What People Say?Different people with different perspectives

Narrow passage of a sweeping health care bill by the House of Representatives portends a continuing difficult fight for President Obama and fellow Democrats to get a bill through the Senate and into law.

The House voted 220-215 late Saturday, with 39 Democrats opposed and one Republican in favor, to approve what would be the biggest expansion of health care coverage since Medicare was created more than 40 years ago.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act, or H.R. 3962, restricts insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition or charging higher premiums based on gender or medical history. It also provides federal subsidies to those who cannot afford it. And it guarantees coverage for 96 percent of Americans, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

But turning the bill into law remains uncertain. The Senate must now pass its own version of a health care bill, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada last week signaled uncertainty over whether that will happen this year.

Once both chambers have passed a bill, a congressional conference committee will merge the two proposals into a consensus version that would require final approval from each chamber and Obama’s signature.

On Sunday, Obama praised the “historic” House vote to pass the bill and called on the Senate to “take the baton” and complete its work.

“For years, we’ve been told that this couldn’t be done,” Obama said, citing the decades of failed health care reform efforts. “Last night, the House proved differently.”

The president called the support by many House members “courageous” in the face of “the heated and often misleading rhetoric around this legislation.”

“Now it falls on the United States Senate to take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people,” Obama said. “And I’m absolutely confident that they will.”

However, Republicans and an independent senator who sits with the Democratic caucus signaled Sunday that difficulties remain for Obama on his top domestic priority.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, reiterated that he would join a Republican filibuster against a health care bill if it contains a government-run public health insurance option after the chamber’s amendment process.

Speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” Lieberman called the controversial public option, which is in the House bill and the Senate version being prepared by Reid, an unnecessary provision intended to bring government-run health insurance in the future.

“If the public option is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow the bill to come to a final vote,” Lieberman said. He previously has said he won’t oppose opening Senate debate on the bill despite the public option provision, and he maintained that stance Sunday.

Lieberman’s stance is crucial because the Democratic caucus has the minimum 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster. Senate Republicans unanimously oppose the public option, though Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine has floated the possible compromise idea of a trigger mechanism that would mandate a public option in the future if thresholds for expanded coverage and lower costs go unmet.

The lone House Republican who supported the bill, Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao, told CNN on Sunday he put the needs of his district over the desire of his party.

A lot of my constituents are uninsured. … It was the right decision for the people of my district.
–Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao, R-Louisiana

Cao’s “yes” vote ended up being unnecessary for House Democrats, but it gave House Speaker Nancy Pelosi license to tout bipartisan support for the controversial measure.

“I felt last night’s decision was the proper decision for my district, even though it was not the popular decision for my party,” said Cao, a first-term representative from Louisiana’s traditionally Democratic 2nd District. “A lot of my constituents are uninsured, a lot of them are poor. It was the right decision for the people of my district.”

Cao acknowledged he extracted some White House pledges to help his district deal with the continuing effects of Hurricane Katrina in exchange for his vote. Asked about the reaction of fellow Republicans, Cao said the party’s leaders “respect my decision, and I respect theirs.”

Also Sunday, Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, the chamber’s third-ranking Republican, said on the Fox program that Democrats were ignoring the wishes of the American public by pushing through the huge health care bill.

Pence said the health care bill would raise costs, increase the deficit and lead to a government takeover of the health care system.

“I think the American people are deeply frustrated with the liberal establishment in Washington,” Pence said. “If Democrats keep ignoring the American people, their party’s going to be history.”

Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland responded on the same show that the Congressional Budget Office reported that the House bill would reduce the deficit.

I think the American people are deeply frustrated with the liberal establishment in Washington.
–Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana

Van Hollen chided Republicans for failing to confront rising health care costs harming the U.S. economy during the years they controlled the White House and Congress.

“We’ve had a great system for insurance companies,” Van Hollen said, citing large industry profits as Americans face what he called unfair practices such as having coverage denied for pre-existing conditions. “This is a message to the American people; we’re trying to bring down your costs to help more Americans afford health insurance.”

The House vote less than an hour before midnight Saturday was full of drama. With eight seconds left in the voting period, Democrats began counting down and erupted in roars when Pelosi declared, “The bill is passed” and banged the gavel.

Republican lawmakers stood silently across the floor, some with their arms folded across their chests.

“Well, it was about what I thought it would be,” said House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio as he quickly exited.

Later, he issued a statement saying the $1.2 trillion legislation would add to the country’s “skyrocketing” debt.

