Insurance companies are crooks. Pay your premium so they can deny you coverage, force you to change doctors, limit your number of office visits. Meanwhile you pay ten dollars for a tylenol and 30 dollars for your fabulus plastic bedpan. Don't get sick or you will get dropped or your rates will go up. What needs fixing with that?

Keep your hands off my Obamacare! Yes we can help more people live longer healthier lives.

Well said malky. Well said.

My father told me tonight his doc charges him $440 for 5 minutes of time. Every time they hook him up to dialysis it's $700. Things need change one way or the other. We need to go back to being human beings again. They have put a price tag on life and have us arguing over it.

"But there are also tens of thousands of hard-working Americans struggling to make it who just need a hand up and not a hand out. People mean more to me than money."

I agree. There are legitimate folks who do need a hand and not perpetual handouts. Unfortunately, when you pass legislation (with an intention to help those in true need) that promotes dependency and everlasting benefits, it becomes hard to rollback these programs and they (social programs) continue to place a heavy burden on the taxpayer and businesses.

My situation isn't much different from most American families. And I AM willing to pay more taxes if that means that EVERYBODY has access to affordable healthcare. There are moochers in society now. There always will be. But there are also tens of thousands of hard-working Americans struggling to make it who just need a hand up and not a hand out. People mean more to me than money.

"Who says I don't offer up my weekly paycheck?"

Spunk-I am referring to people who post on here that say that they are willing to pay more taxes so that their fellow citizens can have a better life through welfare programs. Your situation is way different. I feel most would do the same thing based on what is important to them. Of course I would try and offer my weekly paycheck if that person was extremely close to me. Just because people have an opinion that there is way too much government intruson to try and cure the economically misfortuned does not mean that they lack compassion. Compassion is not based on how much money I can offer a strugling person. I could offer my time and support. If I was a billionaire and had all the money in the world I would help those who cannot help themselves (handicapped, mentallly ill, etc).

I can say that the fed is not very compassionate towards me when they take (yes, take) my liberty (private property-money I earned)when they distribute it to folks who won't work because they choose not to work and leech on those who do work.

You are the one that brought it up. Losing or keeping your insurance will not prevent either of the two issues you mentioned.

RAF - Wow. Thanks for that clarification. And completely missing the point.

Nothing in the new "law" prevents terminal diseases or reserves your job if you get sick.

vatoloco - Who says I don't offer up my weekly paycheck? You don't know me. I wonder if you would have the same opinion if you had to watch somebody you care about die slowly and painfully from a terminal disease because they couldn't afford to keep their insurance after they were forced to quit their job for health reasons. I wonder.

Whythink to your remark on bankruptcies. Our nations neighbor to the north has a healthcare system which many in this country point to as a model.

If this model is what you are referring to for protection, you said, "see a doctor without the fear of going bankrupt". Why is it their personal bankruptcy rate is only 1 per thousand people higher than here?

Is this your idea of fixing the "fear" you speak of?

No I have plenty, thanks for asking.

RetiredAirForce
Apr 7, 2010 at 4:15 a.m.
Suggest removal "You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick."
-
The liberal wingnuts are out of touch. There already was federal law, prior to the healthcare mess just passed, that requires anyone needing medicare to be treated...it is and was illegal to deny care. This new bill did not fix something that was already there...
.
Two thiings...
1.You make an excellent point...it should have read see a doctor without the fear of going bankrupt. People can see a doctor the new law deals more specifically with insurance.
.
2. Is that all you got? The rest of the stuff must make sense to you when your only comment is about an OBVIOUS mistake. You and everyone else realize that.

I would feel sickened if you did agree with anything I said...as to what you assign a value to few would know.

I'm sure you'll excuse me if I don't find value in your obtuse opinion.

So good with your dictionary and can't handle simple facts and math...

The opposite of irrelevance is not factuality.

Irrelevant observation?

Quite the contrary, it is a fact. 100% death for all irregardless of insurance class; personal, company provided, goverment provided or no insurance.

Oh - you were just making an irrelevant observation? Thanks for clearing that up.

Princess cant read I never said there wasn't need, but that we could debate, I did state that everyone dies with it or without it...

Exactly my point, vatoloco. Kind of like RetiredAirForce's observance that there's no need for health insurance because we're going to die anyway.
Really, why should any of us bother doing anything?

"Go lay down in traffic, then. You're going to die anyway."

Why wash the dishes, they are going to get dirty anyway.

Why wear underwear, your pants are going to get soiled anyway.

"Be the first in line to offer your weekly paycheck then."
.
Were there such a line, but that's not how this country works. If it's any consolation, we don't incessantly complain about giving our part to the society we live in.

"I am tired of people that want others to provide for them."
.
You're tired of... yourself?

"but I'm ALWAYS shocked at the lack of compassion demonstrated by some towards their fellow human beings."

So the government is the only one that shows compassion by robbing people of their liberty (private property) to redistribute it to the ones that could have the potential to be productive citizens? I know that there are people who cannot do daily living things like the handicapped and mentally ill and really need the help.

Be the first in line to offer your weekly paycheck then.

Everyone dies; with insurance or without...

Its simple ---- Personal Responsibility or a welfare/nanny state.

I would rather the governement let me spend ALL my money where I want. NO personal taxes , income or otherwise.

I pay my own way, no corporate insurance, I buy a policy I want.

I am tired of people that want others to provide for them. If I give, its from the goodness in my heart. When I am forced to give, I resent that I am being told. Take responsiblity for yourself.

I don't know why but I'm ALWAYS shocked at the lack of compassion demonstrated by some towards their fellow human beings. You'd think I'd be used to it by now. God help you when it comes back to bite you in the pooper.

As for personal responsibility, you can live the perfect life and still get cancer, diabetes, tumors, muscle diseases, heart problems, there are no guarantees. Is a baby born with a heart condition irresponsible? Up till this new bill was passed, they could be deemed not insurable because of a pre-existing condition.

I am not wrong, plans under most large employer provided insurance do not exclude pre-existing conditions, buy the plans on your own and they do. If you are 400 pounds, good luck on finding any insurance on your own, not through an employer. As for the article, the company admitted they didn`t notify her, and other people, of the increase until after the fact. The same company has raised rates, knowing that they will lose 600,000 customers, to raise their profits, something they have previously done.

Pharm -- lets talk about coverages -- even... If you are 400 lbs. Did you get that way from a lifestyle or is there some inherent medical cause. So -- should the insurance company pay for gastric bypass? Should they pay for any medical treatment for weight??? In the end -- its saying no matter what -- I am responsible for who and what I am..... done.

Pharm -- look at this way... Its personal responsibility. ---

If you choose to change jobs -- during the eval, you need to ask about the benefit package as that should factor into your decision.

If you are forced to change jobs -- for whatever reason, thats the way it goes. It becomes individual responsiblity. You do not have a right to the coverage you want.

pharm -- you are just plain wrong. I have switched policies several times. It depends upon the plan established through the company you work for. In all my cases, all I needed was proof of existing insurance. I have health issues as due other in the family.

As for the article, I still see no comments from the company that dropped her. I will bet that there were notifications or something you are not being told. Its interesting that companies are always guilty until proven innocent.

The article was in the L.A. Times, 1-17-2010, Aetna did not notify the woman of a premium increase for two months, then canceled her policy for not paying the increase in premiums. You are misinformed about pre-existing conditions coverage, if you try to buy a new policy after being diagnosed with cancer/diabetes/MS/MD/etc, you will find out how wrong you are, even if you have been covered under your old policy. If you are covered now, you better keep paying those premiums, the ones you know about as well as the ones you don`t! As for the housing deal, yes, some people borrowed too much, but the major cause of the failure was the financial institution policies of bundling and selling, multiple times, mortgages that were not safe, and of rating companies certifying them as safe.

greatplain, if you read I didn't comment on left leaning thoughts I commented on left wingnut thoughts...if you cant tell the difference perhaps you are closer to one side than the other.

Wow. Just. Wow.

pharm -- you cant be serious. Are you that gullible. To believe the woman didnt know about the increases. Thats what everyone says that doesnt take personal responsibility. Wheres the proof? What did the company send? Did they say they never notified her?

As I stated..... pre-existing conditions only apply to those that never had covered prior or within a specified period before aquiring the new coverage. You are right to some extent, people need to take personal responsibility. If you chose to not purchase coverage, but have that 54" wide screen, and the gaming PSP etc... you made a personal choice and must live with the consequences.

I also have no sympathy for those losing their homes. They can live in tents for all I care. I took personal responsibility to NOT overextend my credit, buy more house than I could afford etc.... I must now suffer from what those idiots did. I refuse to let them get off lightly, they can live on the streets.

Retired: Why if someone has a left-leaning thought, they are a "wingnut"? Childish name calling. You don't have to like it, but being retired, that would make you experienced and wise, right?

"You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick."
-
The liberal wingnuts are out of touch. There already was federal law, prior to the healthcare mess just passed, that requires anyone needing medicare to be treated...it is and was illegal to deny care. This new bill did not fix something that was already there...

"NOW you get mad???"

Posted on Monday, March 29, 2010

James F. submitted this via norm@normangoldman.com and it's GREAT! Apparently, HE got it from: www.rosie.com)

"We had eight years of Bush and Cheney, Now you get mad!?

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.

You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.

You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.

You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.

You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.

You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.

You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.

You didn't get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.

You didn't get mad when we gave a 900 billion tax break to the rich.

You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.

You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with you, but helping other Americans...oh hell no."

LOL
We certainly see what a victory constitutes for you.
Congratulations!
*confetti*

lovemycountry, there is no "federal health insurance", unless you're talking about Medicare. Owing a tax is not a civil penalty, which is what you said in your original comment.

To sum up, if you can, but don't, participate in a health insurance plan, you will owe the tax to the IRS, but:

The IRS can't place a lien on your property.
The IRS can't seize your property.
The IRS can't impose criminal penalties.
The IRS can't impose civil penalties.
The IRS can't charge interest on your fine.

Yes, if you overpay your taxes (withholding), the IRS will keep the overage to pay your taxes owed, but that's nothing new.

Zoom - If we don't pay for this new federal health insurance, we'll be assessed IRS civil penalties. Paid with refund withholding.

Well thank goodness you and USAToday have been able to determine the national mood 2+ years from now, lovemycountry. Quite the vicotry for you.
By the by, are you ready to admit that Zoom was correct?

"If you live your life responsibly the lifetime limits won`t affect you." You cannot be serious! One bout with cancer or a transplant can reach lifetime limits. Have you ever had to buy COBRA? It`s very expensive. As for pre-existing conditions, a baby born with a heart defect is considered, or was before the bill, a pre-existing condition. If you only consider your own circumstances , and not others that do not have the same resources, you are being selfish. Some people abuse the system, granted, but the majority do not. As for cancellation, how about an example I gave RAF a while back where a woman was canceled for not paying her full premium for two months, and the insurance company did not notify her of an increase in premiums for those months until they had passed. They did not want to reinstate her until the media made a stink. Even under the bill you can be canceled for fraud, but at least now you can`t be canceled for an honest mistake you didn`t even make.

Let's take each one:
Never had pre-existing take effect, except when I 1st started working. Changed jobs 6 times in 25 years and as long as I had proof of previous insurance, no pre-existing.

I would like some examples of insurance being cancelled without cause. Could the person have lied on the application? Let's make sure all the facts are known.

If you live your life responsibly, the lifetime limits wont affect you, plus most people change jobs on the average of every 5-7 years and never reach the lifetime limit.

Loss of insurance with job, you never heard of Cobra? In most cases loss of job is because of a lack of performance, so if you perform, you keep your coverage and are driven to perform to keep the insurance.

Its all about personal responsibility or an entitlement. Healthcare should not be an entitlement, regardless of who payes, or how its managed.

50% now surveyed say Obama doesn't deserve re-election. Thank goodness.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/...

"I've noticed you've had your share."
.
Half you really?

No insurance for pre-existing conditions, canceling of insurance when it is most needed, limits of lifetime care, loss of insurance with job loss, that is what we have now that will be gone because of government. There is no takeover of insurance, it`s all private as before, except Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. Instead of just 51 states(and DC) regulating, the Fed does also. Those sites are clear on whether everybody is covered, and the absence of death panels, if you think they are not, show me.

pharm -- the sites you posted have just as many assumptions and predispositions that you state the right has. Thats what I was talking about before. The budgetary impacts are based upon partisan assumptions. Me personally, I dont believe for a moment that the cost of care will be reduced, and in fact feel we will be paying more for less care in the end. What I am not saying is that nothing can nor should be done, what I am saying is keep the government out of it.

why bother with facts when we can just continue to live in fear and panic?

Aw, come on NVgrf, give andre_linoge a break. We all half a bad day sometimes.
: )

"lower have of their class" Andre, how in good conscience can you make fun of anyone.

The bill, factcheck.org, politifact.com, and any reputable newspaper/ TV station/ website, that reported on the bill.

pharm - do you have a source for that claim ?

Snydes, calm down, everybody in Congress, the President, everybody that gets health insurance in this country is covered by the bill. And ,there are no death panels, a special added bonus!

"If you think there isn't an opposing view on the constitutionality of this health care bill, then your head is buried too deep in the sand."
.
"If" being the operative word. You don't pay much attention to detail, do you? I suppose that's how your "typo" (is that what we're calling substituting a homophone for an intended word?) happened.
.
"Now, please continue with your line by line drivel, it's mostly mundane rhetoric and hot air the biggest share of the time."
.
And yet you find it meaningful enough to respond to...hmm.

"Do your own research incoherentruth."
.
Oh, I'm quite able to, and do, andre_linoge. That's how I can state, "However, the argument (so far as I can tell) of the minority who believe the suits have potential is simply that no precedents exist." I just thought you might like the opportunity to further substantiate your claim. Apparently you either do not, or you have nothing to offer.
.
"Remember, half of these so called 'scholars' graduate in the lower have of their class."
.
LOL, good point! I almost forgot that widely known fact.
Did you learn of those graduate standings through "your own research"?
And, how does one correctly use the word "half" in the beginning of a sentence, but then incorrectly use "have" instead in the end of that same sentence?

lovemycountry:

The "Cornhusker Kickback" was removed from the final bill.

There will be no civil or criminal penalties for not complying with the mandatory insurance requirement.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/2...

Unconstitutional: Cornhusker Kickback - Sen. Harry Reid agreed that the federal government would pick up 100 percent of the tab for the planned Medicaid expansion in Nebraska – forever
-
Unconstitutional: Mandating that individuals must obtain health insurance, and imposing any penalty—civil or criminal—on any private citizen for not purchasing health insurance.
(for those comparing this bill to car insurance, only STATE governments can require people to get car insurance).

A good link, RetiredAirForce. However, the argument (so far as I can tell) of the minority who believe the suits have potential is simply that no precedents exist. Clearly precedents do, as some have been cited here.
Seeing as andre_linoge has failed to explain what rationales/precedents have been cited by lawyers who believe this legislation is unconstitutional, perhaps you know of any others besides the limp "no precedent" argument?

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress didn't pay into Social Security, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered...in all of its forms. Somehow that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.

Have each person contact a minimum of twenty people on their Address list, in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.


Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States of America that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States of America."

Predetermination knows no party or, liberal/conservative bent. As long as you realize that, we are in some agreement.

Pharm -- in my OPINION, the problem with some of these people you call scholars, is that they have a predisposition on a position and therefore, they want to make t he constitution interpretations based upon a predertermined opinion, opposed to taking the words literally as stated. This is why we are in a position of losing the free market system that has served use so well and has elevated our country to its current position in the world markets. Its the tinkering as I will call it by these people with predetermined positions that has obscured the line.

Oh, your example of "socialized" medicine could happen here, with our free market system. It is an example of bad nurses not the system itself. Just my opinion, of course!

You are making one of my points for me. The "expert" posters come on here and say, "The government can`t do this, only that", as if it is written in stone. Obviously it is not or the real experts wouldn`t be divided in their opinions. Your opinion, or mine, is just that ,an opinion. As we have no, I`m guessing in your case, legal training in Constitutional law, whatever we opine is not law, just opinion. If a case against the health mandate ever comes to the Court, the decision ,either way, will still be argued by expert Constitutional scholars. The Justices are human, even the Conservatives, and they will vote using their life experiences, biases, as well as legal training, and anyone that says different is sadly mistaken. Of course, that is just my opinion!

Another sterling example of single payer (socialized) medicine/healthcare.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

Pharm, they are all legal scholars with teachings derived from the constitution. They are elected members in the respective states and represent citizens, with this come responsibility.

To further expand the truth, your referenced scholar's remarks were published in the NY times with other constitutional scholars...but they are not all of the same opinion; imagine that.

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2...

How many of those AG`s are Constitutional scholars? Don`t rely on their judgment just because they are lawyers, remember the Bush lawyers who said water boarding is not torture? I have yet to see a court decision, or any legislation that changed the law that has been prosecuted for over 100 years.

So far 13 states attorney’s general, bipartisan, have filed because they believe parts of the new law are unconstitutional...and as such carries more weight than the posters on here, unless one of them is also educated as one.

You`re right, but it is a Constitutional scholars opinion, and as such carries more weight than the posters on here, unless one of them is also educated as one.

And what are their cited rationales/precedents, andre_linoge?

New England Journal Of Medicine, 1-13-2010, Jack M. Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law, at Yale; "The Supreme Court will probably not even consider the issue unless a federal court of appeals strikes the tax down. In that unlikely event, the Supreme Court will almost certainly uphold the tax, at least if it follows existing law. To strike down the individual mandate, it would have to reject decades of precedents. It is very unlikely that there are five votes on the current court for staging such a constitutional revolution." An expert saying precedent exists. On another note, Nixon, Bush Sr. Trent Lott, Lindsay Graham, Lamar Alexander, Gingrich, Romney, Charles Grassley, all floated the idea of a federal insurance mandate, and in 2005 the Heritage Foundation declared it to be constitutional. Now, of course, they , the live ones at least, have crossed to the other side of the fence, unless Bush Sr. is still for it. One other thing to consider, until someone actually is taxed for not buying insurance, a case might not be able to be brought up in any court, IMO.

LOL

Please continue to think what ifs and "maybe required" are precedent.

"Your term of maybe be required…"
.
I don't recall using the term "maybe be required," but you're welcome to quote where I have.
.
"The comparison of your stance of may be required to a health insurance mandate is not even close."
.
In fact, it's spot-on. Congress holds such power over national commerce, as ruled by two separate Supreme Court benches in two different centuries, that citizens may be required to make a purchase to avoid undermining said national commerce. In this case, such commerce is health insurance, and to not buy it when you are financially able undermines its purpose.
Keep up your opinionated denials of fact; I'm enjoying it!

Your term of maybe be required is not in precedent either; case law and precedent are not made of maybes and what ifs, and your speculation is not case law or precedent. The comparison of your stance of may be required to a health insurance mandate is not even close.

"Using your faulty logic..."
.
It's not my "logic;" it's factual legal precedent. Congress holds such power over national commerce, as ruled by two separate Supreme Court benches in two different centuries, that citizens may be required to make a purchase to avoid undermining said national commerce. In this case, such commerce is health insurance, and to not buy it when you are financially able undermines its purpose.
.
"...preventing a person from driving..."
.
"Driving," which requires a purchase to do in the first place, isn't Federally regulated commerce. And were one be not allowed to drive, a taxi is not the sole option for transportation. So, speaking of "stretching," let's not resort to hypotheticals.
.
"Have you figured out the exclusion for basic training through your vast knowledge?"
.
You seem a bit put off that I'm aware of the pay deduction. Was it a big military secret?
.
"Confined actions and regulated control over items allowed leaves few options."
.
So you DO understand the premise! I was getting worried.
.
"This does not prevent a person from showing up with a bald head before basic or require a bald person pay for anything."
.
As a military retiree, it might have escaped your memory, but more than one haircut is administered during basic. If you’ll recall, hair grows.
.
"You can keep trying all you want on these failed analogies..."
.
Kind of like your "driving" nonsense?
Sorry, but precedent exists, as the upcoming failure of the frivolous suits being brought by the state AGs will further demonstrate. Deny all you'd like in the meantime.

