Cheat Sheet

The Best In Brief

2009
11
21
NOVEMBER 2009
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
 
 
 
 
 
RESISTANCE

GOP Unites Against Health-Care Bill

CS - GOP Health Care Protest
Jose Luis Magana / AP Photo

As House Democrats negotiate the final touches of a massive overhaul of the nation's health-care system, Republicans are preparing to vote en masse against the final bill. According to The Washington Post, no GOP members of the House are expected to vote for the bill, despite earlier signs that some moderates, like Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA), were considering defecting. Things could change down the road, however: Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), who is running for Senate in blue-state Delaware, told the Post that he may consider voting for the final bill that comes out of conference with the Senate. "Some people would like to see some kind of health-care reform," Castle said.

Posted at 7:48 AM, Nov 7, 2009
Save it
  |  
Email
  |  
Facebook
  |  
Twitter
  |  
Digg
  |     |  
print
  |  
Cheat Sheet Worthy?
Thumb Up
(%)  |  
Thumb Down
(%)    
Comments ()
MrLyons

According to the CBO, the rising cost of healthcare in this America is unsustainable. That is indisputable.

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm

The Republicans/Conservative agenda in this debate, is not to provide options or answers that will help the American people. Their motive is simply to "break" Obama and appease insurance lobbyists.

This is Republican Senator Jim Demint laying out the Conservative agenda:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHV4nDS501Y

"If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him and we will show that we can, along with the American people begin to push those freedom solutions that work in every area of our society."

Since then, the Republican party have used flat - out lies to move forward the "break Obama" portion of their agenda, without supplying any type of "freedom solution" until Boehner released the Republican reform bill last week. The problem with that, is those solutions DON'T work in every area of our society. Another lie.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10705/hr3962amendmentBoehner.pdf

In comparison to the Republican bill, the Democratic plan covers "covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/congressional_budget _office_th.html

Here is a link to the CBO's analysis of the Democrats' plan to verify:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10710/hr3962Dingell_mgr_amendment_up date.pdf

Now, we've already had people on this blog try to politicize the results of these analysis', saying that the Democrats' used "smoke and mirrors" to get a more beneficial result. However, math equations cannot be politicized. Numbers are numbers. Math is math.

The CBO has no agenda. They are the accountants of Washington. The life purpose of an accountant is to save money. They've sniffed out and busted every source of smoke and every funny mirror imaginable.

So, once their "freedom solution" lie was busted, they fell back on old tricks and railed against illegal immigrants and abortions and again flat - out LIED as a delay tactic.

Here is the SPECIFIC language directly from the bill that covers both of those areas, beginning with undocumented aliens:

18 SEC. 347. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED
19 ALIENS.
20 Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments
21 for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are
22 not lawfully present in the United States

Now for abortions:

SEC. 258. APPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS RE4
GARDING ABORTION.
5 (a) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING
6 ABORTION.-Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
7 preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regard8
ing the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, fund9
ing, or procedural requirements on abortions, including
10 parental notification or consent for the performance of an
11 abortion on a minor.

Now, because I a, cursed with a brain that dictates the idea that facts and sources have relevance in debate. Here's a link to the Democrats' bill for anyone and everyone to see for themselves. It's very simple, type in the term "aliens" or "abortion" in the search box if you don't have the time to go through the whole bill:

http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

As anyone who can read/understand English can see, there will be NO money given to undocumented aliens and in NO WAY will it change abortion laws that are already on the books.

So, despite the fact there is a proposed bill on the table that at least begins to address the problem of our astronomical healthcare costs, despite the fact that the Democrats have made concession after concession to try to appeal to "moderate" Republicans, despite the fact that there is INDISPUTABLY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE in the bill addressing Conservative concerns such as UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS AND ABORTIONS, and despite the fact that their own plan has been proven to be ineffective, there is not a single Republican vote behind this legislation that will directly help the American People.

The Blue Dog Democrats are just as much to blame as they, along with their Republican cohorts, have sold out 45,000 American dead every year simply to "break Obama" and keep their campaign money.

Call your Congressman (202) 224 3121. Tell them to IGNORE THE NONSENSICAL SIDESHOW OF LIES the Conservatives have regurgitated over and over.

You cannot reconcile with those who do not seek reconciliation.

|
|
Reply
|
8:23 am, Nov 7, 2009
jaydeekay

I'm mostly in agreement with your post.

But I'm a bit wary of having to be fined or sent to jail if I don't have health insurance.

"""Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

%u2022 Section 7203 - misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

%u2022 Section 7201 - felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years."""

Please tell me I'm wrong. I'm serious. I want to be 100% for a change in healthcare and a joining of the 21st century.

|
|
Reply
|
8:40 am, Nov 7, 2009
nortonclybourn

The big bad state gummint threatens me with fines and imprisonment if I drive a vehicle that is not insured. Those mean bureaucrats! How dare they take away my right to risk destroying property and crippling people without making provision to pay for it?

|
10:17 am, Nov 7, 2009
jaydeekay

Are we talking about auto insurance?

|
10:29 am, Nov 7, 2009
Plantagenet

You can choose whether or not to have an auto. Auto insurance is optional.

You can't choose whether or not to have a body. The crimes and fines that the democrats are threatening people with who don't buy their insurance are not optional.

|
11:25 am, Nov 7, 2009
AlanD2

Plant: You can't choose whether or not to get sick either. Since everybody has the potential to have an expensive illness, everybody should make sure that the costs of an illness are not borne by others.

|
11:46 am, Nov 7, 2009
Plantagenet

Hi al:

Its disengenuous to claim that people don't buy insurance unless they are being threatened with imprisonment and fines by the government.

|
12:00 pm, Nov 7, 2009
cbeenthere

plantarwart-
Again cites an argument that has no place here. Hopefully he/she doesn't get behind the wheel of an automobile anyway.

|
12:15 pm, Nov 7, 2009
AlanD2

Plant: A lot of drivers would not buy auto insurance unless they were threatened with imprisonment and fines by the government.

|
12:52 pm, Nov 7, 2009
clearthinker

Alan: You have to own a car before you are required to own car insurance. Health insurance is required just by your being. I don't know why this article is written in the first place, you like say the Democrats have complete control and don't need the Republicans anyway. Just do it and quit concerning yourself with the right. Call this your own and be proud of it on your own.

|
1:09 pm, Nov 7, 2009
AlanD2

clearthinker: I will be proud of any health care reform bill that helps save some of the 45,000 uninsured Americans who now die each year. Even if it turns out to increase costs (which I doubt, but time will tell).

|
3:31 pm, Nov 7, 2009
amapola101

jaydeekay,where do you find the explanation of what is being offered. I also need to clearly understand. This is where I feel the administration lost focus. If we understand and believe and trust we can make our decisions. i cant stand everyones opinions,no one really knows exactly,and then it becomes republican, or democrat, Foo foo bird.

|
3:55 pm, Nov 7, 2009
Llplo99

Thanks for putting this together. Unfortunately, most people on the right don't care about facts...they simply do not like Obama and do not want him to succeed. They "want their country back", not knowing that the country has moved on and they are left behind.

|
|
Reply
|
8:51 am, Nov 7, 2009
littledebrarae

EXCUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEE ME! BUT I DID read HR 3200 IN IT'S ENTIRETY .............. and HR 3972 IN IT'S ENTIRETY.

I also took the time to READ S 819 aka HR 2413 aka The so called AUTISM TREATMENT ACCELERATED ACT which BLATENTLY VIOLATES the RIGHTS of the ENTIRE AUTISTIC COMMUNITY.\

So instead of SPOUTING PROPEGANDA ..............GET OFF OF YOUR BUTT .......... GO TO CONGRESS.GOV and READ!

SINCE you CAN write ............. I know YOU CAN READ TOO!!!!!!!

|
9:55 am, Nov 7, 2009
jaydeekay

And it seems as if you can yell just fine.

|
10:05 am, Nov 7, 2009
manticore1223

Aspie.

|
10:08 am, Nov 7, 2009
newswoman

I refuse to get into this "how much the healthcare bill will cost" until they talk about how much the two wars cost! Trillions and billions more in the future, if we stay there in Afghanistan. These wars have bankrupted us already and we need to get out right now.

And why is it okay to spend ourselves silly on wars, but complain that the healthcare reform will be about 1/6 of our budget? To me it is more important to spend money on our own people than on wars or foreign countries.

