Robert Gibbs in a recent exchange with the press admitted that passing the public option in Obamacare is a nonstarter.

“There are some that are supportive of this,”..... “There isn't enough political support in the majority to get this through.”...
“The President took the Senate bill as the base and looks forward to discussing consensus ideas on Thursday”

So tomorrow's dog and pony show at Blair House is no more than political cover . The President wants to go into the 2010 campaign using the tired old line that the Republicans are the 'party of no' .

So even though there is not enough political support within his own party to pass a comprehensive health care bill ;he will blame Republicans for his own inabilty to lead the party.

This is not sitting well with the President's extreme base. Moonbat Adam Green, spokesman for the 'Progressive Change Campaign Committee' released the following response .
“The White House obviously has a loser mentality — but America rallies around winners. Polls show that in state after state, voters hate the Senate bill and overwhelmingly want a public option, even if passed with zero Republican votes. More than 50 Senate Democrats and 218 House Democrats were willing to vote for the public option before, and the only way to lose in reconciliation is if losers are leading the fight. That's why Democrats in Congress should ignore the White House and follow those like Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez who know that the public option is a political and policy winner.”

It doesn't get any better than that ;pointing out that the Schmuckster Charles Shumer is a party leader. (sorry being one of his constituents is a bitter pill)

The rank and file in Congress appear to be resigned to the fact that there will be no public option in any health care overhaul.

At Private Meeting Of House Dems, Barely A Mention Of Public Option | The Plum Line (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/at-private-meeting-of-house-dems-barely-a-mention-of-public-option/)


The question remains ;will Madame Mimi Pelosi be able to twist enough arms to support legislation that doesn't include it ? I kind of doubt it.

So even though there is not enough political support within his own party to pass a comprehensive health care bill ;he will blame Republicans for his own inabilty to lead the party. Hello tom:

Not quite. He has a majority of his party, but not the 60 votes he needs. George W. Bush was able to pass massive legislation with no more Republican votes than Obama has... That's because he had some Democratic support, whereas Obama has NO Republican support.

Tiresome as it is, that means the Republicans are indeed the party of NO. So, if the Dems want it, they're going to have to do it under reconciliation. I'm OK with it, but I assume you abhor it.

Of course, you only abhor it, because YOU'RE not the ones doing it. I recall, your calling for an up or down vote on Bush's judicial appointments. That's reconciliation, no? When YOU do it it's cool, but when others do, it's the "nuclear option".

Ain't nothing changed since I been gone.

excon

There is nothing wrong voting no when the legislation is wrong.


Of course, you only abhor it, because YOU'RE not the ones doing it. I recall, your calling for an up or down vote on Bush's judicial appointments. That's reconciliation, no? When YOU do it it's cool, but when others do, it's the "nuclear option".


Of course I could also say the Dems were against reconciliation before they were for it .

Except there is a difference as big as 'apples and oranges'. The nuclear option was an attempt to change fillibuster rules for judicial appointments . This was deemed necessary because in theory judicial fillibusters violate the Senate constitutional obligation to “advice and consent” the President on appointments made by the president.

Reconciliation has been around since the Democrat controlled Congress in 1974 changed the law to limit debate on budgetary matters (ie spending and revenue issues).

For the Dems to use reconciliation on the passing of sweeping social changes brought about by legislation ;as if it was just a budgettary matter is completely dishonest and in fact violates the conditions for it's use. That is why all the people mentioning reconcilitation admit that some fancy tap dancing and rewriting of the language of the bill will be needed to even minimally comply with the conditions for it's use.

That is why all the people mentioning reconcilitation admit that some fancy tap dancing and rewriting of the language of the bill will be needed to even minimally comply with the conditions for it's use.Hello again, tom:

ALL politicing is tap dancing! As long as it complies, even minimally, that'll work.

It remains to be seen, however, just what they'll put in. Not needing the 55th, or 56th, or 57th, etc. vote from conservative senators means they could actually put a public option in and make it law.

But, the insurance lobby pays them lots of blood money too...

excon

Not needing the 55th, or 56th, or 57th, etc. vote from conservative senators means they could actually put a public option in and make it law.

My closing question is what is really relevant.
The reason I say this is because their easiest way of getting it done would be to take the Senate version of the bill as is and pass it in the House . But that would require the bare minimum coallition that Pelosi had when the House passed their version.

As you recall Rep Stupak led a pack of Dems who would not vote for it if gvt. Funded abortions were included;and there were many other Dems who would not vote unless some sort of public option was included.

Well if they vote on the Senate bill it will not pass in the House. With Murtha's death ; a few retirements ,Stupak's gang ,and the one Republican who voted for it saying he won't vote for it again... it will be difficult for Pelosi to get it done.

The debate in the Senate came down to the public option. They had to scrap it to get the 60 votes. Now they have 59 at best ;and it is unknown how many other Dems would bail out if the public option was included . Heck ;you may even need Biden's tiebreaker just to get a majority using reconcilliation..

Get where I'm going with this ? Pelosi doesn't have the votes to pass the Senate bill and the Senate will not pass the House version.

Will we get a bill passed ? Yes ;but it will be a face saving ;stripped of all contentious issues and contains only provisions that are broadly popular (as it should be) .
If there is a 'public option' included it will be one that is "triggered" by defined conditions.

Will we get a bill passed ? Yes ;but it will be a face saving ;stripped of all contentious issues.Hello again, tom:

Yer probably right. They ain't got no balls. But, if I were running things...

excon

Regardless how they dress this topic up it's not going to pass. Giving it a Dior ball gown with a diamond tiara is not going to change it one iota.

I think they should just drop the whole health care crap and get on to something else. I, for one, after a year of listening to this garbage would prefer that the "Their Majesties" of the government ensconced in Washington move onto something more worthwhile and urgent such as JOBS JOBS and where the blankity blank have all the jobs gone in America? Who cares about health care anyway? The way this country is going I think the most important topic should be how the blazes are we going to pay for food, clothing, housing when there are NO JOBS??

Trash the health care baloney for now and concentrate on something more germain such as the economy. Health care contiributes nothing to the overall economy getting stronger. So why are they spending so many untolled hours on a dead horse??

Government doesn't create jobs except government jobs.They have no answer to this because they can't solve the fundamental question about what the government's role should be in the issue of jobs creation.

Nothing they are doing answers the fundamental problem ;that the government is spending money it doesn't have and has brought us to a point where their system or borrowing and spending is no longer sustainable .

Then again ;Andy mcCarthy at NRO makes Excon's point that the Dems have nothing to lose by pushing through the most radical aspects of their plans ,and may just do that .


