Democratic party: party of NO

[WillowTree]

IOW, there is nothing wrong with the amendments, the dems are just the party of NO

thank you

When are you people going to admit that their is NOTHING in this bill that will force anyone who is happy with their current health insurance, to change it? So, if this is the case, why in the world would it make any sense to force the POTUS to chnage his?

If insuring 32 million Americans was the goal the bill could have been 1/2 page long. Just mandate everyone has to purchase insurance, like this bill does and be done with it.

easier n that, he could have directed congress to put all americans on the exact same insurance they had,, as was promised.

 

[Yurt]

Yep. Obama doesn't even send his kids to Public Schools.

i don't think sending a president's children to a public school is really a good idea, security and all...

obama is a hypocrite because of his voucher stance, but i don't think a president's kids should go to a public school

Then perhaps the President should have different health care than the rest of the country, for security reasons, of course.

do you honestly believe it is feasible for a president to send his kids to a public school? and how is security concerning his children at a public school at all related to insurance coverage?

 

[VaYank5150]

The development came as the Senate completed nine hours of uninterrupted voting on 29 GOP amendments to the legislation. Majority Democrats defeated every amendment.

GOP forces new House vote on health reform - Health care reform- msnbc.com

By 57-42, Democrats rejected an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., barring federal purchases of Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs for sex offenders. Coburn said it would save millions, while Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., called it "a crass political stunt."

Democrats also deflected GOP amendments rolling back the health law's Medicare cuts; killing extra Medicaid funds for Tennessee and other state-specific spending; barring tax increases for families earning under $250,000; and requiring the president and other administration officials to purchase health care from exchanges the statute creates.

1) Because there are so many variables in defining a "sex offender", this broad brush approach is not a good idea and this amendment is in bad judegement. Did you know someone can be labeled a sex offender for having sex with an underage girl even if it was consensual?

2) The second one makes NO sense. Since the beauty of this bill allows ALL Americans to keep the insurance they have if they like it, what would be the point of forcing the POTUS and other administration officials to purchase health care from exchanges.

On a side note to this second amendment, did anyone else notice how the GOP managed to keep their slimy asses out of it, so they would not be forced to purchase health insurance from the exchanges?

 

[Yurt]

The development came as the Senate completed nine hours of uninterrupted voting on 29 GOP amendments to the legislation. Majority Democrats defeated every amendment.

GOP forces new House vote on health reform - Health care reform- msnbc.com

By 57-42, Democrats rejected an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., barring federal purchases of Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs for sex offenders. Coburn said it would save millions, while Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., called it "a crass political stunt."

Democrats also deflected GOP amendments rolling back the health law's Medicare cuts; killing extra Medicaid funds for Tennessee and other state-specific spending; barring tax increases for families earning under $250,000; and requiring the president and other administration officials to purchase health care from exchanges the statute creates.

1) Because there are so many variables in defining a "sex offender", this broad brush approach is not a good idea and this amendment is in bad judegement. Did you know someone can be labeled a sex offender for having sex with an underage girl even if it was consensual?

2) The second one makes NO sense. Since the beauty of this bill allows ALL Americans to keep the insurance they have if they like it, what would be the point of forcing the POTUS and other administration officials to purchase health care from exchanges.

On a side note to this second amendment, did anyone else notice how the GOP managed to keep their slimy asses out of it, so they would not be forced to purchase health insurance from the exchanges?

all it does is bar FEDERAL purchase of it...if you get busted for breaking the law, why does the federal government get to buy your cock pills? it doesn't matter that i don't agree with labeling stat rape offenders as sex offenders, until the law changes, don't break it.

why should they be excepted from the rule? your argument doesn't actually address it, it raises a strawman.

and thank you for explaining your reasons

 

[VaYank5150]

The development came as the Senate completed nine hours of uninterrupted voting on 29 GOP amendments to the legislation. Majority Democrats defeated every amendment.

GOP forces new House vote on health reform - Health care reform- msnbc.com

By 57-42, Democrats rejected an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., barring federal purchases of Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs for sex offenders. Coburn said it would save millions, while Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., called it "a crass political stunt."

Democrats also deflected GOP amendments rolling back the health law's Medicare cuts; killing extra Medicaid funds for Tennessee and other state-specific spending; barring tax increases for families earning under $250,000; and requiring the president and other administration officials to purchase health care from exchanges the statute creates.

1) Because there are so many variables in defining a "sex offender", this broad brush approach is not a good idea and this amendment is in bad judegement. Did you know someone can be labeled a sex offender for having sex with an underage girl even if it was consensual?

2) The second one makes NO sense. Since the beauty of this bill allows ALL Americans to keep the insurance they have if they like it, what would be the point of forcing the POTUS and other administration officials to purchase health care from exchanges.