I support the President, but he has to stop sending troops to Afghanistan, regardless of the generals' request. It is a lose-lose situation.

|
|
Reply
|
9:40 am, Nov 7, 2009
estcruzer

Some rational thoughts.

|
11:03 am, Nov 7, 2009
slmpirate

I agree with you newswoman. My personal reason for voting for the President was to end the two wars. Social issues and the economy were not as high of a priority as I went into the voting bothe last year.

The total bill on these two wars will be much more damaging to the social and financial fabric of our democracy than healthcare reform. Those protesting healthcare reform, if they have any intergity, should be protesting the cost of these wars as well.
The previous administration has done more damage to the "country that they want back" than health care reform could ever do.

|
11:11 am, Nov 7, 2009
piktor

U.S. Life Expectancy is 50th in the world.

"Socialist" countries most mentioned as nature's abominations:

8th- Canada, 9th- France, 10th- Sweden.

THEY MUST BE DOIN' SOMETHING RIGHT.

http://bit.ly/T3qU5

|
12:12 pm, Nov 7, 2009
littledebrarae

Mr Lyons, the fact is that the republicans who you SAY have NO OPTIONS have offered up several bills that would have lowered the cost of health care reform, offered tort reform to the insurance industry, and would not have added to the deficit. Instead of taking these bills seriousely, PALOSI and COMPANY killed these bills without so much as the benifit of debate.

IN short Mr. LYONS ...........so much for YOUR LIES!

|
|
Reply
|
9:52 am, Nov 7, 2009
briansays

AND THE REPUBLICAN BILL IS A FRAUD

The term "State" as defined in the bill
One of its central tenets - and the health care thing you've been hearing Republicans blab on about most, after they've exhausted tort reform - is to allow consumers to purchase health care plans across state lines. Doesn't that sound nice, for competition and pricing? But what if... what if many of the health insurers then set up shop in the "state" of the Northern Marianas, where there is not a single law against anything

They want to gut consumer protections passed by the states
They are a wholely owned subsidiary of the American Health Insurance Industry

|
10:43 am, Nov 7, 2009
stjam8

littledebrarae: Tort reform and the other things that the GOP keep bringing up inspite of the fact that they have been dealt with repeatly, ad-nauseam. Tort reform according to the states that have already enacted it, hasn't saved that much. Medical costs could be bought down if the medical community police its own better. A large amount of malpractice cases are from a small group of doctors. If you are a victim of malpractice, do you want a cap put on what money you could receive for your care and suffering. Mr LYONS GAVE YOU THE FACTS, WITH SOURCES.

|
10:56 am, Nov 7, 2009
AlanD2

littledebrarae: Nice try. According to the CBO, the recent GOP health care reform bill would increase the number of uninsured Americans to 50 million. It would also cost billions more than the current Democratic bills.

No wonder it is DOA.

Just a typical Republican bill - written by and for the insurance industry.

|
11:51 am, Nov 7, 2009
Lilli917

Baloney! There hasn't been any serious bill offered for debate.

|
12:05 pm, Nov 7, 2009
JCSAtx71

MrLyons,

Just as I had started to think either I was living in some parallel universe, or that I was surrounded by others who were, I was relieved to read your posting. I've grown tired of explaining the facts regarding how critical reform of this country's pathetic excuse for health care is. Sadly, it seems as if all my attempts have been made to individuals averse to such a concept.

|
|
Reply
10:09 am, Nov 7, 2009
camfield

So GOP Sen. Castle grudgingly concedes that "Some people would like to see some kind of health-care reform." Good grief! What will it take to get a Republican to admit that most people want to see a bill that significantly improves health care available to ordinary people? Let's face it, Republicans have dug in their heels because health care reform of any sort just looks too Democratic to them. They would rather just continue pandering the private insurance industry, no matter how many warts it has on it. Talk about sick!

|
|
Reply
10:14 am, Nov 7, 2009
winston1

Say no to the healthcare bill call {202}224-3121

|
|
Reply
|
10:29 am, Nov 7, 2009
AlanD2

Say no to Winnie.

|
11:51 am, Nov 7, 2009
piktor

No, Winnie, no!

|
11:53 am, Nov 7, 2009
Lilli917

Not going to happen!

|
12:07 pm, Nov 7, 2009
spotted

Winnie is going to lose in this one.

|
12:47 pm, Nov 7, 2009
eurydice9276

There's more to worry about than just abortion and illegal immigrants. From what I've read a good portion of the financing for this bill has nothing to do with health care - it's more about levying surtaxes on high income individuals, eliminating tax credits for multi-national corporations, prohibiting tax write-offs which only exist to be tax write-offs (however they plan to define that and however they plan to enforce it) and something about the paper industry (which I can't really remember right now). Now maybe we all think this is a good idea today, but maybe future administrations won't. Maybe someday we'll eliminate the surtax, or want to reinstitute tax credits for multi-nationals, or never figure out exactly what those unecessary tax write-offs are all about, or decide we really, really like paper - but, every time we go to change one of those things for legitimate, non-health care reasons we'll, in effect, be increasing our health care costs.

The rest of the funding seems to be "savings" from changes in Medicare and Medicaid (and we know how well Congress has stuck to those changes in the past), and hypothetical savings once everyone's on board and the system's running (whatever that means). It's obvious we need health care reform, but the Democrats seem more interested in bullying everyone into line to secure their legacy than having an open debate about what they plan to do to us. And I use "to us" deliberately, because I don't for a minute believe in the image of Democratic altruism - Pelosi's frenzied fundraising and the cloud of industry lobbyists throwing checks in her direction is enough to dispel that rosy notion.

|
|
Reply
|
11:14 am, Nov 7, 2009
DD3075

Wow, eurydice9276. How refreshing to see someone with the foresight and ability to connect the dots.

Mostly what I've read on this sight are essentially childish hand-clappings from those who want to pass this bill, regardless of the consequences. In other words, most people seem incapable of stepping back from Dem vs Repub to see what the bill does and does not do.

No one here mentions the cost. They appear willing to bankrupt this country at 2 trillion dollars. Doesn't anyone comprehend that insurance costs will only go up because the underlying issues of expensive health care are not being addressed?

The government has the opportunity, right now, to reduce fraud in the Medicare system, currently costing us a total of over $60 Billion/year. That would be $600 Billion over the course of 10 years that could be saved, and it could start immediately. The reason there is no such fraud in private insurance is because they watch their bottom line. The government never does and never will watch the bottom line because it's not their money. Just an FYI.....private insurance industry made a total of only 2.5% (two and a half percent) profit this past year, while companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield are not-for-profit companies.

I'm sure there are some people who believe big government is good for them, while some just don't grasp the whole picture. They would be the ones who didn't understand that if they earn $40,000/year, they can't afford to purchase a $300,000 home.

As for covering illegals, MrLyons' post shows where the bill disallows coverage for illegals. Well, there is nothing in the bill that requires proof of citizenship, and if you can't identify illegals, how do you expect to not cover them????

The fight we have going on is primarily between those who want a nanny state and those who prefer to stand on their own 2 feet. Then, there are those who naively believe that the government is less corrupt than private industry. Yet, laughingly, they are the same ones complaining about corrupt government. Some are just willing to give up all principles, as long as they are convinced they can get something for free.

You have to wonder where the idea comes from that government (those who have never been involved in health care or health insurance, have never managed anything efficiently, and are defrauded at the rate of $60 billion/yr in just 1 of their programs) could possibly have the answers. It's as ignorant as going to a mechanic for heart surgery.

|
6:23 pm, Nov 7, 2009
OOOWWW

2.5% of what. You failed to mention that. If it's in the billions 2.5% is a lot of money.

I'm pretty sure it's in the billions right.

If you really want to see the cost of health care lowered you would be for single Payer.

Most people wished there health care went up 2.5%. In reality your more likely to be hit with a 5-30% increase every year. Goodbye pay raise.

1 trillion on health care over 10 years will not bankrupt this country.