I hear Republicans getting giddy over the fact that “reconciliation,” if it comes to that, is a huge political loser. That’s the wrong way to look at it. The Democratic leadership has already internalized the inevitablility of taking its political lumps. That makes reconciliation truly scary. Since the Dems know they will have to ram this monstrosity through, they figure it might as well be as monstrous as they can get wavering Democrats to go along with. Clipping the leadership’s statist ambitions in order to peel off a few Republicans is not going to work. I’m glad Republicans have held firm, but let’s not be under any illusions about what that means. In the Democrat leadership, we are not dealing with conventional politicians for whom the goal of being reelected is paramount and will rein in their radicalism. They want socialized medicine and all it entails about government control even more than they want to win elections. After all, if the party of government transforms the relationship between the citizen and the state, its power over our lives will be vast even in those cycles when it is not in the majority. This is about power, and there is more to power than winning elections, especially if you’ve calculated that your opposition does not have the gumption to dismantle your ballooning welfare state.
Consequently, the next six weeks, like the next ten months, are going to be worse than we think. We’re wired to think that everyone plays by the ususal rules of politics — i.e. if the tide starts to change, the side against whom it has turned modifies its positions in order to stay viable in the next election. But what will happen here will be the opposite. You have a party with the numbers to do anything it puts its mind to, led by movement Leftitsts who see their window of opportunity is closing. We seem to expect them to moderate because that’s what everybody in their position does. But they won’t. They will put their heads down and go for as much transformation as they can get, figuring that once they get it, it will never be rolled back. The only question is whether there are enough Democrats who are conventional politicians and who care about being reelected, such that they will deny the leadership the numbers it needs. But I don’t think we should take much heart in this possibility. Those Democrats may well come to think they are going to lose anyway — that’s why so many of them are abandoning ship now. If that’s the case, their incentive will be to vote with the leadership.

Transformation - Andy McCarthy - The Corner on National Review Online (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmQyOTI5NzNkMmMxY2IyYThhMjBmNjhkOWQ2MTY5YjE=)

The question then becomes ;will the majority of the Dems be willing to march with the leadership over the cliff and sacrifice themselves for their ideology ?

The question then becomes ;will the majority of the Dems be willing to march with the leadership over the cliff and sacrifice themselves for their ideology ?Hello again, tom:

In my mind, the libs made it happen for congress in the first place, and if congress doesn't bow to their demands, it's over the cliff anyway. You, like the Wolverine, think it's curtains for them if they actually reform health care. I think it's curtains if they don't.

There is a belief among conservatives that the country is "center right". I don't subscribe to that belief.

In terms of sacrificing yourselves (and the Constitution) for an ideology, you did exactly that under Bush and Vice. You certainly don't call it that, however. You call it doing their jobs.

Interestingly enough, there are some people who think it's the job of congress to actually reform the way health care is delivered in this country. They call it doing their jobs.

excon

Interestingly enough, there are some people who think it's the job of congress to actually reform the way health care is delivered in this country. They call it doing their jobs.

excon

Which clause of which article of the Constitution says that? Does it say they can force you to buy insurance?

Which clause of which article of the Constitution says that? Does it say they can force you to buy insurance?Hello Cats:

Which article says the NSA can read ALL your email?? In fact, I think I can find an amendment that says exactly the opposite... But, I digress (or you did).

In any case, I can't find an article in the Constitution that gives the government the power to PREVENT you from buying something, yet they DO... As a dedicated right winger, I suspect you support that power.

So, wherever they get the power to tell you how NOT to spend your money, is the same place they can find the power to tell you how TO, in fact, spend your money. If they have the power to influence your personal spending habits, then they HAVE the power to influence your personal spending habits.

excon

Hello again:

Cats DOES make an important point. In fact, Republicans won and are still winning the "talking points" debate, and Cats point is the talking point of the day. The Republicans STAY on point. They are VERY disciplined. The best points are simple phrases that are repeated over, and over, and over again. And, then even again. A good example of that is "government takeover", and oh yeah, don't forget "death panels". We have been HAMMERED to death with the phrase "government takeover". It's not true, of course. The bill isn't now, nor was it EVER a "government takeover". But truth isn't the point of the talking point war. Winning the talking point war is the ONLY point.

The Democrats LOST that war. Their bill is too complicated to be reduced down to understandable, simple talking points. Their leadership didn't even try. All they can say is, try it, you'll like it...

Don't be mislead. Winning the talking point war, has NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether the bill is good or bad. It simply means the people THINK it's bad because they believe the talking points. That's what happens when you lose the talking point war.

My point here is, the quality of the bill notwithstanding, the Democrats have shown an inability to lead. With a strong majority in BOTH houses, they failed to pass their presidents signature agenda. Republicans with smaller majorities, would NEVER let that happen to their president, and they certainly didn't.

The Democrats will be punished.

excon

Which clause of which article of the Constitution says that? Does it say they can force you to buy insurance?

Its called the commerce clause. You can read about it here.

Ref:

Commerce Clause Limitations on State Regulation (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm)

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause)

Commerce Clause - Power To Regulate (http://law.jrank.org/pages/5387/Commerce-Clause-Power-Regulate.html)

Its called the commerce clause. You can read about it here.

Ref:

Commerce Clause Limitations on State Regulation (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm)

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause)

Commerce Clause - Power To Regulate (http://law.jrank.org/pages/5387/Commerce-Clause-Power-Regulate.html)

So how does the power to regulate interstate commerce translate into forcing me to buy health insurance that is prohibited from being sold across state lines?

I'm so proud to have been promoted in Ex's book to "dedicated right winger," despite having voted Libertarian since Reagan.

I'm so proud to have been promoted in Ex's book to "dedicated right winger," despite having voted Libertarian since Reagan.We don't know how you voted, we can only see your posts here so I agree with Ex.

We don't know how you voted, we can only see your posts here so I agree with Ex.

True, and the only non-conservative viewpoints I've expressed are on social and religious issues. I'm just so proud to be on the same level as Speechlesstx and Tomder.

True, and the only non-conservative viewpoints I've expressed are on social and religious issues. I'm just so proud to be on the same level as Speechlesstx and Tomder.
Good luck with that! :)

Good luck with that! :)

Thanks.

It must be tough to reconcile their "religiousness" with the hatred they show in the political threads. That's the kind of stuff that reminds why I don't get involved with religion or far-right politics.

It must be tough to reconcile their "religiousness" with the hatred they show in the political threads. That's the kind of stuff that reminds why I don't get involved with religion or far-right politics.

That's one reason I like this site. The hate filled rants don't show up near as often here as on others. I'd be hard put to think of one on here, but I tend to avoid Religion and Skin Lightening and Teens.

So how does the power to regulate interstate commerce translate into forcing me to buy health insurance that is prohibited from being sold across state lines?

I'm so proud to have been promoted in Ex's book to "dedicated right winger," despite having voted Libertarian since Reagan.

Its not prohibited. That is a false clause. It is regulated by the State at the State level. But if the government has its way that may change because they want to move to "single payer" plan. In that case the states would lose the right to regulate and it would be passed to the government. As in Federal Laws and Regulations. Maybe your not old enough to remember but at one time all the states set their own speed limits and then someone in the goobermint decided to change it by arm twisting and we were all made to drive 55. So when it comes to healthcare it too shall pass. And god help us all.