Have you figured out the exclusion for basic training through your vast knowledge? Confined actions and regulated control over items allowed leaves few options. This does not prevent a person from showing up with a bald head before basic or require a bald person pay for anything. This is no more a mandate than hiring a mechanic and requiring him have his own tools. You can keep trying all you want on these failed analogies...it does not set any precedent.

Using your faulty logic preventing a person from driving mandates them purchasing a taxi ride, there by creating a mandate...keep stretching.

"Declaring effectively he is required does not equate to he is required."
.
It does, however, set precedent for Congress to regulate commerce to the point that citizens must make a purchase to avoid underming said regulated national commerce (in this case, health care insurance).
.
"preventing an activity does not require another activity happen"
.
It certainly does. He was prevented from growing his own wheat beyond a certain quantity. He is then required to purchase whaeat if he wants that quantity.
.
"Please explain you knowledge of pay "docked" for military members..."
.
Takes one to know one?
While in basic training, enlistees will have their haircuts paid for by docked pay from their checks. Afterwards, haircuts are still paid for out-of-pocket in some manner or another, as hair styles are regulated and must be maintained.

Declaring effectively he is required does not equate to he is required. Just like the California case, preventing an activity does not require another activity happen, this is called speculation not a mandate.

Please explain you knowledge of pay "docked" for military members...

"Wickard v. Filburn prevented an activity it never required him to purchase wheat, just stop growing it."
.
If he couldn't grow it for himself, how would he obtain it otherwise? Effectively, he is required to purchase additional amounts.
.
"The activities in California as well had no mandate for anyone to purchase something from another."
.
Again, if one is not allowed to grow something for themselves, the only other means to obtain it is through purchase.
Both cases show that Congress may regulate commerce to the point that you are required to make a purchase to avoid undercutting national commerce. You can argue this all day, but your opinion doesn't negate precedent, and the upcoming failure of the frivolous suits being brought by the state AGs will further demonstrate this.
.
"The Militia act was in governing the Army, under the powers of congress"
.
Just as Congress has the power to tax, regulate commerce, and establish necessary and proper laws to carry out those powers.
.
"nothing says it has to be purchased just be accomplished."
.
Having been in the military, you should know you are docked the amount the hair cut costs from your pay.

Wickard v. Filburn prevented an activity it never required him to purchase wheat, just stop growing it. The activities in California as well had no mandate for anyone to purchase something from another. The Militia act was in governing the Army, under the powers of congress, no different than today requiring a haircut for troops, nothing says it has to be purchased just be accomplished.

"...they cannot mandate a good or service unless it is within the 17 powers they attain. Healthcare is not in or a part of those 17 powers. Read Article 1 Sec. 8 of the constitution and read the 17 powers."
.
I’ve read it, thank you, and I have to inform you that there is no mention of ANY specific good or service to be regulated in the enumerated powers (other than coinage and post, I suppose, but Congress is not limited to those two). And yet the Federal government currently (constitutionally so, or it would be challenged and disallowed) regulates all kinds of national (that being the only stipulation) commerce.

"Not sure how you reason the government is not forcing the purchase when it states so in the law."
.
Quote the law, and its provisions for "force."
.
"Under the provisions of the interstate commerce clause, which I grant you are wide, there is no existing precedent for a required purchase from one party to buy something from another."
.
Yes, there is.
Perhaps you missed pharm's citation of The Militia Act of 1792 and the 2005 Supreme Court case, Gonzalas vs. Raich? There is also the matter of the 1942 Supreme Court case, Wickard v. Filburn, which the 2005 case heavily relied upon.

" However, if you show up at a hospital, you will be fined."
-
Darwin you are indeed ignorant.

The fed tends to dictate more than represent. States are nore likely to reflect the interests of us hte citizens than hte fed interests.

I do believe that if you and your wife divorce the judge can mandate that you pay to send your child to college whether you want to or not.

There will be NO mandate.

Well there would never have to be a mandate to purchase insurance. However, if you show up at a hospital, you will be fined. So, therefore you have a choice.

Sorry meant delegated to the Government.

ICT Yes, the Government can mandate a tax but they cannot mandate a good or service unless it is within the 17 powers they attain. Healthcare is not in or a part of those 17 powers. Read Article 1 Sec. 8 of the constitution and read the 17 powers.

Yes there is ability for the Government to tax but a mandate to purchase a product from a private company is not a tax it is commerce. Under the provisions of the interstate commerce clause, which I grant you are wide, there is no existing precedent for a required purchase from one party to buy something from another.

Madsintst, I do understand the mandate. In deference to Ezra, and his equivocation that the mandate is no different than what Massachusetts does, states have abilities that the federal government does not, as stated in the tenth amendment; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". Pure and simple this allows the states to do things the federal government cant.

Not sure how you reason the government is not forcing the purchase when it states so in the law. The fine is imposed as a penalty for not following the mandate. Your equation of mortgage tax deduction to health insurance is faulty logic; you are not required by law [mandate] to purchase a home.

To your comment that there is "virtually" no enforcement as a conclusion that there is not force to purchase the insurance is ludicrous. Ignorance of the law has never been a valid defense for defying it. The health care bill was voted on by both houses and signed by the president, it is now a law.

"The Federal Government has superceeded it's power over the states."
.
That's not even a sensible statement. The Federal government cannot supersede what it already presides over. It's not really a matter of opinion, as I pointed out in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It's such a non-issue, in fact, that it will never be a matter for the Supreme Court to consider in relation to this legislation. Even if it were, precedent exists in favor of the Federal government.
.
"'Do what we say, or we take the money away.' 65 mph, .08, etc."
.
So, basically, the same methods employed by state governments...the level of government you extol? Or do states not handle such legal matters as speed limits and public intoxication levels?
.
"But simply put, you are of the opinion that the Federal Government must control individual rights, and those of the states, and grant freedom as they see fit against the will of the majority."
.
I've never stated any such thing. Speaking of speciousness, perhaps when you take the time to properly respond, you'll re-read my statements more closely and rebut what is actually presented instead.

pudssweetie, the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the powers of taxation, regulation of commerce (with a precedent being established early on, as pharm pointed out, though many others exist), and creating new laws for the necessary and proper implementation of those two previous (and all other) powers.
In short, health care reform is both legislatively precedented and (therefore) constitutional.

"That should be a State's job, not the Fed."
.
That may be your opinion, but the Constitution gives the Congress the power of taxation. That states may also tax for their local government does not negate that power of Congress.
.
"Again, there's a reason that the laws of Utah are different than those in Wisconsin, and the laws of Virginia are not the same as can be found in Massachusetts."
.
I can tell you that the reason isn't because they're free to supersede the power of the law of the Federal government.
Simply, the reason state laws exist, and are varied, is because there are indeed matters that are left to the states to decide...just as there are matters that the Federal government may decide for all of the states.
.
"The Fed needs to butt out."
.
Of? The Constitution makes it clear that the Federal government presides over local governments in many respects.
.
"Wisconsin can handle it's own Health Care Reform."
.
The goal is health care reform for ALL Americans, not just one state.
And we've already been witness to different health insurance standards and practices varying from state to state, where pseudo-monopolies of one or two insurance companies are created by those individual states' limits.
.
"I'm not totally against health care provided for those who can't afford it, or even being taxed for it, as long as it's FROM WISCONSIN, where I choose to live."
.
This argument falls apart when one considers that you also choose to live in the U.S. If you're not against health care being provided for those who can't afford it, or even being taxed for it, as long as it's from where you live, then the U.S. is just as applicable as Wisconsin as a designation of "where you choose to live."
.
"Ever hear of Badger Care?"
.
Yes...
.
"If we need reform, get the Feds out of it, and let's take care of it locally like the founding fathers envisioned and provided for!"
.
The colonies and states preceded the Federal government, which was created so as to unite under one entity as one nation. Supreme authority was granted to the laws of that entity, as envisioned by our founders.
.
"People, quit asking the Feds, who blackmail us on a daily basis, to solve your problems."
.
Blackmail us how?

That somewhere along the line the government decided not to require guard members to acquire automatic weapons on their own, but if muskets come back in vogue, look out!

The Militia Act of 1792, required all able-bodied men to report for militia duty, and to have/acquire/make/ or purchase from a private party, a musket, bayonet, powder, 24 balls for shot, and assorted other things. So, 218 years ago precedent was set for the Federal government to order citizens to engage in commerce. Supreme Court, 2005, Gonzalas vs. Raich, in a 6-3 decision, Scalia speaking for the majority, "The Constitution gave Congress nearly unlimited power to regulate the marketplace...". This was about whether people using marijuana for medicinal purposes could legally grow it for themselves or not. I believe they lost, and were ordered to purchase the drug.

When they(Founding Fathers) formed the Constitution, the states delegated 17 powers, and no more, to the central government. Those powers are listed in Article I, Section 8. Since Congress has only the powers granted to it by the states, if a power is not listed in Article I, Section 8, Congress and the president have no legitimate authority to act. Every other "power," or right to act, is reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment.

You will look in vain among the enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8 for the right of the federal government to mandate that American citizens purchase health insurance. It's not there.

"To your opinion of the mandate being constitutional, this can only be through speculation as there is no precedent where by the federal government can require a citizen purchase a good or service from a private company."
.
There is ability and precedent for Congress to tax. Under this legislation, certain individuals are regulated to purchase insurance. If they do not, they are taxed. If they further refuse to pay that tax...well, there's really no provision for further action or punishment. It just stands against you. Sort of like returning a movie or book late and then never borrowing another from the same place so as to avoid the fine.
As for government mandates, both Federal and state governments regulate (aka mandate) all kinds of enlistments/payments. The precedent to require citizens to do something has existed since the very founding of our nation, and the ability and precedent to regulate a portion of the national economy falls under the Commerce Clause.

"As I've said before, there's a reason that we were founded as a Democratic Republic, with separate states. It wasn't so that the Federal government could seize control of powers they are not supposed to have, by design."
.
WAY too much importance and attention has been unduly placed on the 10th Amendment over the years. It's a means of ignoring that, ultimately:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." - The U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2
By design, Federal DOES hold control, NOT the states.
Also, there is no right to be uninsured, so don't bother arguing a violation of the Bill of Rights, either.

Madsintax - Who gave you that kool-aid??
-
Not sure what "kool-aid" you are refering to, but I am a fan of Thom Hartmann. Recently finished reading his book, "Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class". It's a good read. If so many of you didn't hate socialism so much, I would suggest you pick it up from your local library. But if you don't want to take advantage of a socialist benefit, you could always buy it at a book store.

RAF, you completely missed my point about the individual mandate, which you also seem to lack an understanding of. Check out this article for a brief overview of the mandate:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-kl...
-
You guys are still stuck on the idea that the Gov't is forcing you to purchase a good or service from a private company. That's simply not true. You can choose not to, and pay a small fine, or tax. (Again, I'll refer you back to the tax break for mortgage interest example in my earlier post) Coincidentally, as the above article points out, there is virtually no enforcement if you decide to not purchase insurance and not pay the fine. So, how exactly is the Gov't forcing you to purchase a good or service from a private company.

Madsintst, the mandate to purchase health insurance from a private company is not a tax, nor is a fine imposed for not fulfilling the mandate. To your opinion of the mandate being constitutional, this can only be through speculation as there is no precedent where by the federal government can require a citizen purchase a good or service from a private company.

"And the discussions with Republicans were televised." You can't just change facts to suit your needs.

"But to argue about what the Gov't should or should not do to ensure that all Americans have access to a basic right is just, disappointing."
+
Could you point out that "basic right" in the constitution? I couldn't find it.
+
Unfortunately the U.S. is the only industrialized country still debating whether health care is a right or a privilege. I would respond to DjGriz that I believe promoting the general welfare includes making sure everybody has access to affordable health CARE, and it seems that the only way many people can get access to affordable health care is if they have health insurance. The Declaration of Indepence also mentions something about life as an unalienalbe right. The fact is 45000 people a year die because they feel they need to choose death rather than seek medical attention, in large part because they lack health insurance. To think that our founders believed the unalienable right to life did not include the right to have access to the neccessary means (health CARE) to promote life is naive. You can't convince me that the right to life has nothing to do with health care access.

DjGriz

"forcing people to buy insurance"

Nobodies holding a gun to your head. The idea that the individual mandate is unconstitutional has no merit. The "fine" for not having insurance is treated as a tax. So everybody will have their taxes raised either by a specific amount, or 2.5% of their income, whichever is greater. The constitution allows Congress to levy taxes. They can also give tax breaks, and in this case, purchasing health insurance will be your tax break. It's really no different than me getting a tax break on the interest I pay on my mortgage. If I didn't have that mortgage, I would be paying more in taxes. Yet, I don't feel like anbody is "forcing" me to have a mortgage, (well, except maybe my wife, who had enough apartment living and wanted a house).

Yes darwin your were grammatically correct if describing a series of events, that never did happen. Given the only event was singular occurrence your grammar was inaccurate...try again researcher.

RAF, what? First off, there is no authority of grammar and usage because that would require a government takeover of the language - American language rules are based on the overall usage in print. So, although many people think they are part of a grammatical police force, no such force exists. Second, it was my understanding there were two discussions. Third, what I wrote is proper English English. However, it not proper American English. I read a lot of British books and publications. In English English they don't have subject verb agreement with their linking verbs like we do.

Yes madsintst you are correct, one televised meeting with more than one person speaking did happen.

Now can you say that met the requirements that the president made while campaigning?

"Yes, like the "random" bullet fired in the air landing in a meeting room at 1 AM was intentional."
-
Intentional? Doubtful that it was intentional, but it did happen. Which is different than the published news report of a brick thrown through the window of a congressman Driehaus' in Cincinnati. Turns out his office is on the 30th floor...someone has a heck of an arm don't you think?

"Two Republicans wrote competing parts of the bill that caused this "accident", blame them for the mess."
-
Sure. What two members? Then please tell me the names of the people that READ the bill before voting to find it?

Is this what people get to do after retiring from the military (I'm assuming RetiredAirForce is not just a nickname, but that you are actually retired from the Air Force)? They get to sit back and enjoy their socialized benefits while posting comments on a local news paper all day, trying to convince people that they don't deserve the types of benefits that you, yourself receive. Look, nothing against people that decide to make their career through military service, it's admirable, I respect it, and you deserve everything and more you get from our government in return. But to argue about what the Gov't should or should not do to ensure that all Americans have access to a basic right is just, disappointing.

I`m sure, and politifact.com has the same explanation that I wrote in my last post. The only exemption is from being forced to go to an exchange to get insurance, not from any new laws or regulations. Under the bill, are you forced to buy from an exchange? If not, you are also exempt under your news story. What parts of the bill are they supposed to be exempt from, can you name one? Out of 300,000,000 people, how many are not ordered to buy insurance from an exchange? Every one of them is also exempt. Who besides Congress is being made to buy from an exchange?

RAF, you're pretty good at finding flaws in peoples' arguments. Unfortunately, they're often grammatical flaws that have nothing to do with the substance of their argument. For example:

"And the discussions with Republicans was televised,"
-
English is a tough language, you used two words which made your whole statement false.

The correct version: And a discussion with Republicans was televised.

However, if you count the Q and A beat down Obama handed out at the GOP House retreat and the Health care summit, then I would have to say that the discussions with Republicans were televised.

This is a non-issue, it has to do with people(Congress) being forced to change where they get their insurance. It does not mean that the President, or any staffers are not covered by any new regulations and requirements in the health bill. In fact, Congress(Democrats) voted to make themselves have to buy insurance through an exchange, the exemptions only apply to those staffers, D and R,that will not have to change where they get insurance. Everybody is covered by the bill, no matter the spin anyone wants to try and add to it.

Correction, Obama has said he will get his insurance through an exchange instead of the Federal health plans, which will have to meet any new regulations like our insurance. Don`t know about Biden. Congress has to go into the exchange and get their insurance, giving up their existing Federal plans.

Yes, like the "random" bullet fired in the air landing in a meeting room at 1 AM was intentional. Two Republicans wrote competing parts of the bill that caused this "accident", blame them for the mess.

" some staff are exempted,by accident,"
-
Accident? When an amendment this week was voted on to fix this mistake it was tabled by the dem's in the senate...was that an accident also?

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/26/news/eco...

Some staffers would not have to change their insurance to a plan from the exchange, as Congress, Obama, Biden will have to.

Try again neocon, some staff are exempted,by accident, not Obama, Biden, or members of Congress, or anyone else that is a Federal employee. factcheck.org

Lovemycountry...

It's funny you should ask that. It turns out that there is an exemption in the Bill that makes Obama, Biden, The Cabinet, House and Senate leaders (Pelosi and Reid)and their staffs, and Congressional Comittee members all exempt from this plan. So no, they don't have to take part in this. Iowa Senator Grassley and Oklahoma Senator Coburn, both Replublicans, pushed to close this loophole in the Senate. They called for the ammendment and vote, however Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, would not even let it come up for a vote. Both Coburn and Grassley argued that they want the loophole closed because the leaders pushed so hard to force this on the American people, they too should be subject to the plan if it is so great. They further argued that if they run into problems with the Bill then they would be first to know what is wrong with it. In a nutshell, what is "good for the goose, is good for the gander." apparently not so for the Progressive Leadership...Keep the Change Obama and you know what Pelosi can do with that big gavel she was carrying the other day.

Will Congress have the same healthcare plan they just passed for us ?

I still suggest two step solution:

Step 1: Adjust Medicare eligibility age by 66 years, not by only 10 years.

Step 2: Merge ALL the Federal employees' health insurance options into ONLY Medicare.

Problem solved. When federal judges, Supreme Justices, all Cabinet, House and Senate members, VP & Pres. (& all their spouses and children) are stuck with the same single-payer system as normal humans, then those powerful politicians will agree to common sense improvements / reforms of that system.
Without proper motivation, politicians have delayed fixing our single-payer medical care delivery system some 18 years, while their families are covered by a separate solid gold system. ( Maybe 100+ years, if you count Teddy Roosevelt as a REFORMER! ) Ron

"And the discussions with Republicans was televised,"
-
English is a tough language, you used two words which made your whole statement false.

The correct version: And a discussion with Republicans was televised.

Negotiations involve many people and you have to get everyones permission to televise. And the discussions with Republicans was televised, so what exactly is Mr Cafferty talking about. He must be channeling Lou Dobbs.

Cafferty said it best...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CyZV7CNz...

Things have actually been pretty humorous around here for a while thanks to the spectacular performance art. Your contributions are appreciated, though.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/reti...

We need a little humor around here. Here is a post from USAToday.

"Yep, I haven't worked in years, I'm 60 years old, 150 pounds overweight and my free scooter needs free repair. I'm handicapped but the first in line at all the Disneyland food lines and rides but I need a stomach bypass, new hips and knees, with diabetes kicking in because of my poor diet, and my eyesight is going from watching t.v. 14 hours a day. I deserve free healthcare."

This bill has just taken away far more than it will ever give and WE all just go along with things like animals to the slaughter. Sure, we're getting fed and are educated to think it's all hunky dorie........ better wake up. Start learning from history rather than repeating it.

ICT-Keep racism out of this.

Want a cracker?

yes we can't all be entertainers...