2 trillion on wars did.



eurydice9276: Someone has got to pay for it. The middle class is already paying for the Iraq war. NJ, PA, NY have all raised there sales tax. Almost every state is running at a deficit because our federal tax dollars went to building sandcastles in Iraq.

|
6:27 pm, Nov 14, 2009
melissamsouza

Mr. Lyons, thank you. Health care is nothing short of a national crisis. Small businesses are being crushed, families are going bankrupt, big business can't compete overseas, and individuals are increasingly insecure, if they have health insurance, and completely helpless if they don't. This is a major social, economic and moral issue. The Republicans are on the wrong side of History, and they are behaving in a shocking, irresponsible, and unethical manner. Even former Republican politicians, like Bill Frist, Tommy Thompson, Chuck Hagel, Bob Dole have been calling on their former colleagues to behave more responsibly in such a major and urgent issue for this country; "responsibility" is a word that the likes of John Boehner (he has the face of a ventriloquist doll), Mitch McConnell, and all the fricking inept, Tea Party ignoramuses do not understand and have never heard. I do believe that there are higher forces operating here, and that these ugly vectors of ignorance, intransigence, ill will and incompetence will be defeated. As they were in the 1930's, when we got social security; as they were in the 1960's, when we got Medicare and the Civil Rights Bills. History has a dynamic of its own, and we WILL get health care reform at the turn of this decade.

|
|
Reply
1:45 pm, Nov 7, 2009
makeclear

Well done. Your article is clear and to the point. This is what I would like to see in all discussions, good strong points that are the truth, no name calling, no lies, no reading of the tea leaves, no cursing or swearing.

People who do not want health care must never have been sick or have had a love one or friend sick? Why will they defend the insurance industry and ignore the truth? I guess these folks never had a run in with the insurance industry either. Why do congressmen and senators defend the insurance industry and not the people who elected them ? We all know the answer to that one.
Why do Republicans vote as a block? Are they cloned to do so? Logic, compassion and common sense cannot sway them.
You are correct " You cannot reconcile with those who are cloned to not seek reconciliation"

|
|
Reply
9:56 am, Nov 8, 2009
laughorcryagain

dont worry jay

we saw this in Jersey, Christie Whitman budgeted $25mm in fines to build EZPass. WHich means the expected deadbeats who wouldnt pay a 25 cent toll to answer her letter for a 25 dollar fine. of course they didnt and it blew a hole in the budget.

can you imagine the enforcement mechanism required for this, we'd need a police state. Somehow the government is going to have a database of all insurance policies and you'll have to submit yours with your tax return, if you file one, and then if they dont match they are going to have to come after you and make you pay a $750 fine

we're talking about people who refuse to buy insurance, think theyre gonna file tax reutrns?, or answer mail?, what are they gonna do send the US Marshalls out to arrrest these people?

|
|
Reply
|
8:53 am, Nov 7, 2009
FatFreddy

Never underestimate the power of the IRS. I imagine people will be sent a statement by the insurance company, similar to a 1099, stating what was paid, to be filed with their tax returns. So, not having insurance will technically be the same as not paying taxes. Try not declaring money you made as a subcontractor (over $600) and see what happens.

|
|
Reply
|
9:24 am, Nov 7, 2009
jaydeekay

It's not hard at all to avoid.

|
9:54 am, Nov 7, 2009
estcruzer

Until it comes time to pay for the medical bills....

|
11:05 am, Nov 7, 2009
jaydeekay

That's the scary part... a police state.

I DO NOT think that is what is going to happen... but why have that in the bill in the first place if it is impossible to police?

Honestly, I do not blame anyone for not liking this aspect.

|
|
Reply
|
9:53 am, Nov 7, 2009
AlanD2

jaydeekay: The government already pays for 60% of America's health care (Medicare, Medicaid, and VA health care). Despite the best efforts of Bush / Cheney, we haven't yet become a police state because of this.

I think your worries are unfounded.

|
11:54 am, Nov 7, 2009
jaydeekay

Why have this in the bill in the first place?

|
12:01 pm, Nov 7, 2009
AlanD2

flyoverland: Because it will save some of the 45,000 uninsured Americans who now die each year because they can't afford life-saving medical treatment.

This is the equivalent of fifteen 9/11 tragedies every year.

|
3:28 pm, Nov 7, 2009
jaydeekay

Was that actually to me?

|
3:30 pm, Nov 7, 2009
AlanD2

jaydeekay: Yes it was. Sorry, flyoverland.

|
1:02 pm, Nov 8, 2009
EtienneEtoile

As they unite in a big daisy chain to oppose health care reform, I hope that if they are religious they will be thinking of what to say when they meet their maker. The deaths of the 45,000 a year will be at their hands.

|
|
Reply
|
9:18 am, Nov 7, 2009
DD3075

I have told AlanD2 before, frequently, that his 45,000 number is bogus. But as usual, neither you nor Alan do your research.

First, that figure came from a study of only 1,500 people over 10 years.
Second, at the beginning of the study, some had no insurance. Over the course of 10 years, new info as to whether they had gotten insurance was never collected.
Third, at the end of 10 years, the ratio of people who had died was applied to the country at large.

Bottom line, not only is the figure a guesstimate, but it is based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

Good grief, if I tell you the moon is made of green cheese, are you willing to believe it? If not, then why do you believe Alan without double-checking?

|
|
Reply
|
6:42 pm, Nov 7, 2009
stjam8

dd3075: AlanD2 is refering to the Study done by the Harvard Medical School and the The Journal of Public Health.

|
10:22 pm, Nov 7, 2009
Lilli917

You miss the point. There are thousands of deaths every day because of lack of insurance. I work in the health care field and it happens daily in my local hospital.
Even one death is too many. Maybe we could bring home our troops from Germany, Japan, France, etc....let those countries take care of themselves and spend that money on health care!

|
10:24 am, Nov 8, 2009
AlanD2

DD3075: Statistical analysis can quite accurately pin down this type of information. Insurance companies do this all the time to estimate future losses and how much to charge for insurance, as well as determining which people are too risky to insure.

I would rely on the estimates by the Harvard Medical School far more than on your attempts to spread fear and confusion about this issue.

See my post toward the end of this page for more.

|
3:11 pm, Nov 9, 2009
OOOWWW



Why would anyone who is not a millionaire and a white male vote Republican.

If your a woman.
They were against giving women equal pay for equal work.

If your a Christian.
They were against insuring under privileged children.

If your a minority
They were and are against civil rights.

If your breathing.
They are against helping the government provide affordable health care.

If your over 55.
They were against Social Security and Medicare.

How does this party exist.



|
|
Reply
|
9:23 am, Nov 7, 2009
EtienneEtoile

I think that they were severely abused as infants and children.

|
|
Reply
|
9:30 am, Nov 7, 2009
littledebrarae

OH yes and that is why the COMPASSIONATE LEFT .............. is trying to FORCE through congress the AUTISM treatment Accelerated act that calls for a MANDETORY REGISTRY and SURVIELLENCE of every man, woman, and child with AUTISM and ASPERGERS.

OH yes the lIBJERKS of the LEFT are SOOOOOOOOOO 'caring'.

THAT is WHY they are FOR Discriminating the AUTISTIC community and KEEPING IT FROM THE PUBLIC via having Newswoman's MEDIA SUPRESS it!

And as for facts ............ THE mandetory REGISTRY and SURVIELLENCE SERVICES was VERIFIED AS FACT by DEMOCRAT SENATOR TOM UDALL'S Office on AUGUST 25, 2009!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And HELL YES I AM ANGRY!!!!!!!!!!! I AM AUTISTIC ........ AND I WILL NEVER VOTE DEMOCRAT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!

All YOUUUUUUUU can do is OFFER INSULTS, LIES, and ATTACKS.

Instead of ACTING LIKE A HYPOCRITE;. GET THE FACTS!

|
10:03 am, Nov 7, 2009
manticore1223

Have you, by chance, heard of encyclopedia dramatica? It might be right up your ally?

|
10:12 am, Nov 7, 2009
manticore1223

I forgot to specify to look up autism.

|
10:15 am, Nov 7, 2009
winston1

I think Democrats were dropped on their heads as infants.

|
10:31 am, Nov 7, 2009
AlanD2

Winnie, you have long shown here that you have no capability to think, period.

|
11:56 am, Nov 7, 2009
diamondgirl

Why Alan, because he doesn't think like you? a left wing freek, that lives for those hand outs?

|
4:21 pm, Nov 7, 2009
DD3075

manticore1223 wrote: " Have you, by chance, heard of encyclopedia dramatica? It might be right up your ally?"

The dictionary might be up your alley, manticore.

|
6:47 pm, Nov 7, 2009
manticore1223

Meh, People who come in spitting fire before every contributing anything worthwhile are worthy of extensive trolling. Aspies that come in spitting fire doubly so.

|
8:54 pm, Nov 7, 2009
manticore1223

^ever

|
9:16 pm, Nov 7, 2009
manticore1223

Also in my haste I did notice my error, conceded.
Alley not ally. Ironically, I am usually pretty good about picking those out. Oh well. They can't all be gems.

|
11:49 pm, Nov 7, 2009
newswoman

And yet people still vote Republican. I don't get it, either. They are against everything I believe in.

|
|
Reply
|
9:43 am, Nov 7, 2009
littledebrarae

I used to be a democrat. I used to believe the LIES about HOW COMPASSIONATE the DEMOCRATIC party was.