Califdadof3 you are correct about the abuse of the commerce clause. It goes back to Roosevelt statism .

But ; just because it has been decided one way in the past doesn't mean the issue can't be reopened .Heck even amendments have been reversed ;and some of the most widely quoted SCOTUS decisions are ones that right or wrong reversed previous ones.

In the chance that this massive takeover of a third of the economy is passed I expect there to be court challenges to it.

Let's take Excon's position for a second and as a devil's advocate agree... I now equate preventing the allowing of dangerous and life threatening drugs from being sold with forcing people to buy insurance ;especially if the government is the provider.

I say lets dismantle the FDA as it is a needless agency intruding on our rights to purchase and abuse any drug we want. It unncessarily impedes the business of big Pharma .Just think of the opportunities for profits if there was no restrictions on what they could sell?

Nahhh... this is a nation that gets worked up to a lather over ecoli in spinach and wants the government to ensure the products on the market are safe and effective. They think it is the proper role of the government under the commerce clause to regulate drugs.

Conversely I have yet to hear the American people demand the government force them to purchase a product .

But what about car insurance ? Sorry ,that doesn't apply either . The mandated parts of auto insurance is protecting the other driver ;and is a state requirement ;not federal.

Ok. Lets look at car insurance for a minute. Since you brought it up. Companies CAn cross state lines. Just so long as they meet state regulations. And why should states force people to have auto insurance? If they did in its purest form then it would be no fault insurance. Not a fault based one. Wouldn't that make more sense? So now we make the leap to health insurance. That is where no fault doesn't apply because the tell us how bad we ( fill in the blank ). And somewhere there will be lines drawn. Now that the goobermint wants to step in we may all be limited in our choices. They don't want to see a 2 tier system. They want complete control. And they are frothing at the mouth for it. I agree its out of hand and things need to be done. But with this much at stake we all have to be responsible.

a) you can drive a car in the US without insurance? I did not know that.

b) all the countries that offer universal health are doing something wrong?

a) you can drive a car in the US without insurance? I did not know that.

b) all the countries that offer universal health are doing something wrong?

a) depends on the state. Tennessee passed it in the 90's.

b) going broke. Today it's Greece. My bet is that Italy's next.

My point about the auto insurance was that the mandatory aspect of it is for protection for the other driver or person .It is not mandatory to insure yourself... never has been... hopefully never will.


And why should states force people to have auto insurance?
I did not make an opinion on that . My point was that it is up to the states to determine that . The Federal government doesn't have the authority in my opinion.

The Federal government doesn't have the authority in my opinion.Hello tom:

If you LIKE the result, you think they have the authority. If you DON'T, you don't think they have the authority...

That's the problem with rightwingers... They LOVE taking away OTHER peoples rights. They don't realize that when they do that, THEIRS are in jeopardy too.

excon

all the countries that offer universal health are doing something wrong?

Really, how do you figure that? Some people form opinions from biased information and I expect this is what you have done. Some of the countries that offer universal health care do so out of concern for the individual and a recognition that basic health care is a universal human right that might otherwise be denied because of financial problems.

The US might do well to emulate the level of concern for basic human rights among their own rather than criticizing others

really, how do you figure that? Some people form opinions from biased information and I expect this is what you have done.
Uh no. I live in a country that has UHC and love it. I was challenging them.

If you LIKE the result, you think they have the authority. If you DON'T, you don't think they have the authority...

Ex ;you seem to think there is a right to obtain any drug you want on the open market... OK ;would you disban the FDA and all related regulatory agencies and leave it caveat emptor... or do you think it's within the government's authority to regulate and control drugs ?

Your position on this appears to be inconsistent .You would for instance put all types of regulatory controls on banking and finance so the public isn't exposed . So your argument right back at you .

But there is a huge difference between allowing safe products or not allowing dangerous products on the market and forcing people to purchase them . It's apples and oranges.

Your position on this appears to be inconsistent .You would for instance put all types of regulatory controls on banking and finance so the public isn't exposed . So your argument right back at you . Hello again, tom:

I'm not arguing that the government SHOULD or SHOULDN'T have these powers. I'm just pointing out that they DO have these powers.

excon

Uh no. I live in a country that has UHC and love it. I was challenging them.

I wonder how much this guy likes it. Here is your Canadian health care success story of the day:


Sick man faces bankruptcy — or death (http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/mark_bonokoski/2010/03/06/13138311.html)

Cancer patient must pay for drug needed to keep him alive

By MARK BONOKOSKI, Toronto Sun

No sense mincing words.

Suffering from brain cancer, Kent Pankow was literally forced to go to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. For lifesaving surgery — at a cost to family and friends of $106,000 — after the health-care system in Alberta left him hanging in bureaucratic limbo for 16 crucial days, his tumour meanwhile migrating to an unreachable part of the brain, while it dithered over his case file, ultimately deciding he was not surgery worthy.

Now, with the Mayo Clinic having done what the Alberta Cancer Board wouldn’t authorize or even explain, but with the tumour unable to be totally removed, the province will now not fund the expensive drug, Avastin, that the Mayo prescribed to keep him alive and keep the remaining tumour from increasing in size — despite the costs of the drug being totally funded by the province for other forms of cancer.

Kent Pankow, as it turns out, has the right disease but he has it in the wrong place.

Had he lung cancer, breast cancer, or colon cancer, then the cost of the drug — $4,555 per treatment, two times a month — would be totally covered by Alberta’s version of OHIP.

But he doesn’t.

And so he is not only a victim of brain cancer, he is also a victim of arbitrary discrimination.

Full disclosure. Kent Pankow, a 40-year-old Red Seal sous chef, is a son of the man who married the spouse of my late brother. And it was while vacationing with them at their winter home in Los Cabos, Mexico, recently that this story began to unfold back in their home province of Alberta.

But do not think, even for a moment, that this could never happen in Toronto or other parts of Ontario.

Our supposedly universal federal health care system, the pride of most Canadians and the political struggle of America, is only as good as the length of the waiting line and whether you have the right disease at the right time.

After writing more than 150 letters to everyone from the prime minister to virtually all health authorities both federal and provincial, and being ignored in return, Kent Pankow’s wife, Deborah Hurford, decided to finally go public.

CTV Edmonton did a major feature on the family’s plight on the 6 o’clock news and, almost before the program ended, Alberta’s health and wellness minister, Gene Zwozdesky, was on the phone to their home — ensuring himself some positive press in the follow-up that aired later that night.

Then, when he heard the Pankows had filed a human rights complaint against the province, justifiably citing medicare-based discrimination, Zwozdesky suddenly went mute — stating he could no longer discuss the matter publicly.

Ten years ago, when first diagnosed with a glioblastoma multiforme brain tumour (GBM), Kent Pankow was given five years to live.

