Health Bill dead on arrival at the Senate

[MikeHoncho]

i think everyone is pretty much missing the point. the point is, this isnt even about healthcare reform, if it was they could have fixed that yesterday. its about the biggest powergrab in american history.

lets just break down the talking points

people being denied coverage: if you've paid into a coverage plan and are denied when you need it the most, make the insurance co be accountable to those customers.

allow insurers to freely offer programs accross state lines, it works for every other business why not them?

if they really cared about about people who cant get affordable health care ( even tho i dont agree with it) why wouldnt they just expand the medicade qualifications? the reason is its bankrupt and they dont want you to even mention medicade. they'll just start up a new entitlement program to bankrupt that.

they dont care about you, all of you followers are just too blinded by the false hope. wake up. learn the lessons from the entitlement programs of the past, its really that simple.

 

[EriktheRed]

"Sen. Obama couldn't possibly get the nomination, Hillary is too formidable and ruthless."


"Democratic nominee Obama couldn't possibly win a general election. He's too inexperienced and, even worse too liberal."

"President Obama (and the Dems) couldn't possibly pass a sweeping healthcare reform bill.."

 

[The Rabbi]

"Sen. Obama couldn't possibly get the nomination, Hillary is too formidable and ruthless."


"Democratic nominee Obama couldn't possibly win a general election. He's too inexperienced and, even worse too liberal."

"President Obama (and the Dems) couldn't possibly pass a sweeping healthcare reform bill.."

"Dewey Defeats Truman."

"Reid says Iraq War is Lost."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rab, the bill is going to pass.

Get used to it. Say it softly under your breath several times every morning, then go about your daily business, because you can do nothing about it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rab, the bill is going to pass.

Get used to it. Say it softly under your breath several times every morning, then go about your daily business, because you can do nothing about it.

Now I know for certain it won't.
When Jake, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement, assures me something will happen I can immediately bet money on the opposite outcome.
All hail, Jake!

 

[Maple]

Rab, the bill is going to pass.

Get used to it. Say it softly under your breath several times every morning, then go about your daily business, because you can do nothing about it.

Now I know for certain it won't.
When Jake, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement, assures me something will happen I can immediately bet money on the opposite outcome.
All hail, Jake!

This bill isn't going anywhere, Fillibuster is coming. Too many senators totally opposed to any type of public option. Liberman worried that it would bankrupt the country, etc. Thank god he is standing up to this, he is well respected in the senate and usually votes democratic.

Just think of all those so-called blue dog democrats who just went down on record as having supported something that will not pass and was opposed by the majority of their constituents. Uh,ooooh, think they might be losing some sleep over that vote? I sure do. Come on 2010!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Rinata]

What the fuck does this have to do with tort reform?

I refuse to dumb down my posts to be understood by the least-common denominator. Either you were able to follow the thread, or you were not.

You have to post something intelligent first, before you can actually dumb down. Do drop me a PM and let me know on that aspicious day.

Why do you treat everybody like you are some superior intellectual that is too good to be here?? Your sarcasim and nastiness shows you are a person of little quality. So get over yourself and try to show some politeness. You're no big deal, honey.

 

[Ame®icano]

I refuse to dumb down my posts to be understood by the least-common denominator. Either you were able to follow the thread, or you were not.

You have to post something intelligent first, before you can actually dumb down. Do drop me a PM and let me know on that aspicious day.

Why do you treat everybody like you are some superior intellectual that is too good to be here?? Your sarcasim and nastiness shows you are a person of little quality. So get over yourself and try to show some politeness. You're no big deal, honey.

I could agree to some point with you, yet... not being polite to some doesnt mean she's wrong.

 

[caela]

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?

The Constitution doesn't provide for a standing army, as you put it. It has provisions requiring the Army to repeatedly request funding from Congress. I don't remember the exact timing on it and as it's been a long day I'm not going to go look it up. This is why the Army continually has to come begging to Congress for money and has to justify it with a spending budget. If memory serves (and it might not, as I said, long day) the Constitution does, however, provide for a standing Navy and as the Navy is by it's nature MILITARY, it makes your comment about the Army a moot point.

I work in the healthcare field and I have no problem admitting that our current system has some flaws but you don't tear down an entire house just because the sinks need to be replaced. There is not logical reason to completely gut the system when you could, instead, take systematic steps in fixing it. Steps like 1)making insurance truly portable. If I could research and buy insurance from any state I chose you can be damned sure the local companies would bet trying to be the best deal 2) close the loopholes that allow insurers to completely refuse to sell coverage to those with pre-existing conditions or to drop those clients who become ill 3) tort reform. I know we've all heard it before on this one but seriously, how often during a day do you hear commercials saying "If you've taken drug X and experienced ABC symptoms, call us and we'll sue EVERYONE!!!" One of the biggest factors in the cost of care from a doctor is just how damned much they have to spend on malpractice insurance. It can actually come out to nearly half their income depending on specialty and location and is a large part of "defensive medicine" that gets practiced (meaning sometimes unnecessary tests that you end up paying for) just keep from getting sued.