“I came here to renew the American Dream, so my kids and their kids have the same opportunities I had,” Boehner said. “I came here to fight big-government monstrosities like this bill that dim the light of freedom and diminish opportunity for future generations.”

Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, released an equally tersely worded statement.

This is a message to the American people; we’re trying to … help more Americans afford health insurance.
–Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland

“Nancy Pelosi and her liberal lieutenants made a lot of promises today to get the votes they desperately needed,” he said. “Make no mistake — the Democrat leadership’s assurances were based on political expediency, not principle. Anyone receiving a promise from Pelosi is guaranteed to be disappointed in the end when their votes are no longer needed.”

Earlier in the day, Obama met behind closed doors with Democrats to shore up support for the bill, calling it a chance of a generation.

In the run-up to the vote, Republicans and conservative Democrats joined forces to pass an amendment to the bill to prohibit federal funds for abortion services.

It was considered a big win for them and for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which used its power — especially with conservative Democrats in swing congressional districts — to help force Democratic leaders to permit a vote on the amendment.

The prohibition, introduced by Democratic members — including Rep. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana and Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan — would exclude cases of rape, incest or if the mother’s life is in danger.

The GOP accounted for 174 of the votes in favor of the amendment, with one Republican voting “present.”

On the Democrats’ side, 64 voted for the measure, and 194 voted against.

www.olasmayoradvice.blogspot.com
www.lovingu4ever-olasmayor.blogspot.com
www.olasmayordije-dije.ning.com
www.sportineverywhere.blogspot.com

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/despite-house-approval-health-care-reform-faces-tough-battle-1438539.html

The Philippine National Police (PNP) has begun efforts to "rescue" kidnapped Irish priest Michael Sinnott, with Interior Secretary Ronaldo Puno personally monitoring the arrangements, a Malacañang official indicated Saturday.

Press Secretary Cerge Remonde said Puno, who pointed out secessionist rebels to the kidnapping, was in Mindanao Friday to personally supervise the efforts.

"Alam ko kahapon he was in Mindanao at personal (na i-supervise) ang operation ng PNP para sa safe rescue kay Fr. Sinnott (As far as I know, Puno was in Mindanao Friday to personally supervise PNP operations for Sinnott’s safe rescue)," Remonde said on government-run dzRB radio, but did not elaborate.

Remonde at the time was responding to a question on whether Puno was among the Cabinet secretaries who will quit his post in time for the 2010 elections.

Last month, Puno announced he was no longer joining the vice presidential race.

The military had said rescue operations will be a last resort, and that it will have to be cleared prior to crisis management committee led by the local government.

Puno earned the ire of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) after he pointed the MILF was behind the abduction of Sinnott in Pagadian City last October 11.

Also last month, a video of Sinnott was aired on television where the 79-year-old missionary held an October 22 newspaper and said his captors were demanding $2 million for his release.

On the other hand, the MILF angrily denied Puno’s claims and demanded that the Philippine government "correct" Puno’s statements.

The MILF also said one of its commanders, who Puno linked to the abduction, enjoys the support of his peers when he attended a recent caucus of the secessionist group in Mindanao this week.

Commander Aloy Al Ashree of the MILF’s 113th Base Command attended the caucus where the MILF’s top commanders urged government to stop blaming him for Sinnott’s abduction.

"Placing the blames on Brother Aloy by the government, particularly by Sec. Ronnie Puno of the DILG, is malicious, unfair and blatant violation of the ceasefire accord," said the commanders at the caucus, according to an article posted Friday on the MILF website.

They also reiterated their call on government to deal with the "malicious accusations" by Interior Secretary Ronaldo Puno linking Al-Ashree to the abduction.

Al-Ashree and the other MILF commanders attended a caucus where MILF chief peace negotiator Mohagher Iqbal told the Bangsamoro Islamic Armed Forces (BIAF) to uphold the Agreement on the Civilian Protection Component (ACPC) of the International Monitoring Team (IMT).

The MILF article indicated the caucus took place Wednesday, the same day Iqbal cried foul over Puno’s accusation linking the MILF to Sinnott’s abduction last October 11.

"(The) truce and the civilian protection deal are very interrelated, hence, the MILF particularly the BIAF is enjoined to understand fully well and respect as well as uphold these agreements," Iqbal said at the caucus at Camp Darapanan in Sultan Kudarat in Maguindanao.

Other BIAF general staff, front commanders and base commanders, and MILF Coordinating Committee on the Cessation of Hostilities participated in the caucus.

The Philippine Government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) agreed to adopt mechanism for the protection of civilian population and civilian properties against the danger arising from armed conflict situations.