On a side note to this second amendment, did anyone else notice how the GOP managed to keep their slimy asses out of it, so they would not be forced to purchase health insurance from the exchanges?

all it does is bar FEDERAL purchase of it...if you get busted for breaking the law, why does the federal government get to buy your cock pills? it doesn't matter that i don't agree with labeling stat rape offenders as sex offenders, until the law changes, don't break it.

why should they be excepted from the rule? your argument doesn't actually address it, it raises a strawman.

and thank you for explaining your reasons

What "rule" are you referring to that "they" are excepting themselves from?

 

[Yurt]

1) Because there are so many variables in defining a "sex offender", this broad brush approach is not a good idea and this amendment is in bad judegement. Did you know someone can be labeled a sex offender for having sex with an underage girl even if it was consensual?

2) The second one makes NO sense. Since the beauty of this bill allows ALL Americans to keep the insurance they have if they like it, what would be the point of forcing the POTUS and other administration officials to purchase health care from exchanges.

On a side note to this second amendment, did anyone else notice how the GOP managed to keep their slimy asses out of it, so they would not be forced to purchase health insurance from the exchanges?

all it does is bar FEDERAL purchase of it...if you get busted for breaking the law, why does the federal government get to buy your cock pills? it doesn't matter that i don't agree with labeling stat rape offenders as sex offenders, until the law changes, don't break it.

why should they be excepted from the rule? your argument doesn't actually address it, it raises a strawman.

and thank you for explaining your reasons

What "rule" are you referring to that "they" are excepting themselves from?

requiring the president and other administration officials to purchase health care from exchanges the statute creates.

i thought this was clear

 

[VaYank5150]

all it does is bar FEDERAL purchase of it...if you get busted for breaking the law, why does the federal government get to buy your cock pills? it doesn't matter that i don't agree with labeling stat rape offenders as sex offenders, until the law changes, don't break it.

why should they be excepted from the rule? your argument doesn't actually address it, it raises a strawman.

and thank you for explaining your reasons

What "rule" are you referring to that "they" are excepting themselves from?

requiring the president and other administration officials to purchase health care from exchanges the statute creates.

i thought this was clear

Here's a better question, for clarity purposes. You DO admit that this bill will require NO ONE to change their current coverage if they are happy with it, right?

 

[Murf76]

Here's a better question, for clarity purposes. You DO admit that this bill will require NO ONE to change their current coverage if they are happy with it, right?

You keep insisting on this point... but the fact is, you CAN'T keep what you have if your employer has to downsize or move offshore and lay you off. You CAN'T keep what you have if your employer elects to simply pay the taxes and stop providing insurance altogether, which will be a cheaper option for many employers. You CAN'T keep what you have if the insurance company itself goes out of business. You CAN'T keep what you have if your doctor chooses not to take your insurance.

You people seem to believe that medical providers and employers aren't gong to make changes in order to compensate for their losses. And that's just not a reasonable assumption.

 

[Claudette]

Thats for right now Yank.

I have to wonder if anyone will be able to keep there doctor when this turns into the PO?? Which I think it will. Which I think is the reason Kucinich voted Yes.

Govt controlling everyones HC.

Won't that be a blast??? Just my opinon though. LOL

 

[VaYank5150]

Here's a better question, for clarity purposes. You DO admit that this bill will require NO ONE to change their current coverage if they are happy with it, right?

You keep insisting on this point... but the fact is, you CAN'T keep what you have if your employer has to downsize or move offshore and lay you off. You CAN'T keep what you have if your employer elects to simply pay the taxes and stop providing insurance altogether, which will be a cheaper option for many employers. You CAN'T keep what you have if the insurance company itself goes out of business. You CAN'T keep what you have if your doctor chooses not to take your insurance.

You people seem to believe that medical providers and employers aren't gong to make changes in order to compensate for their losses. And that's just not a reasonable assumption.

ONCE AGAIN, Murf, you are making assumptions. Why can't you simply admit that there is NOTHING in this bill that forces Americans to change their health insurance if they don't want to?

 

[VaYank5150]

Thats for right now Yank.

I have to wonder if anyone will be able to keep there doctor when this turns into the PO?? Which I think it will. Which I think is the reason Kucinich voted Yes.

Govt controlling everyones HC.

Won't that be a blast??? Just my opinon though. LOL

It IS your opinion, Claudette and thank you for stating as such. I personally believe there is simply too much money to be made in healthcare to think that all of these private insurers are simply going to close up shop.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Damn!

Sure sucks being a Republican these days

lol...so when you were whining about republican obstructionism and being the party of no, you really meant

sure sucks to being a democrat these days

The Republican amendments are an attempt to derail the entire bill, genius, which make them just another version of 'NO' from the Republicans.

 

[Murf76]

ONCE AGAIN, Murf, you are making assumptions. Why can't you simply admit that there is NOTHING in this bill that forces Americans to change their health insurance if they don't want to?