We can't all be insecure entertainers posting for the approval of others.

" I'm looking forward to your next piece."
-
Wow, that is the exact opposite of what people think when they see your ramblings.

Wow... I hadn't realized it before, but I see what you've done here. Just great, man - I thought you were taking yourself seriously, but I had you all wrong. Your parodies have really captured the essence of the commercially marketed concept of the anti-establishment 'revolutionary' in order to comment on the manufactured nature of the dogmatic movement to oppose intervention and regulation. Very ironic. If you can find an audience that's hip enough to get your humor, you could really have a future in performance art. I'd say take it to the streets to hone it (you still make Democrats your sole target, despite your pose that you're against both parties - it's all about consistency in your act) and get a little recognition, because you really need to be heard. Honestly. I'm looking forward to your next piece.

Hey, her comments sound eerily like yours, vatoloco...you and Sanger are two peas in a pod. If only you could have lived during the same time together - you missed a real love connection!
.
"Yes, ICT. Please click on this link and tell me about baby killers."
.
You’re the first to mention "baby killers." As I mentioned before, I'm quite impressed at your amazing ability to read so much between the lines...or, more accurately, your ability to completely disregard what people say and substitute your own words and topics in place.
.
"Margaret Sanger-Founder of Planned Parenthood said, ‘The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.’"
.
And Fozzy Bear said, "Wocka wocka wocka!" What’s your point?

http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

Yes, ICT. Please click on this link and tell me about baby killers.

Margaret Sanger-Founder of Planned Parenthood said, "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race
(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:

"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

"And you call them "bloodsucking weak leeches,"

Yes, the ones who abuse the system by thinking they deserve everything without havng earned it.

I never said babies, the elderly, or humans were "bloodsucking leeches".

And? And you call them "bloodsucking weak leeches," in an effort to dehumanize so as to allow your easy complacence towards senseless, preventable deaths.
Keep those eyes shut tight!

"deaths of children, the eldery - humans"

Children die in Africa everyday, people die of natural causes every day. People die everyday

And?

DiGriz's responses to the healthcare bill sound a lot like a toddler's temper tantrum. Perhaps we can use some parenting tactics to deal with him.
Since rational discourse clearly isn't working, here are some helpful anti-tantrum techniques.
.
1. Let them cry it out.
"Aristotle…stated that when children screamed they should not be repressed, because screaming played an important role in their development. If a child wished to protest vocally against the order of things in his environment, Aristotle would let him cry out his tantrum. He thought evil humors might be drained out of the system by free expression." – ‘Parents and Their Problems’
.
2. Demonstrate negative consequences.
"Show [the child] how ridiculous and futile his loss of control was, and tell him how much he will lose of companionship and accomplishment when he is a man if he does not learn self-control." – ‘Parents and Their Problems’
.
3. Teach new terms.
"Toddlers generally understand more than they can express. Imagine not being able to communicate your needs to someone - a frustrating experience that may precipitate a tantrum. As language skills improve, tantrums tend to decrease." - Kidshealth.com
.
4. Speak their language.
"It helps to think of your toddler as sort of a caveman. With all their grunting and grabbing, toddlers often seem quite primitive. To communicate with them, you have to speak in a primitive and almost prehistoric type of language - Toddler-ese - with lots of gestures. It needs to be as energetic and dramatic as the child is being. To speak Toddler-ese, use:
- Short phrases.
- Tons of repetition.
- A passionate tone of voice.
- Lots of exaggerated facial expressions and body gestures." – ‘How To Calm A Toddler In Seconds’
.
5. Remove them from public situations.
"Some youngsters, of course, use tantrums as a form of control; they've learned that kicking and screaming bring them what they want. If that's the case in your house, there's only one way to remedy the situation: stick to your guns, buy yourself earplugs if necessary, and keep him out of public situations where he may try his most vigorous shindigs." – ‘Your Child's Self-Esteem’

Many conservative responses to the healthcare bill sound a lot like a toddler's temper tantrum. Perhaps we can use some parenting tactics to deal with them.
Since rational discourse clearly isn't working, here are some helpful anti-tantrum techniques.
.
1. Let them cry it out.
"Aristotle…stated that when children screamed they should not be repressed, because screaming played an important role in their development. If a child wished to protest vocally against the order of things in his environment, Aristotle would let him cry out his tantrum. He thought evil humors might be drained out of the system by free expression." – ‘Parents and Their Problems’
.
2. Demonstrate negative consequences.
"Show [the child] how ridiculous and futile his loss of control was, and tell him how much he will lose of companionship and accomplishment when he is a man if he does not learn self-control." – ‘Parents and Their Problems’
.
3. Teach new terms.
"Toddlers generally understand more than they can express. Imagine not being able to communicate your needs to someone - a frustrating experience that may precipitate a tantrum. As language skills improve, tantrums tend to decrease." - Kidshealth.com
.
4. Speak their language.
"It helps to think of your toddler as sort of a caveman. With all their grunting and grabbing, toddlers often seem quite primitive. To communicate with them, you have to speak in a primitive and almost prehistoric type of language - Toddler-ese - with lots of gestures. It needs to be as energetic and dramatic as the child is being. To speak Toddler-ese, use:
- Short phrases.
- Tons of repetition.
- A passionate tone of voice.
- Lots of exaggerated facial expressions and body gestures." – ‘How To Calm A Toddler In Seconds’
.
5. Remove them from public situations.
"Some youngsters, of course, use tantrums as a form of control; they've learned that kicking and screaming bring them what they want. If that's the case in your house, there's only one way to remedy the situation: stick to your guns, buy yourself earplugs if necessary, and keep him out of public situations where he may try his most vigorous shindigs." – ‘Your Child's Self-Esteem’

WOW!
I can't believe you are ignorant enough to admit a belief that poor people are right now getting pregnant just to take advantage of the new health care system.
.

It makes it easier to be complacent about the deaths of children, the eldery - humans - when you can close your eyes so tightly while they die, doesn't it, vatoloco?

Not concerned about the bloodsucking weak leeches that look at Obama as their God. I sympathize for the folks that work hard only to support others id....

Zoom-ah, government loving Zoom. Always believing what the fed saids. So Zoom, what you are saying is that this bill will not go outside of its costs parameters?

"I am not concerned about what happens to others."
.
There's really no need for you to post anything further - you've summed it up nicely.

And, not part of any tea party.

Here is a good summary of the falshoods surrounding the health care reform debate.
http://factcheck.org/2010/03/a-final-wee...

"Are you so ignorant to believe the ABOVE statement by YOU will happen?"

Yes, it will happen. Freeloaders (Obama welfare folks) will make sure they are afforded more entitlements that are the product of others. Obama and his welfare state surely drive the weak.

"Are you so ignorante to believe on those YOU mention in the ABOVE statement by YOU will be helped?"

I am not concerned about what happens to others. I care what happens to my family. I do not emit moral superiority like you and the rest of the "I care more than you do, don't you dare say I do not care" crowd.

Offer it free and they will come.

vatoloco
Mar 23, 2010 at 7:35 a.m.
Suggest removal "insurers will be required to cover an insured person's children up to age 26, and pre-existing condition exclusions would be prohibited. 90 days after Obama signs the bill,"

The cost of just this will drive insurance companies out of business. Imagine this, all the welfare people are probably trying to get pregnant right now so they can put as many kids on an insurance plans. By the time some these babies are ages 21-26, they will be hanging out in the front porches drinking with crack head mom and alcoholic dad. But get this, they will have health insurance! And, by removing lifetime expense limits, all the irresponsible welfare folks (who look at Obama as their Jesus Christ) will go to the doctor to get medical procedures that are nto essential. This is all on the leftists. They own it and will be remembered as the people who helped put our country in further misery. The Iraq War was Bush's bad legacy. This healthcare mistake will be Obama's bad legacy.
.
Are you so ignorant to believe the ABOVE statement by YOU will happen?
.
OR
.
Are you so ignorante to believe on those YOU mention in the ABOVE statement by YOU will be helped?
.
Try to answer the question next time.
.
Are you a proud member of the tea party movement?

Technically companies are not mandated, but those companies with 50 employees or more that choose not to offer insurance, OR such companies that have employees who earn up to four times the national poverty level and would pay 8% of their annual income in out-of-pocket expenses for employer-offered insurance choose to refuse that offered insurance, will be penalized $2000 per worker beginning in 2014.

Vatoloco, there is no employer mandate, just the individual mandate. So your argument that "When companies are forced/mandated to do something to satisfy a government requirement, costs trickle down to the consumer..." in regards to the health care bill, has no basis. It seems like you are lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact. In other words, ignorant.

"Condescending again"
.
Pointing out that your statement was false is not condescending. Condescending is putting words in other's mouths, as you do when you condescendingly retort, "your word is law, right?"
.
"When companies are forced/mandated to do something to satisfy a government requirement, costs trickle down to the consumer"
.
I do believe your charge was "The cost of just this will drive insurance companies out of business." But now your charge is that more consumers will be paying insurance companies...more? How are insurance companies going to go out of business again?

vatoloco, thanks for reinforcing my statement regarding you "Hey onemethpillatatime,". You obviously have more experience with drugs than I do. I didn't know Methamphetamine came in pill form. Is this knowledge from personal experience on your part? If so, it explains alot of your ranting.

"Are you so ignorant that you actually believe this will happen"

whythink-Ignorance my friend, is believing that costs will not go up. The cost of simply administrating this legislation will be huge.

"That's an interesting opinion. Unfortunately, it's false"

Condescending again, your word is law, right? Wrong. When companies are forced/mandated to do something to satisfy a government requirement, costs trickle down to the consumer, even those who do not need to leech healthcare from the government. Are you ignorant or are you ignorant?

"I usually don't resort to negative comments directed at one individual.....but, vatoloco, you're an idiot!
This bill is in no way a government take over of health care."

Hey onemethpillatatime,

Anything that has the word mandate/force/require is a takeover.
If you think it takes a while to wait to see a doctor you have not seen anything yet. If you think you have seen the worst of job losses, you have not seen anthing yet. Stay tuned.

Good point, donnaw - "Rangler"'s (Rangel?) words are truth (even though he never said any such thing). There is no other possibility. All hail "Rangler"!
Aside from your devotion to "Rangler," I'm also concerned that you're voluntarily living in, and paying taxes towards, what you personally view as the new Ottoman Empire. "We are there folks!!"

"The cost of just this will drive insurance companies out of business."
.
That's an interesting opinion. Unfortunately, it's false. This is self-evident in the required "Imagine this" scenario you propose. You're either not anchored in reality, or you clearly have no dignity for yourself.

Republicans are stewing only because they"lost". I had to listen to a Republican President and a Republican Congress TALK about reforming health care from 2000 to 2008, eight years and yet they did nothing BUT talk. Now that it's out on the table they all want to give their input. No thanks- you did not care for eight years, why care now.

I usually don't resort to negative comments directed at one individual.....but, vatoloco, you're an idiot!
This bill is in no way a government take over of health care. It is based upon private industry provided health insurance. This bill only provides some regulation to prevent that private industry from refusing people who need coverage the most. The bad thing about this bill is it does not control cost. I believe we need stricter regulation addressing price gouging. Our representative Paul Ryan recently voted against revoking the anti trust exemption for insurance companies. Now I ask you...Who does he represent when he is for insurance companies being allowed to price fix?

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the control of a single political organization, faction, or class domination, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.[2] Totalitarianism is generally characterised by the coincidence of authoritarianism (i.e., where ordinary citizens have no significant share in state decision-making) and ideology (i.e., a pervasive scheme of values promulgated by institutional means to direct the most significant aspects of public and private life)[3].

Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that controls the state, personality cults, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of state terrorism.
.
sounds like the goal of both parties to me.
.
Both are equally guilty of this. Heck, who isn't guilty of this?

vatoloco
Mar 23, 2010 at 7:35 a.m.
Suggest removal "insurers will be required to cover an insured person's children up to age 26, and pre-existing condition exclusions would be prohibited. 90 days after Obama signs the bill,"

The cost of just this will drive insurance companies out of business. Imagine this, all the welfare people are probably trying to get pregnant right now so they can put as many kids on an insurance plans. By the time some these babies are ages 21-26, they will be hanging out in the front porches drinking with crack head mom and alcoholic dad. But get this, they will have health insurance! And, by removing lifetime expense limits, all the irresponsible welfare folks (who look at Obama as their Jesus Christ) will go to the doctor to get medical procedures that are nto essential. This is all on the leftists. They own it and will be remembered as the people who helped put our country in further misery. The Iraq War was Bush's bad legacy. This healthcare mistake will be Obama's bad legacy.
.
QUESTIONs:
.
Are you so ignorant that you actually believe this will happen?
.
AND/OR
.
Are you so ignorant to believe these are the only people that will benefit?
.
I get people respectfully disagreeing with this bill but these types of comments combined with the use of the "n" word, "F" word (referring to a gay man), spitting on someone and the "baby killer" comment...no wonder this was FORCED DOWN OUR THROAT.
.
What was the other choice? Try to work with...?
.
and one last time, if this was/is so horrible and the republicans had/have such easy, guaranteed to work, solutions...why weren't they implemented when they had control from 200-2006? What a bunch of cowards...do nothing when you have control and scare everyone when the other side does something. Good grief.

Just read something interesting yesterday... The fall of the Ottoman Empire was due to the government becoming more centralized and corrupt. Sound familiar? We are there folks!! Even Charlie Rangler acknowledges "people voted for this administration because they wanted socialism" so at last it is out in the open.

Vatoloco, setting your political angle aside for the moment... ANY system promising unlimited lifetime benefits will ultimately cause its demise. To believe otherwise defies logic. If the trend in medical technology continues, there will soon come a day when a majority of Americans will consider it their "right" to receive treatments and procedures whose cost far exceeds their lifetime earnings. This phenomenon is a current reality but when this legislation becomes law its trend curve toward that inevitability will steepen, if not become exponential. As a major motive force behind hyper-inflation in healthcare costs, this critical element of healthcare economics has had far too little discussion. The simple term for the phenomenon is "greed".

"insurers will be required to cover an insured person's children up to age 26, and pre-existing condition exclusions would be prohibited. 90 days after Obama signs the bill,"

The cost of just this will drive insurance companies out of business. Imagine this, all the welfare people are probably trying to get pregnant right now so they can put as many kids on an insurance plans. By the time some these babies are ages 21-26, they will be hanging out in the front porches drinking with crack head mom and alcoholic dad. But get this, they will have health insurance! And, by removing lifetime expense limits, all the irresponsible welfare folks (who look at Obama as their Jesus Christ) will go to the doctor to get medical procedures that are nto essential. This is all on the leftists. They own it and will be remembered as the people who helped put our country in further misery. The Iraq War was Bush's bad legacy. This healthcare mistake will be Obama's bad legacy.

: )

Your name-calling and hyperbole (apparently an extension of your wishful thinking) really doesn't change reality. It is, however, very entertaining. If I were you, I'd take the advice of pudssweetie and "calm down." But I'm not you, so let those erratically absurd and desperate displays of yours continue! Encore! Encore! : )

Sorry, but even if a challenge were to reach the Supreme Court (none will), they would uphold this legislation. It's very much constitutional in regards to Supreme Court case precedents.
.
I was right - wishful thinking.

"Ok.....so what is this 'obamacare'?"
.
An important question, Napalm.
In terms of funding this legislation, apart from a fine of $95 (or up to 1 percent of income, whichever is greater) for not buying insurance by 2014, $455 billion in wasteful Medicare spending will finally be cleaned up. $32 billion would be raised by taxing health insurance plans where coverage exceeds $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. $210 billion would be raised from increasing taxes on incomes that exceed $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples filing joint returns. $107 billion would be raised through fees on insurance firms, drug manufacturers, and medical device makers, whom currently largely divert exorbitant amounts of their profits to CEOs and marketing rather than say R&D, for example. Due to the bill, the deficit is estimated to be reduced by about $138 billion in the first decade, and about $1.2 trillion in the subsequent decade.
Many benefits will begin soon after enactment. Six months after Obama signs the bill, insurers will be required to cover an insured person's children up to age 26, and pre-existing condition exclusions would be prohibited. 90 days after Obama signs the bill, a temporary high-risk pool to insure people with pre-existing medical conditions will be created to bridge that 6 month time gap.
For the roughly 4 million people using Medicare who are limited by the "doughnut hole," they will get a $250 rebate this year, and some preventive care, like cancer screening, will have no co-payments or deductibles either. Next year, the cost of drugs in the "doughnut hole" will be reduced by 50%. The "doughnut hole" is estimated to be closed by this bill in 2020.
Businesses that employ less than 50 people would not be required to offer insurance, and those that employ fewer than 25 people and average wages of less than $50,000 would be eligible for a tax credit up to 35% of the cost of premiums if they do choose to offer insurance.
In 2014, a national insurance exchange, in which you may shop different insurance providers from all across the country that would be restricted from drastically raising their premiums at will, will be opened to the public. Those people who meet certain requirements regarding their income will be eligible for subsidies to buy private insurance from this exchange, expanding affordable insurance coverage to an additional 32 million Americans by 2019.

"This will be repealed."
.
By what means, precisely?
Wishful (or, more accurately, delusional) thinking.

I'm starting here with the man in the white house

I'm hoping he can change his ways,

No message could have been any clearer,

If you want to make the world a better place

Take a look at yourself and reverse that change (or force)

na na na na na

Gubmint care or no, we are all mortal.
Nature is not perfect.
We will all still die and get sick.
I would have preferred to see insurance regulation banning pre-existing conditions.
This is apparently compulsory insurance coverage by private insurance companies, and if you can't afford it, the gubmint will pay for it. That's icky.

The arguments, DiGriz, about your parents paying the bills for 7 kids is a noble one, but obsolete. Medical care of the 60's is not in the same dimension as medical care of 2010. In 2010 there were no MRI's, constant fetal monitoring, well checks, or early childhood screening. You could pay $250 for a normal birth in 65. Now a normal birth will run you $7000. That's a 2800% percent increase.

It's a fact- the normal working citizen could pay medical bills out of pocket in 1965. Now, almost no one can.

Ok, whatever you think.

RAF,
I agree with you to a point.
.
My point is simply...
Everyone knew that this would eventually be the dems. plan when and if they regained control after Hillarycare failed.
.
The republicans had control for what, 6 years and did NOTHING! They didn't care about this issue. They could fixed the problem themselves but didn't.
.
Shockingly the dems. eventually regained power and pushed/passed a bill with more government involvement.
.
The republicans could have prevented this "mess" this "government takeover" if they had cared enough to do something when they had control. They didn't...IMO there hands are not completely clean.
.
This is the dems bill..NO DOUBT but republicans are not the innocent angels they claim to be.

DiGriz, Calm down, it is not worth having a stroke arguing with some of these people. You and I both know that our country was weakened, and our wonderful Government just took over yet another part of this country. It just saddens me that some on here have not taken the time and read our Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. If they did they would understand that no wheres in our Constitution or Bill Of Rights does it give our Government the right to force upon it's states or it's people the right to Health Care. It is also too bad that some believe that our Government should have the right to tell us what we can or cannot do. Maybe if some would have read the Health Care Bill themselves they would have been better educated. Maybe if some would have read books like Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinsky or the book on Carl Marx, would have a better understanding where exactly this country is heading because of who we have in the White House who are following the words written by Alinsky and Marx. It is also too bad that they cannot see who are President really is and what he believes in. Instead of using the computer too look up things like The Constitution, Socialism, Marxism and looking up to see who Carl Marx is or who Saul Alinsky is, they choose to look the other way and sit on the Gazette everyday spewing their personal beliefs while criticizing others opinions. DiGriz I will also be in DC on August 28th and standing proud.

