Health Bill dead on arrival at the Senate

[oreo]

and you forgot your own family dumbass.........What the fuck are you babbling about anyway? Why don't you go out and find a job instead of sitting at home on your ass waiting for a handout. You wanna help everyone with everyone elses money right? you have a job and healthcare? Then donate to charities that offer healthcare to the poor. You and those like you are the problem with America....fucking leaches sucking off of everyone else's wallets

How do you know where I am sitting or what kind of handout I am waiting for?

The right way to solve this is to ensure the system provides health care for everyone. Since insurance company failed to do this on their own, the government has to (unfortunately) step in and put in a real safety net.

The wrong way to solve this is to be selfish.

No one's being selfish. It's called responsibility...the responsibility to take care of yourself and family. If you have a shit job and no healthcare then you need to refocus your vision and goals to achieving a better job and good healthcare, NOT wait for me to pay your fricken bills because your too goddam lazy to improve your own lot in life. If all of these lazy ass liberals would man up and get jobs, start buying health insurance and quit whining maybe we could get on with the country's business

and you are WRONG!!!!!!!!! It is NOT the responsibility of government to provide health insurance to people perfectly capable of working and paying their own fair share.

Now...illegal aliens will get FREE healthcare and are EXEMPT from any and all fines based on Pelosi's Bill. How do you feel about that? Ah ... you don't care...it's not your money right?

THE TRUE GOAL OF NATIONALIZED HEALTH CARE IS:

It's no secret--it's what the federal government has done for decades.

TAKE YOUR MONEY & SPEND IT ON SOMETHING ELSE OTHER THAN WHAT IT WAS INTENDED FOR.

IE:

Social Security as originally written--everyone would be wealthy retirees--LOL.
Medicare? There would be no need for supplemental insurance--LOL.

The fact is--the federal government wants to take over YOUR health care--so they can take your money & instead of paying for YOUR health care they can redistribute into their pork & other projects that helps them get re-elected.

They have done it for DECADES & they want to continue to do it--

Otherwise they could fix the current problem with the signing of INK--called regulation of the medical insurance industry.

 

[KittenKoder]

How do you know where I am sitting or what kind of handout I am waiting for?

The right way to solve this is to ensure the system provides health care for everyone. Since insurance company failed to do this on their own, the government has to (unfortunately) step in and put in a real safety net.

The wrong way to solve this is to be selfish.

No one's being selfish. It's called responsibility...the responsibility to take care of yourself and family. If you have a shit job and no healthcare then you need to refocus your vision and goals to achieving a better job and good healthcare, NOT wait for me to pay your fricken bills because your too goddam lazy to improve your own lot in life. If all of these lazy ass liberals would man up and get jobs, start buying health insurance and quit whining maybe we could get on with the country's business

and you are WRONG!!!!!!!!! It is NOT the responsibility of government to provide health insurance to people perfectly capable of working and paying their own fair share.

Now...illegal aliens will get FREE healthcare and are EXEMPT from any and all fines based on Pelosi's Bill. How do you feel about that? Ah ... you don't care...it's not your money right?

THE TRUE GOAL OF NATIONALIZED HEALTH CARE IS:

It's no secret--it's what the federal government has done for decades.

TAKE YOUR MONEY & SPEND IT ON SOMETHING ELSE OTHER THAN WHAT IT WAS INTENDED FOR.

IE:

Social Security as originally written--everyone would be wealthy retirees--LOL.
Medicare? There would be no need for supplemental insurance--LOL.

The fact is--the federal government wants to take over YOUR health care--so they can take your money & instead of paying for YOUR health care they can redistribute into their pork & other projects that helps them get re-elected.

They have done it for DECADES & they want to continue to do it--

Otherwise they could fix the current problem with the signing of INK--called regulation of the medical insurance industry.

Exactly.

 

[ayiakri]

So watch them take out the public option and sign the same bill, watch, this bill will be passed by the senate, maybe it will appear watered down but this is one of the keystones in bringing marxism to the usa.