After beating it down once, however, with his first surgery having been performed in Alberta, he spent nearly seven years in remission until the cancer’s return in 2008.

And he is not prepared to give up.

“He’s a fighter,” says his wife, admitting, however, that the cost of the drug has been a significant drain on friends and family who have not only donated large sums of their own money, but have also organized fundraisers to keep hope alive, including school penny drives.

“When Kent goes for his Avastin IV injection, he sits next to patients who receive the same drug for free because they have another type of cancer — like colon cancer,” Hurford says.

“Brain tumour patients deserve the same rights as other cancer patients, including access to the same lifesaving treatments — and without additional costs.

“I can’t begin to tell you how frustrated, angry, disgusted and appalled I am with both the Alberta health system and the individuals within the system who continue to perpetuate such an archaic and inhumane approach to the treatment of patients.” she says. “It seems like they are doing everything in their power to ensure that Kent succumbs to an early and unnecessary death.”

“The Avastin is working. The size of the remaining tumour has remained static since October,” she says.

“But how can anyone afford almost $10,000 a month for a drug — even if it is saving a loved one’s life?”

When Alberta health minister Gene Zwozdesky called the Pankow home on the night CTV Edmonton aired its story, he purportedly blamed the feds, namely Health Canada, for deciding what drugs are covered, and for what.

Federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, however, in a letter to Deborah Hurford, wrote that “while Health Canada is responsible for the market authorization of drug products, the province and territorial governments are responsible for managing the list of drugs for which public reimbursement from government drug plans is available.”

This, too, is passing the buck.

What Aglukkaq would not explain to Hurford — citing confidentiality — was why Avastin received a notice of compliance from Health Canada for other forms of cancer, but not yet for brain cancer as in the United States.

Nor would she offer any information regarding any application before her department for the use of Avastin in the treatment of brain tumours.

“Based on Kent’s MRI’s and radiology reports, and analysis by his surgeon at the Mayo Clinic, Avastin is playing a key role in stabilizing Kent’s tumour,” says Hurford.

“Without it, Kent’s tumour will grow and he will die.

“So why then,” asks Hurford, “is (everyone) choosing not to help Kent and other brain tumour patients who are forced to go public with their private health issues and fundraise for their lifesaving medical treatments?

“Where is the dignity in that?”

It took 16 days for government bureaucrats to decide Pankow wasn’t worthy of surgery. Then after saving them the expense of the surgery by paying to have it in the US at a hospital that wasted no time in deciding his surgery worthiness, Canada’s marvelous system won’t pay for his lifesaving meds because it’s the wrong kind of cancer.

Gosh I can’t wait for my government to help me with my health care ‘choices.’

Gosh I can't wait for my government to help me with my health care 'choices.'Hello again, Steve:

You always bring up the oddball case as if to prove that the overarching policy is bunk. Because individual bureaucrats are jerks doesn't convince me of anything.

Do I think THIS plan is good, or will work? No. I think that because the policy IS bunk. It has nothing to do with how some bureaucrat is going to act.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

You always bring up the oddball case as it to prove that the overarching policy is bunk. Because individual bureaucrats are jerks doesn't convince me of anything.

Btw, welcome back. I don't ALWAYS do anything here like you and NK seem to think. He ALWAYS loves his health care and that's great, but a lot of Canadians don't love their health care or there wouldn't be so many coming to the US for treatment, and there wouldn't be such a booming business in private clinics. Them's just the facts.

It's always a system being tweaked, like any system. We don't have to deal with any of the paperwork that you guys seem to deal with. Here's another fact: who are all these americans frequenting the health and wellness boards here for issues that should be dealt with by a doctor? It's overwhelming! The fact is that while you may have great facilities a great many do not have access to them.

I believe the majority of the American health tourists are taking advantage of the perscriptions there and the price controls rather than seeking the services .

I believe the majority of the American health tourists are taking advantage of the perscriptions there and the price controls rather than seeking the services .Hello tom:

I don't know about that... Sarah Palin said that her family trekked down to White Horse for free treatment of her brother's burnt foot.

Besides, going to Canada to buy meds cheaper than you can at your local store, is what? Bad?? You're not saying, are you, that oldsters should throw themselves on their sword, for the good of the politicians?? Nahhh, you're not saying that. You live in NY. Are you saying that if it was cost effective, that you wouldn't do it??

excon

I don't take an opinion against medical tourism at all ;although I trust my local pharmacist more than some desk jockey broker working on a worldwide basis.

So all those folks asking questions here don't have access to health care? I think that's a stretch.

I don't know about that... Sarah Palin said that her family trekked down to White Horse for free treatment of her brother's burnt foot.


I had to do some research to find out what you were talking about.

What Palin was referring to was when her parents went across the border for care in the 1960s .
The problem with the left seizing on this statement is that the Yukon Territory did not become part of the Canadian socialized system until 1972.

Also even today Americans crossing the border for any type of medical care are not eligible to partake in the government run program. They still have to pay a fee ,and I'm sure the Heath family also did... it was not free.

Did Palin as an adult cross the border to get care for herself or her family as a Canadian Minister recently did ? Nope.

Democratic pollsters Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen have warned the Dems (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102904.html) on their delusion over health care reform:


Bluntly put, this is the political reality:

First, the battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate's reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes.

Nothing has been more disconcerting than to watch Democratic politicians and their media supporters deceive themselves into believing that the public favors the Democrats' current health-care plan. Yes, most Americans believe, as we do, that real health-care reform is needed. And yes, certain proposals in the plan are supported by the public.

However, a solid majority of Americans opposes the massive health-reform plan. 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. Many more Americans believe the legislation will worsen their health care, cost them more personally and add significantly to the national deficit. Never in our experience as pollsters can we recall such self-deluding misconstruction of survey data.

The White House document released Thursday arguing that reform is becoming more popular is in large part fighting the last war. This isn't 1994; it's 2010. And the bottom line is that the American public is overwhelmingly against this bill in its totality even if they like some of its parts.

The notion that once enactment is forced, the public will suddenly embrace health-care reform could not be further from the truth -- and is likely to become a rallying cry for disaffected Republicans, independents and, yes, Democrats.

Second, the country is moving away from big government, with distrust growing more generally toward the role of government in our lives. Scott Rasmussen asked last month whose decisions people feared more in health care: that of the federal government or of insurance companies. By 51 percent to 39 percent, respondents feared the decisions of federal government more. This is astounding given the generally negative perception of insurance companies.

CNN found last month that 56 percent of Americans believe that the government has become so powerful it constitutes an immediate threat to the freedom and rights of citizens. When only 21 percent of Americans say that Washington operates with the consent of the governed, as was also reported last month, we face an alarming crisis.

Health care is no longer a debate about the merits of specific initiatives. Since the spectacle of Christmas dealmaking to ensure passage of the Senate bill, the issue, in voters' minds, has become less about health care than about the government and a political majority that will neither hear nor heed the will of the people.