Yet it is the DEMOCRATS who have on the floor of the house and senate the Autism Treatment Accelerated act (which calls for a mandetory REGISTRY (replete with SURVIELLENCE services) for every MAN ......... WOMAN ...... and CHILD with Aspergers and AUTISM)

This was Verified as fact by the DEMOCRATIC New Mexico Senator TOM UDALL's OFFICE on August 25th, 2009!

The PROPER position for the DEMOCRATIC PARTY (and the MEDIA FOR REFUSING TO COVER THIS) is ON IT'S KNEES before the AUTISTIC COMMUNITY .........

BEGGING OUR FORGIVENESS!!!!!!!!!

|
10:06 am, Nov 7, 2009
winston1

newswoman It's your way or the highway. Who are you???

|
10:34 am, Nov 7, 2009
AlanD2

We don't have any question about who you are, Winnie. Just another DB troll.

|
11:57 am, Nov 7, 2009
diamondgirl

Democrats are only in for the power, and control of those less fortunate, they like to keep them under control and this way they will need them and they will vote for them.

Its very sick and all in the book. "Rules for Radicals" Saul Alinski, Obamas mentor, go read it and you will understand.

|
4:24 pm, Nov 7, 2009
winston1

diamond girl you are correct about R2D2 AlanD it's just handouts all the time.

|
6:16 pm, Nov 7, 2009
AlanD2

diamondgirl: Control was the goal of conservatives. We Democrats are too disorganized to want to control anybody.

I think you are projecting again. Best wishes for a full recovery.

Although I have to admit that House Democrats were just organized enough to pass health care reform tonight, with two votes to spare (one of them by a Republican - bipartisanship lives!).

|
12:46 pm, Nov 8, 2009
OOOWWW

So women receiving equal pay is a handout.

Civil Rights is a handout.

You guys are insane.

|
|
Reply
1:12 pm, Nov 9, 2009
OOOWWW

Form the responses it looks like they can't find a reason they vote Republican.

|
|
Reply
1:14 pm, Nov 9, 2009
oliverckerr

Here dear yokels in my Health care Solution. My idea will cover all and cost less!

I am an independent candidate for president. My Health care program does not involve insurance companies or any government bureaucracy. This is an issue that ties up one sixth of our economy!

We can agree our economy, as heartbeat, is near collapse; the dollar is in the dumpster for months, and could permanently go lower; one of our prob limbs, the growing rolls who lost their health care insurance along with their jobs.

My Loose Penny Program, presented here, is a capital injection that will instantly begin to repair our economic muscle, by repairing our health care delivery without government intervention, but to create actual jobs, mission critical diplomacy is required.

President Obama needs to get off the fly around health care campaign trail, wipe down the makeup on his eyelids (with cold cream) and summon all our fast foods, supermarket; Target and Wal-Mart CEO's to the White House to ink my proposed infusion solution.

The only thing wrong with this proposal is it's mine. It is my 'out-of-the-box approach, and personally I have an expressed stake in the political process as a candidate for president. Were his advisors only willing to set that issue aside we would all benefit!

Obama went to Cairo and Copenhagen. He can meet with KFC. Your loose pocket change will make the critical health care diff rinse.

Every chain must participate in my Loose Pennies Program, regardless the size of their enterprise. My purpose: an additional two-cents in the cash registers of many thousands of locations nationwide, wherever we fast food eat and shop. For every item registered over the counter we want two pennies extra, added as patriotic gratuity.

This proposal is not for a government mandate. Anyone can refuse to pay the voluntary two cents gratuity. Burger, fries and a drink totals six extra cents, pennies off the pavement. Regardless what we purchase at the market; we are only pitching in some loose change out of pocket. 40 items at the supermarket could easily add up to $150. Does another 80 cents inhibit your generosity?

A worker chosen by the workers to represent them can meet with the managers to approve the total pennies for everything out the door the week before, dividing that total by everyone's hours worked.

Then we include up to $2 dollars extra for every hour in the worker's paychecks. A $5 deduct for a Medical Malpractice Pool is on my planing board, which employers don't have to match, so their sticker prices won't rise from any extra cost of doing business. The chains won't be squeezed from our Medical Assurance pay raise, that, a plus minus spreadsheet wash!

The worker's pay increase doesn't come out of management's pocket, but work place production will grow. When someone quits, the crew might ask the boss to leave them pick up the slack, so they earn more money!

The overage, beyond the $2 dollars hourly extra in every pay, goes to interest bearing Medical Savings Accounts, with the worker's name on his or her portion. Two dollars an hour in a forty hour week is more than $4000 a year. There are other innovative possibilities because the prime issue inspiring our voluntary gratuity is Health Care.

The president can ask everyone on the low end of the economic chain to divide their bounty as follows, at least what I am guaranteed to do as president: The president can order the $2 an hour extra be a take home half in cash, with the balance going to dramatically grow these proposed Medical Savings Accounts, a health care solution for at least ten million uninsured people.

More than ten million of the uninsured people will have their medical care access guaranteed with a Medical Savings account they can share with their spouse, significant other, and off spring. The medical savings account, as a health care solution beats health insurance!

Insurance companies are dedicated to making money, not protecting the sick from financial disaster. When an insurance company cancels your policy because you have an expensive disease, they don't refund your premium. But with a Health Assurance Savings Account, when you quit or get fired from the job, your medical savings account goes with you!

After a year behind the fast food counter, a 40-hour per week worker could have more than two grand in their Health Assurance account. Ten million uninsured people at the bottom of our economic food chain might not have health care insurance but all would carry Health Assurance. In the event they don't feel right they have access to medical care, and a second opinion, because the money to pay is there! When it's your money, unneeded procedures evaporate.

Other companies, besides the fast food chains could have the "public Lev option" of creating Medical Savings Accounts, in lieu of providing an insurance policy for their workers.

A sensible choice solution eliminates the insurance company monopolies. A worker could opt out of his company's insurance policy. The employer's end would go into his paycheck, a raise in take home pay. The half the worker was paying would still be withheld, and go into the worker's Medical Assurance Savings Account.

Small businesses unable to afford insurance coverage for their employees could set up Medical Assurance Accounts.

Is there any government bureaucracy involved in my program? Is my proposal 1500 pages of unreadable language?

This two cents program works for the medical professional, too. You agree to the fee, the doctor swipes your Medical Assurance card and the money is debited from your Health Assurance account. The Dr.'s cost layer represented by his required compliance with the insurance company bureaucrat is out of the mix.

This proposed over-the-counter voluntary two-cent gratuity, $344 dollars monthly doesn't bash government. These out of pocket pennies go to the working not so rich, without intrusion. Government bureaus are by-passed, except to investigate anonymous complaints about businesses that may be cheating their workers.

In all the dry cleaners add a nickel to every shirt pressed, a dime for every dry cleaned piece. In all the family operated dry cleaners, medical savings accounts will replace the worker's share of their family's health insurance.

This 2 cents extra covers 90% of all the minimum and lower wage jobs in USA, juicing the recovery by pumping the bottom of our economic chain, enriching the people most likely to purchase goods with their money!

The fresh dollars these people spend will create jobs. Those in low echelon hourly jobs, working 40 hours a week will have $80 extra weekly in his or her pay envelope, the diff rinse between scraping by and getting ahead; the advantage of $75 after a $5 per week set aside for our Medical Malpractice Pool, $40 in their pay with a minimum $35 earmarked for Health Assurance Savings.

To restate: $2 an hour X 40 hours is $80 fresh dollars a week, $344 a month, more than $4000 fresh dollars a year going to more than ten million UNINSURED working people, based on our voluntary two pennies on every item over the counter in all the fast food chains, WalMart, KMart, Target, and every supermarket chain.

The $80 extra a week is divided in half. $40 for pay envelopes, $40 for Medical Savings Accounts. Then $5 out of the pay raise for a Malpractice Insurance pool, which Dr.'s are invited to join, by putting in $5 per office visit; and $5 from your Medical Savings Account into a Catastrophic Illness Pool.

You are working for five years at Burger King. You are an assistant manager. You started out flipping burgers and stayed with your Medical Assurance Savings. You have kidney failure, need dialysis while waiting for a kidney transplant. That is catastrophic.Your Medical Assurance Account won't be depleted on the spot.

