Where are the protests?

[Vast LWC]

Repsonse to an old post:

Nearly 80% of Americans have health care - and nearly 80% of those are happy with their insurance coverage.

And the other 20% can go to hell, right?

Nice.

One question:

If Republicans are willing to spend trillions of dollars fighting the "War on Terror" (including Iraq, which was never part of the WOT to begin with), and terrorism has killed maybe, what, a few thousand people in the past 50 years?

Then why would they hesitate at spending a similar about for a program that would potentially save millions of American lives?

 

[Vast LWC]

In fact, I guess we're going about this all wrong, we should just "Declare War on Disease and Injury", that'd bring the Republicans firmly behind us.

Step 1: Invade Iraq.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Repsonse to an old post:

Nearly 80% of Americans have health care - and nearly 80% of those are happy with their insurance coverage.

And the other 20% can go to hell, right?

Nice.

One question:

If Republicans are willing to spend trillions of dollars fighting the "War on Terror" (including Iraq, which was never part of the WOT to begin with), and terrorism has killed maybe, what, a few thousand people in the past 50 years?

Then why would they hesitate at spending a similar about for a program that would potentially save millions of American lives?

Question, if gov't run health care is so great why won't congress sign an amendment requiring those who vote yes on it to have it as their health care?

 

[Vast LWC]

This to me is a reflection of what the constitution in action for all to see, perhaps this is why you see more so than perhaps any other state Texas pushing back on issues that deal with the 10th Amendment as a way to remind the Federal Govt. that we are the United States and not United America.

Like what issues?

Health Care? ("Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and....")

Income Taxes? (See the 16th amendment, ratified by Texas in 1910)

Which issues does Texas have a problem with? And hey, they can take off any time they want, right after they pay the rest of the country back for defending them from the Mexicans for the last 170 years.

 

[Vast LWC]

Question, if gov't run health care is so great why won't congress sign an amendment requiring those who vote yes on it to have it as their health care?

What amendment was this? Who proposed it, and who shot it down?

And more importantly, what other provisions were included in said amendment?

 

[Vast LWC]

Chinese Food Restaurant East of the California border.

Have you tried New York City? We have great Chinese here. Perhaps not quite as good as LA, but definitely some good stuff.

 

[Immanuel]

Chinese Food Restaurant East of the California border.

Have you tried New York City? We have great Chinese here. Perhaps not quite as good as LA, but definitely some good stuff.

No, I must admit to never having had the opportunity to visit The Big Apple... but someday.

Perhaps I should amend my statement to say, I have YET to find good Chinese Food East of the California border. It appears that there is hope yet.

Immie

 

[Sinatra]

Chinese Food Restaurant East of the California border.

Have you tried New York City? We have great Chinese here. Perhaps not quite as good as LA, but definitely some good stuff.

No, I must admit to never having had the opportunity to visit The Big Apple... but someday.

Perhaps I should amend my statement to say, I have YET to find good Chinese Food East of the California border. It appears that there is hope yet.

Immie

Vancouver BC has some kick ass Asian food - absolutely fan-frigin-tastic.

Damn good weed too...

 

[Immanuel]

Have you tried New York City? We have great Chinese here. Perhaps not quite as good as LA, but definitely some good stuff.

No, I must admit to never having had the opportunity to visit The Big Apple... but someday.

Perhaps I should amend my statement to say, I have YET to find good Chinese Food East of the California border. It appears that there is hope yet.

Immie

Vancouver BC has some kick ass Asian food - absolutely fan-frigin-tastic.

Damn good weed too...

Vancouver is North of California and not as far East as the eastern border of California, so that technically doesn't qualify.

And who the heck cares about weed? The smell of the shit makes me gag.

Immie

 

[Sinatra]

No, I must admit to never having had the opportunity to visit The Big Apple... but someday.

Perhaps I should amend my statement to say, I have YET to find good Chinese Food East of the California border. It appears that there is hope yet.

Immie

Vancouver BC has some kick ass Asian food - absolutely fan-frigin-tastic.

Damn good weed too...

Vancouver is North of California and not as far East as the eastern border of California, so that technically doesn't qualify.

And who the heck cares about weed? The smell of the shit makes me gag.

Immie

Really? Makes me hungry - for some top notch China-grub...

 

[Immanuel]

Vancouver BC has some kick ass Asian food - absolutely fan-frigin-tastic.

Damn good weed too...

Vancouver is North of California and not as far East as the eastern border of California, so that technically doesn't qualify.

And who the heck cares about weed? The smell of the shit makes me gag.

Immie

Really? Makes me hungry - for some top notch China-grub...

I'd rather have my nose rubbed in dog shit than smell burning weed and no, I do not want my nose rubbed in dog shit.

Immie

 

[Sinatra]

Vancouver is North of California and not as far East as the eastern border of California, so that technically doesn't qualify.

