19 Senate Republicans (who are unanimous in their opposition to reforming America's dysfunctional Health Care System) enjoy access to a efficient, Government provided single payer system called Medicare. These Republican Senators like to characterize single payer health care as socialist, while they've enrolled in a single payer system themselves.
Dr. Dean on how Medicare compares to private insurance:
Why does the country need a public alternative? "The fact is that only Medicare has controlled costs better than the private sector," Dean tells All Things Considered's Robert Siegel on Friday. "Now Medicare doesn't do a terribly great job of controlling costs, but they do a much better job than private health insurance does."
Massive infusions of money over multiple election cycles have been successful in getting these Senators to turn their backs on constituents, who are saddled with private health insurance that is rapidly becoming unaffordable for them and for their employers. G.O.P. has come to stand for Greedy Obstructionist Party.
Here is the list of Senators 65, and older who are unwilling to let Americans younger than 65 have the same access to quality health care that Medicare offers them.
Jim Bunning 77 (R-KY)
Richard Lugar 77 (R-IN)
Chuck Grassley 75 (R-IA)
Robert Bennett 75 (R-UT)
Orrin Hatch 75 (R-UT)
Richard Shelby 75 (R-AL)
Jim Inhofe 74 (R-OK)
Pat Roberts 73 (R-KS)
George Voinovich 73 (R-OH)
John McCain 72 (R-AZ)
Thad Cochran 71 (R-MS)
Kit Bond 70 (R-MO)
Lamar Alexander 69 (R-TN)
Mitch McConnell 67 (R-KY)
Jon Kyl 67 (R-AZ)
Jim Risch 66 (R-ID)
Kay Bailey Hutchison 66 (R-TX)
Saxby Chambliss 65 (R-GA)
Mike Enzi 65 (R-WY)
Lets not forget the Blue Dogs, they're hypocrites too.
Dianne Feinstein 76 (D-CA)
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Ben Nelson 68 (D-NE)
Max Baucus 67 (D-MT)
Joe Lieberman 67 (I-CT)
Bill Nelson 66 (D-FL)
Their message is loud and clear; WE WON'T HELP YOU GET WHAT WE'VE GOT!
Here's what Paul Kurgmen had to say on the contradictions in the Blue Dog's nonsensical position.
So what are the objections of the Blue Dogs?
Well, they talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, which basically boils down to worrying about the cost of those subsidies. And it’s tempting to stop right there, and cry foul. After all, where were those concerns about fiscal responsibility back in 2001, when most conservative Democrats voted enthusiastically for that year’s big Bush tax cut — a tax cut that added $1.35 trillion to the deficit?
But it’s actually much worse than that — because even as they complain about the plan’s cost, the Blue Dogs are making demands that would greatly increase that cost.
There has been a lot of publicity about Blue Dog opposition to the public option, and rightly so: a plan without a public option to hold down insurance premiums would cost taxpayers more than a plan with such an option.
But Blue Dogs have also been complaining about the employer mandate, which is even more at odds with their supposed concern about spending. The Congressional Budget Office has already weighed in on this issue: without an employer mandate, health care reform would be undermined as many companies dropped their existing insurance plans, forcing workers to seek federal aid — and causing the cost of subsidies to balloon. It makes no sense at all to complain about the cost of subsidies and at the same time oppose an employer mandate.
So what do the Blue Dogs want?
Krugman suggests the real answer.
if their position is incoherent, it’s because they’re nothing but corporate tools, defending special interests.