Barack Obama threatens to withdraw support from wavering Democrats

[Oldandtired]

'Money' won't help a vote of yes for an unpopular bill.

Dems had 'a lot of money' in Jersey, Virginia and Mass and still lost after Barry showed up.

Saying he raises a lot of 'money' smells of trying to buy an election for someone who doesn't deserve it.

That is real desperation.

This is how it works and always has. The presidents do fundraising efforts for their party. Only fair when Rs do it?

No one is saying that it is not fair. You opted to claim that is what is being said...but it isnt.

Yes, it is done for many things in Washington. We all know that becuase Obama made it clear that he was going to put a stop to such tactics. It was a major platform for his campaign....remember "CHANGE in the way we do things in washington". "CHANGE we can believe in."

Or did he only mean when the R's do it?

And by the way....

What IS being said is that the POTUS needs to resort to buying votes for legislation that will affect a major chunk of our economy...and that is a sign of deperation.

And I happen to agree.

 

[Oldandtired]

This is probably a good thing for these Democrats after reviewing the past couple of elections...

Barack Obama threatens to withdraw support from wavering Democrats - Telegraph

How would the Republicans respond if one of theirs voted for healthcare???

Did I miss something? Were the republicans out there telling the entire electorate that they were going to eliminate all of the deal making that takes place in Washington?

 

[Zoom-boing]

This is probably a good thing for these Democrats after reviewing the past couple of elections...

Barack Obama threatens to withdraw support from wavering Democrats - Telegraph

How would the Republicans respond if one of theirs voted for healthcare???

For this dungheap? I'd shoot 'em.

 

[rightwinger]

This is probably a good thing for these Democrats after reviewing the past couple of elections...

Barack Obama threatens to withdraw support from wavering Democrats - Telegraph

How would the Republicans respond if one of theirs voted for healthcare???

Did I miss something? Were the republicans out there telling the entire electorate that they were going to eliminate all of the deal making that takes place in Washington?

Can I get an exact quote on that rather than generalities, so I can respond?

 

[Sarah G]

'Money' won't help a vote of yes for an unpopular bill.

Dems had 'a lot of money' in Jersey, Virginia and Mass and still lost after Barry showed up.

Saying he raises a lot of 'money' smells of trying to buy an election for someone who doesn't deserve it.

That is real desperation.

This is how it works and always has. The presidents do fundraising efforts for their party. Only fair when Rs do it?

No one is saying that it is not fair. You opted to claim that is what is being said...but it isnt.

Yes, it is done for many things in Washington. We all know that becuase Obama made it clear that he was going to put a stop to such tactics. It was a major platform for his campaign....remember "CHANGE in the way we do things in washington". "CHANGE we can believe in."

Or did he only mean when the R's do it?

And by the way....

What IS being said is that the POTUS needs to resort to buying votes for legislation that will affect a major chunk of our economy...and that is a sign of deperation.

And I happen to agree.

You people lie so much about everything, it's getting hard to keep up. America wants healthcare reform and will like it once it is passed. We can't keep allowing big insurance to gouge the public and deny paying coverage when we most need it.

If, like you keep saying, it will cost congress people their seats well you know, lessons learned.. I don't think Republicans are in a position to be telling Democrats what to do at this point.

 

[Sarah G]

How would the Republicans respond if one of theirs voted for healthcare???

Did I miss something? Were the republicans out there telling the entire electorate that they were going to eliminate all of the deal making that takes place in Washington?

Can I get an exact quote on that rather than generalities, so I can respond?

He's one big walking, talking point.

 

[Terry]

'Money' won't help a vote of yes for an unpopular bill.

Dems had 'a lot of money' in Jersey, Virginia and Mass and still lost after Barry showed up.

Saying he raises a lot of 'money' smells of trying to buy an election for someone who doesn't deserve it.

That is real desperation.

This is how it works and always has. The presidents do fundraising efforts for their party. Only fair when Rs do it?

 

[maineman]

I think that when the bill becomes law, and people don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions any more, and people can't have their coverage cut off, and people can keep their kids on their own policies longer, and when people realize that the bill will NOT end up costing them an arm and a leg, they will quickly realize that they have been fearmongered by the republicans and they will not be negative towards democrats who voted for it.

