Wicker, Cochran vote against funding resolution





Associated Press, Daily Journal

WASHINGTON – Both of Mississippi’s U.S. senators voted Friday against legislation to fund the federal government through mid-November.

The measure did not include provisions that Republicans wanted, to block funding from the 2010 federal health overhaul law.

Mississippi Sens. Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker, both Republicans, issued statements Friday saying they want to repeal the health law that they consider expensive and intrusive.

“As the negative impacts of this law become more apparent, people in my state of Mississippi have expressed a great deal of concern about how the law is affecting their families and businesses,” Cochran said. “They have articulated a pronounced unease about the costs of the law, and the extent to which the federal government will be involved in their personal health care decisions. I share their concerns.”

Both said a government shutdown would not stop the health care law.

“Some have made the assertion that a vote to fund the government equals a vote for Obamacare,” Wicker said. “Nothing could be further from the truth. Senate Republicans are united in our opposition to the health care law.”

The government funding measure passed the Democratic-controlled Senate. The 54-44 vote was split along party lines – Democrats for, Republicans against.

But the measure was expected to die in the Republican-controlled House, meaning a partial government shutdown is still possible early next week. The House will be in session this weekend.

Earlier Friday, Cochran and Wicker both voted for a procedural move to let the Senate consider a House measure that would’ve taken some money from the health law. The measure was changed, on an amendment by Majority Leader Harry Reid, to restore funding for the health law. After that came the 54-44 party-lines vote to send the government funding measure to the House.

Click video to hear audio

  • charlie

    The repubs don’t have a problem with compulsory auto insurance but are incensed that the President would want all to have health insurance. Hippocrates. Mississippi gets two dollars for ever dollar paid and the repubs from Mississippi want to shut down the Government. Shame on you.

  • The Ghost of Col. Reb

    Don’t worry Charlie, they are only doing what they are told to do. Both these clowns are corporately owned.

  • guest

    You know our elected members of Congress have it made. All they have to do is vote the corporate sponsored party line, talk to their constituents in abstract terms, collect their pay and benefits then bide their time until they can cash in on post office lobby money.

    We see this play over and over again expecting something different – it is time for Mississippi to think past the “R” or the “D” and look at results.

    I for one have not seen anything that impresses me.

  • DoubleTalk

    This is funny. The saying Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it and everything that comes with it comes to mind. As folks continue to loose jobs, get cut to part time, loose existing healthcare, insurance goes up in cost, etc due to ObamaCare, those left will get to pay the bill. All government handouts come from one source…….those paying taxes. If you don’t work, don’t owe taxes those that do get to fund it. HA HA HA….Keep funding it suckers.

    • guest

      You really don’t understand anything about the Affordable Healthcare Act do you? I can see if someone who understands the law and not like it but to be simply talk about something you have no basic understanding of is not only dumb but very dangerous.

      You do know that the comments you made above fully display your lack of understanding what the law does and has no base in fact.

    • TWBDB

      Here’s the facts: Health Care Spending as a % of GDP in the US went from 8% in 1980 to 16% in 2008. Before Obama – before Obamacare was even talked about in Congress. During the same time period, all those countries with some form of federal, socialized or
      whatever you want to call it – medical cost program started out below 8% and
      are just now getting to 8%.

      I would venture a guess a ton of that health care spending is actually paid out for elder care: I wonder just how much of that elder care was actually covered by contributions
      from the individuals receiving it during their lifetime? In other words, how many people do we ‘bail out’ who were unprepared for their health care costs in their old age? Didn’t
      save for it? Didn’t contribute much to Medicare because they didn’t work or didn’t
      make very much money when they did work?

      Now, the system as bad as we may hate it – will indeed strongly encourage (force if you will) all people to contribute throughout their lifetime a portion of their wages toward
      their inevitable health care expense in their elder years. We need something because the demographic of the US is aging – more and more people are getting older.

      All these are facts of the way things are and either we stop helping people in their old age or we do something. Which would you prefer Double Talk?

      Yes, health care expense expenditure will most definitely go up for some, down for some, and stay the same for a lot of people. It’s about to change: it has to change: or the country has to make a very drastic decision, go broke or send the elderly out to pasture on their own to either survive or die.