Relative to Malpractice Insurance doctors and dentists, the med professionals are invited to participate with $5 per visit, so they can down the road, cancel their Malpractice insurance. Then we establish a reasonable award for all the different malpractice possibilities, allowing the aggrieved party to get a lawyer in the event there is a disagreement. This lowers the cost of a Doctor being a Doctor and gives us a chance to develop a public access data base that identifies doctors who are repeat malpractitioners.

Millions of uninsured not so rich people building Medical Assurance Accounts will directly benefit from this voluntary deal. We gain from tipping our pennies to working folks, as these millions of uninsured won't be crowding emergency clinics for care, which we all pay for, a tremendous savings for the taxpayer!

Emergency health care cost is infected by the actuarial projections of how many uninsured people might use an emergency room walk-in for care during the course of any year.

Working people in min-wage jobs with Health Assurance accounts pay for their access on a need-to-be seen basis. In addition to medical savings accounts, the two cents gratis could secure a million mortgages near default, a contribution to neighborhood health as deserted house disease is a cancer that devalues the whole street.

For the rest of our uncovered citizenry, doctors and dentists must be allowed the volunteer opportunity to do tax deductible charity, treating them. A charity patient is anyone without insurance. The plan: doctors do $50,000 in charitable medical services and deduct the $50,000 off the top of their federal tax. Then, after all the deductions, the doctors take an additional half off their bottom line; twenty-five thousand or half, whichever is greater.

Medical professionals could perform $100,000 in charity and deduct $50,000 off their tax, and because they only owed $49,000 in taxes, earn a one thousand dollar income tax credit. This health care approach cost effectively makes sense.

Doctors won't be at the mercy of an insurance companies,' take it or leave payment for services rendered. People suffering from unaffordable premiums, with pre-assurance from their physicians, will begin to cancel their overpriced insurance policies.

Every doctor will have a waiting list of patients waiting to be classified as charity. Doctors will have more patients, their work incentive: Freedom of Income Tax.

Isn't this one-line change in our tax code easier to digest than a fifteen hundred page med-reform tax increase stick-it-to-us vaccination, unread even by its authors, our congress? Would insurance company's shills show up at town hall meetings screaming, "It's a communist plot! Down with their two cents for medical savings accounts?"

Every doctor and dentist will have a sign on the door: "No insurance? I'm here."

These ideas will enrich our economy from the bottom up, possibly save a million mortgages, and insure access to health care services for many, if not all the millions of uninsured people, whilst leaving the rip off insurance companies out.

The long-term solution to our health care prob limb is free medical education for doctors, dentists, and all related personal, our goal one hundred thousand doctors graduated every year until we have one family doctor for every thousand people. A national marijuana tax could fund this program, as could a three per cent reduction in military expenditures. Politishinz are good at identifying issues but fold their intestinal fortitude as those who finance their campaigns govern the solutions.

In that light, the above proposed change in our tax code, encouraging doctors and dentists to treat the uninsured as a deductible charity, could not pass either House of our current congress absent a million person public outcry first.

Robert J. Samuelson wrote, in the Monday, September 14, 2009 The Washington Post:

"Americans generally want three things from their health-care system. First, they think that everyone has a moral right to needed care; that suggests universal insurance. Second, they want choice; they want to select their doctors -- and want doctors to determine treatment. Finally, people want costs controlled; health care shouldn't consume all private compensation or taxes."

The above Loose Penny Solution covers all of these issues. On Sixty Minutes, September 13, president Obama repeated, "All Americans will be required to have insurance, but those who can't afford it will get subsidies." Health Assurance Savings accounts are a better idea.

Obama's plan: Subsidizing an insurance policy creates a whole new layer of bureaucracy which is unaffordable and unnecessary.

I am the unknown poet, a long-time candidate for president, roasting in the sun.

Once upon a time our Fourth Estate was independent, standing watch, reporting true. Today's corporate approach to politics locks out the unknowns who seek public office, a primary reason there aren't any candidates. You announce, "I'm a candidate." The editor's don't ask, "What are your ideas?" But, "Show us twenty million dollars." And without access to buckets of ducats, the access to broadcast speech, to present their platforms is also blocked. Blog in the bog, dog.

We need to renew our politics, starting with the reestablishment of our First Amendment Right to televised political speech. Upon this essay, I requested e quill time of our television networks, to give my independents' response to president Obama's health care speech to the congress, which was broadcast by the networks and cable networks aired live, September 9, 2009.

I have to stop posting and prepare my petition for the court. The issue of my First Amendment Right to speak will go to the Supreme Court.

michaelslevinson.com

|
|
Reply
|
9:38 am, Nov 7, 2009
jaydeekay

Is this a place to post essays?

|
|
Reply
9:58 am, Nov 7, 2009
jaydeekay

Cause if so, I've got a good one on the irrelevancy of third party candidates in today's political climate.

|
|
Reply
|
10:00 am, Nov 7, 2009
cvillekid

And, of course, successful candidates always begin by addressing potential voters as "yokels".

|
10:11 am, Nov 7, 2009
jaydeekay

LOL, cville...

|
10:30 am, Nov 7, 2009
littledebrarae

Nice Michaellevinson.com .......... I am LISTENING!

|
|
Reply
10:08 am, Nov 7, 2009
hfb1053

Oliver - You and littledebrarae need to get together and solve this problem.

|
|
Reply
|
12:28 pm, Nov 7, 2009
manticore1223

The irony is she uses the same screenname everywhere. Google it and you find her ramblings on every site from blogspot to myspace.

|
3:26 pm, Nov 7, 2009
manticore1223

*facepalm*

|
|
Reply
3:25 pm, Nov 7, 2009
MaliciousDisorder

1/6 of the economy for earmarks is pure bs. The people don't want it and won't accept it. At least it'll expel another democrat majority for the next fifty years

|
|
Reply
|
9:43 am, Nov 7, 2009
jaydeekay

40 year political cycles... that is what we have had since the beginning.

This is the beginning of the liberal cycle.

|
|
Reply
9:58 am, Nov 7, 2009
puarau

MD: Yup, that's what they said about Medicare too! Now it's "hand's off my Medicare, you socialist"?

|
|
Reply
10:21 am, Nov 7, 2009
LostPatriot

The insurance industry and its flock the US congress do not want "single payer" health insurance because it is the best choice of insurance out there and the insurance cartel cannot compete with it. Single payer is an insurance policy and not a healthcare system. Only the doctors, nurses, technicians and others in the health system provide medical services. Single payer insurance simply pays for the service. Secondly, polls show in both Canada and the USA that a majority prefer single payer insurance to continuing with the insurance industry. Third, taxes would decline and quality health care for millions would be enhanced with single payer insurance. The bottom line is that for every dollar spent through a conventional insurance policy only about 65 cents worth of service is provided. With single payer insurance about 97 cents worth of medical services are provided.
Please do the math. You'll get a lot more bang for your buck with a single payer insurance plan. Believe it or not industry in this country would benefit and become more competitive if we were covered by a single payer insurance plan and the USA would become more financially healthy as well as physically healthy overall. The Baucus/Obama plan mainly benefits the insurance industry and continues with a worsening insurance industry system. The insurance industry has stymied economic growth in this country. Again, do the math.




|
|
Reply
|
9:51 am, Nov 7, 2009
manticore1223

However, no one would want to work here in the medical field.

|
|
Reply
|
10:14 am, Nov 7, 2009
LostPatriot

What would make people not want to work here???? Single payer health insurance is not single payer "health care". Only private hospitals, doctors and others provide "health care" in the USA. It's the same in Canada where the health care system is even more private than in the USA. Most of the health care system in the USA is subsidized and in Canada it is nearly totally private. However, in Canada the people are covered with a single payer insurance program unless they choose not to be covered by it and then they have the option of "insurance industry" private insurance. About 8% of the people in Canada have chosen the private insurance. Most are on the single payer and like it very much. If the Canadian health care system has a problem it is that the government does not subsidize it like the USA government subsidizes health care in the USA. In addition, the completely socialized health care system (Veterans Administration health care) is considered by many to be the best system in the USA.

|
11:23 am, Nov 7, 2009
manticore1223

You know how many doctors won't take medicare for the sole reason that the compensation sucks? Face it, if you don't get paid for your work, you have no incentive to stay.

|
11:58 am, Nov 7, 2009
AlanD2

manticore1223: With today's bad job market, you expect everybody in the medical profession will quit and look for work someplace else?