When people are polled as to whether they approve of various pieces of the bill, they invariably say they DO... when those pieces begin to be enacted, they will see the benefit.

 

[Sarah G]

I think that when the bill becomes law, and people don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions any more, and people can't have their coverage cut off, and people can keep their kids on their own policies longer, and when people realize that the bill will NOT end up costing them an arm and a leg, they will quickly realize that they have been fearmongered by the republicans and they will not be negative towards democrats who voted for it.

When people are polled as to whether they approve of various pieces of the bill, they invariably say they DO... when those pieces begin to be enacted, they will see the benefit.

I agree.

 

[Oldandtired]

I think that when the bill becomes law, and people don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions any more, and people can't have their coverage cut off, and people can keep their kids on their own policies longer, and when people realize that the bill will NOT end up costing them an arm and a leg, they will quickly realize that they have been fearmongered by the republicans and they will not be negative towards democrats who voted for it.

When people are polled as to whether they approve of various pieces of the bill, they invariably say they DO... when those pieces begin to be enacted, they will see the benefit.

OK....so let me take it to the next level..

I agree....ask each individual item...and most agree with each item....add them together is where one must apply interlligence and logic.

So let me ask you a question......what will happen to the cost of insurance when pre-existing condition clauses are eliminated from contracts?

I will answer it.

The risk of "having to pay out more than you take in on the insured" will increase....and thus so will premiums.

So how do we overcome this problem? I will again answer it.....we must have a mandate that all must be insured from the day they are born...this way, the insurance comapny will recieve over a 30 year period about 150K in premiums from any given insuree...so if they need to pay out 125K for something that pops up, it is not a loss to the insurer.

But......do you truly believe that such a mandate would hold up in court when someone presents it?

SO then what happens. Now the mandate is lifted, and pre existing conditions is still outlawed....so now what? Insurers will certainly not be able to cut it as many will not pay a dime in premiums until they are diagnosed with something serious....so a 10K premium will translate to 125K in payouts...and a loss to the insurers.....

So you see....sure they all agree with each individual item....but if they knew what the outcome would be when all are put together, they would likelt disagree.

Stop tossing out assumption and start loooking at thje real dilemma. If pre-existing conditions should be eliminated, there is no easy answer......

 

[Oldandtired]

And I need to remind you....

Pre existing condition clauses were not put in to contracts due to the greed of the insurers....

The clauses were needed to eliminate the greed of the public from the formula.

You can not forget that.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Just more dirty Chicago-Style Thuggery. Bribery and intimidation have become the norm for this Administration. If we didn't have such a corrupt Liberal dominated MSM,this would be very clear to most Americans. Rahm Emanuel is the Devil. Hopefully their dirty chit wont work. I guess we'll see though.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Proper response is - "YA PROMISE?"

 

[rightwinger]

I think that when the bill becomes law, and people don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions any more, and people can't have their coverage cut off, and people can keep their kids on their own policies longer, and when people realize that the bill will NOT end up costing them an arm and a leg, they will quickly realize that they have been fearmongered by the republicans and they will not be negative towards democrats who voted for it.

When people are polled as to whether they approve of various pieces of the bill, they invariably say they DO... when those pieces begin to be enacted, they will see the benefit.

The bill will pass
The sun will still come up in the morning
The world as we know it will not end
The economy will not crumble
There will not be any death panels
People will like the bill and go on with their lives


That will give the GOP and FoxNews seven more months to come up with a new issue to be "outraged" against

 

[rightwinger]

So let me ask you a question......what will happen to the cost of insurance when pre-existing condition clauses are eliminated from contracts?

So what is your answer to people who have pre-existing conditions? What do you tell someone who beat cancer when they were 14 and now must try to find insurance as a young adult?

 

[amrchaos]

I think you conservatives do not fully understand the Democrats problem.

Vote for the Bill, they may lose re-election due to centrists and indies going against them(you conservatives are not in the Dems equation!!)

Vote against the Bill, they may lose re-election due to leftist voting against them.

They Dems are in a terrible pinch!!

 

[Oldandtired]

This is how it works and always has. The presidents do fundraising efforts for their party. Only fair when Rs do it?

No one is saying that it is not fair. You opted to claim that is what is being said...but it isnt.