This bill doesn't look like it wants to IMPROVE our healthcare at all but instead wants to take our money and our choices from us. Dem or Rep give me something that actually aims to help and you'd have my loyalty. Until then I say Shakespeare had it wrong...it's not the lawyers that need to be hung first, it's the politicians.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Snowe and at least one other GOP senator is coming across. The Senate version has already been accepted by the House caucus. This is over and done with, wing nuts.

Take deep breaths, use your paper bags. In fact, put your paper bags over your heads.

 

[Ame®icano]

Snowe and at least one other GOP senator is coming across. The Senate version has already been accepted by the House caucus. This is over and done with, wing nuts.

Take deep breaths, use your paper bags. In fact, put your paper bags over your heads.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Americano will be the first in line to sign up with dulldude right behind.

Got other things to do, toids. Have a good night under the sheet, y'all.

 

[Polk]

Snowe and at least one other GOP senator is coming across. The Senate version has already been accepted by the House caucus. This is over and done with, wing nuts.

Take deep breaths, use your paper bags. In fact, put your paper bags over your heads.

Last time I checked, Medicare was passed in 1965, not 1990.

 

[Ame®icano]

Snowe and at least one other GOP senator is coming across. The Senate version has already been accepted by the House caucus. This is over and done with, wing nuts.

Take deep breaths, use your paper bags. In fact, put your paper bags over your heads.

Last time I checked, Medicare was passed in 1965, not 1990.

My sixth grade kid understood that catroon. Try to read it again...

Where does it says that was passed in 1990?

 

[ayiakri]

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?

The Constitution doesn't provide for a standing army, as you put it. It has provisions requiring the Army to repeatedly request funding from Congress. I don't remember the exact timing on it and as it's been a long day I'm not going to go look it up.

You're correct - in fact, the Constitution gives the President the right to "raise" an army whenever he/she feels it's necessary, and authorizes Congress to enact taxes to pay for any army raised. I specifically said, "Army", because I'm well aware that a standing Navy is explicitly mentioned in the constitution. (and so, every President, every single year, must re-authorize the "raising of an Army").

I was pointing out the irony (or maybe it's hypocrisy?) of CaliforniaGirl resorting to a constitutional argument as to why taxes from the Amish should pay for defense - which she says is "in the constitution" - while taxes going to pay for abortion are not. She conveniently ignored my point about childless people's taxes paying for schools, or the taxes of people with no cars paying for highways, etc, etc.

I'm glad I'm not the only person familiar with the constitution - and I seriously doubt that CaliforniaGirl has read it through, or if so, she clearly failed to understand parts of it.

This is why the Army continually has to come begging to Congress for money and has to justify it with a spending budget. If memory serves (and it might not, as I said, long day) the Constitution does, however, provide for a standing Navy and as the Navy is by it's nature MILITARY, it makes your comment about the Army a moot point.

Not really - what if the Amish are okay with their taxes being used for a Navy, but not for a standing Army? And do you think that invalidates the larger point, that taxes are always used for things that some minority of people don't like?

My taxes subsidize some religious institutions, through programs set up under the Bush administration. My friends who live in NYC pay federal taxes that go to the highway system, despite not owning cars - should they be exempt from those taxes, since federal highway funding is not part of the constitution?

I think that argument is absurd.

I work in the healthcare field and I have no problem admitting that our current system has some flaws but you don't tear down an entire house just because the sinks need to be replaced. There is not logical reason to completely gut the system when you could, instead, take systematic steps in fixing it.....

Sometimes, you do tear down an entire house - but in this case, I don't think that's what the bill is doing.

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the bill, in that I don't see that it will change the day-to-day lives or the health-care plans of the majority of Americans at all. I look at this as more of "refurbishing the kitchen" (to stick with your housing analogy), and maybe adding an awning to the porch, rather than tearing the whole thing down. There are some who want to tear the whole thing down - I've heard some liberals say they'd like to completely replace the current system with a single-payer "National Health Service", like in Britain (in fact, Hillary Clinton originally was in favor of that, I think).

But Obama's plan is, from what I've read, pissing off the far left, precisely because it's NOT tearing down the existing system.

Perhaps on this issue we will simply have to disagree.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I don't see that it will change the day-to-day lives or the health-care plans of the majority of Americans at all. I look at this as more of "refurbishing the kitchen" (to stick with your housing analogy), and maybe adding an awning to the porch, rather than tearing the whole thing down. There are some who want to tear the whole thing down - I've heard some liberals say they'd like to completely replace the current system with a single-payer "National Health Service", like in Britain (in fact, Hillary Clinton originally was in favor of that, I think).