I agree with your first point - whether or not the public option gets stripped out, a watered-down version is going to pass the Senate.

But do you even know what Marxism actually is? It's a completely discredited economic philosophy that isn't actually practiced anywhere in the world, and we're about as far from "Marxism" as it's possible for a modern industrial power to be. Passing a health-care reform bill would make us Marxist in the same way that the "net neutrality" laws makes us Cossacks... which is to say, not at all.

the government sucks at everything it does, its the morons who think this is a good idea, its the marxist who promote this on the internet, on every message board, in blogs, in articles, the marxist are attacking the USA, they are on the march, this is one of their major strategies.

Oookaayyyy.... so, not on the meds today, then?
The "government sucks at everything it does" - so, you want us to privatize the U.S. Military? The Marines? Does the post office suck at delivering mail? (for most of it's history, it's been essentially self-funding). The government sucks at building highways, running the CDC, and (at the state level) ensuring safe drinking water?

Maybe you to you, all those things suck, but I bet many Americans think that the government does a reasonably good job at all of them.

 

[JenyEliza]

How do you know where I am sitting or what kind of handout I am waiting for?

The right way to solve this is to ensure the system provides health care for everyone. Since insurance company failed to do this on their own, the government has to (unfortunately) step in and put in a real safety net.

The wrong way to solve this is to be selfish.

No one's being selfish. It's called responsibility...the responsibility to take care of yourself and family. If you have a shit job and no healthcare then you need to refocus your vision and goals to achieving a better job and good healthcare, NOT wait for me to pay your fricken bills because your too goddam lazy to improve your own lot in life. If all of these lazy ass liberals would man up and get jobs, start buying health insurance and quit whining maybe we could get on with the country's business

and you are WRONG!!!!!!!!! It is NOT the responsibility of government to provide health insurance to people perfectly capable of working and paying their own fair share.

Now...illegal aliens will get FREE healthcare and are EXEMPT from any and all fines based on Pelosi's Bill. How do you feel about that? Ah ... you don't care...it's not your money right?

THE TRUE GOAL OF NATIONALIZED HEALTH CARE IS:

It's no secret--it's what the federal government has done for decades.

TAKE YOUR MONEY & SPEND IT ON SOMETHING ELSE OTHER THAN WHAT IT WAS INTENDED FOR.

IE:

Social Security as originally written--everyone would be wealthy retirees--LOL.
Medicare? There would be no need for supplemental insurance--LOL.

The fact is--the federal government wants to take over YOUR health care--so they can take your money & instead of paying for YOUR health care they can redistribute into their pork & other projects that helps them get re-elected.

They have done it for DECADES & they want to continue to do it--

Otherwise they could fix the current problem with the signing of INK--called regulation of the medical insurance industry.

Yep....that's the long version.

The short version---they're doing the above becasue they want to buy VOTES with your money, making false promises for those votes (ie, health care, SS, food stamps, medicaid/medicare, etc). All with your money.

So far it's working out peachy-keen for them.

Wake the hell up, people.

 

[California Girl]

Why no Tort Reform in either? I know taking on the legal beagles would be tough but, surely to God, IF we must tear up the Constitution - again - why not do it right? Take on the fucking ambulance chasers and do it right.

And, any Bill that Idiot Boy signs better not have a shell game to shovel money into the murder of babies.

 

[JW Frogen]

I agree, if they had thrown tort reform in a very simple bill that said we will provide government insurance for anyone who OPTS, I repeat OPTS into it, they would have got this through months ago.

The government insurance having a larger actuary base than most private insurance companies would have proven more efficient, and more and more Americans over time would have opted, I REPEAT, opted into it.

 

[California Girl]

I agree, if they had thrown tort reform in a very simple bill that said we will provide government insurance for anyone who OPTS, I repeat OPTS into it, they would have got this through months ago.

The government insurance having a larger actuary base than most private insurance companies would have proven more efficient, and more and more Americans over time would have opted, I REPEAT, opted into it.