"f this bill fails, the entire system including both parties failed all of us."
-
Not a registered dem or rep, but I have to remind you this was a party line vote. If the future is going to post responsibility or credit for this bill it rests entirely on one side of this rotten two part system.

I am nervous and optimistic about this bills passage. As I said before, I thought small, simple steps written as small simple bills would be a better way to go. Then everyone could see where people stood on each individual part of this large bill.
.
I will say this, all of us, dem, rep, lib, conserv. should all be nervous at how the system has worked. If this bill is the disaster some claim it will be then the system failed us.
.
The republicans had control for years and did nothing...why I ask? I don't blame them for this bill, this is on the dems. but they had there chance and did nothing. I fear the reasons for that point to corruption.
.
If this bill is what some claim it is and can't be paid for, etc...then the dems are just as corrupt.
.
As most regulars know I tend to be moderate left...I am no expert on this. I tend to favor some type of system where either the government has more control over the insurance industry or the government actually provides the competition. I strongly believe that health insurance/health care should be more easy to access.
.
In the end, if this bill fails, the entire system including both parties failed all of us.
.
That is what I am most nervous about.

I believe we are approaching a time in history that will be much worse than the 1960's ever were. We will begin to see a real social implosion. This legislation will bring civil unrest. I am actually concerned about the future of our country and the path we are on.

If you want to know who will reap the benefits of this bill, watch Wall Street.

"You naysayers won't like this, but I am so glad this legislation has passed and is on its way to be finalized in the Senate."
-
If you are for it, you would realize whatever happens in the senate does not matter. The vote for the senate bill secured passage of the bill that the president will sign---the reconciliation vote was to provide cover for those that voted yes for the bill...it will die in the senate.

I have complained of government waste. I also reported waste, through govt channels, when I worked for them. Since I never said anything about corruption, it is clear the self-professed researcher with an advanced degree, has displayed his gifts in researching and further displayed the usefulness of that advanced degree.

Ironic that DizzyGirl and RAF are always whining like babies about waste and corruption, however, from the endless blather on their posts, it is apparent they wouldn't know waste or corruption if it bit them on their butts.

jayem: I am not against the military. Far from it. I just think too much of the budget is dedicated to it. Maybe less funding would help put a stop to so much wasteful spending.

You naysayers won't like this, but I am so glad this legislation has passed and is on its way to be finalized in the Senate.

An amazing night. Time to go out and celebrate!

"Would you say the same thing to a fireman, policeman, Peace Corps Volunteer, or a foreign missionary????"
.
Are they complaining about their voluntary choice to become what they are, like you do?

The choir?! Shut up. Don't ever compare yourself and your voluntary decisions to those who've died because their paid-for insurance dropped them. Your pity party is not comparable.

You belittle yourself by complaining about your voluntary choices in life, and you discredit yourself in your boundlessly absurd assumptions of others.

Reconciliation - HR 4872 - has now passed, and will go to the Senate.

I HAVE left my family before, and I will be leaving them again. I HAVE committed of myself, my life, for benefits in return. YOU belittle yourself by complaining about your voluntary choices in life, and YOU discredit yourself in your boundlessly absurd assumptions of others.
I pay, and gladly so, as one just like ALL OF US who could not live the life we do in our society alone. I accept my social responsibility, and I do not view it as a "woe", ESPECIALLY in light of those who experience TRUE woe, those who DIE because, despite having worked and paid just as much as the rest of us, THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO KEEP THEIR OWN LIVES when the insurance they PAID FOR drops them! Or that new parent who becomes locked into a factory job that SHOULD have merely been the first step to stability and a more preferable job, but instead becomes their obligatory lifetime career because they can't lose the insurance it provides. Or that young adult who has to find insurance for the first time, who no matter their JOB or INCOME will NEVER have insurance coverage because of the WAY THEY WERE BORN! So save your "woe is me" act because you MIGHT see a slight tax increase. BOO-HOO!

And voting on HR 3590 has now concluded, passing with 219 Yea votes and 212 Nay votes.

"Kinda like waiting for the radiation to overwhelm us and to die slow, painful deaths, huh??"
.
Sounds like a fair description of our current system (only instead of dying from radiation, people are dying because insurers drop coverage that should have paid for radiation therapy) that will be reformed tonight.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx
The votes are being cast now.

Today's the day
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx

Correction - I will never be friends with the parents of anyone who would name their child "Trixie."

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx

And yet just as absurdly assumptive. But if it's your prerogative to discredit yourself...more power.

I'm aware of the substance of the 10th Amendment. It does not state reform to be unconstitutional. Are you aware that there are also other Amendments and other text included in the Constitution?

"I don't hate women."
.
Just those who you give absurd names to?
.
"You must."
.
As indicated by?
.
"You're fixated on it."
.
Says the person who is displaying the misogyny...or did I name myself "Trixie"?
.
"I'm married to one"
.
Does she know about your low opinion of women? That they, in stereotyped generalities, are considered by you to be insulting?
.
"What do YOU do?"
.
Why are you asking? I'm just a "digiscreeching," slime trail- leaving woman in her mid-fifties named "Trixie," who is taking my disillusioned anger out on all of civilization. That's what you already know to be true about me, isn't it? No need for me to tell you anything.

"I'm glad they got you so veklempt."
.
My observance of your silliness implies no emotional reaction on my part in regards to that silliness.
.
"It worked then, otherwise you wouldn't indulge me and mention it, would you??"
.
Oh. So, according to you, you posted those absurdly desperate RATM parodies solely so I'd notice and comment on them? Aww, shucks...you're apparently almost as obsessed with me as RetiredAirForce.

The 10th Amendment does not state that health reform is unconstitutional. I'm sorry, but that's not a one-size-fits-all answer.

I’ve not painted you as anything, DiGriz. Your own words indicate the truth. Insisting (without evidence) that I'm a mid-aged woman, derisively referring to me as "Trixie," indicating that as a "princess" I leave a trail of "slime" and that I "digiscreech"... The misogyny you display (as shared by your friend, Retired Air Force) is self-evident.

"You want the government to provide that which your parents worked for to raise you."
.
Who is "you"?
Please indicate where in the reform bills it states that an income ("that which your parents worked for to raise you") will be provided to the American people, and that it will be provided "for free" and without any responsibilities.
.
"...when it comes down to it, we are all individual human beings, making our own way, our own existence."
.
No, DiGriz, when it comes down to it, we are humanity. We are social creatures by nature, and we live in societies. If you would like to be self-sufficient, please promptly move out into the wilderness where none may find you and were every aspect of your survival is dependant upon your own effort. The rest of us will continue to live together and help each other.
.
"Americans used to be the envy of the world."
.
Or so the self-told tale goes.
Other health care systems – so-called 'socialist' medicine – are the envy of the world. Hmm.
.
"We proved them wrong, because we were a new breed of human being."
.
Ridiculous hyperbole.
.
"We were born free of tyranny, and we actually wanted to stay that way."
.
Speaking of Jefferson - Yes, a country built on the displacement and slaughter of a native people and the importation and enslavement of another foreign people is truly free of "tyranny."
.
"History is forgotten. Lies, deceit, and innuendo cloud our minds of what the true nature of this country is about."
.
You can say that again.
.
"An empty hand, reaching outward as a beggar, is how the world sees us now. Because of greed, personal interest, and vice."
.
The very antithesis of health care reform.
We're "beggars" because of our actions abroad, not domestically. We're beggars because fear motivates the majority, who would rather pay for war than for domestic benefits.
.
"Give the people what they want.........complacency."
.
That is actually your argument – No change. No reform. Give the people what they want (after all, doesn’t the majority oppose this legislation?).
.
"Give them a reason not to work."
.
Again, please indicate where in the reform bills it states that an income will be provided to the American people.
.
"Extend unemployment benefits for the rest off their lives."
.
An absurd lie.
.
"Give them a reason to believe that the purpose of government is not to direct and encourage society, but to also take care of it, when sloth and greed take over."
.
In what way is "direct and encourage" not synonymous with taking care?
.
"The Democrat controlled congress wants to sell us out to mediocrity in order to keep their cushy jobs"
.
Not according to your ilk. If we're to believe you, come November, no Democrat will be left with a seat in Congress.

Interesting - I'm a female, DiGriz? Proven by what evidence? I'm in my mid-fifties? Proven by what evidence? Because my life isn't what I expected, I'm taking my resultant anger out on "the rest of civilization"? Is that indicative of mid-life women? Proven by what evidence?
I thought your RATM parodies were the height of silliness, DiGriz, but you continue to impress by surpassing my expectations of you.

DiGriz, looks like princess has crawled out from her mother's basement again.

andre don't hold your breathe on her to back up any statement with facts. She still thinks the air traffic control fiasco last month was because Ronny broke up their union.

andre_linoge, reform is not unconstitutional. You are mistaken. Perhaps if you didn't dismiss what you incorrectly assume you'd be better informed.
.
crafty, you are also incorrect. No such scenario as you presented has occurred.
.
Yes, DiGriz - "so much for that," indeed. However, there really isn't anything to suggest in my observance of your misogyny that you're under my skin, as you assume (and why would I not have any skin, as you imply I may not; do I have an exoskeleton?).
I've not put words in anyone's mouth. I've simply noted that you're not quite as caustic (despite your low view of women) as your ilk, the self-proclaimed libertarian Tea Partiers. It's your own issue to sort out if you don't want to be associated with those who share your views and rhetoric. Maybe a little self-assessment is in order on your part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcO...

Obama in his own words telling us he will eliminate private insurance.

David Frum says that this is an absolute disaster for conservatives. It's about time. Usually conservatives are a disaster for the rest of us.

DiGriz: Sunday may be YOUR Sabbath, but in many other religions it's other days and, yes, in the past Americans of those faiths have been required to work on their "day of rest" and on the days of their religious holiday observances....

roe vs. wade = women all across America were whining: "don't you DARE tell me what I can and can't do with my body!"
+
+
Obamacare 2010 = the SAME women along with men of the same level of intelligence are whining: "please, tell me what I can and can't do with my body"
LET'S ALL SAY IT TOGETHER: IGNORANT HYPOCRITES!

Yes, those with their hands out continue to want more...

Also, have you forgotten so quickly, DiGriz? The new name you've conjured to refer to me derisively is "Trixie." Though you're not aware of my gender, apparently that's of no concern to a misogynist such as yourself. Why have you dropped your use of such a clever nickname? "IC" just doesn't convey your irrationality quite as well and is really lacking in comparison to the caustic names being used by your Tea Party ilk these past few days.

Thank you, proartist.
.
And thank you, andre_linoge, for pointing out that there will be numerous and time-wasting lawsuits after reform passes. None will reverse the passage. The time for reform has come this day.
.
It's no surprise you don't know, DiGriz. Those informed do understand, though.
I've also jumped no gun in providing a link to live coverage for this entire evening's proceeding in the House so that you may be witness to defeat of fear and irrationality. Speaking of irrational, perhaps you have another RATM parody to further entertain us as we watch Congress? I've seldom seen such an silly declaration of defiance made as one's cause falters and fails, especially from a man of your (claimed) age. The stench of your 11th hour desperation only makes the contrasting scent of reform victory sweeter.

Well said, inconvenienttruth.

I find it funny that those who speculate the most know the least. Time and again we have been told by the right wing teabaggers that the sky is falling, this legislation will ruin our economy. DizzyGirl makes comments about the current CBO not being able to talk without a single bit of proof. There is a reason why there are so many teabaggers - any idiot can be one. Literally any bigoted idiot can be one - no standards.

Today is finally the day the echo chamber no longer held sway.
http://www.politico.com/livestream/
My condolences to the fear mongers. If nothing else, I've admired the sustenance you've derived from your irrationality. This is especially a worthy victory for those of us who've endured it for our country.
I predict that, with the passage of reform, the nation will finally bear witness to the true colors of the Tea Partiers as they become riotous. Already their unrestrained use of sexual and racial epithets, as well as assault, upon members of Congress has provided for an interesting preview of what no doubt is yet to come from these 'patriots.'

Janesville don't look for any new jobs coming your way any time soon, just more cuts and cuts. Get off the welfare band wagon guys the so called Prs I won't even call him that doesn't even know whats in the bill.
I will say one if we stop these baby factory's in Wisconsin and across the United States this would ease health alot. Put a limit just like china then plug them.

If the Republicans really truly believe that the American people doesn't want this then they should start campaigning for a repeal of it when they are "swept" into office?

Dale you might want to read what the CBO said of the estimate.

"the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal"

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=508

The only money lost is if a sale was made. A paper loss is just a paper loss. For those that did remove money they might have lost gains, depending on initial investments. Investing is not a sure thing; no promises of all gains and no losses. If you are afraid to lose don't play.

No Dale, I don't "play" the market, I do invest in the form of mutual funds. I also don't bet on horses or play the lottery.

Very well stated, RAF. Why do so many people find these fundamental concepts so difficult to accept? Under the healthcare system we have now, the truly miraculous scenario would be if there WASN'T hyper-inflation in prices. The pending legislation will only exacerbate the current situation.

" How often, for example, have you heard the emergency-room argument? The uninsured, it's said, use emergency rooms for primary care. That's expensive and ineffective. Once they're insured, they'll have regular doctors. Care will improve; costs will decline. Everyone wins. Great argument. Unfortunately, it's untrue.

A study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that the insured accounted for 83 percent of emergency-room visits, reflecting their share of the population. After Massachusetts adopted universal insurance, emergency-room use remained higher than the national average, an Urban Institute study found. More than two-fifths of visits represented non-emergencies. Of those, a majority of adult respondents to a survey said it was "more convenient" to go to the emergency room or they couldn't "get [a doctor's] appointment as soon as needed." If universal coverage makes appointments harder to get, emergency-room use may increase. " --Robert J. Samueson

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

"Why do you think costs are so high?"
-
I have consistently stated the reason costs are high is because they can; there is no driving force to contain them. Currently people don’t shop for healthcare like they do other consumer goods; price. When was the last time you were in a healthcare establishment that had prices posted? Would you purchase a television, take it home, and then wait 2-3 months to get a bill and find out what it cost you?

The current plans debated now do nothing to stop this same practice. In fact they solidify it by requiring everyone purchase/have insurance. The removal of price for the product/service from the user increases the likelihood of behaviors/attitudes like, “I don’t care what it costs I have insurance”.

Putting responsibility into the process will control prices better than any government mandates. Vision and hearing are good examples. There are many people who have a health plan that does not include vision or hearing coverage’s. People using their own dollars to shop for these services has created competition and controlled prices in these sectors. Yes, there is a difference to emergency care an annual eye exam, but not all medical visits are for emergencies.

"So you guys must concur that my Great Aunt, who never worked a day in her life, does not deserve decent healthcare, social security, or medicare?
-
Dale, as others have posted, by law she and everyone already have access to healthcare. The current debate is over how these services are going to be paid for, and by whom...

Dale -- Your Aunt is not denied healthcare. She could walk into any emergency room and would not be turned away. Also -- she could pay for any services she needs. Dependent upon age, she may be eligible for medicare. Maybe -- if able bodied, she could find a job today, that would allow her to work some set min hours, and she could purchase insurance. What you are asking for is an entitlment for someone. Assuming she has never worked, she has never paid into any system, and therefore, if not of eligible age, would be required to use her own resources to cover her own ailments. Its called personal responsibility.

I am not reading all this gibberish. I am only responding from the title of this story.

For who? And more deadbeats will get more even more free stuff? How much more free stuff will the illegals get???? Sorry undocumented, or criminals.

"Too bad you are apparently ignorant of the time-worn principle that name-calling is a poor substitute for argument."
-
Are you referring to the word ignorant? I used it correctly, you are ignorant, lacking knowledge. If you find it offensive perhaps you should be more accurate in your perceptions before providing false statements.

For reference. You stated: NAFTA sent all the jobs to China, not true. You stated no health care unless you have a job, not true, by law everyone already has access to healthcare. You stated: I was collecting social security, not true. You stated: a time-worn principle of name calling, not true, I accurately used a word describing your comments.

jvillerdr send me the forms to stop collection of my annual 6% payments and I would gladly depart the system. As I said earlier and often, I don't plan on the system ever paying me anything...I suspect it will be defunct before anyone my age can collect.

RAF, so you retired early on your pension -- hopefully you will disavow any future Social Security benefits as well. Too bad you are apparently ignorant of the time-worn principle that name-calling is a poor substitute for argument.

Dale - Please sir, your generalizations are just wrong. You stated "single parents pay nothing in all year long". Some lower income single parents may not, but not everyone who is a single parent is exempt.

RAF, coming from someone who sides with liars and frauds, I find it hard to believe anything you write.

Darwin the link was to show you something you obviously didn’t know, or you wouldn’t have made such an unintelligent comment in the first place of the state of Hawaiian healthcare coverage’s. I have known about the failed attempt at Hawaiian’s child health care program for years. The main reason it failed, over budget, is the same reason all government programs go over budget; government researchers continue to be unsuccessful when predicting human behavior and costs. When the government starts handing out money people run like drug addicts to the source to get their fix; exactly what happened in this case. Parents dropped their children off their policies to partake in the free cheese that someone else was paying.

The program being pushed currently will end the same way, drastically over budget, with lawmakers making excuses over not knowing how bad the problem was…while all along looking at the history of these attempts will predict the outcome. The only surprised people will be the ones who don’t care what the truth is to begin with.

In fact you are ignorant jvillerdr, I don't collect social security.

milojacks, the situation is a little more complicated than you think. The way we were supposed to not lose with nafta was that we were supposedly going to be able to send all kinds of exported American goods to Mexico. That didn't happen because China is exporting them to Mexico instead, which is why some economists are saying that there is an "uninvited guest at the NAFTA party," i.e., China.

RAF, I am not "ignorant" of the fact that my paycheck is being docked to support you and others who don't need Social Security while I will never see a penny of it. Time to cut off that entitlement! If you wanted to save it, you should have run the better country as the taxpaying "boss" you keep saying you are so that workers would have the jobs to support it. You didn't, so axe the program.

RAF you read some article on CBSs website and so now you know? You clearly don't know anything about research. Nor did you read the entire article. What is most sad about your comments is that YOU worked for the government. Evidently, you feel guilty about the low standards the government had when they hired you unconstitutionally.

Andre, facts are facts. Air force is NOT in the Constitution. Please go back to taking your meds.

Teabaggers, Futurerichguy?? If someone accused me of being presumptuous, the last thing I'd do is respond with yet another presumption.

Notice how my thought experiment never mentioned WHO was being taxed, yet you blindly and reflexively defended taxation? Fascinating... Sorry for tricking you but that was my covert intent. It wasn't about slavery, it was about coercion.

Whenever a democracy extends new powers to government one can never know WHO will end up wielding that power. That was the essential message behind the founding of our nation. It is a fact that transcends political ideology.

If the pending healthcare legislation becomes law, then the federal government's advisory role, as mandated in the legislation, might someday be directed by the appointee of a president who makes the Chaney and Nixon Dicks look like Gandhi. You believe you are granting power to Barack Obama and Katherine Sebelius. Perhaps, but only for a little while. In fact, you are granting power to a presently unknown group of individuals. Try that thought experiment.

(I'm not trying to change your mind; only hoping to get YOU to change your mind.)

Dale.....You should collect the same benefit as someone who has served in the military because you were rejected by them? Seriously--you made me laugh at that one! A little bitter--huh?:) I should go back to every company I interviewed with out of college and tell them, "You didn't give me that job, but I still want you to pay for my health care"...It seems like the majority of people that consider health care a "right" are those who don't want to do the work to put themselves in a position to get it. Drop the sense of entitlement--this mindset that everything should just be handed to you--go out and work for it, and you'll feel much better about yourself in the end......Good luck....