And ONCE AGAIN, Yank, you are making an assumption, a far-fetched one, that Americans can keep what they have. This bill FORCES American citizens to purchase an insurance product, and that mandate is not mitigated by the fact that the control of whether you keep your current policy and doctor is in the hands of the employers, insurance companies, and doctors. You're the last guy on the list who gets to decide.

This was a meaningless talking-point from the Comrade-In-Chief, and it's pure lunacy to invest in it's veracity. Don't let these idiots make a chump out of you. Take a look around... they've got you guys DEFENDING Viagra for rapists.

Where's the fucking line? Where's the point at which you're not willing to carry dirty water for these people?
It's not like you're not screwed along with the rest of us. You're not going to get a pass by virtue of having supported them.

 

[Care4all]

IOW, there is nothing wrong with the amendments, the dems are just the party of NO

thank you

When are you people going to admit that their is NOTHING in this bill that will force anyone who is happy with their current health insurance, to change it? So, if this is the case, why in the world would it make any sense to force the POTUS to chnage his?

he promised us what he had! so he is a liar once again.

what does he have with his insurance policy that he chose that you envy so much?

what makes his policy different from any policy the private employer can purchase and offer to its employees?

i'm really curious....

 

[VaYank5150]

ONCE AGAIN, Murf, you are making assumptions. Why can't you simply admit that there is NOTHING in this bill that forces Americans to change their health insurance if they don't want to?

And ONCE AGAIN, Yank, you are making an assumption, a far-fetched one, that Americans can keep what they have. This bill FORCES American citizens to purchase an insurance product, and that mandate is not mitigated by the fact that the control of whether you keep your current policy and doctor is in the hands of the employers, insurance companies, and doctors. You're the last guy on the list who gets to decide.

This was a meaningless talking-point from the Comrade-In-Chief, and it's pure lunacy to invest in it's veracity. Don't let these idiots make a chump out of you. Take a look around... they've got you guys DEFENDING Viagra for rapists.

Where's the fucking line? Where's the point at which you're not willing to carry dirty water for these people?
It's not like you're not screwed along with the rest of us. You're not going to get a pass by virtue of having supported them.

ONCE AGAIN, you are assuming the worst case scenario, when in fact you have NO idea what my employer intends to do. Personally, MY opinion is that my employer will continue to provide insurance and other benefits in order to retain top talent. THAT'S how business works. You Wall Street bonus supporters should understand this more than anyone.

 

[Murf76]

ONCE AGAIN, you are assuming the worst case scenario, when in fact you have NO idea what my employer intends to do. Personally, MY opinion is that my employer will continue to provide insurance and other benefits in order to retain top talent. THAT'S how business works. You Wall Street bonus supporters should understand this more than anyone.

Bully for you if you manage to keep your job and your insurance and your doctor. But I think given the fact that this bill is going to cause a huge scramble for people to come up with a new business plan... it's unlikely that Obama's pledge of "you can keep it" is going to worth the hot air he used to expel his talking point.

Oh... and don't hand me that "Wall-Street-Bonus-Supporters" crap, particularly not if you're supporting Obama while he has Jeffrey Immelt hidden up under his left butt-cheek.
I don't approve of all these bailouts and handouts. I think these bastards need to STOP SPENDING! Period.

 

[VaYank5150]

ONCE AGAIN, you are assuming the worst case scenario, when in fact you have NO idea what my employer intends to do. Personally, MY opinion is that my employer will continue to provide insurance and other benefits in order to retain top talent. THAT'S how business works. You Wall Street bonus supporters should understand this more than anyone.

Bully for you if you manage to keep your job and your insurance and your doctor. But I think given the fact that this bill is going to cause a huge scramble for people to come up with a new business plan... it's unlikely that Obama's pledge of "you can keep it" is going to worth the hot air he used to expel his talking point.

Oh... and don't hand me that "Wall-Street-Bonus-Supporters" crap, particularly not if you're supporting Obama while he has Jeffrey Immelt hidden up under his left butt-cheek.
I don't approve of all these bailouts and handouts. I think these bastards need to STOP SPENDING! Period.

.....and you support Wall Street being able to hand out billions in bonuses to it's employees.

 

[Murf76]

.....and you support Wall Street being able to hand out billions in bonuses to it's employees.

Huh? What the fuck are you on about?

Honestly, why would I care about "Wall Street Bonuses" if they don't affect me? If it's not MY money, they can do whatever the fuck they like. It's no skin off my nose unless it's taxpayer money or unless I'm invested with them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Senator Grassley was on MSNBC this morning touting items in the bill that he 'thought up'.

The flip flop is underway.

 

[VaYank5150]

.....and you support Wall Street being able to hand out billions in bonuses to it's employees.

Huh? What the fuck are you on about?

Honestly, why would I care about "Wall Street Bonuses" if they don't affect me? If it's not MY money, they can do whatever the fuck they like. It's no skin off my nose unless it's taxpayer money or unless I'm invested with them.

Parallels are not your strong suit, are they?