Tort Reform would be the very hard thing to do. The legal 'profession' would hate it and it would be challenged but just because something is hard does not mean we should not do it. We desperately need to make it easier and cheaper for doctors to do what is necessary and not what is expedient.

We also need an honest bill with no hidden funding being shovelled to abortion. Whether you support abortion or not, the fact is that millions of us are fundamentally opposed to it and those people have the right to ensure that their money is not used for abortion. Pelosi et al think we're stupid - they think we don't know that the current bill has a shell game contained to pretend there is no federal money for it. Insert Hyde and leave it in. No ifs, ands, buts, or maybes.




(disclaimer: not all lawyers are bloodsucking evil demons, but it is an industry that attracts sharks)

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Why no Tort Reform in either? I know taking on the legal beagles would be tough but, surely to God, IF we must tear up the Constitution - again - why not do it right? Take on the fucking ambulance chasers and do it right.

And, any Bill that Idiot Boy signs better not have a shell game to shovel money into the murder of babies.

Well.....if this Bill passes, on January 1st 2010 there will be the single largest tax increase in the history of the country. Then in 4 years when we finally get the "benefit" of government run healthcare all of those taxes that were supposed to be collected for the program will have disappeared into the government coffers and spent on reducing the 1.7 trillion dollar deficit instead of the government run healthcare program like originally promised. Obama will say "I balanced the budget in 4 years. See? Government run healthcare didn't cost us a thing." Then whoever the President is in 2013 will have the National debt skyrocket as we sell treasury bonds to pay for our Nation's government run healthcare. Welcome to socialist France.

It's all a shell game perpetrated by the greatest con man of the 21st century. Obama bullshitted his way into office and now is stripping the wallets of Americans to line the pockets of his lobbyist friends in DC. It is indeed a transfer of wealth.

All of the fricken dumbass liberals who think government run healthcare is going to start next year are in for a rude awakening...not to mention a massive tax hike.

 

[JW Frogen]

Attacking lawyers is a vote getter, believe you me. Or believe me you, or believe us, you and I.

And not for bad reasons.

Too many lawyers have been raping Ms. Justice just because she is blind.

 

[KittenKoder]

Want to know what Politicians do? Try playing one: Politician ...

 

[ayiakri]

Why no Tort Reform in either? I know taking on the legal beagles would be tough but, surely to God, IF we must tear up the Constitution - again - why not do it right? Take on the fucking ambulance chasers and do it right.

I actually agree with that (except the bit about "tearing up the Constitution") - there should be tort reform in the bill, and it's a damn shame that it was "compromised out". Reforming medical-malpractice laws, and getting rid of some of the ridiculous lawsuits for obscene amounts of money (which only provide incentives for frivolous lawsuits) would save billions of dollars a year.

Unfortunately, in order to get enough votes to pass the bill without Republican support, those Democrats who are beholden to the legal lobby had to be appeased, and so it wasn't included. I think that if the Republicans had seriously tried to compromise on this bill, and agreed to give up some of what they want in exchange for other things they want (the definition of "compromise"), it might have made it in.

As it stands now, tort reform will have to wait until probably 2014 (which is only a year after the health-care bill would take effect, so, if it happens, better late than never).

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Why no Tort Reform in either? I know taking on the legal beagles would be tough but, surely to God, IF we must tear up the Constitution - again - why not do it right? Take on the fucking ambulance chasers and do it right.

I actually agree with that (except the bit about "tearing up the Constitution") - there should be tort reform in the bill, and it's a damn shame that it was "compromised out". Reforming medical-malpractice laws, and getting rid of some of the ridiculous lawsuits for obscene amounts of money (which only provide incentives for frivolous lawsuits) would save billions of dollars a year.

Unfortunately, in order to get enough votes to pass the bill without Republican support, those Democrats who are beholden to the legal lobby had to be appeased, and so it wasn't included. I think that if the Republicans had seriously tried to compromise on this bill, and agreed to give up some of what they want in exchange for other things they want (the definition of "compromise"), it might have made it in.