According figures from an IRS website the top 25% paying federal taxes earn 66% of the income and pay 85% of the taxes. The bottom 50% earn 13% of the income and pay 3% of the taxes. That would leave the other 25% earning 21% of the income and paying 12% of the taxes. Interesting.

"The same opportunities do not lie equally for everyone to serve, I was turned away in"
-
Just becasue you were turned away does not mean you have less opportunities, just different. The problem in our society is many people stop at a road block and look for help to continue instead of realizing opportunities are countless it is the will that has limits.

futurerichguy, I have never denied anyone from receiving the same benefits I have. The difference is how the benefits are provided and earned. You had the same opportunity I had to serve your country. You also had the same opportunity I had to become a member of Disabled American Veteran’s, a member of American Legion, and member of Veteran’s of Foreign Wars. You also had the same opportunity I had to be offered care at the VA.

The difference between you and me is more than obvious. I don’t use the VA for my care, I have private insurance; a choice. I pay more in federal taxes than I receive in a pension. I continue to work precisely because I don’t expect to ever get social security and I don’t expect my pension and benefits to last.

I don’t sit back with my hand out asking the government to give me anything, nor do I expect them to offer me anything. The differences between you and me are very clear.

Your school-yard charm with tea bags is something only you will understand. Please let me know when you see me at a tea party event…it will be another opportunity for you to make absurd claims; I have never been to one nor will I go to one. But facts and truth is something you avoid on a consistent basis, as is obvious by your remarks.

dalegribble, you are ill informed if you think those that make more than blah blah don't pay. They do, just not on money made over an amount set by congress. If you don't like it tell congress to change it.

Dale - I respectfully disagree both with your assumptions on NAFTA and your statement;

"If you make over 100 grand a year, you pay no fica or medicare tax"

For 2009 only on the first $106,800 of gross wages are subject to FICA. Earnings above that level are not subject to FICA, but to say that those of us who make over $100k pay "no fica or medicare tax" is disingenuous.

People die, with and without insurance. If you are not paying for your own upkeep then some one else is. The top 10% of taxpayers already pay 70% of the taxes and the bottom 38% pay nothing. How long can we pull the wagon for the people who want the handouts?

jvillerdr You posted "cuz NAFTA sent them all to China"
Please explain to me how the North America Free Trade Act (NAFTA) sent jobs to China? You can claim it sent jobs to Mexico and Canada but I hate to break it to you but China is not in North America.

jvillerdr not only are you ignorant on others you are ignorant on facts.

Are some of you really republicans, or anarchists? No jobs (cuz NAFTA sent them all to China, and we can't compete with real slave wages), no health care cuz you don't have it unless you have a job, which no one has. We might as well get rid of government because who needs any services anyway -- we'll just all go back to being hunter/gatherers. While we're at it, how about you retired guys stop taking money out of MY paycheck when I'm never going to see a dime of social security, and if you can type away on these blogs, you can get yourself a job (if it isn't in China) and support yourself till you die like my generation will have to.

Future is obviously one of the left wing wackos I am referring to. I need to see the ones on the right.

Future -- you were not listening..... The progressives are on both sides of the isle. The policies and philosohies that set the stage for the depression began with Wilson. I do not see a distinction between democrat and repulican, either can be progressive and support progressive policy.

Bond, there's actually an industry based on medical tourism here in the states:
http://www.health-tourism.com/medical-to...

fool_on_the_hill, I'm all for a nice thought experiment, but your analogies between plantation workers and those of us enslaved by our Democratically elected government, don't resonate with me. That might work when your preaching to the tea-bagging choir, but I think most Americans would see through that argument.

Futurerichguy, some of us see no practical distinction between an alleged "right" to reap the fruits of another person's labor and an alleged "right" to directly enslave another person.

If an employer pays a worker a fair wage for a day's work but then then confiscates 100% of those wages, is that the same as direct enslavement? Most would argue that isn't slavery because the essential element of coerced labor is missing from the equation. I agree. But what if, under threat of force, a third person confiscates 100% of that worker's pay? There, most of us would call that robbery or extortion, not slavery. OK then, what if instead of coercing the worker directly, the extortionist simply coerces each and every employer in the nation to confiscate 100% of each and every worker's wages, who must then turn that money over to the extortionist? [This should begin to sound vaguely familiar right about now.] In this case, the worker has no escape from the extortionist, regardless of employer or location. From the worker's point of view, there is no practical distinction between this scenario of de facto enslavement and the well known scenario of direct enslavement. But, even if these two scenarios are equivalent, wouldn't the degree of enslavement play a key role in the definition of slavery? What if the extortionist confiscates only 25% of the worker's wages? Returning full circle to the direct slavery scenario... if a kindly plantation owner forces his slaves to work only six hours each day but frees them during the other eighteen, is that not still slavery? Clearly, the degree of enslavement is not essential to the definition of slavery.

Now I'd like to hear how slavery really isn't such a bad thing when administered by a democratically elected extortionist.

Hey researcher, guess you missed this little information about Hawaii.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/1...

If Hawaii could do it, as you say for 40 years, why did this fail in less than 8 months? If they have a great system for more than 40 years why did they need a separate plan for children? Any good researcher would clearly have their facts together before putting out fictitious claims.

futurerichguy Where is your DATA showing as many as 15,000 to 500,000 americans going abroad for health care?

"but the basis of your argument is that "many" Canadians seek health-care here in the states, thus their system is inferior. That argument doesn't hold."
-
No, the basis for my argument was bankruptcies, and the erroneous way this argument has been used to support the push for government run healthcare. If your asking if I think their system is inferior to ours, the answer is yes.

Ezoner, you do realize the great depression began 10 years after Wilson's presidency, and following the presidencies of three straight Republicans, right? This is the first time I've heard someone blame Wilson for the great depression. Is that what they're teaching you kids at the tea-party meetings?

By your lack of accurate detail it is easy to conclude if you are a researcher, as you, it must be for a government office or school system; no other company would fund these errors in an employee.

The RAF irony is that the Air Force is not in the Constitution. So, RAF you are unconstitutional, you should probably give back all your unconstitutional earnings and pension. However, the Constitution does call for promoting the general welfare.

There are NO income protections in the Constitution. This is why Washington and the military put down the Whiskey Rebellion which was a rebellion against taxes. So, please spare me absurd founding father arguments. Our current military is an expeditionary force that creates more problems than it solves and has never protected us from attack.

Recently, the Republicans went to Hawaii for their conference. They rented a submarine and then complained about government health care would ruin our country's future, not even realizing that Hawaii has had universal coverage for over 40 years. Evidently, Hawaii can do it but incompetent Republicans can't.

Future -- it actualyy worked fine in the US before Wilson and the other Progressives drove this country into the great depression. We are now repeating the same mistakes and taking us further down the road to socialism. The Constitution was written to provide for individual states rights and was not focused on a strong central government (as you call it). We need to get back to what the founding fathers intended. If we do not, I predict there will be a revolution in this country. The pot is really boiling.

RAF, my point was, that 0.17% of Americans seek health-care abroad, and 0.05% of Canadians seek health-care abroad. Both pretty low numbers, but the basis of your argument is that "many" Canadians seek health-care here in the states, thus their system is inferior. That argument doesn't hold.

Eman, the problem with your argument is that the system you’re describing has been tried, and it's called feudalism. In a feudalistic society there is no strong central government, and all the lords and landowners give charitably to their serfs and peasants. Sounds great on paper, but I prefer a strong central government that as you say coerces tax funds from its citizens.

Future -- what a warped sense of reality...
This Utopia that fair left zelots see is unachievable. They live in a world of fantasy, not reality. I am pragmatic, so before you slot me as right, I am neither. I am the middle that is hated by both the right and the left, yet courted because the middle is what swings the two party system. I hate both parties and just want people to serve.

As for healthcare, it is not a right. Read the constituion.

We all have the right to buy healthcare insurance, and the right to buy a private jet - but only if we can afford them. First the government tried putting everyone in a home with a mortgage - didn't work. Now they will be putting everyone in healthcare coverage. Is the required private jet coming next?

Great points!

Yes, the poor constitutional military supported by your welfare system...

Future your own numbers show the "percentage" is higher for Canadians seeking care elsewhere than Americans; 0.0005%-0.001667% vs 0.005%. So what is your point?

Ezoner, the military wouldn't be squat if it wasn't for the gigantic budget funded by the tax-payers, nor would it be squat without it's superior technology developed by scientists and engineers educated in our public school systems. So really, the military is dependent on our "welfare" system.

Future --- I hate when people use numbers and do not specifiy the source nor the criteria for inclusion/exclusion of specific sample data. The reality is there are significantly more Americans and a fairly significant number of expatriots, that may be included in your numbers.

Back to the topic -- the military you all hate so much protects and provides the blanket of freedom we live under. It also provides protection and relief for nations that cannot provide for themselves.

I am tired of idiots in the US that cannot accept responsibility for their own position and want a perpetual welfare state with no individual responibility. What a nation of wimps we are becoming.

RetiredAirForce, how about some data backing up your claim that "many still come here for care". I recently read an article stating the number is around 17,000. I suppose you could say that's "many", but that's only 0.05% of their total population. Compare that to current estimates of anywhere from 150,000 to 500,000 Americans going abroad for health-care.

Yes the data is there, you should read it sometime.

FOTH the illusions continue when the supporters of programs like this use frivolous points like bankruptcies as justification to take money from someone to support someone else.

When in reality the reason most medical injuries result in bankruptcy is not lack of insurance but lack of income...can't work if you are hurt; if you don't work more than likely you won't get paid. Yet nothing to combat this resides in any plan for overhaul.

The Canadian system of insurance that many point too as a prime example of what we should have looks good on the surface; yet many still come here for care. If these people have insurance why is their personal bankruptcy rates ~4 per thousand people and ours are only ~5 per thousand people, how can that be if lack of medical insurance is the reason for bankruptcies?

When you break through all the minutia it all boils down to moving money from one part of society to the other...without moving responsibility with it.

Pharm, for some reason, you presume that I share the sense of entitlement so common among Americans today. You incorrectly assume that, when it comes to healthcare, I too possess some bizarro-world "right" to consume beyond my ability to pay and, therefore, someone else will have to pick up my tab.

I am not referring to your bankruptcy scenario only. This is also the illusion of communized healthcare, whether financed though government taxes or private employers: each beneficiary hopes to reap more than he or she sows. The collective force of these individual delusions is the primary cause of hyperinflation in healthcare prices. If your legislation becomes law, this force will increase further, in turn causing the slope of the inflation curve to steepen. I refuse to participate in the mass delusion of communized healthcare.

Yes, I would guess that Bill Gates and family are included in either a Microsoft, Inc. or Gates Foundation health insurance plan. But, as for any sort of individual health insurance policy, he would have to be a total moron to purchase one. Think about it.

Your "everybody is doing it" rationalization of tyranny is no excuse, Pharm. I have never advocated placing a government gun to anyone's head, including yours. You and others who advocate this pending "healthcare reform" legislation are unable to make that claim. The responsible consumerism I practice, which you so eagerly wish to terminate, is the solution not the problem.

Oh great, the new revised 2309 page debacle is available for viewing.

And the best part, not...they still think mandating coverage for anyone breathing is a good thing and constitutional. "TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent."

Andre, if what you were saying was true than we wouldn't need the Supreme Court. How ignorant can you be?

foth, unless you are Bill Gates(and I would guess he HAS insurance) you will need insurance sooner or later, unless you are going to stick me and the rest of the taxpayers with your bill, and pursue the bankruptcy route. I`m off to see our health care at work, I have a dear friend in the hospital facing a very bad prognosis, she HAS insurance, not very good, but some. You kids try to play fair while I`m gone.

foth, there are a myriad of things that the government does that distress(a gun to my head!) me now, yet I am forced to watch and participate as a citizen. Join the club!

andre, you are living in a Bizarro world to believe that nonsense. Conservatives are affected by their life experiences and prejudices just as liberals are. They are human(some, anyway!) like everybody else, and subject to the same frailties as the rest of us. Don`t put them on a pedestal without realizing that.

Pharm, in the case tax avoidance/evasion, the predicate act would be the act of collecting income subject to taxation. Try again...

Yes, paying your inaction penalty would be cheaper than health insurance, which would roughly equal 100% of my current living expenses. Therefore, your inaction penalty would need to come out of my current healthcare budget, having the ultimate effect of REDUCING my access to healthcare. Moreover, let us both agree that paying your inaction penalty would certainly be less costly than going to jail on principle.

You continue to avoid facing the principle of liberty involved. Perhaps that's due to a guilty conscience for being an advocate for tyranny? (I'm probably projecting there. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing that I'd stuck a government gun to your head to further my personal interests.)

andre,What rules did I change? I said I read it, didn`t try to claim it as a fact, even questioned it. No need to prove something I didn`t purport as gospel. As yet you have still offered no proof as to your claim that Congress would be exempt from the health bill.Just as an aside, I have read 250,000 Federal employees either can`t afford health insurance, or choose not to buy it. Believe it or not, remember I`m not claiming it as fact, just that I read it somewhere. All Supreme Court constitutionality cases are decided by the current courts interpretation of the Constitution, liberal or conservative, they read it the way they want. It is a living document, it has to be to be relevant for over 200 years under all the changing conditions in the country and the world. Liberals are not any more "activist" than conservatives, they just don`t believe in each others views.Considering the Post Office, and all postal roads, are called for in the Constitution, we should get together and call for the government to take over running it, instead of just regulating, and save it as our Constitutional duty! Let`s start a petition!

Continuing to be obtuse, if you don`t do anything, say, don`t pay your taxes, off to jail with you. No action required on your part! If you don`t want to deal with a health insurer, pay the tax, might be cheaper anyway, and you bypass the mandate of insurance.

All this name calling one another over government mandated health care. EVERYONE has health care now.Anyone can get treatment when needed now. However not all citizens are covered by health insurance. Some cannot afford it others chose to spend the money elsewhere. We need to find a way to cover the uninsured and leave the rest of us alone....

I certainly would not wager on how the Supreme Court might rule, considering their abominable ruling on eminent domain a few years ago. The principles of liberty (in both scenarios) are very closely related.

Pharm, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you are not intentionally trying to be obtuse. No one is (yet) compelled to do business with anyone else. For several good, valid reasons, I don't do business with health insurers. The pending healthcare bill would compel me to do business with one of them or pay a penalty for refusing to do so. If I continued to refuse, I could be criminally charged for the "crime" of doing nothing.

Yes, the final episode of Seinfeld episode was about the four of them being criminally charged for inaction. That's what made it funny. It's called farce.

Pharm you are missing the point. The commerce laws are on activities of choice, if you don't like them stop the activity to bypass the law. There is no way to bypass the mandate of insurance as written...hence no freedom.

Darwin, instead of "to breathe", RAF could have said "have a pulse" or "have a heartbeat" or "have brainwaves", etc. It wasn't in reference to healthcare, per se, it was in reference to Congress passing a law that criminalizes the act of "being alive". That would be a first.

"mandating commerce under penalty of law," you could say that regulating the production of wheat on farms,even for your own consumption, racial discrimination by employers, laws against loan sharking, EPA laws, NLRB laws, could be considered mandates under the Commerce Clause,IMO, and that do carry penalties of law. I`m sure if the bill passes it will eventually be brought to the Supreme Court, and because the Constitution was written so clearly, that the decision on Constitutionality will again be 9 to zero! And, by using the federal tax code as the penalty, that brings in more leverage for the Government to claim the bills Constitutionality.

For the ill informed.

Breathing : the action of taking air into the lungs and sending it out again.

RAF, I understand that you can't read ALL the sentences at once but you should at least try. Quoting everything out of context just proves the point that conservatives have a difficult time with reality.

You read the definition where? If a machine is doing it, your not. You, for example, don't think, because someone else clearly thinks for you, which explains your brainlessness.

"...some illusory poll that represents a very small sampling of Americans."

Tracking average of ALL public opinion polls on proposed healthplan: http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthp...

But, far more significant than a simple for or against poll was the point made yesterday by Democratic pollsters for former Presidents Carter and Clinton:

"Four-fifths of those who oppose the plan strongly oppose it, according to Rasmussen polling this week, while only half of those who support the plan do so strongly."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

"I hear the brainless are exempt."
-
Guess you are exempt...good for you.

foth, remember the last Seinfeld episode? They went to jail, criminalized for "inaction".

"No, someone on a ventilator would still have to pay depending on their income. So, wrong again."
-
For the dense...if you are on a ventilator your body is taking air into and out from the lungs; you need to read the definition of breathing. Hint: before you TRY to say someone else is wrong try not to look so stupid in the process.

andre, I said I read it somewhere, which I did. I did not claim it as fact, I even questioned it. As for your site as an opinion on whether Congress was exempt, it is only a story about the Republicans trying to force Democrats, and all of Congress, into a public option, which I`ve already stated, is an option. That story does not say Congress is exempt from the mandates for insurance under the House bill. The two fact checking sites I cited, and the Representative that says he read the bill, claim that Congress is not exempt. As for "precedent", the Court just dissed it in the decision about corporate campaigning.

darwin are you an officer in the obama movement, can i get some of those cool patches and that neat salute too

Hey does anyone know if Obama has a youth movement...i just thought i could get ahead and have my kids sign up now, that way they could be officers by the time they come take all the other kids. just want to get a head start....LOL

No, someone on a ventilator would still have to pay depending on their income. So, wrong again. If you have no income, you would not be forced to purchase something you cannot afford. That being said, I thought conservatives were for people paying their way and not becoming a drain on the system. As it stands now, if you are poor you can go to the emergency room, and then declare bankruptcy. The cost is then socialized through the billing process. Republicans have already admitted they are for reform, but against any plan that exists or could exist. We have heard the word "wait".

Conservatives shouldn't worry because they won't be required to have insurance: I hear the brainless are exempt.

The other choice you could make would be to leave America. You choose to stay and live with the majority rule as it exists in reality and not through some illusory poll that represents a very small sampling of Americans. If polling is so great, why didn't we abandon voting altogether when there was a Republican with a 70% disapproval rating in the White House?

ZEIG HEIL OBAMA

"madsintst the difference in the mandates are very simple. You only need car insurance if you own a vehicle. The heath insurance mandate requires you only to breathe..."

Thanks, RAF. You explained that better than I would have. I'm still waiting for someone to provide a single concrete precedent for the criminalization of simple existence...

<crickets>

The Founding Fathers considered the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident. The real tragic flaw of 21st-Century America is having to explain the implication of that basic tenet to other Americans.

"Costa Rica is one of those countries that has universal coverage"
-
They also have private hospitals just like Hawaii...that are not part of the universal system.

madsintst the difference in the mandates are very simple. You only need car insurance if you own a vehicle. The heath insurance mandate requires you only to breathe...

More abuse of power:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...

Actually, darwin1, Limbaugh said he would go to Costa Rica for all his major medical procedures. It just so happens, Costa Rica is one of those countries that has universal coverage. So, now Limbaugh is on record saying he recieved the best health care while in Hawaii, a state with a form of mandated health insurance, and would prefer to go to a country with universal coverage rather than stay in the country that has the so-called "best health care system in the world" (unfortunatly, US is raked 37th)

What's the difference between mandatory auto insurance and mandatory health insurance? Cause come June 2010, Wisconsin Law will require all drivers have auto insurance, or face a penalty, yet I haven't heard a huge out cry over that.

They're both designed to prevent the responsible, insured from picking up the tab of the irresponsible, uninsured, that is those who can afford but choose not to purchase insurance.