      • DoubleTalk

        Everyone is entitled to their opinion but not their own facts. Depending upon whose figures and the way they are calculated. the general showing is folks 19-64 spend more health care dollars than the elderly. Those with private insurance seem to spend approx 3 times what Medicare folks do. Certainly the elderly have some of the illnesses that are costly to treat but some of those costly illnesses are present among younger folks.

        Those Medicare folks (many who paid in over their lifetime and never used it) also continue to pay with deductions from their retirement checks and required supplement plans. Now there are younger folks that have jumped in the system that have paid little or none (keeping in mind the various named programs but it is all healthcare)

        I don’t argue that health care needs addressing from what providers charge to insurance companies coverage to what folks contribute. I do argue Obamacare is not the solution. It is already having adverse effects with more to come.

        Keeping in mind the ultimate goal IMO is basic health care availability for all, making it more costly in one form or fashion does not accomplish this.

        • 1941641

          “It is already having adverse effects with more to come.”

          What is the source of your comment? Either Fox News or Rev. Pat Robertson I would guess. Substantiate your claim if you don’t mind.

          • DoubleTalk

            I don’t watch any of the Pat’s, Limburgers, O-Really’s, Clintliars, Odamers etc. Probably watch major news equally giving all long arm credibility since they all cater to certain audiences for ratings and sales.

            Loss of health insurance by large and small business, hour cutbacks to avoid ObamaCare etc has been on all.

          • DoubleTalk

            I would also add for all….Are you so down in the dumps you would settle for breadcrumbs ? While the very folks (Dems & Repubs) in Congress eliminate themselves from Obamacare and even have the taxpayers pay for them to have higher quality insurance, you would settle for some color coded healthplan at a higher cost to you ?

            Sure some folks will always be able to afford better healthcare than others. But do you seriously think they are doing you and others a favor requiring you to do different than they ?

          • guest

            Again your comments clearly show how little you understand the law – the health insurance Congress has already qualifies under the Affordable Health Care Act like many employers – what the AHCA does is make the same choices available to the public through exchanges. The only small businesses affected are those with over 50 employees. The AHCA sets up a standard market structure for Health Insurance and requires everyone to participate because those without the ability to pay or without insurance affect the market. It uses the competition in the new market to force insurance prices down.

            Insurance prices are already coming down in states that are honestly setting up exchanges and taking the Medicaid funds. This is already happening despite the fight against it.

          • DoubleTalk

            You really should follow things more closely. Do you not remember the original bill excluding Congress. The Grassly Amendment (Sp?) that later included them yet they as as of today are still covered by the Federal Employee Health Plan. The 75% taxpayer paid premium paid toward their insurance that will now go with them wherever they get insurance.

            It is still closely talked that some language still excludes them but they dont wish the public to know due to the backlash of them excluding themselves in the beginning.

            Regardless…getting 75% paid when others with their salaries would get no help………..Breadcrums for you. Settle for it if you will.

          • guest

            You mean this?

            “ The only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are — (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).”

            Hardly a “gotcha” moment – again I suggest you understand the issue better and stay off of the Tea Party websites.

          • DoubleTalk

            I’ll not even take the time to make sure your quote is correct but off the top of my head it seems correct. Many times folks read but do not understand.

            Read the 1st line of what you quoted. It says that the Federal Gov may make available. As previously stated, they can get what they want where they want. If they get it elsewhere…….OPM says they still get the 75% taxpayer paid.

            Does Tea Party folks have a website ? Maybe they better understand and read than others..

          • guest

            Now I can’t tell if you don’t know what you are talking about or just trying to obscure the discussion.

            The United States Congress provides Health Insurance for members of Congress and their staff. If they use the government insurance (which is very good) or go out and purchase it in the market they are still participating under the AHCA – they are not exempt from the law.

            The Grassley Amendment did not give Congress any special benefits it made it harder to insure staffers. Whether the employer provides the coverage, pays a stipend or pays the tax it is still operating under the law and meets the goal of getting people health insurance.