As it stands now, tort reform will have to wait until probably 2014 (which is only a year after the health-care bill would take effect, so, if it happens, better late than never).

So the lack of tort reform is the Republican's fault!? Are you serious?

 

[ayiakri]

Whether you support abortion or not, the fact is that millions of us are fundamentally opposed to it and those people have the right to ensure that their money is not used for abortion

And to keep balance in the universe (ha ha), I don't buy this particular argument, because of where it leads.

If the Amish (who are pacifists, I think) decide they don't want their taxes to pay for any elective wars, should our government be constrained from, say, invading Afghanistan? Or Iraq?

Why should people with no children be forced to have part of their taxes (in most cases, property taxes) be used to pay for the education of people who had 10 kids?

The whole reason people form communities, and choose to pool their financial resources (in the form of taxes) is that those people are willing to give up some control over where their money is spent, in exchange for the benefits that come from being part of an organized society with police, fire departments, and so on.

It looks like the funding for abortion has been stripped out anyway - so maybe a moot point now - but I still don't buy the argument that taxes can't be used to fund things that some group of people doesn't like. I'm not religious, but my taxes effectively subsidize a bunch of TV evangelists, who have tax-exempt status.

 

[ayiakri]

Why no Tort Reform in either? I know taking on the legal beagles would be tough but, surely to God, IF we must tear up the Constitution - again - why not do it right? Take on the fucking ambulance chasers and do it right.

I actually agree with that (except the bit about "tearing up the Constitution") - there should be tort reform in the bill, and it's a damn shame that it was "compromised out". Reforming medical-malpractice laws, and getting rid of some of the ridiculous lawsuits for obscene amounts of money (which only provide incentives for frivolous lawsuits) would save billions of dollars a year.

Unfortunately, in order to get enough votes to pass the bill without Republican support, those Democrats who are beholden to the legal lobby had to be appeased, and so it wasn't included. I think that if the Republicans had seriously tried to compromise on this bill, and agreed to give up some of what they want in exchange for other things they want (the definition of "compromise"), it might have made it in.

As it stands now, tort reform will have to wait until probably 2014 (which is only a year after the health-care bill would take effect, so, if it happens, better late than never).

So the lack of tort reform is the Republican's fault!? Are you serious?

No - I don't believe it's the Republicans fault. It's primarily the fault of the Democrats, for not including it. I pointed out the reality, though, which is that if the GOP hadn't decided to vote against it as a block, they could probably have gotten tort reform included.

Understand now?

 

[JW Frogen]

Whose fault is it they don't have access and affordability? Not mine. So why should I pay for it?

You live in heart attack lane, Arkansas, the land of fat and fried, I lived there too.

You will take government funding and you know it.

 

[JW Frogen]

McClard's Bar-BQ alone (the best Bar-BQ on the planet) means you will ask Uncle Sam for a new arota.

 

[California Girl]

Whether you support abortion or not, the fact is that millions of us are fundamentally opposed to it and those people have the right to ensure that their money is not used for abortion

And to keep balance in the universe (ha ha), I don't buy this particular argument, because of where it leads.

If the Amish (who are pacifists, I think) decide they don't want their taxes to pay for any elective wars, should our government be constrained from, say, invading Afghanistan? Or Iraq?

Why should people with no children be forced to have part of their taxes (in most cases, property taxes) be used to pay for the education of people who had 10 kids?

The whole reason people form communities, and choose to pool their financial resources (in the form of taxes) is that those people are willing to give up some control over where their money is spent, in exchange for the benefits that come from being part of an organized society with police, fire departments, and so on.

It looks like the funding for abortion has been stripped out anyway - so maybe a moot point now - but I still don't buy the argument that taxes can't be used to fund things that some group of people doesn't like. I'm not religious, but my taxes effectively subsidize a bunch of TV evangelists, who have tax-exempt status.