Once this health care bill is passed, if you're uninsured, you could receive a tax credit to help pay for coverage if needed -- part of the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history.

If you buy your own insurance, there will be new protections from insurance company abuses, and tax credits will make coverage more affordable.

As for members of Congress being exempt from the reform bill...

The Senate bill now says:

H.R. 3590: D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.— (i) REQUIREMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are— (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

Suddenly, Republicans have standards. Now they like reading bills. Before Obama, the Republicans never read anything they pushed through with a simple majority. The prescription drug bill is but one of many examples (Yes, an actual fact and example). Now with their minority they lie about what a majority is (the silent majority as Nixon - felon - called it), they hate polls until they cite them. They love America until they hate it. They flip-flop more than an Asian carp.

Once Republicans aren't in office, they claim everyone is corrupt and should be kicked out. Rush Dimbaugh said if this bill gets passed he will leave the country and that is all the reason we need to pass it.

Precedent is not an issue here because there is no precedent for mandating commerce under penalty of law. As written, the penalty would apply to all citizens guilty of criminal inaction. That is, not for the violation of performing a criminal act but for the violation of performing no act whatsoever. What I do presently --order healthcare services I need and then pay for them-- would be prohibited by this legislation.

If there has ever been just cause for jury nullification, this would be the one. If so, that might prevent challenges from reaching the Supreme Court for quite some time.

It has nothing to do with president it has to do with rights, the same rights written in the constitution that says the government cannot overstep.

You`re right, with the present court that doesn`t follow precedent. I read somewhere that it might not reach the court until someone doesn`t pay the tax for not getting insurance. Don`t know if that is true or not. I`m off to the ER. Later.

"you should read the last paragraph where it is rendered moot."
-
It is not rendered moot, it is questioned. It would be interesting for a State to bring this up under a question on the 10th amendment protections to hear a court say the State is wrong.

Thanks for that link, Andre. That's good news about Virginia. Do you know if Wisconsin has anything similar pending? I would prefer not being forced to choose between moving or going to jail.

What proof that those sites were left-wing did you see or provide after you made the statement? Did you prove that the House and Senate bills exempted Congress, I must have missed it. I`ve stated before, left or right bias means nothing if you can`t dispute the facts. You should be happy if the Dems are committing political suicide, and by the way the link you provided about the state passing the ban on federally mandated health care, you should read the last paragraph where it is rendered moot.

Left-wing, right-wing, if you can`t dispute their facts then attack their supposed bias. Both those sites are known to be non-partisan, check the "Obamameter", and their "pants on fire"awards", they skewer Dems and Repubs, Independents, anyone they catch twisting facts. The Congressional representative from the 12th district of New York, Rush Holt, has a site to answer questions about the bill, he will address yours. holt.house.gov/healthqa.pdf

As for the public option, that`s what it is, an option. Nobody would be forced to take it, as the Republicans attempted to do to the democrats. It would have been interesting to have had a vote in the whole House on requiring them to all take the public option.

There is language in the House bill that covers Congress according to the sites I listed.

Pharm to be honest the facts you state are misleading. There are many stores that provided information that during the initial debates on healthcare reform members of congress did not want any part of public options for themselves.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...

The amendment added to the senate plan sounds good. But you must realize until that plan is voted in by the house, with that amendment still intact it is a mute point.

Senator Grassley , whose amendment to cover Congress was added, when his staff was helping to write the bill, disagrees with all those sites. If you want to read the bill it has been on the web since Christmas. politifact.org and factcheck.org show the language that covers Congress.

RAF, Thanks, your addition to the analogy is correct.

I respect your candor, RAF.

There is a very well written article by two seasoned Democrat pollsters in today's Washington Post. It is advice to lawmakers that every Democrat should read. (The cynic in me says that some Republican politicians and most health industry lobbyists are secretly hoping their advice will not be heeded.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

FOTH. It would be overly hypocritical for me to say I was opposed to social engineering; I did work for one of the largest social engineering experiments this country has ever seen…the US Military.

Do I want these same political correctness policies imposed on a free and open society, hell no!

"Everybody that is taxed pays for other peoples health"
-
Using this same analogy everyone that pays health insurance pays for others health care.

"I am willing to pay more to help fellow Americans"
-
Really? Why wait until required? I read this all the time from those that think paying higher taxes is no big deal. Step up to the plate and start paying more now or sit back down and stop claiming you are willing. If you wait until required it is no longer becasue you are willing it is because you are required...

I wish the media would give us consumers enough credit to use normal language to discuss public issues. We don't need catchy slogans like Obamacare to pay attention. For me, when phrases like this are used I stop reading.

Everybody that is taxed pays for other peoples health care now. Medicare, Medicaid, VA, emergency room, foreign aid.

Congress is not exempt from either the House or Senate health bills. factcheck.org or politifact. org or Sen Grassley`s website.

We are paying for others health care already. A socialist agenda would mean that everyone should get equal treatment (except of course the rulers) under the government. Every worker would be paid the same, owe the same taxes, get the same health care, get the same legal representation, have the same rights(except of course the rulers), etc. I don`t see that in this legislation that regulates what should be minimum coverage for health insurance, helps those with less to get health care, and uses the tax code to enforce an insurance mandate to help the country to better health. I know you don`t agree, that is fine.

You are absolutely correct Andre. I am willing to pay more to help fellow Americans and you are not. Case closed. No more arguments.

I answered your question, not once but twice. As for assuming you were questioning the data used to score the health bill, the bill is the discussion going on in these posts and you chose to post in the middle of it.

If they have faulty data, they have a faulty conclusion. Now why bring it up if you are NOT questioning their conclusions, and suggesting they have gotten faulty data when we`re discussing the health bill? By your very question you are saying something is wrong with the data, what is it? With the parameter Ryan set, in my opinion questionable(others also,or it would not have come up), if he is off by one-tenth of one percent, it`s maybe a trillion dollar difference.

Who knows? They were right about the projections of deficits for Bush`s tax cuts, wars, and the unfunded Medicare bill, which McCain is claiming will add $8-11 trillion to the debt over ten years to bash Hayworth for voting for it Before Obama took office, CBO had already projected $8 trillion in new debt over ten years because of existing government policies. As with the Supreme Court, they might not be right every time, but it`s the way the government scores no matter what party is in power. You stated the CBO scoring on the health bill could be wrong because of faulty data, what data was faulty? If you`re going to question the scoring, you must know there was faulty data, if you don`t you`re just giving a biased opinion with no substantiation.

With all the name calling on here it is hard to take many of these comments serious. Even Krauthammer is in on the act. Please Charles, inform us as to when the President said "onward with obamacare"? You can't because there is no such thing as "obamacare". Just more childish name calling to appeal to the lowest in our society.

andre, that must be why when Ryan`s alternative budget was scored he insisted on a certain number, for revenue as a percent of GDP, be used even though that number is seldom reached. Can you tell me what restrictions Democrats placed on CBO scoring for the health bill?

too bad Obowma scared the wits out of all the dems with half a brain. you all say they're (rep) the "party of no". everything this administration has done is laughable, of course they're gonna say no. i seem to remember a certain party who was against everything bush did....how is that change working out? the transparency he promised is nowhere to be found...bipartisanship, "center left"? i think not! look at all the elections the dems are losing...all the dems dropping out of office....they don't have the votes for healthcare, and KNOW we don't want THIS FORM OF IT, yet they push ahead.....typical lying politicians..hows it feel to be fooled?

"With its rich subsidies, expansion of government programs, insistence that all insurance cover specific services (and some with no copayments at all), Obamacare would pour fuel on the fire of health inflation. It's one reason that even the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services - a federal employee - predicts cost rises under the President's plan."

[Dr. David Gratzer, a physician, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He is the author of Why Obama’s Government Takeover of Health Care Will Be a Disaster (Encounter Books, 2009).]

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles...

I was rereading this to make a comment about the article when I realized that some folks on this comment posting must sit at their computers for long periods of time. I just post and move on. Get out of your chairs, shut off Rush, and go for a walk.

"Obamacare raising premiums on everyone," your example doesn`t say that, it says premiums will still go up, but not because the bill will raise them for all. Will premiums go down if the bill is not passed,no, CBO says they will double by 2020. CBO also says the only premiums that will go up under the bill are those that buy their own insurance, and they will get pre-existing condition coverage, no lifetime or yearly limits. By the way, they also say 60% of those people will get a subsidy to help pay for their insurance. As for reading the bill, go ahead, it`s been on the web since Christmas. The only parts that you can`t read are the changes to be made, and if you want you can watch the debate about those changes if it happens. If anybody really wants to read it, feel free.

Right on once again, Eman. Paradoxically, it is profit that drives prices downward because the lure of profit potential is what inspires competition. Competition is what forces a race for innovation and efficiency, which drives prices even lower. Of course, this can happen only in free and open markets.

Agreed, RAF. I was primarily wondering if you opposed social engineering in principle. What I mean by "fair" is where government makes no value judgments whatsoever. Everyone would be treated exactly equally. Under this requirement, the bulk of existing statutes would be unconstitutional.

Well, here's a YouTube video. Be sure to ignore the portions about ObamaCare raising premiums for everyone - that's also not something the little people are supposed to know about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J1FePMgx...

How can the poor help anybody pay anything? Progressive tax code, remember?

FOTH, not sure I would call many of my positions fair. I believe the last thing government should be doing is involving themselves in anyones personal life; goes for policies and laws. We don't need government to tell someone jumping from a tree is stupid, some of Darwin's theories need to be felt to understand, in this case newtons too.

To repeat my unanswered question from yesterday:

"Kinsohn, which Democrats are saying the "reform" bill is a giveaway to health insurance companies?"

(That wasn't rhetorical. I'd like to know their names.)

You guys kill me: you use payroll taxes as an example of how the poor help pay other peoples' medical bills? That's laughable!

As far as rich guys not paying taxes, there are always exceptions (like they invest in school district bonds, for example), but it doesn't change the fact that the wealthiest 10% pay 2/3 of the taxes in this country. It's a fact you can't spin your way out of.

Like I said, the nice thing about being a Democrat and believing in conspiracy theories (pretty much the same people) is that you can never be proven wrong. There's always a new twist or bogeyman right around the corner just when the last one was slayed.

RAF, I would hope that you are committed to the principle of government being "fair": no picking favorites; no leg-ups to any group; no redistribution of wealth in either direction. I have long advocated a constitutional amendment prohibiting laws that contain selective treatment of any identifiable individual or group. (Think: equal protection on steroids.)

Much of the reason the tenth amendment is brought up over this issue is choice. If the voters of a state wanted a government run managed plan, the state can create their own program, like some states have. If a voter of that state did not like the program they can then migrate to another state; not always easy but still within the union. This choice is not granted if a federal program is started; no option to exclude yourself from the program without migrating to another country.

DiGriz - I just wanted to comment quick about your post about Nationalized Health Care being a Tenth Amendment Issue. Lately, I've heard this argument thrown around quite a bit. However, it is a fairly erroneous one.

First off, Congress does have the power to make such laws, as granted to it by Article 1 Sec. 8 of the Constitution. Mainly, the power is granted by the Commerce Clause since heath care is a service and therefor impacts interstate trade.

Secondly, in cases where Tenth amendment issues have been tried; the Supreme Court has rarely found the Federal government in violation of this amendment. In the cases where the Federal government had violated its powers, the Supreme Court asserted that Constitution did not grant the Federal government the ability to make these laws. However, these violations by the Federal government did not occur in cases involving the Commerce Clause.

So, to you and anyone else that feel this is simply a Tenth amendment issue, I sincerely encourage you to look into the matter further. Constitutional issues are an interesting discussion to have, and I wish more people in this country would take some time to gain a better understanding of how this document is the backbone of decision making in this country. However, I find it appalling when parts of it are cherry picked to make political points.

I respect that you have an opposing viewpoint to this matter of health care reform. However, please don't perpetuate this argument of Tenth amendment rights. It only distracts from the real issues that should be debated.

Who`s against tort reform, I never said I was. All I`ve said is that it is not a panacea to cut health costs, although the Republicans want to portray it as such. I`d like to see the Democrats put some tort reform, and selling insurance across state lines, in the health bill to see if any in the party of "no" would then vote for it.

I think I am starting to understand the sentiment of those against tort reform. It is much like their desire to see more money taken from what they consider "the rich". It all boils down to relocation of money, better known as redistribution of wealth. The continued obsession many have over what others (possessions/money) have is turned into a mantra cry. We live in the greatest country in the world with greater opportunities than any other for achievement and wealth generation, despite that, instead of focusing on what it would take for them to achieve more they sit on the side lines with hands out citing fairness; nothing in life is fair get over it and move on.

Pharm, including employer contribution, workers pay 15.3% payroll tax to Social Security and Medicare. (Self-employed pay the entire 15.3%.) That amount comes off the top of gross income and is not subject to any tax deductions or credits. Since the 1980s, a significant portion of these payroll tax increases have been used to (almost) offset the revenue loss resulting from a corresponding reduction in federal income and capital gains taxes. Since the '80s, the federal tax burden shifted from the richest and onto the poorest totals in the trillions of dollars. It is entirely possible for a high school student working part-time to contribute more money to the federal treasury than a millionaire.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5530&am...

"the bottom half pay nothing,", they pay about 8% in payroll taxes, the rich pay a tiny amount in payroll tax. The top 400 earners in the country pay federal tax at a 16.6% rate, some pay no tax at all even though their income is in the hundreds of millions.(IRS.gov) In a progressive tax system as we have, the rich are supposed to pay more. The "Cornhusker" deal is on the way out, the Louisiana one was asked for by the Republican Governor, and Senator, before politics got in the way and they tried to distance themselves from a needed remedy for a Medicare inequity caused by the hurricane relief spending in that state. The Medicare cuts in the bill include finding waste ,fraud, and abuse, in the Medicare system. I didn`t know that Obama wrote the health bill till I read your post. Thanks!

Let me get this straight: insurance companies are greedy profiteers who deny sick people their contractual benefits (presumably with the consent of the courts), but don't look at hospital bills under $100,000 because that would add to their profit. Got it.

$13 billion is too much profit for premium revenues of $325 billion or so (about a 4% margin), but $130 billion is not enough to worry our pretty heads about in annual medical malpractice costs, nor are the billions used to pay off Democratic senators from Florida, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Louisiana to get their votes.

You don't know if salaries are part of profits. I'm shocked you would admit that. They are not, but I can tell you they amount to less than 1% of any insurance company's operating costs and are even more meaningless in the grand scheme of things: Obama gave out more than all the executives' salaries combined with just the Cornhusker Kickback - and that was taxpayer money! (Bonuses, by the way, are primarily paid out in the form of stock and come at the expense of stockholders, not from premium, but I'll grant you a pass on that.)

In any case, health insurance has about the the lowest paid executives of any industry in the country according to Forbes. 16th place I believe.

Wealthy people do pay more than others for the uninsured. In fact, the top 7% of taxpayers pay more than 50% of the taxes in the country, while the bottom half pay nothing (or less if you count tax credits). Some people might even call that unfair.

Many left-wing thought leaders know this, but they purposely don't tell their mindless followers these things because it does not help keep the useful idiots in line. If I was such a person, I'd resent the fact that I wasn't told such things and have to rely on obscure blogs on local websites to learn them. Instead, the useful idiots just go back for another serving of their intellectuall left-wing gruel. Soup's on!

Excellent post Eman. Republicans are as likely to roll back entitlements as they are in overturning Roe vs. Wade. They had 6 years between 2000 and 2006 to get things done, and all they did was lower taxes, primarily unearned income taxes, which of course is a joke if you don't lower spending.

kinsohn: At 3:22 PM on 3/8, you stated that insurance profits are .5% of all healthcare spending in the US. I did a quick search (not meant to be thorough by any stretch), and saw that healthcare spending in 2006 was $2.6 trillion. .5% of that is $13 billion. That is an awful lot of money that could be paying for healthcare instead of private profits. I also don't know if that .5% figure included executive compensation/bonuses.

I recently saw a piece on CNN stating that insurance companies don't even scrutinize hospital bills less than $100,000. Arguing that the proposed reform (or a single-payer system) would incur fraud seems to be implying that there is no fraud in the current system. I doubt ANYONE thinks that the current system is fraud-free.

I watched with amusement last night as Ben Stein (a strongly conservative Republican) stated that wealthy people SHOULD pay a higher tax in order to cover uninsured Americans. He is hardly a tyrant or Socialist.

If it was a question of control, the single-payer system would be the one being pushed, not the one that puts more people in the system already in place. A Harvard study said 31% of health insurance premiums go to administrative, and profit, costs. Who does this help besides the companies, and investors? The insurance companies went to the Senate hearings and said they paid out 87% of premiums(according to Sen Rockefeller) for health care, then whined when the Senate wanted to mandate they pay out 85% of premiums for health care. The law in California calls for a 70% payout, and the state is having trouble getting the insurers to comply. As for the non-profit insurers, in 2005 several states came down on them for making too much in overages(profits) while getting breaks for being non-profits. Administrative costs for private insurers are 7 to 10 times higher than Medicare, if you really want to save health dollars the way to go would be single-payer. Medicare payments are much closer to actual costs of health care than either insurance payments, or consumers paying from their own pocket(they pay the highest costs). I recently received a bill for medical services of $440. My portion was $215, my insurance paid $0, the provider happily accepted my check. They obviously over charged in the first place, and don`t try and chalk it up to "volume" because most people(about 86%) have insurance and the companies get cost breaks. They can only make it up on those that have no insurance. Oh, I got $3.50 credited to my yearly deductible out of the $440 billed! By the way,didn`t one company make as much profit last year as the savings from tort reform touted at the health summit by Republicans, $5.4 billion?

It sure is funny how lefties dismiss tort reform as only being 2-3% of health costs, but have conniptions over health insurance profits which constitute about 1/10 to 1/12th (.5% of total healthcare costs) of the supposedly small tort reform number.

Call me crazy, but I'm thinking that facts like this indicate the lefties really aren't concerned about the cost of healthcare, but instead just want to control it.

I`d have no problem with that, but other Libertarians and Republicans seem to be against "requiring" people to do things unless those things meet their personal preferences. Also, I think the government should fund college/tech school educations in return for a few years of service in those fields.

DIGriz, welcome back! My point is to counter some of the mis-information and hypocrisy about some of the health bills that Krauthammer, and his adherents spread. Such as, Warren Buffet, who said he would vote for the health bill over no bill. And, the fact that Brown didn`t win Massachusetts because of the bill, the 56% who rated the bill as a major issue voted by 53% for Coakley. The overblown importance of health tort reform(only 2% of patients injured by malpractice ever get compensation) towards lowering health costs. 49% of tort cases are for traffic incidents, the percentage of malpractice torts is less than half of that, and punative damages are awarded in only 3.3% of those won by plaintiffs. The hypocrisy of Republicans "fighting" Medicare cuts when their goal has been to get rid of it. Questioning the Constitutionality of mandating health insurance, yet wanting to mandate tort reform, and interstate sales of insurance, prohibit the purchase of insurance that covers a legal abortion, even though the money is not tax money, whether states want it or not. I have yet to learn how to cut and paste, it`s more of write it down and transfer it to the keyboard.

Kinsohn, which Democrats are saying the "reform" bill is a giveaway to health insurance companies?

Excellent point, Eman. I've never quite understood the anger directed at liberals. Liberals do what liberals profess to do: expand the role of government. Getting angry at them is like getting angry at cheetahs for chasing gazelles.

The nice thing about being a Democrat is you believe in conspiracy theories which are notoriously hard to disprove.

For example, it allows you to rail against health insurance companies and their 3% profit margins as being opponents of reform while simultaneoulsy telling people that the reform bill is a giveaway to health insurance companies.