And who the heck cares about weed? The smell of the shit makes me gag.

Immie

Really? Makes me hungry - for some top notch China-grub...

I'd rather have my nose rubbed in dog shit than smell burning weed and no, I do not want my nose rubbed in dog shit.

Immie

How about some BC Brownies?

Delicious!

 

[Zoom-boing]

Question, if gov't run health care is so great why won't congress sign an amendment requiring those who vote yes on it to have it as their health care?

What amendment was this? Who proposed it, and who shot it down?

And more importantly, what other provisions were included in said amendment?

Health Care Stampede Continues - HUMAN EVENTS (About 1/2 way down the article).

BARRETT TO OFFER AMENDMENT REQUIRING CONGRESS, SENIOR ADMIN TO ENROLL IN NEW GOV HEALTH CARE PROGRAM « SCHotline Press Releases

Congressman John Fleming : Home

The Sheer Arrogance of Rep. Waxman - Neil Cavuto | Your World - FOXNews.com

I haven't heard that those in Congress who vote yes on this thing would be required, er -- mandated, to use the government health care. Don't you think they should put up or shut up?

 

[Montrovant]

Chinese Food Restaurant East of the California border.

Have you tried New York City? We have great Chinese here. Perhaps not quite as good as LA, but definitely some good stuff.

No, I must admit to never having had the opportunity to visit The Big Apple... but someday.

Perhaps I should amend my statement to say, I have YET to find good Chinese Food East of the California border. It appears that there is hope yet.

Immie

It's been a long, long time since I left NY, but I still remember there being some great ribs from a Chinese food place on Long Island. I don't know if time has distorted the memory, but I've never had ribs I enjoyed that much.

 

[AllieBaba]

there are no protests for healthcare because the good guys are in charge and its assumed healthcare will get done, the only protesting being done is by the ignorant dupes who fall for the corporate propaganda given to them by their radio show hosts and fox news, if i lived in a trailer and made $8 an hour working at walmart i would favor healthcare passing but these rubes buy everything sold to them by the right wing propaganda machine.

I just love it when people try so hard to sound intelligent and just end up showing how ignorant they really are!

I imagine you do, since it seems to be your own mo.

 

[Care4all]

Repsonse to an old post:

Nearly 80% of Americans have health care - and nearly 80% of those are happy with their insurance coverage.

And the other 20% can go to hell, right?

Nice.

One question:

If Republicans are willing to spend trillions of dollars fighting the "War on Terror" (including Iraq, which was never part of the WOT to begin with), and terrorism has killed maybe, what, a few thousand people in the past 50 years?

Then why would they hesitate at spending a similar about for a program that would potentially save millions of American lives?

Question, if gov't run health care is so great why won't congress sign an amendment requiring those who vote yes on it to have it as their health care?

congress becomes part of the health care insurance reforms as everyone else in the country...no one in the country is exempt from the reform....?

 

[Camilla]

Nice post!

 

[Zoom-boing]

Repsonse to an old post:



And the other 20% can go to hell, right?

Nice.

One question:

If Republicans are willing to spend trillions of dollars fighting the "War on Terror" (including Iraq, which was never part of the WOT to begin with), and terrorism has killed maybe, what, a few thousand people in the past 50 years?

Then why would they hesitate at spending a similar about for a program that would potentially save millions of American lives?

Question, if gov't run health care is so great why won't congress sign an amendment requiring those who vote yes on it to have it as their health care?

congress becomes part of the health care insurance reforms as everyone else in the country...no one in the country is exempt from the reform....?

Why have the amendment(s) that specify that Congress drop their private coverage and go on the government coverage been voted down by the Dems?

Health Care Stampede Continues - HUMAN EVENTS (About 1/2 way down the article).

BARRETT TO OFFER AMENDMENT REQUIRING CONGRESS, SENIOR ADMIN TO ENROLL IN NEW GOV HEALTH CARE PROGRAM « SCHotline Press Releases

Congressman John Fleming : Home

The Sheer Arrogance of Rep. Waxman - Neil Cavuto | Your World - FOXNews.com

 

[N4mddissent]

Which means, you can all keep your coverage, just as promised with exceptions. Those who currently have private coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

Where does it say that people will not be able to buy individual plans from private carriers? The portion you just quoted states that if you are not grandfathered in, you must purchase your insurance through the Exchange. It can still be an individual plan from a private carrier. The Exchange is just a clearinghouse that has rules for standardizing benefits packages so that consumers can more easily compare policies offered by various private insurance companies and also compare it to the public option.

So, once again, where does it say you must take the public option? That was your original claim. Or were you mistaken?