Voters are hardly enthralled with the GOP, but the Democrats are pursuing policies that are out of step with the way ordinary Americans think and feel about politics and government. Barring some change of approach, they will be punished severely at the polls.

Once again, after watching the events of this week in the push to ram health care reform down our throats, I am speechless.

How do you answer a mindset that says, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it," as Pelosi said this week?

Once again, after watching the events of this week in the push to ram health care reform down our throats, I am speechless.

How do you answer a mindset that says, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it," as Pelosi said this week?Hello again, Steve:

Once again, you prove my point about the Republican talking points. "Ram it down our throats" is a good one.

Funny. You didn't say anything about RAMMING the Bush tax cuts down our throats, but the Republican dominated congress used the Same procedure.

Now, I don't know what's IN the bill, because the bill hasn't been written yet. But, to try to fix something that is plainly broken isn't delusional. Pretending the status quo is just fine is what's delusional.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Once again, you prove my point about the Republican talking points. "Ram it down our throats" is a good one.

Um, I was using that before it was any "talking point," it was an easily discernible reality.


Funny. You didn't say anything about RAMMING the Bush tax cuts down our throats, but the Republican dominated congress used the Same procedure.

Do you really want to compare a tax cut that's set to expire with this huge, permanent government power grab?


Now, I don't know what's IN the bill, because the bill hasn't been written yet. But, to try to fix something that is plainly broken isn't delusional. Pretending the status quo is just fine is what's delusional.

Did you read the column? Have you listened to us at all? Or are you, like these Dems, just wishing the facts would go away or pretending they don't exist? Everyone agrees there needs to be changes, pretending we don't is delusional. Blind faith in a bill is even more delusional.

Do you really want to compare a tax cut that's set to expire with this huge, permanent government power grab?Did you read the column? Have you listened to us at all? Or are you, like these Dems, just wishing the facts would go away or pretending they don't exist? Everyone agrees there needs to be changes, pretending we don't is delusional. Blind faith in a bill is even more delusional.Hello again, Steve:

Yes, I read what Republicans say. I listen too. I just don't BELIEVE it. Why is that?? Because I'm actually rather intelligent, I can read, and I understand politics. You know what else I don't believe?? I don't believe that Republicans think changes need to be made to our health care. I haven't seen ANY indication of that. That would be NONE - ZIPPO - NADA. All I've seen is obstruction - absolute lockstep obstruction. I don't know where you think I've been. We've been talking about this for over a year. I've HEARD every one of you say countless times that our health care is the BEST IN THE WORLD - that EVERYBODY is NOW covered, and that insurance companies are your BEST FRIENDS. That doesn't sound like you think something is wrong.

Please understand that I don't have "blind" faith in a bill that hasn't been written yet, or faith that Democrats can pass a good bill. So, my argument isn't in support of "the bill". The bill itself may be crap - probably is. At best it's insurance reform. But, it's NOT a permanent government power grab - not even close. That's another talking point.

So, when you throw those talking points up around here, you're not going to grab my attention.

excon

Sorry ,the Dem talking point about the Bush tax cuts are intentionally deceptive.

The 2001 reconcilliation act passed with 12 Democrat Senators voting for it.
I'll gladly give up my tax cut if in exchange I don't have to pay for the Obama ruinous agenda.

Sorry ,the Dem talking point about the Bush tax cuts are intentionally deceptive. I don't have to pay for the Obama ruinous agenda.Hello again, tom:

Saying this bill has a "ruinous" agenda is what's deceptive, and you're intentionally saying that.

I agree, it won't help people much who already have insurance, but it'll be a big help to those who are not now insured. The problem is individuals who can't get employment-based coverage. And that market, in case you hadn't noticed, is a disaster — no coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions, coverage dropped when you get sick, and huge premium increases in the middle of an economic crisis. It's this sector, plus the plight of Americans with no insurance at all, that reform aims to fix. What's wrong with that?

Now, I know you have different information than I do, but the bill under consideration is going to CONTROL costs and REDUCE the deficit too.

Sorry, tom. Looks like you're going to have to pay (if you make more than $200K) for Obamacare, just like I have to pay for Bush's TWO ruinous wars.

excon

To pretend it isn't a huge government power grab, and not a talking point, is also delusional.

I'm also not going to do your work for you, I've said it more times than I can count that we need changes, you search for it. I just don't buy this idea that it's so broken we have to completely redo health care. It would be like amputating a leg for an ingrown toenail - overkill.

To pretend it isn't a huge government power grab, and not a talking point, is also delusional. I just don't buy this idea that it's so broken we have to completely redo health care.Hello again, Steve:

It's insurance reform. It's NOT a complete redo of health care. You're repeating TALKING POINTS. It REDOES NOTHING. It is anything BUT a huge government power grab. It's insurance reform. That's all. That's it. It's nothing more than that. The talking points are what's delusional. The words HUGE GOVERNMENT POWER GRAB, are Republican talking points.

No matter how WRONG those points are, by repeatedly sticking to the message, as you do, you have demonstrated WHY the Democrats have LOST the talking point battle. You guys are good at that. The Democrats suck at it.

But, that's ALL they lost. The bill they're fashioning without you, while it's not what I hoped it would be, might do something positive. In fact, it might even be enough to allow some congressman to KEEP their seats. You see, contrary to you, I believe the American people WANT change, and THIS change is what they voted for.

I don't know how you think that means we're a center right country, but you do... THAT'S what's delusional.

excon

Obama has reached for a vast reordering of the economy without any votes from the Republicans and wrecking the seats of the blue dog Democrats .
And amazingly the Dems like Pelosi and Reid think it is worth it.

Why ? Because the ideology behind it trumps the politics. The nanny state lives on and it will be permanent. The statists win even if it costs them later in the polls.

and wrecking the seats of the blue dog Democrats .
And amazingly the Dems like Pelosi and Reid think it is worth it.Hello again, tom:

Let me see. The Republican party discards its centrists and moves to the right, and that's good.. But, when the Democrats shed their centrists, that's bad. I understand...

There ain't no centrists anyway. The parties have been moving away from the center for a long time. Let's get on with it. The center SUCKS!

excon

Reagan attracted the centrists without changing conservatism.

They left and supported the Dems when the Republicans stopped acting like conservatives. Now they find they were sold a bill of goods in 2006 (as was predicted here.. reference what was called a 'trojan horse strategy ') .

Yes ;the issue with centrists is that one cannot discern an identifiable philosophical base . They do however represent a sizable portion of the people.

They left and supported the Demswhen the Republicans stopped acting like conservatives. Hello again, tom:

When they (Lieberman, Nelson, Stupak, et all) stop acting like liberals and support the Republicans, the Dems are going to throw them to the curb too. What's different?

excon

Ex, facts are facts. Obamacare WILL create huge new - permanent - government bureaucracies, it will dictate what coverage you have, it will dictate what treatments you're allowed, it will ultimately put everyone on the 'public option.' For someone who has argued time and again that insurance already does such things it's curious you would use that as your argument.