You guys would be great to party with, but I certainly wouldn't want to have you run anything!

"Obamacare is right at about a 50/50 prop to pass by June 30."

Too bad that intrade chart doesn't cover the past 12 months. As we both know, stock prices of the major health insurers tell a similar tale. Here is a 12 month plot of Humana, Cigna, Aetna and Unitedhealth Group stocks:

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=HUM#c...

Starting about the time healthcare legislation began to roll out in March, 2009, the stocks prices of insurance companies rose as passage of insurance "reform" legislation --and their anticipation of enormous windfall profits that legislation will bring-- grew more and likely. This trend peaked at around 150% on Jan 19th, 2010, when the passage of the bill looked less likely. Around Feb 16th, insurance company optimism for passage started to rise again. The present curve appears to reflect the 50-50 odds on intrade.

Here's my question, Kiowamohican: If the "reform" legislation fails to pass, what are those poor health insurance companies supposed to do with all of the champagne, balloons and confetti they've been collecting for their big celebrations upon passage of healthcare "reform" legislation?

"I know I enjoy redefining words; count me in, too!"

You're sick of you, too?

I pains me to agree with your last point, Kiowamohican. But let's not forget the greed of the populace in this equation. Greed is the desire to reap more than one sows; to consume more than one produces. It's everywhere.

Dr Griz:
Sic semper tyrannis
;-)

"The words and intent speak for themselves. Compare this to what we now know, and ask yourself how we got to this place in which we find ourselves - this quandry. It was never the intent of the founders for it to be like it is as we currently see it."
.
It really happens in pretty much every civilization throughout mankind. A nation simply becomes complacent, and the citizens forget about past generations that made them get to the greatness of where they are.. The elected leaders become corrupt, greedy, and beyond arrogant. It ultimately has led to the demise, and or outright fall of every great civilization. We will be no different. For the 1st time in American history one can very safely say that future generations will be far worse off then the current generation.

Obamacare is right at about a 50/50 prop to pass by June 30.
.
http://data.intrade.com/graphing/jsp/clo...
.
Seems like a pretty good play to buy contracts on it passing. The Democrats would screw up organizing a one car funeral, if you let them. That is the obvious problem with playing it....They are likely to just find a way not to get this done. I still just don't see how they don't possibly get this passed with the huge majorities, and strong armed tactics, by the leadership. I hope it passes just to see the political carnage it creates! Plus, it will give me much more reason to move to Costa Rica. It's becoming more and more appealing by the day, for sure!

McCain offered an amendment during the Senate health bill debate to take out the Medicare cuts(part of which is just a slowing of the rate of increase in certain payments) even though he advocated the same type of cuts in his campaign. It failed, and Sen. Michael Bennet(D), Colorado, offered an alternative proposal that said," no guaranteed benefits would be cut from the program(Medicare), and it`s finances would be strengthened." Bennet said, "The bill does not take away any seniors guaranteed Medicare benefits. We know that the bill extends Medicare solvency for 5 additional years." It passed on a vote of 100 to 0. AP story, by David Espo, 12/03/09, "Senate Keeps Medicare Cuts In Health Bill."

and princess has ruined another comment section, good job.

I know I enjoy redefining words; count me in, too! I can't wait to see how the new "all" will be represented, but no doubt it will be meaningful : )

RAmen, FOTH

With regard to DiGriz' comment, count me in on "all".

"While American politicians and intellectuals have not reached the depths of tyrants such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler, they share a common vision."
.
In other words, while they're not the same, you'll be attempting to make the comparison, regardless.
Just to be clear, all American politicians and intellectuals share the visions of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler, even though that list comprises men who had different visions of the world?
.
"Tyrants denounce free markets and voluntary exchange. They are the chief supporters of reduced private property rights, reduced rights to profits, and they are anti-competition and pro-monopoly."
.
First of all, this speaks to the means, not the visions.
Second, since supposedly all American politicians and intellectuals share commonalities with your exemplified tyrants, could you provide examples of American politicians an intellectuals who "denounce" the free market (which the U.S. has never truly had), support reduced private property rights and are "anti-competition"?
.
"We Americans have forgotten founder Thomas Paine's warning that 'Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.'"
.
What can you point to which indicates that "we" have forgotten such?
A scale of "best" to "worst" allows for a pretty vague range in between, and even the judgment of "best" or "worst" relies heavily on subjectivity.
.
"President Reagan also said this:"
.
President Reagan was an American politician. Therefore, according to you, he shared the contrasting visions of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

University of Alabama ,in 2008, studied 27 states that had enacted tort reform. Their findings, medical practitioners malpractice insurance went down, in some cases almost 30%. Yet they found " little or no decrease" in consumers insurance premiums, and the practitioners ordered just as many "defensive medicine" tests. At the health summit, Republicans said tort reform would save $5.4 billion a year, very good, that is about one quarter of one percent of yearly health care costs. Why is it that Republicans are suddenly against cutting Medicare by $500 billion, when just last year Rep. Ryan offered an alternative budget that did exactly that? This year he has a budget proposal that cuts Medicare $650 billion, and gives vouchers, not tied to medical inflation costs, to those under 55, effectively killing Medicare. If I was on Medicare, and not one of the 20% of recipients on Medicare Advantage plans, I would be very upset to learn that I paid extra money every month for the benefits of Medicare Advantage plans that I didn`t get. $14 billion last year, cut that and you get at least $140 billion in cuts over ten years. Or raise the monthly payment high enough to cover the 12% that Medicare Advantage plans pay over regular Medicare, and just charge those that want those plans.

That tort reform may be necessary in and of itself does not make it a primary pillar of health care reform.

"The government is run with the people’s money."
.
Yes. And in doing so, they possess it.
.
"Any money collected still belongs to the people as the government is an extension of the people of this country---without them and their money there would be no government."
.
Yes, but again, they are in possession of that collected money.
.
"Money removed from the private sector is indeed a cost to taxpayers."
.
However, you've implicated that money borrowed from the Treasury by the USPS incurs a cost to the taxpayer. In fact, no additional cost occurs, as the borrowed money was already collected and held by the government. The USPS has therefore not cost the taxpayer anything they did not already pay.
.
"Money taken from these same collections is then an extension of that cost."
.
In other words the Treasury, not the USPS, is what has incurred the cost to the taxpayers.

"To answer your question, basically because those two are actual people with concerns that they would like to discuss, unlike you."
.
Wait...you offer me the courtesy of brutal honesty because (according to you) I'm not an actual person discussing concerns, but by turns you insult and placate germancaveguy and copperguy, because...they are? Um...
.
"You, are like a spermicide on these comment boards."
.
In regards to certain users who post (intentionally or not) fallacies and falsehoods, I suppose I can be. Only those who would count themselves among such commenters would have concern, though. Are you concerned?
.
"You just want to kill everything you can with malicious intent in order to self-edify, and I find that repugnant and pathetic."
.
I find your ham-fisted analysis to be lacking.
.
"Naturally, like everyone else, I'm rather sick of it."
.
Yes, you certainly speak for "everyone else." What was that you mentioned about an attempt to self-edify?
.
"I roll my eyes whenever I see something you've posted, wherever it is, because although you've made a few actually respectable attempts to write something other than a disertation or spin on what someone ELSE has written..."
.
The length or format of reply (sorry, but responding piecemeal to direct quotes is not "spinning" what another has written) does not hold an inherent correlation to quality or respectability. Content, however, does. So for you to admit that you dismiss my content out of hand ("I roll my eyes whenever I see something you've posted, wherever it is") really says a lot about you.
.
"...you are a creature of malicious intent and talent."
.
Again, I suppose I can be, in regards to some here. Thank you; I take that as a compliment.
.
"it's clear to all why you are here."
.
You speak for "all" again?
.
"Nuff said."
.
Truly; your offering of yet another platitude as your closing remark does say it all.

Copperguy, here is further proof that tort reform is needed.

A very sad story indeed. A girl is run over by a semi in a truck stop, she did survive and was awarded 24.3 million for injuries, pain, suffering and medical bills.

As Paul Harvey says, now the rest of the story. Her father was driving the semi. He had no permission to have her along. The family sued the same company he worked(?) for and had no permission from to take her along on a road trip. The Judge in the case decided it was not relevant to the jury to divulge the fact the driver was her father that she was on a road trip with.

Yes, what happened to her is terrible. How then this makes the trucking companies insurance carrier liable for 24 million dollars is something only a lawyer with dollar signs in their eyes can answer.

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/03/09/2592843...

Copperguy; it is absurd to think that reasonable people don’t want access to civil action for malice and true malpractice. Your earlier statement that a civil suit is used to compel medical professionals to use the highest possible standards is inane; one is the direct reaction of the other. If a medical review board that is used precisely for the reason you state, is not working should this not be fixed? The act of over used civil action, driven by lawyers not patients, is a factor in increased medical costs.

Are you even aware what the cost for malpractice insurance is and who pays for it?

"possession of the government, and so therefore is not the source of a cost."
-
Ahh princess, a typical appeal by many. The government is run with the people’s money. Any money collected still belongs to the people as the government is an extension of the people of this country---without them and their money there would be no government.

Money removed from the private sector is indeed a cost to taxpayers. Money taken from these same collections is then an extension of that cost.

Ah, RetiredAirForce - I see you're still desperately attempting to woo me with all the tact one would expect from the proverbial alcoholic, touchy-feely uncle who's rightly avoided by the rest of his family (the term "Princess" may get favorable reactions during your weekly 1-900 chats, but this is public discourse). However, your come-ons don't distract from reality. Recall when I first schooled you, way back in the summer of '08, regarding your fetish for authoritarianism and what state law dictates regarding the freedom of/public's right to information. Back then, you self-importantly believed I was a mole who worked for the Gazette, instead of your recent assumption that I'm a woman (who you've adoringly dubbed "Princess"), remember? However, while the incarnations of it may change, your general state of delusion has remained as consistent as my public trouncings of you since day one.
.
"Borrowing from the US treasury is a cost to tax payers...where do you think this money comes from?"
.
Money borrowed from the Treasury comes from the Treasury. Following your logic, the Treasury itself would then be what costs the taxpayers; the act of borrowing on the part of the USPS does not incur additional cost, as the money was already in possession of the government, and so therefore is not the source of a "cost."
.
"Just on my part?"
.
First of all, did you read the word "just" in Zoom's statement that your assertion was "speculation on your part"? I didn't, which obviously indicates Zoom did not preclude the speculation of others.
However, so far, it is only you and CBS that speculate about the USPS not repaying the loans, as none of the other links you provided do so. This does not change the reality that it is still speculation no matter how many may be involved in it.

"Give it a rest inconvenienttruth. You lost the battle."
.
Trite to the point of being meaningless.
Humorous, though, as no one asked you, JustAskMe. Given the general quality of your opinions, it's no surprise. Maybe you should create a new account named "I'llTellYou"?

" You lost the battle."
-
Princess always does...

"but they haven't cost the taxpayers anything since the early 80's."
-
Borrowing from the US treasury is a cost to tax payers...where do you think this money comes from?

"Your assertion that the USPS might not pay back their loans is simply speculation on your part."
-
Just on my part?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/090...
http://www.infowars.com/postal-service-a...
http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/19/usps-pr...
http://www.dmnews.com/usps-bailout-reque...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/1...

Give it a rest inconvenienttruth. You lost the battle.

:-)

Cross your fingers that ObamaCare passes.

Yes, I'd expect no less from you, DiGriz.
At least when it comes to me you drop all pretense and unapologetically speak your mind. Why can't you extend the same courtesy to germancaveguy and copperguy, whom you also express displeasure (albeit surreptitiously) towards?

Estimates of deficit reduction presume Congress will not increase reimbursements in the future. This is a fantasy, as there's a separate bill right now to increase doc pay to the tune of $300 billion for a deficit reduction bill (read: cut in reimbursement plan) that is ALREADY LAW!

But even if this weren't true, why raid this money from Medicare when Medicare is already bankrupt?! This fundamentally weakens Medicare when they should be strengthening it!

"None of this gets around the fact that HUGE amounts of money being paid in premiums goes to bonuses and dividends." It is not coincidence that no facts are given to support this fiction. All profits made by health insurance companies put together account for .5% (that's one half of one percent) of all healthcare spending in the country.

Of that, a tiny fraction is paid in dividends (most health insurers don't pay them), and even less in bonuses (most of which come from stockholders' equity and not premiums in any case).

There are no profits made with the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security products and they are only about $36 trillion in the red! In fact, those programs are guaranteed to raise the taxes and lower the living standards of all of our children and grandchildren.

Meanwhile, every health insurer takes not one penny of taxes to insure the majority of people under 65, and in fact, if they are for-profit, they pay a third of all their incomes in taxes to support the government insurance programs that are bankrupt!

Please return with some facts and not mindless make-believe stories dreamt up over at the union hall or left-wing professor's house.

Interestingly, an article on Fox News (link attached) indicates that the Senate bill WILL decrease federal deficits, just not as much as the CBO had originally forecast.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/...

Every day that goes by without 'reform' is another day with lower costs than will be the case under ObamaCare. The CBO says so.

What I see in reading many of the posts, is that when consumers take responsibility and control over their health care and the costs, they have a tremendous impact. Which is the primary reason that I do NOT support the current plan. I would like to return responsibility for ALL cost to each citizen and the free market. When people take responsiblity for what they purchase or do not purchase, as Americans we prove to be quite responsible and smart on what we do with our own individual wealth. As long as we subsidize health care, we encourage irresponsible actions on the part of individuals. It easy to see that. The problem or as some may see it a good trait, is that Americans want to care for those that cannot. The problem is the people that game the systems. They take advatange of the good will of others and therefore destroy their own and others ability to prosper.

pudssweetie: Here's another one for you. Last week, I received a prescription for a one month supply of medication. Since I'm paying out-of-pocket, I shopped around. The "big box" stores that you would think offer discounts, came in at $120. A small town pharmacy in Evansville? $14.05. That's over $100 SAVINGS by shopping at a small town business. How many co-pay customers have any idea how much their insurance company is paying for their meds?

Of course, there are two sides to every argument. Some might say that the hospitals/doctors/pharmacies are gouging patients who are NOT on Medicare, and that the Medicare price is more realistic. Some would argue that Medicare is under-paying. My GUESS is that the truth is somewhere in between.

None of this gets around the fact that HUGE amounts of money being paid in premiums goes to bonuses and dividends.

The proposals in the House and Senate are NOT perfect, by any stretch. They are a start. Every day that "reform" waits is another day of cost to our economy. And another day that millions of Americans go without access to healthcare due in some measure to corporate greed.

Kinsohn, I 100% agree with what you said and I have proof as well. A family member of mine who is on Medicare and on a Medicare supplement insurance recently had surgery. Prior to surgery she had to have an MRI done along with having to see the surgeon. Instead of sending the bill to Medicare and to the supplement insurance they accidentally sent it to her old insurance. When she received the copy of the bill sent to her old insurance the bill was for $941.00. She called and and told them she no longer has that insurance and said it had to be billed to Medicare and the Medicare supplement insurance. The bill went from $941.00 that was originally billed to a private insurance down to $364.00 that was billed to Medicare. That is a big difference and definitely shows that Doctors and hospitals charge a lot more to private insurance to make up for what they loose in Medicare reimbursement and one wonders why private insurance premiums continually go up. To me this is proof enough that our Health Care Crises is not caused by the insurance companies as Obama wants us to believe, but the problem is within the Health Care system itself. How many people actually look at a hospital bill after having surgery or some kind of hospital stay? I have and have caught the hospital trying to charge my private insurance for something I did not receive and on more than one occasion.

"Copperguy and Germancaveguy: I didn't call you or anyone else unpatriotic, specifically or otherwise."
.
Well that's just not true at all.
germancaveguy, like copperguy, you indicated that you would favor healthcare reform. You asked why "so many people are against health care reform."
In response, DiGriz stated that "so many people are against health care reform" because those people are "patriotic and proud Americans who "work for a living," and are "responsible" for their own lives. This indicates that, in DiGriz's opinion, those who are for health care reform are not patriotic, proud Americans who work and are responsible. Otherwise, if both those who support and oppose could be those things, why would DiGriz make the distinction only for those who are against reform? He obviously feels it's a significant difference. In stating the distinction, he makes it obvious how he views you as health care reform proponents, germancaveguy and copperguy. And now he wants you to know that his spit in your face was really only rain. First your patriotism and work ethic were attacked, and now it's your intelligence.

"A Myth?"
.
Yes. The private v public sector argument is a conservative myth.
.
"Why do numerous vets who are eligible for care at the VA choose not to use it?"
.
Why do numerous vets who are eligible for care at the VA choose to use it?
.
"It is not Fed-Ex, UPS, DHL or even Dynamex that continue to operate at a loss..."
.
Yet all those companies have seen dramatic profit losses, some over 50%. Private business is not immune.
.
"...costing all tax payers money."
.
The USPS is paid for by customers, and only recently borrowed from the Treasury. It is misleading to claim that the debt costs all taxpayers money, when the money was already in the possession of the government rather than collected additionally for the purpose of funding the USPS.
Also, what relevance does the source of funding have in regards to quality of service and efficiency?
.
"What myth is this?"
.
What myth is what? What is "this" in regards to? The trending away from traditionally delivered paper correspondence in favor of electronic communications?

"The USPS is nowhere near as efficient as FedEx or UPS."
.
Based on? And does the efficiency of one inherently negate the efficiency of another?
FedEx and UPS are package delivery services that serve a fraction of the amount of customers and delivered material that the USPS does, and so aren't entirely comparable.
.
"Try tracking a package with USPS and then doing the same with FedEx and you'll figure out what I'm talking about."
.
Tracking is available for both. I've not noticed a difference in having used both. That's also just a nifty little feature that really doesn't indicate/affect the efficiency of delivery, which is the service objective. Tracking is merely a bonus feature.
.
"I suppose it doesn't help that they lost over $7 billion last year"
.
Kind of like how FedEx's earnings fell 53% in Q1 2010, while 1000 employee were laid off despite previous salary cuts? Yep, just another incredibly successful example of a well run, efficient private business......:)

RAF: regarding your 12:05 PM post, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. You state that my assertion about the amputation vs. appendectomy is absurd. Does that mean that you do think the victim of such an error is entitled to compensation? Or, are you saying my assertion that most Americans would support a malpractice suit in such a case is absurd?

If you are asserting the former, I was relying on your statment, "If medical review boards cannot do as needed, restrict those who should not practice, what is there purpose?" What it appeared to me that you were saying was that medical review board should be left to deal with malpractice cases rather than civil courts.

Again, I am not opposed to tort reform as relates to truly frivolous claims (such as when a doctor is sued who wasn't involved in the patient's case, for example). I do NOT believe that medical malpractice should be solely up to review boards. Civil remedy to the victim is very important.

RAF
"You are ill informed they already have a revolving credit line with the 15 Billion dollars from the US treasury...yes we all hope it is paid back."

That REVOLVING credit doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. Most years the USPS made a PROFIT, some years they have a loss, just like any business. They will have to make major changes, but they haven't cost the taxpayers anything since the early 80's.

"By law yes it should be...but then if that was true they would not need financing from the US treasury now would they."

The USPS is the second largest employer in the U.S. (after Walmart). Every business needs revolving credit to opearate. Your assertion that the USPS might not pay back their loans is simply speculation on your part. The fact remains that tax dollars do not pay for the USPS.

For those of you who really believe what Democrats say on the issue of this balancing the budget, you are likely beyond hope anyway. But I'll take a shot:

The $500 billion in Medicare 'savings' that pay for this boondoggle are reduced Medicare payments to providers (docs and hospitals). It is impossible that Congress will actually keep those payments as low as they say they will because doctors lobby for higher payments all the time (and get them). In reality, the payments barely cover costs, with the hospitals and docs getting all their profits from health insurance companies (explained below).