Yes, it is done for many things in Washington. We all know that becuase Obama made it clear that he was going to put a stop to such tactics. It was a major platform for his campaign....remember "CHANGE in the way we do things in washington". "CHANGE we can believe in."

Or did he only mean when the R's do it?

And by the way....

What IS being said is that the POTUS needs to resort to buying votes for legislation that will affect a major chunk of our economy...and that is a sign of deperation.

And I happen to agree.

You people lie so much about everything, it's getting hard to keep up. America wants healthcare reform and will like it once it is passed. We can't keep allowing big insurance to gouge the public and deny paying coverage when we most need it.

If, like you keep saying, it will cost congress people their seats well you know, lessons learned.. I don't think Republicans are in a position to be telling Democrats what to do at this point.

I do not lie...and I am not sure what "you people" refers to....but if it makes you feel good, go for it.

As for your disdain for insurance companies...I ask you to toss out those talking points you threw out there...like "We can't keep allowing big insurance to gouge the public and deny paying coverage when we most need it"....and answer these two questions....really.....lets have a true debate on facts and not talking points.

1) Do you know why pre-existing condition clauses exist?

2) Please offer me a solution to prevent an insurance company from going out of business if it can no longer guard agaiunst pre-existing conditions.

3) if the only solution is for the insurer to raise premiums, please explain how that will LOWER insurance costs.

4) This is not meant as an insult as most will answer no....but are you aware of the term risk management and how it is applied to both the insurance company AND the insured?

 

[Oldandtired]

So let me ask you a question......what will happen to the cost of insurance when pre-existing condition clauses are eliminated from contracts?

So what is your answer to people who have pre-existing conditions? What do you tell someone who beat cancer when they were 14 and now must try to find insurance as a young adult?

I dont think you get it...I am all for eliminating pre-exisitng condition clauses.

I just dont think it is possible without creating a government plan OR making a mandate for all people to buy insurance at birth......

ANd I can not see such a mandate making it past the very first appeal.

 

[Sarah G]

I think that when the bill becomes law, and people don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions any more, and people can't have their coverage cut off, and people can keep their kids on their own policies longer, and when people realize that the bill will NOT end up costing them an arm and a leg, they will quickly realize that they have been fearmongered by the republicans and they will not be negative towards democrats who voted for it.

When people are polled as to whether they approve of various pieces of the bill, they invariably say they DO... when those pieces begin to be enacted, they will see the benefit.

OK....so let me take it to the next level..

I agree....ask each individual item...and most agree with each item....add them together is where one must apply interlligence and logic.

So let me ask you a question......what will happen to the cost of insurance when pre-existing condition clauses are eliminated from contracts?

I will answer it.

The risk of "having to pay out more than you take in on the insured" will increase....and thus so will premiums.

So how do we overcome this problem? I will again answer it.....we must have a mandate that all must be insured from the day they are born...this way, the insurance comapny will recieve over a 30 year period about 150K in premiums from any given insuree...so if they need to pay out 125K for something that pops up, it is not a loss to the insurer.

But......do you truly believe that such a mandate would hold up in court when someone presents it?

SO then what happens. Now the mandate is lifted, and pre existing conditions is still outlawed....so now what? Insurers will certainly not be able to cut it as many will not pay a dime in premiums until they are diagnosed with something serious....so a 10K premium will translate to 125K in payouts...and a loss to the insurers.....

So you see....sure they all agree with each individual item....but if they knew what the outcome would be when all are put together, they would likelt disagree.

Stop tossing out assumption and start loooking at thje real dilemma. If pre-existing conditions should be eliminated, there is no easy answer......

Why then are the insurance companies raising premiums AND enforcing pre exisisting conditions policies? They raised premiums 40% and more after the first of the year when they thought healthcare reform was dead.

You are making excuses for what reason, I do not know because they will apply the same rules to you and your loved ones if you all become gravely ill.

This madness has to stop.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I think you conservatives do not fully understand the Democrats problem.

Vote for the Bill, they may lose re-election due to centrists and indies going against them(you conservatives are not in the Dems equation!!)

Vote against the Bill, they may lose re-election due to leftist voting against them.

They Dems are in a terrible pinch!!

Yup, which is one of the reasons they're not even going to have a vote on it.