It's as simple as this, if the problem is the uninsured then let's take care of the uninsured. Leave the rest of us alone.

Now, I don't know what's IN the bill, because the bill hasn't been written yet.


It's insurance reform. It's NOT a complete redo of health care. You're repeating TALKING POINTS. It REDOES NOTHING. It is anything BUT a huge government power grab. It's insurance reform. That's all. That's it. It's nothing more than that

Did you find out what's in the bill in two hours, Ex? Or is this more Libprog "what I said before doesn't matter, it's what I'm saying now" rhetoric?

What would Reagan say about all this health care stuff??


YouTube - Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs)

Did you find out what's in the bill in two hours, Ex? Hello Cats:

Yup. See above where it says I can read.

excon

Hello Cats:

Yup. See above where it says I can read.

excon

Where can I read it?

This appears to be such a weighty matter that the legislation cannot be passed without the president leaning on Congress and the Senate. Obama has delayed his visit to Australia and Indonesia because of the health care legislation, apparently it takes precedence over foreign policy. So much for keeping a dog and barking yourself

Yes Clete ,the President needs to be there to sign whatever concoction and bast@rdization of the bill reaches his desk .

This weekend the House is contemplating a blatantly unconstitutional remedy to break the impass. Effectively they may try to submit the Senate version of the bill to the President without actually voting on it themselves(a clear violation of article 7 sec 2).

There will be immediate court challenges to this of course ;but the Dems will declare victory and go home to their constituents and tell them "well no....I did not actually vote for it ".

Don't put your hopes up in the President doing anything useful in Australia . As he has demonstrated ,he is willing to damage our relationships with the English speak nations .

Yes Clete ,the President needs to be there to sign whatever concoction and bast@rdization of the bill reaches his desk .

This weekend the House is contemplating a blatantly unconstitutional remedy to break the impass. Effectively they may try to submit the Senate version of the bill to the President without actually voting on it themselves(a clear violation of article 7 sec 2).

There will be immediate court challenges to this of course ;but the Dems will declare victory and go home to their constituents and tell them "well no....I did not actually vote for it ".

Don't put your hopes up in the President doing anything useful in Australia . As he has demonstrated ,he is willing to damage our relationships with the English speak nations .

Give me a break, Tom, like it couldn't wait a day once it is passed. If he does something sneaky to get the bill passed we don't want him here, we have enough politicians already, what we want to hear from is statesmen

That's not the half of it. Congress was held hostage in DC town this weekend under the lame excuse that they needed to pass an anti-algae bill.But the real reason is that Pelosi and Obama's henchman Rham Emanuel needed more time to twist arms of their caucus. They don't have the votes ;but they will resort to any brutish and unconstitutional means to get it done. The president's whole domestic agenda is at stake ;and yes,in his mind that trumps any international relations obligations .

The president's whole domestic agenda is at stake ;and yes,in his mind that trumps any international relations obligations .

Right, and if the Messiah loses this battle it would relegate him to the status of ordinary and that's unacceptable. This is the man whose goal goes far beyond any domestic agenda, he wants to remake the world (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/14/AR2008021403105.html).


"We are the hope of the future," sayeth Obama. We can "remake this world as it should be." Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country -- nay, we can become "a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest."

It appears the most transparent, ethical Congress ever is for the first time in US history, about to pass a bill they haven't voted on (http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/14/house-and-senate-cloakroom-march-15%E2%80%93-21-2010/). Yes, the Dems are going to "Slaughter" the constitution:


It’s crunch time on health care. The Budget Committee will meet Monday to start marking up a shell of a Reconciliation Bill. The Rules Committee will then meet as early as Wednesday to hollow out whatever the Budget Committee passed and then insert a new bill from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) office. The Majority is still planning to use the “Slaughter Rule” that would allow the House to pass the Senate health care bill without voting on it. Final votes are expected to stretch into the weekend.

Say you what you will about Bush and Republicans, but you'd be hard pressed to come up with a more despicable, shameless, underhanded, slimy, unconstitutional act than what this Congress is planning.

Say you what you will about Bush and Republicans, but you'd be hard pressed to come up with a more despicable, shameless, underhanded, slimy, unconstitutional act than what this Congress is planning.Hello again, Steve:

Boy, if they did it all legal like, THAT should piss you off. But, it should make you HAPPY that they're violating the Constitution. It'll make your job of repealing the law that much easier.

By the way, I'm not hard pressed at all.

Excib

Ex, it will piss me off if it passes no matter the procedure to get there - this congress has absolute contempt for the wishes of the American people, their employers.

This is not about providing health care for those without, it's all about the agenda. Tom showed that by Pelosi's comments. The administration revealed that last year when they suggested Dems pass anything so they could declare victory and move on. And Obama revealed it by telling the Hispanic caucus he needed this to save his presidency (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34602.html).

“Win one for Barry.” Yeah, that's reason enough for the government to take over health care.

Hello again, Steve:

You're a victim of your own propaganda. This bill is NOT a government takeover (your favorite phrase), and it IS what the American people want, no matter how many times FOX news tells you they don't.

Elections have consequences. Torture is one I had to put up with. Helping Americans with access to health care is yours. Bummer for you.

excon

It'll make your job of repealing the law that much easier.

It will be impossible to repeal because of the veto . This has to be stopped now or by court challenge or it will become another permanent "entitlement " .

I know that court challenges are being prepared to address the process of "pass and deem" .There are also State Att Generals being authorized to challenge it on 9th and 10th amendment issues . There will be challenges related to the mandate . I suspect there are some in SCOTUS who think the application of the 'commerce clause ' has become too broad and abusive and would be more than happy to rule to limit it.

But I think this can be nipped in the bud still.
ABC's last whip count had it 208 yes and 209 no with 14 undecided .216 is the magic number .

Now that something resembling a reconciliation bill is public(and I have no intention of reading it) ,and the CBO gave a fuzzy math thumbs up ,I expect that Pelosi will manage to twist enough arms to get it through the House .

Senate Republicans however are going over the bill and will find anything that violates the 'Byrd rule' about reconcilliation and will raise challenges(points of order) . They can stop it if anything in the language of the bill is not directly related to budgettary issues.

Suffice it to say that POTUS expects this will not get done this weekend .If he did ,he would not have cancelled his trip to Australia and Indonesia until June.

It will be impossible to repeal because of the veto . This has to be stopped now or by court challenge or it will become another permanent "entitlement " .Hello again, tom:

Sorry, I don't understand... If it's SO unpopular, and SO illegal, certainly the Democrats will be swept out of office. Clearly, the Republican congress can repeal it, and President Palin can sign it.

I agree with you, though. It WILL become another permanent entitlement, just like your entitlement to police and fire protection is.

excon

You're a victim of your own propaganda. This bill is NOT a government takeover (your favorite phrase), and it IS what the American people want, no matter how many times FOX news tells you they don't.