Proof of this is the "doc fix" that Paul Ryan pointed out in the health care summit. The savings from the already-budgeted drops (~20%) in reimbursement are figured into the budget forecasts, but Congress always 'fixes' them and raises them year after year, running up the deficit and debt even though the projections didn't show it. It is a dishonest shell game that the Dems are perpetrating on the public at the expense of our kids and grandkids.

Even if this weren't the case, Medicare is already bankrupt! Hello! To the extent you raid Medicare funds to pay for other programs, you are hastening its insolvency! And the irony is it's Democrats that are doing this - with nary a word from mainstream media about it!

It also fits in nicely for the eventual state takeover planned by the Dems: as Medicare reimbursement drops, health insurance companies are forced to pay more by the hospitals and docs that get less and less for their Medicare and Medicaid populations. This forces health insurance rates to rise much higher than they otherwise would have (they have to cover their increased costs somehow.) Then the Dems complain about how high insurance premiums are!

Of course, no one 'in the know' on the left ever points this out (it's called 'cost shift') because it would not be helpful for its legions of useful idiots to understand that the people doing the loudest complaining are actually causing the problems in the first place!

I really think it would be easier for me to be a happy ignorant Democrat than to stand by as these politicians lie and distort knowing full well their plan is to bankrupt the whole system and then take it over. It is sickening.

"Lawyers can be held accountable - both by the courts and by their state bar associations"
-
Yes they can. Just as congress can hold each other accountable in ethics issues...

"Again, though, are you asserting that there should be no civil liability for medical malpractice? If a person goes in for an appendectomy and instead has a leg amputated, the only recourse should be that the doctor be reprimanded by his professional standards board? I think VERY FEW Americans would agree with such a position."
-
The absurdness of you assertion that anyone thinks this position is ok speaks more to bias than rational discussion.

One additional consideration, RAF...

You asked, "If medical review boards cannot do as needed, restrict those who should not practice, what is there purpose?"

That same point can be made about frivolous lawsuits. Lawyers can be held accountable - both by the courts and by their state bar associations - for filing frivolous lawsuits (torts). Another practice that I've heard of is filing countersuits in frivolous malpractice claims. So, why is tort reform necessary?

Doctors can choose a different profession, and hospital investors can choose another business...or refuse to grant privileges to doctors who have a history of claims. As a comparison, I'm familiar with someone who lost his job delivering construction supplies because the company's insurance carrier saw his driving record.

Again, though, are you asserting that there should be no civil liability for medical malpractice? If a person goes in for an appendectomy and instead has a leg amputated, the only recourse should be that the doctor be reprimanded by his professional standards board? I think VERY FEW Americans would agree with such a position.

Copperguy, most of that sounds good in principle. The fact remains that frivolous lawsuits exist not only in motor vehicle claims but also health care cases, care to guess which ones pay the most to litigants and lawyers? The lawyers have figured out, for the most part, many of the claims will be settled out of court because it is cheaper to pay off a claim than fight it----regardless of the incident.

This can hardly be ued as a deterrent. To use your example if it costs too much for a driver they could simply choose not to pay for insurance. A doctor or hospital only has to raise their rates; since no prices are posted before services are rendered who is the wiser?

Health care providers purchase insurance, just as driver's purchase insurance. If a driver is at fault in a crash, his or her insurance premiums go up. The higher the risk, the higher the premium. This serves as as a deterrent (in addition to traffic citations and/or suspension/revocation of driving prigeleges) to reckless driving. The same principal applies to malpractice insurance.

Is your assertion that there should be no such concept as civil liability?

Perhaps there should be no such thing as malpractice insurance? Perhaps a bad doctor should be forced to pay out of his/her pocket any civil damages? Perhaps malpractice insurance itself should be banned?

"to compel medical professionals to use the highest possible standards in providing care."
-
How does making an insurance company pay a higher fee for a malpractice lawsuit compel doctors? If medical review boards cannot do as needed, restrict those who should not practice, what is there purpose?

DiGriz: My comment about labeling as unpatriotic was not directly aimed at you, though you seem to imply that being in favor of health care for all is equal to socialism and, therefore, "unpatriotic." This is not meant to be a slam, but simply an analysis of your posting. More to the point, others HAVE, in fact, labeled as unpatriotic or unAmerican those of us who believe health care dollars should be spent on HEALTH CARE and not shareholder dividends or bonuses.

That is my point in all of this: I am ready and willing to listen to ANY alternative that would take greed out of health care "financing" (for lack of a better word). To the extent that frivolous lawsuits cost healthcare dollars, I am totally in favor of related tort reform. That does NOT mean that I am in favor of eliminating medical liability for wanton or egregious errors.

I have never once heard anyone on the right say that damages should be limited in copyright, trademark, or trade secrets theft, yet there is a hue and cry to limit damages in malpractice claims. When sloppiness or laziness result in harm, the victim must be able to seek compensation. There are two overwhelming reasons. First, there is compensation to the DIRECT victim, which is the particular patient harmed. The second reason is to compel medical professionals to use the highest possible standards in providing care.

As regards cross-state availability in purchasing insurance, I have never totally understood why this is not already an option.

As I have stated in previous postings, I have personally known people who have paid premiums for years only to have the very same company dump them when they got sick. This is unconscionable, and I can't imagine anyone - even the most stalwart capitalist - believing that it is ok.

I am very concerned about our national debt. There is no doubt but that it must be addressed. We can argue about whether or not we should have spent what we did on the Iraq war (and others), but the fact is that it WAS spent. We can't unspend it. But as I understand it, the Congressional Budget Office has said that at least one of the proposals pending in Congress will REDUCE the national debt. And, most people in America do believe that our current health care insurance system is broken. So, I think we should move forward.

Again, I am willing to listen to alternatives, but they must address the patient, not just the insurance company profits. And, the later we get started the later the program benefits for our economy start.

Whythink, if you are willing to give more of your money in taxes, step up to the plate now. Why wait for it to be law? If you really felt this way you would already do it...

Zoom:
"Please inform us how the USPS has cost the tax payers money. The USPS hasn't received any taxpayer funding since the early 1980's.
-
You are ill informed they already have a revolving credit line with the 15 Billion dollars from the US treasury...yes we all hope it is paid back.

"It is self sufficient, and operated at a profit most years, until the last few years."

By law yes it should be...but then if that was true they would not need financing from the US treasury now would they.

"Also, Fed-Ex, UPS, DHL, and all the rest don't deliver residential mail."
-
Why is that? If you did not know the US congress has authorized this monopoly and made it against federal law for any other company to provide first class mail service...further proves inept government mandates cost consumers; no competition.

vatoloco,
I am not looking for any reward or recognition.

My point was I don't see "Bleeding Heart" as a put-down...the way it was intended when I was called that.

Read my other points...I am not happy with Dems or Reps on this issue. I am not happy with the entire system on this issue.

I am not an expert but strongly believe there is no reason for ANY American Citizen to have to choose between bankruptcy and medical care, food and medical care, taking a raise and medical care.

The fact that so many do...angers me. That is a fact... no reward or recognition needed.

"And yes, if by beeding heart you mean I am willing to give more of my 44k salary to taxes to insure a child, parent or grandparent can see a doctor without financial stress than SIGN ME UP!"

Like RAF oftens states, Please, do us all a favor and step up to the front of the line. Noone is stopping you.

"Bleeding heart, THANKS! Somebody needs to care about their neighbor as much as themselves. I don't live my life looking to squish the next guy to benefit myself."

Here we go again. Nobody cares more than you folks. Always wanting to be recognized and awarded for oyur good deeds. Your high moral superiority is unequaled.

RAF wrote: "It is not Fed-Ex, UPS, DHL or even Dynamex that continue to operate at a loss costing all tax payers money. What myth is this?"

Please inform us how the USPS has cost the tax payers money. The USPS hasn't received any taxpayer funding since the early 1980's. It is self sufficient, and operated at a profit most years, until the last few years. Also, Fed-Ex, UPS, DHL, and all the rest don't deliver residential mail.

Wonder why Canada doesn't have this many problems with health care and they have everyone covered, not to mention the prescription drugs are cheaper there too! Would it be so hard to copy a system that is working for someone else since we can't agree on one and have probably spent just as much time and money talking about it as it would cost to run it? It's ridiculous already!

A plan that raises $500 billion in taxes which will be passed on in slower job growth and higher medical costs, bends the cost curve up, and guts Medicare which is already going bankrupt. What's not to love!

dub190
Mar 7, 2010 at 6:09 p.m.
Suggest removal T or F? Whythink has drank the kool aid. Your bleeding heart is showing....and sorry but my time is too limited for your trivial games and misinformation.
.
You are not fooling anyone. Your time isn't too limited to answer 9 T or F questions...you are simply incapable of doing it.
.
Bleeding heart, THANKS! Somebody needs to care about their neighbor as much as themselves. I don't live my life looking to squish the next guy to benefit myself.
.
It makes me sick that people, GOOD PEOPLE are losing their home or their LIFE because they don't have access to health insurance.
.
It angers me that health insurance companies have INCREASED profits in recent year while covering LESS PEOPLE.
.
It frustrates me that NOBODY in congress or the White House is willing to seriously look at the probem and FIX IT! They are ALL incapable of putting US first.
.
And yes, if by beeding heart you mean I am willing to give more of my 44k salary to taxes to insure a child, parent or grandparent can see a doctor without financial stress than SIGN ME UP!
.
I am extremely lucky to have what I have and worked my butt off to get it. That said, Health Insurance needs to be available for everyone. Nobody should go bankrupt because they get sick. Period END OF STORY!

The stupidity in the whole debate is calling it "health care reform." It should really be "insurance reform", as that is the meat and potatoes of the whole initiative. I think most Americans, regardless of what cable news channel they watch, would agree that the insurance industry in this country does not serve the average citizen.

"Democrats are generally attempting to enact health care measures domestically that sensibly require payment so as to not add to the deficit"
-
Hmmm? Claiming something falls under budget and not adding to the deficit is a neat trick. Perhaps you can provide a historic realistic example of any government entitlement program that did not exceed projected growth in spending---you know by staying within projections also staying inside the budget models to meet this trick of "not adding to the deficit or debt".

"The VA or Postal Service actually provide better quality of service and efficiency than a lot of private insurance companies. The private v public sector argument is a conservative myth."
-
A Myth? Why do numerous vets who are eligible for care at the VA choose not to use it? I suppose that is also a myth.

It is not Fed-Ex, UPS, DHL or even Dynamex that continue to operate at a loss costing all tax payers money. What myth is this?

incon...I don't have any experience with the VA, but you are WAY off on your comments with the USPS. The USPS is nowhere near as efficient as FedEx or UPS. I have had extensive experience with all 3 and, despite having a huge head start, the USPS has fallen way behind. Try tracking a package with USPS and then doing the same with FedEx and you'll figure out what I'm talking about. I suppose it doesn't help that they lost over $7 billion last year.......Yep--just another incredibly successful example of a well run, efficient government sponsored business......:)

America's greatest years are behind her....

Sorry to have to inform many of you, but the "it's unConstitutional" claim doesn't fly. Government has been doing things not expressly granted in the text of the document practically since it was ratified. It's essentially all in how the Supreme Court interprets things. Given that, it's a bit late to be making the argument without being a hypocrite. It's about as weak as the "Socialism" charge, so if those are the only legs you have to stand on...
It's just shocking to see the difference between the parties. Democrats are generally attempting to enact health care measures domestically that sensibly require payment so as to not add to the deficit, while Republicans generally favor military measures in foreign countries that result in costs that are simply added to the running tab. In short, the mindset of the GOP: boo taxes to pay for American benefits, yay debt to China to pay for Iraq's invasion.

Yes, because unregulated private insurance is known for quality service and efficiency. That's why there's absolutely no need for reform. Everything is peachy; put your heads back in the sand.
.
The VA or Postal Service actually provide better quality of service and efficiency than a lot of private insurance companies. The private v public sector argument is a conservative myth.

Think you want government healthcare? Try stopping by a VA hospital or post office, both are government run and lack service and efficiency.

And it's 'way-OK' with me if our grandkids pick-up most of the costs - what the hey?

Hopefully this last push will be enough to get ObamaCare into law. We will all be 'forced' into a state-of-the-art healthcare system at a fair cost.

whythink......Obama election promises included deficit neutral health care reform. Where do you think he's going to get the $1 trillion plus from to fund this mess?? Oh.....I forgot--$500 billion is going to be recovered from Medicare fraud....Good luck with that Big O! The scary thing is that the CBO $1 trillion cost estimate doesn't include the massive amount of fraud that is sure to come into play--just as it did with Medicare......

"In the greater picture, tort reform will do little to impact the cost of insurance."
-
Yes, why start at reasonable cost controls that are driving increasing coverage for all...

"The only thing the Republicans will support is increased control and profits for THEIR insurance companies."
-
Not only is this lame statement not supported by any facts, the real hilarity is displayed in the current healthcare plans that mandate coverage for all...these are a real cash cow for insurance companies put forth by dems not reps; but facts are not what you are asking about is it.

"President Obama has taken several ideas from Republicans and is willing to add them to the bill."
-
That sounds generous, until you understand the president does not write bills...in all honesty it has taken him more than a year to even write a proposal.

"Government will increase involvement in monitoring an industry that has recently increased profits while lowering the number of Americans it insures"
-
How is that any different than Medicare spending increasing while covering the same percentage of people? Logic dictates as costs rise so do fees to cover the costs...but, you don't want a logical argument do you.

well looks like whythink won that little debate :)

dub,
.
T or F
The public option isn't included in the plan.
.
T or F
Government will increase involvement in monitoring an industry that has recently increased profits while lowering the number of Americans it insures
.
T or F
Millions of Americans struggle with little or no health insurance.
.
T or F
President Obama ran on Health Insurance Reform, that included favoring a Public Option and was still elected.
.
T or F
President Obama has taken several ideas from Republicans and is willing to add them to the bill.
.
T or F
The only thing the Republicans will support is increased control and profits for THEIR insurance companies.
.
T or F
Republicans want the President and the majority (Democrats) to scrap their plan for the minority (Republicans) plan.
.
T or F
In the greater picture, tort reform will do little to impact the cost of insurance.
.
T or F
The best plan is to break the bill down and have a majority rules vote on each section. No delays, filibusters, etc... Majority vote on any idea regarding health insurance reform...can be from either party, just simply up or down vote House & Senate.
.
Just answer T or F...I bet you can't without some comment disrespecting our President.

Luckily the Democrats got a wakeup call with the election of Brown....The existing system might be flawed, but if you give the federal government access to institute their reform, it will make the existing system look like a Fortune 500 company w/ a 10% bottom line:) Seriously--look at Medicare--almost broke, and completely drowning in over $500 billion in waste and fraud, and then ask yourself if these are the same people that should be "reforming" our current system?

Boo Hoo Krauty. It is called majority rules. I am glad to see the Dems are no longer putting up with obstructionist Repubs who do not have an original idea about anything except protecting the status quo.

The American Heritage Dictionary, as cited by dictionary.com, describes socialism as, "means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government." I really cannot see how that relates to reforming the payment for healthcare.

What strikes me about this discussion is that those on the right invoke words like "socialism," and "patriotism." I have never accused any individual who opposes the so-called "health care reform" as being unpatriotic. Yet, my view that medical care should not be subject to executive bonuses and shareholder dividends gets me accused of just that: unpatriotic.

In our country, we have any number of instances where collective taxation pays for the common good. Highways, police, fire, and EMS, air traffic control, public health (CDC), and other programs are paid for by all...not just those who use them. I have never had kids, yet I pay for K-12 education. The list goes on and on. And yet, I have never heard anyone claim that such programs are socialist and evil.

But, the minute I assert that health care dollars should pay for HEALTH CARE (and not bonuses and dividends), I'm unpatriotic? It is that sort of uncivilized discourse that is creating so much animosity toward the right IN GENERAL by those of us who subscribe to neither Republican nor Democrat ideology.

It's amazing how my, or anyone's, patriotism becomes questionable when we don't share the same opinions as those that watch Fox News. Since when did patriotism become synonymous with blindly protecting a system that adversely affects so many people. If Americans are expected to work and support themselves, then why should we have to continually pay more for less.
We constantly borrow from China because we continuously send more work out of this country. If this nation is to correct it's trade deficit, it will have to produce more here. The two ways this is possible are: A) Bring back the jobs. & B) Create new ones.
If health care continues to be the way it is, neither will happen since the current costs are a thorn in the heels of both big and small businesses.
Unfortunately, there are too few people that see this side of the issue. Maybe its because they are overly worried about Socialism.

I'm thinkin' you folks need to shut off Fox News for a few days and do some of your own research.

Just ask the Canadians how it's working for them! Higher taxes to pay for lousy care--yeah, that's what we want right?

"What did he suggest to address the plague of defensive medicine that a Massachusetts Medical Society study showed leads to about 25 percent of doctor referrals, tests and procedures being done for no medical reason? A few ridiculously insignificant demonstration projects amounting to one-half of one-hundredth of 1 percent of the cost of Obama’s health care bill." - Krauthammer
.
How fitting, because the CBO estimates that malpractice legal costs only account for less than 2% of our trillions spent annually on health care, and that the effect of tort reform would be neglible in reducing those costs. And yet that is seemingly the main pillar in the conservative concept of "reform" (tort, that is...they're not honestly interested in reforming health care).

You're not a proud, patriotic American who responsibly works for your living if you favor health care reform, germancaveguy. Just ask DiGriz, who has government health insurance himself. He's more than happy to employ platitudes in order to ignore the fact that not reforming our health care system would be the true criminal act.
Also, Socialists (BOO!). http://www.politico.com/news/stories/031...

Late last year, Democrats were marveling at how close they were to historic health care reform, noting how much agreement had been achieved among so many factions. The only remaining detail was how to pay for it.
.
If only the dems. were more like republicans...didn't give a whooie about how to pay for it and threw a HUGE tax cut for the SUPER RICH in as a bonus for their support.
.
I bet Kraut would love it then.
.
Like the loser Hannity called a hero who by himself held up unemployment payments for 300,000 fellow Americans. The guy never asked how we would pay for 2 wars, tax cuts for the rich but now, with Democrats in control, he cares about paying for it before it is implemented...Unemployment benefits.

Problem is there will be no reform, which to me means services should be reasonable. Obama will cover a greedy system with tax dollars, I don't think that is the change people were wanting.

Why is it that so many people are against health care reform? I can understand if someone is against this plan based on what it attempts to do specifically. However, I don't understand how so many are against reform all together. It's hard to dispute that the system is flawed. With premium hikes occurring year after year, and out of pocket expenses going up as well, how is this not a problem? This is a problem shared by both individuals and businesses.
Plus, how is it that having taxes increased is any worse than having premiums increased? It still results in a smaller paycheck. The major difference is that with government, you at least have a bit of control. You can't vote out the people in charge of your insurance policy.
Sure, this plan may not be, and probably isn't the best approach available. Yet, with the republic party doing little more than objecting to any change at all, they are implying that this system is fine. They know it isn't. It's just too bad that they're choosing political rhetoric over doing their jobs. Just saying no to correcting an issue of this size, in an attempt to gain more votes in the long run, allows the problem to continue.
We need more effective people in office again. It's too bad that the republicans we currently have are lacking this quality themselves. There was a time when many of them were good at getting things done. They need to step up and start doing that again.

obammamma; A socialist through and through........................Also a one term socialist..........

How's that hope and change working out now?