Maybe fast food franchises will expand to give all these people minimum-wage jobs...

|
12:01 pm, Nov 7, 2009
manticore1223

If you take the time to go deep into debt to afford medical school, and spend all the time and energy studying, at any point risking failure and being left with nothing, you sure as hell didn't do it for simply humanitarian reasons. Just like most car mechanics didn't do so for love of helping people with their cars. You go where the money is, I know that's why I went to college. So I wouldn't end up in a dead end job. Not because I'm enamored with burning money. So, no, they would simply move to where they could pick patients that would actually reimburse them for their services.

|
3:31 pm, Nov 7, 2009
LostPatriot

My insurance payments, unfortunately, are made by the "insuacne industry" through an advantage plan. The insurance industry via my advatage plan does, in fact, squeeze the doctors. The problem is that the insurance industry was allowed to take over Medicare. Medicare is fine but the insurance industry sucks. The sooner the docs get it figured out the better off they'll be. Anyway, if they don't like it let them go to Romania and soo how they like being paid $3000.00 per year. These over paid docs have no squawk coming.

|
5:29 pm, Nov 7, 2009
eurydice9276

AlanD2 - it's happening here in Massachusetts. Faced with the prospect of increased malpractice insurance and decreased income, doctors are closing their practices or moving out of the state. We've got a real shortage of primary care physicians. That's why the health care bill allows for nurse practitioners to provide some primary care.

|
5:41 pm, Nov 7, 2009
manticore1223

Thank you, eurydice9276. If you want a mass exodus of our educated and skilled, then go right ahead. Mao's "barefoot physicians" would be right up your alley. You get paid based on the relative difficulty or rarity of your job. If anyone could walk in off the street and be an outstanding doctor, I would agree, no big deal. However, whatever you may think of our health care systems OR our health statistics, it is MY opinion at least that in terms of research and science, our doctors kick ass. Much as if you proposed something that would cause Nuclear Physicists to seek work elsewhere, i would disagree. We don't exactly have a major surplus of people with doctorates, medical or otherwise.

|
9:00 pm, Nov 7, 2009
manticore1223

eurydice9276, also, this is what we see in countries like Canada. Jobs taken over by lesser trained people. Just because the government tells everyone they can have a free car, that does not mean we have enough cars or dealerships right now that could handle the load. I think we need to analyze what our system can handle, or we are not going to have enough trained people for this to work. If this happens, I sure as heck do not want a PA trying to do a job a qualified physician should be doing.

|
9:03 pm, Nov 7, 2009
flyoverland

Republicans are not against healthcare reform. they are against this bill, which mandates that in 2013 you will lose the right to choose any plan but the government option, pays for abortion, insures illegal aliens, will raise, not lower costs and rewards special interests. When Democrats get serious about not being hogs at the trough, maybe something will get done.

|
|
Reply
|
9:54 am, Nov 7, 2009
jaydeekay

It's not just the Dems who are the hogs.

And not realizing this is what makes this country a mess.

|
|
Reply
|
10:07 am, Nov 7, 2009
flyoverland

I am in total agreement on that one. I am for throwing them all out. The vaccine we need more swine flu is a vaccine against Congressional pork.

|
1:32 pm, Nov 7, 2009
stjam8

Flyoverland; Demint said months ago, They will make health care reform the President "Waterloo". This bill is the result of spending months with republicans, throwing out everything they did not like and putting in things they wanted, Then they said they wouldn't suport it. Illegals aliens already get health care in America, the same way many uninsured Americans get it in the ER, This has been proven to the most expensive and least efficent, not to mention inhumane way to give health care. Illegal aliens allowed to come in this country and work for slave wages and under conditions Americans would not tolerate are not the enemy.

|
|
Reply
|
10:25 am, Nov 7, 2009
manticore1223

Depends on who you ask. I don't really think so, but i know some of the people who have to deal with migrating aliens stealing their stuff as they pass by might feel differently.

|
11:59 am, Nov 7, 2009
cbeenthere

What stuff do they steal?

|
1:00 pm, Nov 7, 2009
manticore1223

All my data is anecdotal, but i have heard one of the reasons the southern Texans dislike migrants, is they will often have their sheds and cars broken into by migrants crossing. Apparently they are looking for things to sell or supplies.

|
9:21 pm, Nov 7, 2009
AlanD2

flyoverland: You're right that "Republicans are not against healthcare reform."

They are against everything proposed by Obama or Democrats. Period. The party of "no".

|
|
Reply
|
12:02 pm, Nov 7, 2009
ThinkAgain

Exactly what major Republican agenda item are the democrats for? They told Bush that his healthcare proposals were "dead on arrival" before they even saw them.

|
12:18 pm, Nov 7, 2009
cbeenthere

They are certainly not for rewriting abortion and undocumented worker amendments for the four thousandth time according to the world of Republicans. You all are indeed people who act not only against your best interests, but those of others. Proven fact.

|
12:32 pm, Nov 7, 2009
Progressive2

Did you just use Bush as a example? Bush was the most incompetent/worst President ever FACT whom didn't care about bi-partisanship used reconcile to pass everything he wanted Veto'd every bill that Democrats passed.
God you're stupid.

|
12:48 pm, Nov 7, 2009
flyoverland

They are against a President who doesn't see the important job (jobs) and insists on pushing social programs we can't afford.

cbeenthere--"proven fact" is redundant. All facts are proven.

|
1:29 pm, Nov 7, 2009
jaydeekay

Unless it involves faith.

One of faith will tell you it's a fact that their god(s) exist... but they cannot prove it.

|
3:36 pm, Nov 7, 2009
cbeenthere

Not to think again, flyover, etc etc. Why do you all keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again?

|
5:40 pm, Nov 7, 2009
flyoverland

I have faith that someday you will actually get it.

|
6:50 pm, Nov 7, 2009
cbeenthere

Well, you are a boor flyover, been to any good depositions lately?

|
7:33 pm, Nov 7, 2009
LostPatriot

Flyoverland, Republicans are the biggest obsticle to "single payer" health insurance. single payer health insurance is the best option available for us. So why are Republicans opposed to "single payer" health insurance????????

|
|
Reply
|
12:37 pm, Nov 7, 2009
flyoverland

You can't get a flu shot and you have to ask that question?

|
1:27 pm, Nov 7, 2009
AlanD2

flyoverland: The lack of swine flu vaccine was do to problems encountered by the five major companies that produce flu vaccines. In other words, private enterprise has screwed up again.

|
2:35 am, Nov 8, 2009
LostPatriot

Republicans are against anything and everything. After they sold out to the fascists they became the "party of hate". Hate is what they do.

|
|
Reply
|
5:31 pm, Nov 7, 2009
DD3075

I can't agree with you there.

The Dems love to create costly give-aways and government expansion. Repubs hate that.

The Repubs love Capitalism. The Dems hate that (preferring Socialistic/Marxist ideology).

So it's a pretty even love-hate relationship.

|
7:45 pm, Nov 7, 2009
winston1

Today November 7TH 2009, will go down as an infamous day in the history of the U.S.A. This health care bill is a fraudelent pkg. put together by two idiots from the Senate and the House. Sen Harry Reid and House Leader Nancy Pelosi. You are required to take out a $15,000 policy. . Where is the transparency and the 72 hours of reading this bill on the internet? Americans who do not maintain an acceptable health ins. coverage and who choose not to pay the bill"s new individual mandate tax of 2.5% of income are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties including criminal fines up to $250,000 and imprisionment of up to five years.

Is this the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA????????.

|
|
Reply
|
10:23 am, Nov 7, 2009
jaydeekay

Did you stop drinking? Or take a remedial English/grammar class?

|
|
Reply
10:44 am, Nov 7, 2009
slmpirate

The 15,000 policy.. I am confused here (sincerely) Is that all the policy is worth? Or is it what you are expected to pay annually?

What does the 2.5% calculate out to in the average income of most americans?

I am a contractor and insure my family of four at a cost of 1400/month.
I am shopping again because my rate increase this year is 20% That's an additional 3,360 out of my pocket (these numbers do not include co-pays).

2.5% would be alot less than I pay now..

|
|
Reply
|
11:39 am, Nov 7, 2009
winston1

slmp From what I understand it's 2.5% of your income.

|
2:28 pm, Nov 7, 2009
slmpirate

Thanks winston1

|
4:59 pm, Nov 7, 2009
piktor

Winnie -- H.R. 3962, the law being voted today has been online for more than a week.

Stop spreading lies about Democrats.