Once health coverage is mandated and it will be, what other option is there once they make private insurance illegal. The problem here is you're only seeing one paragraph and not seeing the entire proposal. Not all insurance policies are the same and there will be a governing body who decides which coverage is adequate and which is not. You will be required to show proof of coverage every year and if you fail to provide adequate coverage or you do not have coverage, you will be fined and enrolled into the public option program. You have no choice in the matter, it will become law.

Here's an article that lays out what you're asking and it's exactly what I've been saying.

IBD: Individual Private Health Insurance Illegal Under House Bill | NewsBusters.org

The paragraph I am "seeing" as you say is one you presented as supporting your argument that the bill will force people to choose the public insurance plan. It does not support that argument.

What you are doing is presenting an argument based on your personal feelings and predictions (or paranoia), along with the right wing propoganda machine, but trying to create a facade of legitmacy by claiming the actual language of the bill is what supports your case, rather than just your imagination of the future. I call shenanigans.

What is most sad, is that it is obvious from the link you provided in your most recent post that this is the type of source from which your claim stems. They quote the exact same portion as you did, and make the exact same claim about it. They bitch and moan about how the "leftist" press did not emphasize the fact that this paragraph will end private insurance.

News Flash: The authors of the editorial and the blog are either A) functionally illiterate, or B) LYING TO YOU. I would go with B). As I have clearly demonstrated, the language they and you quoted as supporting the argument that the bill will force people to choose the public option and not allow Americans to choose private insurance, in no way supports such a claim. Taken within the context of this section of the Bill, it is obvious to anyone who reads it what it says. It's easy to take a portion out of context to make it sound like it means something different. But it's not honest. Why are they lying to you Lonestar? Why would they put up clearly bogus information? Were they trying to embarass you? No, they just don't respect you. They hope you're not smart enough to check out what they claim and just accept them at their word.

And the reason no other news agency, the AP or otherwise, reported it? Not a leftist conspiracty. But because what the article claims is bullshit.

Now, since the same quote has been taken out of context and claimed to say what it doesn't say on a variety of sources, including hannity and limbaugh, you should ask yourself, are these assholes too lazy to check out the entire section of the bill, or do they just not give a shit about the truth as long as it supports their agenda.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Where does it say that people will not be able to buy individual plans from private carriers? The portion you just quoted states that if you are not grandfathered in, you must purchase your insurance through the Exchange. It can still be an individual plan from a private carrier. The Exchange is just a clearinghouse that has rules for standardizing benefits packages so that consumers can more easily compare policies offered by various private insurance companies and also compare it to the public option.

So, once again, where does it say you must take the public option? That was your original claim. Or were you mistaken?

Once health coverage is mandated and it will be, what other option is there once they make private insurance illegal. The problem here is you're only seeing one paragraph and not seeing the entire proposal. Not all insurance policies are the same and there will be a governing body who decides which coverage is adequate and which is not. You will be required to show proof of coverage every year and if you fail to provide adequate coverage or you do not have coverage, you will be fined and enrolled into the public option program. You have no choice in the matter, it will become law.

Here's an article that lays out what you're asking and it's exactly what I've been saying.

IBD: Individual Private Health Insurance Illegal Under House Bill | NewsBusters.org

The paragraph I am "seeing" as you say is one you presented as supporting your argument that the bill will force people to choose the public insurance plan. It does not support that argument.

What you are doing is presenting an argument based on your personal feelings and predictions (or paranoia), along with the right wing propoganda machine, but trying to create a facade of legitmacy by claiming the actual language of the bill is what supports your case, rather than just your imagination of the future. I call shenanigans.

What is most sad, is that it is obvious from the link you provided in your most recent post that this is the type of source from which your claim stems. They quote the exact same portion as you did, and make the exact same claim about it. They bitch and moan about how the "leftist" press did not emphasize the fact that this paragraph will end private insurance.

News Flash: The authors of the editorial and the blog are either A) functionally illiterate, or B) LYING TO YOU. I would go with B). As I have clearly demonstrated, the language they and you quoted as supporting the argument that the bill will force people to choose the public option and not allow Americans to choose private insurance, in no way supports such a claim. Taken within the context of this section of the Bill, it is obvious to anyone who reads it what it says. It's easy to take a portion out of context to make it sound like it means something different. But it's not honest. Why are they lying to you Lonestar? Why would they put up clearly bogus information? Were they trying to embarass you? No, they just don't respect you. They hope you're not smart enough to check out what they claim and just accept them at their word.

And the reason no other news agency, the AP or otherwise, reported it? Not a leftist conspiracty. But because what the article claims is bullshit.

Now, since the same quote has been taken out of context and claimed to say what it doesn't say on a variety of sources, including hannity and limbaugh, you should ask yourself, are these assholes too lazy to check out the entire section of the bill, or do they just not give a shit about the truth as long as it supports their agenda.

You're free to be as stupid as you want to be. Have you read the proposed bill?

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf