The right wingers like to claim that WW2 was what did it, but FDR’s policies had already done most of the work. The upswing flattened out in 1937 because FDR listened to the neocons who told him to stop.
For the same reason, President Obama should ignore the Republicans.
October 15th, 2009 at 5:59 am