Nancy Pelosi is SPEAKER of the House, not "Leader".

http://bit.ly/nGTcC

|
|
Reply
6:40 pm, Nov 7, 2009
wbishop12

Republican=Asshole

|
|
Reply
|
10:29 am, Nov 7, 2009
cbeenthere

True words wbishop.

|
|
Reply
|
11:21 am, Nov 7, 2009
hfb1053

And both you, cbeenthere, and wbishop would be authorities on that.

|
12:37 pm, Nov 7, 2009
cbeenthere

Actually, yes, hfb.

|
1:01 pm, Nov 7, 2009
jaydeekay

One can smell it's own.

|
3:37 pm, Nov 7, 2009
periscope

The ultimate betrayal of the American people by the Republican Party in this healthcare dispute is asserting that the status quo will not cost more money, when in fact, according to various studies, it will cost at least $1 trillion more than the Dem plan, which is projected by the CBO to be revenue neutral.
This is the Big Lie that the Republican Party promotes. Not because it's in the best interest of the country, but because it can "harm Obama," and keep the sleazy donations from the Healthcare Insurers coming.

|
|
Reply
10:34 am, Nov 7, 2009
briansays

Republican
I got mine
To hell with you

|
|
Reply
|
10:46 am, Nov 7, 2009
cbeenthere

Republicans-
I already have mine, but I am hell bent on getting more.

|
|
Reply
|
11:22 am, Nov 7, 2009
cbeenthere

No wonder they always claim they are for fiscal responsibility, they use others, and break them doing it.

|
12:33 pm, Nov 7, 2009
winston1

Democrats

I'm going dowm

And your coming too

|
|
Reply
|
2:00 pm, Nov 7, 2009
piktor

We're Socialist and loving it, Winnie.

|
5:40 pm, Nov 7, 2009
spotted

The R's had six years of both houses and the presidency and didn't do anything but pander to the seniors with the "donut-holed" prescription drug plan. "Tort reform" will greatly benefit tobacco and asbestos interests (big Bush contributors), but does little for true health cost containment. "Buying across state lines" is just a bait-and-switch game of lower prices for substandard coverage. "Portability" avoids any meaningful reforms on pre-existing condition limitations. All of these do nothing to help those who either can't get access to or can't afford health insurance.

Social Security and Medicare were both decried as "socialism" in their day and the over-65 crowd would be destitute and ill without them.

The USA needs Medicare for All!

|
|
Reply
|
10:58 am, Nov 7, 2009
AlanD2

Well said, periscope.

|
|
Reply
12:04 pm, Nov 7, 2009
HELLYEAH

Does the bill stop insurance companies from denying treatment?

|
|
Reply
|
11:08 am, Nov 7, 2009
cbeenthere

I do not believe so.

|
|
Reply
12:34 pm, Nov 7, 2009
cbeenthere

Conyers says yes, it does prevent ins cos from denying treatment.

|
|
Reply
|
5:35 pm, Nov 7, 2009
DD3075

Insurance companies will always deny paying benefits for experimental treatments. Insurance companies cannot and do not have the authority to "deny" treatment to anyone for anything, if that person wants to pay for it themselves.

|
8:34 pm, Nov 7, 2009
periscope

America ranks 40th in the world on life longevity. We are far below those countries that have a public healthcare system. But the Republican Party and their suicidal followers tell you to ignore that.
America loses over 44,000 people each year in the age range of 18 to 64, because they lack health insurance. This is more than double this number was back in the 1990s. This costs America because most of these people were productive citizens who paid taxes and contributed to our economy. The loss in dollars for their premature deaths is estimated to be over $1 trillion in the next decade.
We could be saving that trillion and more if the Democratic plan, modest as it is, were adopted.

|
|
Reply
|
11:13 am, Nov 7, 2009
ThinkAgain

Half of those people could afford insurance, they just chose to buy something else. And that study assumed that only people without insurance don't get preventative care. Not so. Over half of all people in that age group dont' get preventative care EVEN if they have insurace.

A liberal throwing around predictions and statistics is hilarious. You can't predict unemployment a month out. You can't manage and predict H1N! vaccines a couple of months out (or even a week!). But you expect us to think you have a clue about healthcare costs. Absurd!

The one thing we can know with absolute certainty based on the past is that your numbers are all wrong.

|
|
Reply
|
12:11 pm, Nov 7, 2009
cbeenthere

You can't predict unemployment a month out so sayeth think again, what do you think the state unemployment funds do? And it is a function of government no matter what party is in power. Sick to death of your baloney.

|
12:35 pm, Nov 7, 2009
stjam8

A California non-partsain study concluded that by 2016, insurance premiums would be 40% of the average employee income. The following from The Market Watch Bog: News that this years premiums growth for job-based family coverage came in at a relatively moderate 5% was offset by dire fore casts of what an average policy will cost 10 years from now, assuming that the atypical pattern of slower growth we've seen in the last few years continues. Premuims for a full year of family coverage increased 5% to $13,375 in 2009, with employee on average footing $3,515 of the bill and employers $9,860 according to a report from the Kasier Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust. Health care costs have been going up a couple of % points faster then the economic growth since the 60's. The Foundation said "If you assume that premiums increase over the next 10 years at an increase of just the last, 5 which was an unusual moderation in health care costs, then the average premium in 2019 will be $24,000. That;s not the cadillac plan. That would be the average family premiums. *** What average family today can afford to pay, TODAYS, $13,375 insurance premiums if they didn't have job based insurance?

|
1:05 pm, Nov 7, 2009
DD3075

There is nobody who dies "because they lack health insurance", because there is absolutely no way to determine whether or not a person would have lived had they had health insurance.

People without health insurance may die. But it is a far stretch to claim that the lack of insurance was the cause. For instance, if a person has a heart attack, and the EMTs are called, the EMTs do not first ask if the person has insurance before providing care. The person will be transported to a hospital, and admitted, regardless of whether or not they have insurance. Same thing if they are in an accident.

If you and the other liberals, like AlanD2, would study the study you are quoting with the 44,000, you will discover the study applied to only 1,500 people, was flawed in many ways, and that the number is a guesstimate (a ratio) used by the left when trying to sell their health plan.

Now if, in fact, leftists were really concerned with only the care for those without insurance (and not for their own attempts to get something more for free), the the focus would be on how to provide either free medical care (like at government run clinics) or how we could find the money to pay for their insurance, like by cutting the $60 billion worth of Medicare fraud..

|
|
Reply
|
9:06 pm, Nov 7, 2009
stjam8

dd3075: It is so foolish of those leftists liberals to rely on The American Journal of Public Health and the Harvard Medical School.

|
9:32 pm, Nov 7, 2009
AlanD2

DD3075: Statistical analysis can quite accurately pin down this type of information. Insurance companies do this all the time to estimate future losses and how much to charge for insurance, as well as determining which people are too risky to insure.

I would rely on the estimates by the Harvard Medical School far more than on your attempts to spread fear and confusion about this issue.

But I do encourage others to read the report and make up their own minds:

http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-fin ds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage

(Easier to use: http://tinyurl.com/ox8u4d )
(Original report: http://tinyurl.com/l52v8c )

"Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published online on September 17, 2009, by the American Journal of Public Health. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.

"The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993."

Here's excepts from another recent article: "Lack of health care led to 17,000 US child deaths".

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Lack of adequate health care may have contributed to the deaths of some 17,000 US children over the past two decades, according to a study released by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center.

The research, to be published Friday in the Journal of Public Health, was compiled from more than 23 million hospital records from 37 states between 1988 and 2005.

The study concluded that children without health insurance are far more likely to succumb to their illnesses than those with medical coverage.

"If you are a child without insurance, if you're seriously ill and end up in the hospital, you are 60 percent more likely to die than the sick child in the next town who has insurance," said Fizan Abdullah, lead writer of the study and a pediatric surgeon at Hopkins.

|
2:30 am, Nov 8, 2009
themintz4

The bill isn't perfect and I'm sure there will be changes over the years. But it's the best bill that could be written after 9 months of intense negotiating. We MUST pass it. The Republicans had the same 9 months to come up with alternative solutions, and the best they could do was to right a bill that according to the CBO, insures less people, reduces the deficit less and doesn't help anyone with pre-existing conditions.

Instead of being the party of no, maybe they should try and come up with real solutions to real problems instead of just complaining.