          • DoubleTalk

            AHCA was passed in an ill thought out effort to give folks healthcare that DID NOT have it. It doesn’t mean diddly to those that DO HAVE IT. I agree the Federal Employee Health Plans available are great plans with many to choose from but only the select few had the 75% paid for them.

            When Congress got caught exempting themselves originally, then came the amendment after public outcry of unfairness. Unfairness still is present when the average citizen that makes the salaries they do would not have 75% paid for them, if they did not already have health plans. If they did not have health plans the salaries they make would exclude them from any payment assistance offered under the Act. Remember the government run plans are for those that don’t have access otherwise. Thus the causation of some business that previously offered health plans cutting them out and throwing those into the system.

            The Federal Employee plans are not what folks will get under the government run plans. Read, comprehend, understand….A lost art of common life and primary reason some folks get elected over and over after poor performance.

          • guest

            You don’t understand the law but you talk like you do – a very dangerous combination. This is the OPM order you mentioned (out of context I might add)


            Now for the last time and I will type slowly so you understand. The Health Insurance offered to Congress met the requirements of the Act – there was no reason to exempt themselves. There are no goverment run plans only exchanges where people can shop and compare private coverage. If one does not earn enough they can qualify for help but in the end everyone can shop the exchanges.

          • DoubleTalk

            While I understand the Act is a nightmare to read (I have it downloaded and have been reading it since the beginning) I certainly understand some look at it from a different viewpoint. I, looking at it from having to meet it for possible employees and sounds like you from an individual standpoint. Having discussed this with other business folks, some of whom have hired or attended workshops to help decifer the Act, I feel comfortable with its history and future problems.

            Straight out of the Act, word for word…..” For Americans with insurance coverage who like what they have, they can keep it. Nothing in this act or anywhere in the bill forces anyone to change the insurance they have, period.”

            Read, read again, and again. Maybe it will sink in. But go read all the amendments etc before you comment on that which you have little clue.

        • TWBDB

          “Depending upon whose figures and the way they are calculated. the
          general showing is folks 19-64 spend more health care dollars than the

          Does that statement make any sense at all to you Double Talk? I wouldn’t think we’d need to cite a study to show that our health care expenditures increase as we reach our elder years but here’s a 2004 study on just that very topic. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/

          The primary argument for young adults against Obamacare relates to their risk factors. They say they can’t afford insurance and don’t need it because they so seldom go to the doctor.

  • 1941641

    Out of all the money the taxpayers have paid out in salary for Cochrell and “Grocery-Tax” Wicker through all these years of them being elected to public office it has been, for the most part, wasted, tax-payer money thrown in the wind. I venture to say that, if both these Conservative Republican Politicians disappeared from the face of the Earth today the majority of people would not even know it.

    I hope that, during my lifetime, I will see the day come when some young, black, Mississippians will come along seeking a career in politics and send “Grocery Tax” “C of CC” Wicker and his senior partner packing it back home from D.C. to Tupelo one way! I visualize this episode with Obama Care will be the Straw that breaks the Camel’s Back for a lot of people in Mississippi!

    BTW, I almost left (R) Rep. Alan “Goofus” Nonelee out of this commentary.

  • Thile

    We haven’t seen our government act this stupidly since 1860. What Wicker, Cochran, and their ilk don’t realize is that if the economy craters again, it’s on them. They demanded budget cuts in 2011 and got them (in the form of sequestration as part of the first debt ceiling poopshow), such that the deficit is half of what it was when Obama took office. They’ve demanded “entitlement reform,” but each time the President offered them what they explicitly said what they’ve wanted, they’ve upped the ante while criticizing him for the negative effects of the “reforms” they wanted.

    They’ve demanded tax reform, but only if it keeps their campaign donors from paying a single cent more in taxes annually. And they’ve demanded that the president balance the budget, but they can’t even write appropriation bills that fit such demands. Simply put, the GOP has nowhere else to run. So tank the economy if you wish. 2014’s coming.

  • the_rocket

    The only power you have over these two idiots is to vote them out of office.

    These two are legacy abusers, professional politicians who only care about being re elected or lining up a fat lobbyist job for when they final roll away from the feed trough. Term limits for all senators and representatives would go a long way toward stamping out these career politicians.