I don't need Fox News propaganda, the Democrats have made my point all on their own. They've made their intentions clear. They know this legislation is not what Americans want. From Claire McCaskill in the article I linked to:


“The first risk [of a health care defeat] is that he loses the reelect,” she said. “I think the risk to Congress is that his approval rating goes so low, he does not have enough heft to lift other important things we want to work on.. . So this is a gut check. He’s got so much to lose by continuing to push for something that’s not going to be immediately popular. It’s not going to be popular by November; it’s not going to be popular by November of 2012. It’ll be popular 10 years from now.”

Americans' have made it clear their concern is for jobs, and Obama continues to push for something they assume will be popular "10 years from now" instead. Ten years from now another congress will be trying to fix what this congress screwed up, and the statist solution we'll be pressed with then will be single-payer government health care.


Elections have consequences. Torture is one I had to put up with. Helping Americans with access to health care is yours. Bummer for you.

I don't recall your being tortured, and contrary to your continued portrayal of me I'm all for Americans having health care, so let's address those without insurance. Both sides agree to that, so if that were the issue the Dems would have backed down long ago and worked to resolve that.

Silly me . And here I thought my local village provided fire service through volunteers ;and that my village /township/county and state provided the police protection. Perhaps the Obots are planning on nationalizing those services also ?

Of course that brings us to the philosphical question about health care being a "right" .

But if I have the right to someone else's services then I also have a right to them whether I pay for them or not... and if that person also has a right to be paid for their services then the government is presuming that they can take money from someone else to pay for the services provided to me .

True rights are not the rights the government can provide for me .Rights are instead things that if I exercise them will not diminish the rights of others .I can't impose my rights at the expense of someone else. I have a right to behavior .I do not have a right to rewards from other people.

And if I have a right to government guaranteed health care then why do I not also have the right to consume someone else's food ,or live in a house paid for by someone else ? Or conversely why aren't my rights violated when I am compelled by the government to pay for someone else's "rights" ?

Clete

Just to update... the President needed to postpone his very important junket to Australia and Indonesia again .

Mark Stein notes that perhaps the President can just "deem " that he made the trip because
"passage of the health insurance reform is of paramount importance." Whereas Australia isn't.

But ,being a friend of the US under the Obots is not exactly the best seat on the bus these days. In fact ;our best friends find themselves under the bus.

So as Stein says ,perhaps it would be better if the President pared back to a minimum— a quick refueling stop in Canberra, with a speech to Parliament and a grip'n'greet with the Governor-General and Prime Minister. Maybe the administration could simply "deem" the visit to have occurred, photoshop a souvenir snapshot and stick it in the mail to their eminences.
Investors.com - What Democrats Have 'Deemed': Remorseless, Ever-Faster Decline (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=527933)

Just think of all the opportunities "Demon pass" opens up for the Dems. They can deem the economy rescued, deem unemployment solved, deem the planet healed and deem the war in Afghanistan won for starters. Bush's "mission accomplished" was so yesterday.

P.S. They'll start with deeming the "public option" into law (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/reid-promises-separate-pu_n_506272.html).

And Sanders believes him ? Interesting ;I'm beginning to see the argument being floated that once the House "deems " the Senate bill passed ,it will be signed within minutes by the President as the law of the land... and any other effort at reconilliation or amendment will be at best half hearted as the President and Pelosi moves on to other pressing statists agendas .

Hello Snivelers:

Wassa matta? You going to lose?? I deem it so.

excon

Hello Snivelers:

Wassa matta?? You gonna lose???? I deem it so.

If the Dems succeed in passing this legislation - especially with all their tricks, deals, fiscal sleight of hand and outright lies - America loses. We've made it clear that reform is needed, but not this way.

Hello again, Steve:

Like I said before, if "deem and pass" is illegal, that's the BEST thing for you guys AND the country, no? But, if it's a political ploy, that the right wing itself has used countless times (and it has), and is perfectly LEGAL, then you're just sniveling...

I still don't know what you have against 35 million people getting insurance. I don't know what's wrong with ENDING the insurance company's ability to declare your illness to be a pre-existing condition... I don't know what's wrong with closing the doughnut hole. I also don't know what's wrong with REDUCING the deficit...

These are the things the bill will do. It will NOT kill Grandma. Like I said earlier, you are a victim of your own propaganda. You ought to get out more.

excon

And you are a propagator of your own propaganda, I've said repeatedly that I'm all for everyone having health care. Everyone knows "deem and pass" has been used before but never for anything so massive in scope. I've been honest and all for making changes, but you really should listen to yourself before mentioning propaganda.

Everyone knows "deem and pass" has been used before but never for anything so massive in scope. Hello again, Steve:

Is there a law or a rule that says "deem and pass" cannot be used for "massive" legislation? NO?? Then it's LEGAL. It's not almost legal. It's not kind of legal. It's not close to being legal. It's absolutely 100% LEGAL! Of course, you call it a trick. I'll bet the Dems called it a trick when YOU used it.

excon

Well I guess it will be up to SCOTUS to decide. My guess is that they will hold the Presentment Clause of the Constitution to be the law of the land and not the whims of Madame Mimi.

But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House
Article 1 Sec 7 clauses 2 and 3

well I guess it will be up to SCOTUS to decide. My guess is that they will hold the Presentment Clause of the Constitution to be the law of the land and not the whims of Madame Mimi.Hello again, tom:

So, if they undo health care because of "deem and pass", will that ruling automatically undo ALL the other legislation passed the same way? I don't see how it couldn't. If the process is illegal, then it's illegal for ALL the legislation passed that way. No? You certainly don't think SCOTUS will say ONLY this bill is illegal because of it.

Face it Dudes. You're toast.

excon

They already have . It is the reason why the line item veto can only be enacted by an amendment . I would say that yes, any provision passed that way potentially can be struck down with a court challenge.
Please tell me the piece of legislation you want reversed because the procedure was utilized . I bet you can't because it was such a minor point as to be inconsequential .

I expect there will be challenges to this by the Republicans in the House based on house rule IX "questions of privilage" .

Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.......
Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives Rules of the House (http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/rules110/rule9.html)

Please tell me the piece of legislation you want reversed because the procedure was utilized . I bet you can't because it was such a minor point as to be inconsequential . Hello again, tom:

I don't want anything reversed. All I'm saying is, if "deem and pass" is illegal, then IT'S ILLEGAL, and ALL the legislation passed that way is ILLEGAL.

Minor or not, if it was passed illegally, then that's just so. The law is a fine line. Everything on one side of the line is legal. Everything on the other side isn't. The law makes NO distinctions between MINOR or MAJOR issues. It distinguishes only WHERE on that line these issues fall. They're legal or they're not. There's no in between. The GOP used self-executing rules [i.e. "deem and pass"] 35 times in 2005-2006 alone. Therefore, ALL of those 35 laws or amendments to existing laws are ILLEGAL.