But Obama's plan is, from what I've read, pissing off the far left, precisely because it's NOT tearing down the existing system.

and here is where you are wrong on several points.

1. Obama's plan as stated during his campaign is a single payer healthcare system. This is the first of many steps should this garbage of a Bill pass.
2. Do you consider losing another 20 percent of your gross income a "change" in your day to day life? Well get used to it in January of 2010.
3. Do you consider NOT getting ANY BENEFITS from this scheme for another 4 years a fair shake?
4. Wrong on Hilary...Obama stated he favors single payer healthcare.

 

[ayiakri]

I don't see that it will change the day-to-day lives or the health-care plans of the majority of Americans at all. I look at this as more of "refurbishing the kitchen" (to stick with your housing analogy), and maybe adding an awning to the porch, rather than tearing the whole thing down. There are some who want to tear the whole thing down - I've heard some liberals say they'd like to completely replace the current system with a single-payer "National Health Service", like in Britain (in fact, Hillary Clinton originally was in favor of that, I think).

But Obama's plan is, from what I've read, pissing off the far left, precisely because it's NOT tearing down the existing system.

and here is where you are wrong on several points.

1. Obama's plan as stated during his campaign is a single payer healthcare system. This is the first of many steps should this garbage of a Bill pass.
2. Do you consider losing another 20 percent of your gross income a "change" in your day to day life? Well get used to it in January of 2010.
3. Do you consider NOT getting ANY BENEFITS from this scheme for another 4 years a fair shake?
4. Wrong on Hilary...Obama stated he favors single payer healthcare.

blah blah blah, blah blah, blah. I'm not even bothering to read your posts until you learn how to be as civil as, say, a typical 14-year old delinquent. It's not really asking much. Until then, my mouse has this amazing built-in scroll-wheel, so I can zzziiiiiiiiip right by your drivel!

 

[KittenKoder]

I don't see that it will change the day-to-day lives or the health-care plans of the majority of Americans at all. I look at this as more of "refurbishing the kitchen" (to stick with your housing analogy), and maybe adding an awning to the porch, rather than tearing the whole thing down. There are some who want to tear the whole thing down - I've heard some liberals say they'd like to completely replace the current system with a single-payer "National Health Service", like in Britain (in fact, Hillary Clinton originally was in favor of that, I think).

But Obama's plan is, from what I've read, pissing off the far left, precisely because it's NOT tearing down the existing system.

and here is where you are wrong on several points.

1. Obama's plan as stated during his campaign is a single payer healthcare system. This is the first of many steps should this garbage of a Bill pass.
2. Do you consider losing another 20 percent of your gross income a "change" in your day to day life? Well get used to it in January of 2010.
3. Do you consider NOT getting ANY BENEFITS from this scheme for another 4 years a fair shake?
4. Wrong on Hilary...Obama stated he favors single payer healthcare.

blah blah blah, blah blah, blah. I'm not even bothering to read your posts until you learn how to be as civil as, say, a typical 14-year old delinquent. It's not really asking much. Until then, my mouse has this amazing built-in scroll-wheel, so I can zzziiiiiiiiip right by your drivel!

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

 

[ayiakri]

blah blah blah, blah blah, blah. I'm not even bothering to read your posts until you learn how to be as civil as, say, a typical 14-year old delinquent. It's not really asking much. Until then, my mouse has this amazing built-in scroll-wheel, so I can zzziiiiiiiiip right by your drivel!

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

Nope - do you? On another thread, you just responded to a post by rightwinger, where he said that Republican officials should "show some decorum" at events where protesters are waving around Nazi signs, by claiming that this would mean liberal protesters who said Bush should be assassinated should be locked up for treason. (and actually - that's NOT treason - although threatening the President is illegal).

 

[KittenKoder]

blah blah blah, blah blah, blah. I'm not even bothering to read your posts until you learn how to be as civil as, say, a typical 14-year old delinquent. It's not really asking much. Until then, my mouse has this amazing built-in scroll-wheel, so I can zzziiiiiiiiip right by your drivel!

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

Nope - do you? On another thread, you just responded to a post by rightwinger, where he said that Republican officials should "show some decorum" at events where protesters are waving around Nazi signs, by claiming that this would mean liberal protesters who said Bush should be assassinated should be locked up for treason. (and actually - that's NOT treason - although threatening the President is illegal).

Meh ... so I got the "official" charge wrong ... sue me. You missed the point, not only of my post but Pateks as well. Either you didn't read them or you have reading comprehension problems. Patek was actually quite inane in his post, yet you said: I'm not even bothering to read your posts until you learn how to be as civil ....

So ... logic dictates you didn't even read it.