Both sides signed the pact in a special meeting last October 27 in Kuala Lumpur under the facilitation of Malaysia.

"In response, the MILF military top brass vowed to adhere to the ceasefire and civilian protection agreements," the MILF said.

But the MILF brass sought an investigation into on the alleged rights violations of government troops against Bangsamoro civilians and purported war crimes.

They claimed government forces burned down more than 2,000 houses and destroyed civilian properties.

The MILF commanders also want the IMT to lead the investigation.

IMT is an international body composed of the governments of Malaysia, Brunei, Libya and Japan with monitoring of the ceasefire accord and rehabilitation and development aspects of the GRP - MILF peace process.

Ronnie Puno is the current secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government in the Philippines.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/dilg-to-oversee-pnp-efforts-to-free-sinnott-1439318.html

Last August, when the public option was declared dead by insider Democrats and the media, DAA members knew better. We knew, if we kept the pressure on, we could back up House progressives and deliver real reform with a public option. 

We were right.

On Saturday night the House of Representatives passed a public option by majority vote. Now, all eyes turn to the Senate. With only a few weeks before the full Senate votes on healthcare, we have the majority votes needed to pass real reform with a public option. The one possible roadblock is a Republican filibuster. But Republicans can’t stop the bill on their own. They need at least one member of the 60-Senator Democratic Caucus to join them to kill reform. 

We’re not pulling punches. We need to turn up the pressure on any senator who might be a Turncoat Democrat who supports a Republican filibuster.It’s time to bring back our hard-hitting ad pressuring Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana to support a public option. If we raise $100,000 by Thursday, we can blanket the airwaves and turn up the pressure for Mary Landrieu back home before she screws everything up worse.

With your support, we’ll hit the airwaves in Louisiana with our hard-hitting 60 second T.V. ad. featuring Karen Gadbois, one of Landrieu’s constituents, a DFA member, and a local hero for her work exposing corruption after Katrina. She shares her compelling story about how the public option would impact her life and asks Senator Landrieu to choose whose side she’s on. 

Karen’s story is very heartfelt and personal. It highlights a real American who needs real reform. And it’s the kind of high pressure ad that no senator wants run against them — especially during an election year. 

Senator Landrieu has a choice to make. Stand with the Democratic Caucus against a Republican filibuster and we’ll stop running the ad. But stand with Republicans to kill healthcare reform and this ad is only the beginning. 

Saturday was a big day, but this fight isn’t over. We’re turning up the pressure and pulling out all the stops to win. And it’s going to happen because of you.

Help Us Oust Senator Landrieu

Thank you for everything you do. 

-Charles 

Charles Dickens, Political Director 
Democracy Against America

This heartfelt political corruption story was brought to you today by Wealthy Affiliate. Money and Justice for All.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/senator-landrieu-what-a-naughty-woman-from-louisiana-1440226.html

Once upon a time a businessman married a princess – a princess without kingdom. An oriental princess studied in the West did not insist to indulge in love with a prince first and then marry but she surprised the subjects by getting married a person who was not of noble rank, a commoner. The commoner too promised not to betray in hard times. She succeeds to get the thrown back - once usurped by a wicked General of army.

      For almost two decades this commoner – Zardari is criticized and presented as the most corrupt and dishonest person of Pakistan. Today Zardari is the most controversial personality in Pakistani politics. He was Mr. 10%, the prisoner, the murderer, the widower and now the president. He served as investment and environment minister in Bhutto’s governments. It was during this time that People’s Party opponents began using the nickname, “Mr 10%”, in reference to the charges of corruption against him which were not proved till NRO. He was also accused of allegedly plotting the murder of Murtaza Bhutto, the brother of his wife Benazir Bhutto. He was later cleared. After his arrest he dared to face the courts instead of making deals with establishment.

      After the death of Benazir Bhutto there were riots all over Pakistan. We all knew that there was no one in the country who could control those angry people at that time. Law enforcement agencies were no where to be seen. The murder of Benazir was an international conspiracy. A Sindhi leader was killed in Punjab by a Pakhtoon extremist. In a way ground was set to divide Pakistan. But it was the voice of Zardari that cool down the masses.

      After elections the issue of selecting Prime Minister from his party was not an easy task. Even when Mr Gillani was selected the people were thinking that he will be just a puppet in Zardari’s hands. But it was the best decision to select prime minister from Punjab. We can see now how Prime Minster balances the situations and in the last all the burden is placed at the shoulders of PM.