As for the Democrats, they need to stop the infighting about issues that are not central to health care reform. This is not an immigration bill or a pro/ anti choice bill. It's a health care bill. Pass the bill and these other issues can always be debated later. If they fail to pass the bill, these tangent issues they are fighting about are irrelevant.

|
|
Reply
|
11:16 am, Nov 7, 2009
cbeenthere

Please don't lecture the Democrats, mintz, if women's health issues and covering all those without insurance aren't important to health care reform I will eat my shirt. Debating issues later takes even more time and money.

|
|
Reply
12:11 pm, Nov 7, 2009
Progressive2

wow some really great comments so far very informative.

|
|
Reply
11:31 am, Nov 7, 2009
sonofloud

So Obama's strategy of bipartisanship cost us single payer, and a real public option.
And in return he received 0 votes from the House Republicans.

|
|
Reply
|
11:49 am, Nov 7, 2009
jaydeekay

It would not have passed the Blue Dog's muster... and it still might not.

|
|
Reply
12:16 pm, Nov 7, 2009
spotted

Obama had to go through the motions, no matter how futile it may have been.

|
|
Reply
12:50 pm, Nov 7, 2009
mrmoose

A refuse collector is driving along a street picking up the
wheelie bins in Melbourne Australia, and emptying them
into his compactor.
He goes to one house where the bin hasn't been left out, and in the spiritof kindness, and after having a quick look about for the bin, he gets out of his truck goes to the front door and knocks. There's no answer..
Being a kindly and conscientious bloke, he knocks again - much harder.
Eventually a Japanese man comes to the door. "Harro!" says the Japanese man.
"Gidday, mate! Where's ya bin?" asks the collector.
"I bin on toiret," explains the Japanese bloke, a bit perplexed.
Realising the little foreign fellow had misunderstood him, the bin man smiles and tries again.
"No! no! mate, Where's your dust bin?"
"I dust been to toiret, I toll you!'' says the Japanese man, still
perplexed.
"Listen," says the collector. "You're misunderstanding
me. Where's your wheelie bin?'"

"OK, OK." replies the Japanese man with a sheepish grin, and
whispers in the collector's ear. "I wheelie bin having sex wirra wife's sista!"
Come on, that's a funny story
LOL

|
|
Reply
12:03 pm, Nov 7, 2009
hfb1053

This is all smoke and mirrors by both parties. As if they actually care what we think! This is their job; to waste time by not looking like thats what they're doing and to spend OUR money with complete disregard for how hard it is to earn it.

|
|
Reply
|
12:39 pm, Nov 7, 2009
johnsmith1882

hfb, it's real easy to claim that both parties are the same, but look at the evidence. The Democrats drafted healthcare bills in both the House and the Senate. Months ago. These bills have been through the proverbial 'sausage grinder' working out details here, making compromises there, and after months of work, combined into the healthcare bill being voted on today. The Congressional Budget Office studied the bill, and gave it a thumbs up. AARP and the AMA both support the bill, among others. On the other hand, the Republicans offered nothing of their own for months. Until just this week, "it's going to kill your grandma" and "death panels" was all they offered to the debate. Finally, they propose a health care bill of their own. The CBO looked it over, and gave it a thunbs down. It costs more that the Democrats' bill, it covers less people, and it could have the unintended consequence of weakening everyone's coverage. By allowing insurance companies to sell policies over state lines, standards would drop to the lowest common denominator. Whichever state (or even US territory, because the language includes American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands) that has the lowest standards applying to health insurance, the insurance companies would surely apply these lowest standards.
The Democrats crafted a bill over months, the Republicans threw one together this week. If this was school, say, and you didn't study for the test, who would you copy from? The person that studied for months, or the person that crammed last night?
(this post does not condone copying on tests)

|
|
Reply
|
1:12 pm, Nov 7, 2009
hfb1053

I don't mean their political agendas are the same; I agree they're not. I mean their work agendas. Let's take everything apart and put it back together the way we want it and then let's take it apart again and then repeat. Perhaps, you are correct in stating that the dems seem to be making a genuine effort over healthcare and the repubs are making a definite effort in tearing it apart. The end result is nothing gets done and they are sent back to their rooms to do it all again. And then, they come up with the same scenario.

You are being sincere (an unusual thing on TDB) and I am being sarcastic (the norm).

|
4:50 pm, Nov 7, 2009
Carole65

Sadly, I think you're right about that. Both parties use big corporations to fill their coffers for their campaigns, then pretend that they're looking out for you by increasing the bureaucracy to monitor evils of those big corporations. We have just witnessed how well that worked when members of Congress couldn't oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac causing one of the biggest collapses in our economy.
Now we're to believe that if the government takes over the health care industry, they will be able to do that without raising taxes on working families, without rationing, and somehow lower the cost of health care. New and better health procedures come with a heavy price tag, and when the government raises your taxes to accomodate those costs, or tells you , "sorry, you can't have that", then the shit will hit the fan.
The unfunded Social Security and Medicare liability has now reached 107 trillion dollars. How in the hell does any member of Congress justify additional spending on domestic spending without dealing with that monster?

|
|
Reply
1:15 pm, Nov 7, 2009
winston1

"Save Grandma unplug Pelosi"

|
|
Reply
|
1:57 pm, Nov 7, 2009
perrycindy

no keep em both

|
|
Reply
3:33 pm, Nov 7, 2009
piktor

Repossess Winnie.

|
|
Reply
5:42 pm, Nov 7, 2009
rapierwits

lildbraebrae-

perhaps you should know that the autism society of america has endorsed this bill.

|
|
Reply
|
3:03 pm, Nov 7, 2009
jaydeekay

Yeah... but they're autistic.

|
|
Reply
|
3:39 pm, Nov 7, 2009
hfb1053

Jay - Usually you are such an asshole and you passed the test again this time -- but I must admit, you're a funny asshole. Apologies to lildebrarae for my sick sense of humor.

|
4:51 pm, Nov 7, 2009
manticore1223

I laughed. Not gonna lie. I fully admit to having a dorm sense of humor. It makes me a horrible person at times.

|
10:24 pm, Nov 7, 2009
amapola101

IHello,everybody,is there a place where we can go and read what is going to be available. I am tired of my Democrats and republican friends and in beetween. I believe this president wants to do good for mainstream,and all, There is something in him that does say, that. I am confused, our families are divided,groups of friends argue, and Im not sure anyone has a grip.Is everyone going to be allowed to choose different programs, at better prices?Is there a cap on who the government will insure, like the 66,000.After that what happens to the persons,who do not get into the govt. program?Those of you who understand it or know where you get info please advice. There is too much comotion.8 years the former administration did nothing, now everyone is against each other. And mobs do not help anyone know what to do.And no one should carry a picture of the Pres of the US,with a mustache.He is no hitler,thats offensive and he has won the Nobel prize, and all those mobs do not answer our questions.Forget the alliens, they are going home there is no work,everyone has to be offered health,you cannot let people die in the streets.Young people,like a waiter said today,he is not paying any insurance.So who pays,the owner,small buss. ?Will the insurances be bought across states.?This should have been available, years.Is it going to be programs like the congress gets to choose from?I have to say that alot of Drs, that we go out with,and some of my clients, say they will retire.or change professions.They say the load will be impossible to care for,less money,not enough doctors,,they wont be able to give quality attention. There is a point to that. But i know there has to be an answer and many people are confused,and mixed up and concerned,and want to understand

|
|
Reply
|
3:47 pm, Nov 7, 2009
stjam8

amapola101: Thank you for your thoughtful comments and questions. Two places that have information about the health reform bill are Whitehouse.gov,and Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, web site. At this point, most people are confused because the bill is a work in process. The insurance being brought across state lines is something the insurance companies want very badly. Some states have stricter regulations on insurance companies that they would liked removed. The McCarran- Ferguson Act of 1945 allows insurance companies to act like a monopoly. One of ways of providing better health care is to take the load off the ER's, by providing clinics for preventive care. Two others sources that you might find helpful are Fact Check.org and The Washington Post's Health Care reform 2009, Tracking the National Health Care Debate. The status quo is unsustainable, how we improve it needs all Americans to get involved in a civil debate.

|
|
Reply
10:14 pm, Nov 7, 2009
stjam8

amapola101: Todays Huffington Post has quite a lot of information on the health care reform bill, including an article by Linda Bergthod, concerning a opponent of health care reform Betsy McCaughey, and disputes her misinformation one by one.

|
|
Reply
9:41 am, Nov 8, 2009
amapola101

nortonclybourn,are you saying it will be a requirement,the same as car insurance, that makes sense.If there are good prices, fair competition,no one wants a free ride.But is the quality going to be like what the congress chooses from?

|
|
Reply
3:49 pm, Nov 7, 2009
amapola101

Does anybody know where RitaRita went.?I found her, to be fair and explanative.She was not rude,where is she.?

|
|
Reply
3:51 pm, Nov 7, 2009
Leave a Comment
Leave a comment

Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.

View Comments
Leave a comment

Please log in to leave comments.

View Full Cheat Sheet