Fundamental difference - which I suspect will fly further over your head than the space station.....

The Military is Constitutional.

Healthcare - and abortion - is not.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I actually agree with that (except the bit about "tearing up the Constitution") - there should be tort reform in the bill, and it's a damn shame that it was "compromised out". Reforming medical-malpractice laws, and getting rid of some of the ridiculous lawsuits for obscene amounts of money (which only provide incentives for frivolous lawsuits) would save billions of dollars a year.

Unfortunately, in order to get enough votes to pass the bill without Republican support, those Democrats who are beholden to the legal lobby had to be appeased, and so it wasn't included. I think that if the Republicans had seriously tried to compromise on this bill, and agreed to give up some of what they want in exchange for other things they want (the definition of "compromise"), it might have made it in.

As it stands now, tort reform will have to wait until probably 2014 (which is only a year after the health-care bill would take effect, so, if it happens, better late than never).

So the lack of tort reform is the Republican's fault!? Are you serious?

No - I don't believe it's the Republicans fault. It's primarily the fault of the Democrats, for not including it. I pointed out the reality, though, which is that if the GOP hadn't decided to vote against it as a block, they could probably have gotten tort reform included.

Understand now?

Wrong. The Republicans were completely shut out of the process by Pelosi and Co. They asked for tort reform...Pelosi said fuck off.
CBO says tort reform reduces deficit - Washington Times

You understand now!?

 

[ayiakri]

So the lack of tort reform is the Republican's fault!? Are you serious?

No - I don't believe it's the Republicans fault. It's primarily the fault of the Democrats, for not including it. I pointed out the reality, though, which is that if the GOP hadn't decided to vote against it as a block, they could probably have gotten tort reform included.

Understand now?

Wrong. The Republicans were completely shut out of the process by Pelosi and Co. They asked for tort reform...Pelosi said fuck off.
CBO says tort reform reduces deficit - Washington Times

You understand now!?

Wrong. The Republicans announced relatively early in the process that they would vote as a block against any health-reform legislation that either included a mandate, or included any form of a public option, or several other "non-negotiables."

South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint (R) said back in July, "If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

There was never any chance that the House Republicans were going to agree to any compromise, and they offered NOTHING in exchange for their demands for tort reform. And so they didn't get it.

Again - I'm not blaming them, in the end, it was a Democratic bill. But you're so intensely partisan, that you don't even understand that, if they were willing to compromise, they could probably have gotten tort reform as part of the bill.

In the end, they decided to vote, as an almost perfect block (a single Republican voted for it) against the bill.

Maybe I'm casting pearls before swine here, I don't know. Do you understand what "compromise" means? As in, "give up something you want, in order to get something else you want"?

 

[ayiakri]

Whether you support abortion or not, the fact is that millions of us are fundamentally opposed to it and those people have the right to ensure that their money is not used for abortion

And to keep balance in the universe (ha ha), I don't buy this particular argument, because of where it leads.

If the Amish (who are pacifists, I think) decide they don't want their taxes to pay for any elective wars, should our government be constrained from, say, invading Afghanistan? Or Iraq?

Why should people with no children be forced to have part of their taxes (in most cases, property taxes) be used to pay for the education of people who had 10 kids?

The whole reason people form communities, and choose to pool their financial resources (in the form of taxes) is that those people are willing to give up some control over where their money is spent, in exchange for the benefits that come from being part of an organized society with police, fire departments, and so on.

It looks like the funding for abortion has been stripped out anyway - so maybe a moot point now - but I still don't buy the argument that taxes can't be used to fund things that some group of people doesn't like. I'm not religious, but my taxes effectively subsidize a bunch of TV evangelists, who have tax-exempt status.

Fundamental difference - which I suspect will fly further over your head than the space station.....

The Military is Constitutional.

Healthcare - and abortion - is not.

Maybe you should try READING the U.S. Constitution, and show me where it says my taxes should support a standing army.... go ahead, I'll give you a few minutes.

Or would you rather me just give you the answer now?