      It is said that Zardari does not keep his promises and he wants to be the strongest person in Pakistan. But surprisingly the same Zardari kept his promises while he was in prison. He could easily go outside the country by making deals. But he was all alone for years without wife and family. Even some “Jiyalas” have betrayed with party in those hard times. But what was compelling Zardari to bear it all? The party – Pakistan People’s Party.

      Presidential powers, 58-2b and ban on becoming third time prime minister are all the tools that Zardari is using as weapons and blackmailing tactics to protect his party from the lion of Punjab. Once he lost his powers surely a long march is waiting to kick his party out of the government.

      The motive behind delayed judiciary restoration was the same. He was well aware that Judiciary will raise the issue of National Reconciliation Ordinance. He was not wrong because the same happened. And now Zardari is abused for presenting NRO in the parliament. Now no body remembers that it was the decision of the court to discuss NRO in the parliament. Zardari is not different from Nawaz. If Nawaz has attacked courts and confronted the army, in the same way Zardari have opposed the restoration of judiciary to save his party.

      Now the issue of 58-2b and ban on becoming third time prime minister are strong tools in Zardari hands to prolong his party tenure. Nawaz Sharif will cooperate till he sees these weapons in Zardari hands. Our media propagates that Zardari is isolated and deserted even by his own colleagues. The question is does Zardari represent the parliament? No, Parliament is strong and the person who represents the People’s Party in the parliament is also strong.

      All the coalition partners are again on board. And the issues with army are somehow solved. The popularity of political parties will be seen by the people of Pakistan in the forthcoming Gilgat Baltistan elections. Because all the major players are contesting elections. Now the claims of popularity will be evaluated by these elections. If Zardari is unpopular, deceitful and untrustworthy surely masses will reject People’s party. But if his party is again chosen by the masses so it will be the sign of his success and a slap on the faces of his opponents. 

The author is a column writer. His Articles can be seen at www.thefrontierpost.com . He supports democracy and human rights.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/from-prison-to-presidency-1441636.html

The worth of the Child Trust Fund is a subject that has been much debated since its inception in 2002. The Conservative Party have now said that they will reduce the Child Trust Fund so only children from the poorest families will receive it should they win the 2010 general election. The have not yet specified by which specifications it will be decided who will receive it, and who will not.

Most people would agree that the poorer areas of society should receive more help from the state than those who don’t need it, and this is something that the Conservatives have taken on board with their policy. Poorer children can have a disadvantage when they are young adults, as wealthier parents are more able to help their children with University or getting on the housing ladder. Less wealthy parents are unable to help in this way even if they would like to. Some though, have argued that this benefit should not be limited in this way. Is this something that all children should be entitled to and not based on a child’s background? After all, is their any guarantee you will be wealthy just because your parents are.

Another question that has to be asked: are children from middle income families stuck in the middle. They may no longer be entitled to the Child Trust Fund and their families won’t be able to help them in the same way as the wealthiest. Although they have higher incomes than the poorest, they may also have higher overheads, such as a mortgage, so their disposable income is not necessarily any higher.

In theory children from the wealthiest families will not need the benefits of a Child Trust Fund. Certainly the Child Trust Fund amount (two payments of £250) is not a lot to the very richest members of society. Some parents, though, believe that children should find their own way in life so won’t give payouts to their children the way others might. Where this is the case, children will be punished because their parents are wealthy. Is it fair that children (and young adults) are treated according to their parents’ income?

The problems the Conservative Parties Child Trust Fund policy could cause can be compared to some of the issues of student loans and frees. These are means tested but not always to the benefit of those who need assistance. There are loop holes that mean those from wealthier backgrounds can end up benefitting from the system. Parents who are wealthy enough to be able to retire early do not count as being employed (especially if they are not receiving a pension). Therefore their children get the same assistance as students whose parents are unemployed. This is likely to apply to the very wealthiest families, so the extreme rich can benefit from a scheme that is supposed to help the poorest most. Another issue with this is that students whose parents are divorced get their assistance based on the parent they live with. Therefore if the parent they live with is relatively poor but their other parent is wealthy, then they will still receive the benefits. This means they could be receiving high student loans and having their fees paid, and at the same time be receiving money from one of their parents.

In theory the Conservatives Child Trust Fund policy is a good idea; it is most important to help those who need it. It needs to be dealt with the right way though, so those who do need this extra benefit don’t loose out, and there are no loop holes which mean the wealthiest are able to benefit from something not designed for them.

Andrew Marshall ©

Child Trust Fund

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/affects-of-the-conservatives-child-trust-fund-policy-1441259.html