You're right. I don't know what they are. I don't care. But, I'll bet a lot of Republicans care, because it was THEIR congress. Wouldn't it be cool if the Patriot Act, or some of it's provisions were passed that way? Oh, by the way. Back then the Democrats sued to end the practice and the GOP defended it in court. The Republicans won.

excon

Yes I know .Pelosi Savage and Ralph Nader tried to stop an increase in the national debt ceiling ;something both sides have been doing annually for years.

The issue ?
The version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk's error with respect to one term, so the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill and the President signed the version passed by the Senate.

It was not the passing of the biggest social legislation in the last 45 years. You'll be hard pressed to find anything of significance passed by this trickery.

I don't know if this is true ,but byron York is reporting that the Dem rules committee meeting got chaotic and as a result they are dropping the idea of demon pass.

But the Dems are terrified to pass the Senate version unless the changes they want to the bill become part of the law. The problem is that there are no guarantees that the Senate will pass the sidebar bill . Also procedurally they can't amend the Senate bill until they actually pass it and it becomes law. They want to therefore break procedure and pass the sidebar bill before they vote on the senate bill .

This is a positive development if true .But we are still in tera incognito here .

Clete

Just to update ...the President needed to postpone his very important junket to Australia and Indonesia again .

Mark Stein notes that perhaps the President can just "deem " that he made the trip because
"passage of the health insurance reform is of paramount importance." Whereas Australia isn't.

But ,being a friend of the US under the Obots is not exactly the best seat on the bus these days. In fact ;our best friends find themselves under the bus.

So as Stein says ,perhaps it would be better if the President pared back to a minimum— a quick refueling stop in Canberra, with a speech to Parliament and a grip'n'greet with the Governor-General and Prime Minister. Maybe the administration could simply "deem" the visit to have occurred, photoshop a souvenir snapshot and stick it in the mail to their eminences.
Investors.com - What Democrats Have 'Deemed': Remorseless, Ever-Faster Decline (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=527933)

Okay Tom we'll just deem the visit to have occurred, when we are asked what Obama said when he was here, we can say he said very little. We have long known that the US considers Australia of little consequence, just another ally to hang on the coat rack when needed so a non visit from a US President down on his luck and hard pressed to get his agenda up is fine by us, we only want to know winners anyway.

Actually we consider Australia an important ally (or we did until recently).

And we have so much in common lately .We both picked head in the clouds leaders who think they can solve the world's problems by building windmills .

actually we consider Australia an important ally (or we did until recently).

And we have so much in common lately .We both picked head in the clouds leaders who think they can solve the world's problems by building windmills .

No. Tom. Yours builds windmills. Ours tilts at them, and insulates houses with Aluminium foil. Could you consider anything more unfortunate than a leader who actually has the name Krudd. We have noted the manner in which Obama treats his important ally Krudd. We actually think Krudd has his eye on a UN posting perhaps Secretary, since he spends more time out of the country than in it.

The Obama administration home insulation program is in the same shambles as Rudds but the compliant press doesn't report it like your's does.It's called here "cash for Caulkers" and it has been mismanaged .
Obama's $6bn plan for home insulation | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/obamas-6bn-plan-for-home-insulation/story-e6frg6so-1225836704514)

the Obama adminstration home insulation program is in the same shambles as Rudds but the compliant press doesn't report it like your's does.It's called here "cash for Caulkers" and it has been mismanaged .
Obama's $6bn plan for home insulation | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/obamas-6bn-plan-for-home-insulation/story-e6frg6so-1225836704514)

"Cash for caulkers" I didn't hear about that one, I hope you don't get the dangerous instalations and house fires that came out of ours. I thought you had a Cash for Clunkers program to revitalise your government owned auto industry, how's that going by the way, about as well as your revitalised health care? What I see is both BO and Krudd are equally on the nose because they have very quickly run out of ideas. We are about to have a federal take over of public hospitals, they will be paid on a procedures basis, so if there is a hospital in a sparcely populated region it won't get much funding or will have to over service. We are lucky to have media which is fairly fiesty where politicians are concerned, you could say they have their BS meters on high

It is an environmental/energy /jobs program that is supposed to help the construction industry and the do it yourself supply stores. It hasn't helped either . The environmental impact is unknown at this point and I'm sure that the few homeowners who have participated have saved a few dollars on their energy bills to offset the tax money others have had to shell out for it. Me, I brought a 1930s made home 15 years ago ,and replaced all the windows with energy efficient ones . I systematically upgrade the insulation and yes ,even caulk .Now I get to pay for someone else to do it to their home too.

Demon pass is out .The next game in play is an attempt to peel away the Stupak block of Dems who are no votes because of the abortion funding in the Senate version .

Stupak wants to vote for health care reform ,but the abortion funding is a bridge he and about 6 Dems won't cross.

Enter the President... it is being suggested that he floated an idea that if they vote for the legislation he wouid sign an executive order barring the Federal funding for abortion. Steny Hoyer is telling reporters that the executive order is being drafted where the President would reaffirm his commitment to the Hyde Amendment that bans Fed funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the woman.
washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001941.html)

Here's recalling another Presidential executive order that the libs can hang their hat on... the closing of GITMO.



Last night ABC said the whip count was 12 yes and 214 no .If the Stupak bloc flips Pelosi has the votes needed.

Hello again, tom:

If the bill passes, it's because it IS bipartisan... No, not between the Democrats and the Republicans. But, between Obama and the Health Insurers and Big Pharma. They both cut deals with Obama and they both essentially support the bill.

What deals you ask? Obama promised that there would be NO public option in the final bill (and there isn't), and when Byron Dorgan's prescription drug re-importation amendment came up, Obama opposed it (like he promised he would).

I thought Republicans represented industry. What happened?

excon

This is no longer a "bi-partisan" anything. It is simply a greed pay off for most of the greedy jerks in congress. What really bothers me about this so called health care bill is that it's going to cost us so much a month/year in premiums and then on top of that we have to pay a CO-PAY every time we see the dr. Gee, isn't that wonderful if you don't go to the doctor more than once a year. What a phenomenally high doctor visit that's going to be. $5,000 plus the co-pay. Pretty pricey 5 minute doctor visit if you ask me. Duh. Just how many visits to the doctor per year does a normal healthy person have to have? And then, just think of all the wonderful vaccinations that are going to be literally forced on us?? I don't even want to think about that particular subject as we've already seen enough of the flu scare of this winter to open the eyes of most Americans to that scam.

It's all strictly how much money can each individual congressperson put into their pocket. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. $$$$$ talks and bullsh*t walks is an old saying.

We're going to see the $$$$ talks today, that's for sure when they do in fact vote on this abomination of a bill.

What really bothers me is if for some miraculous reason this bill does not get passed today, just how many more times will they have to vote on it to satisfy Mimi Pelosi's ego?? One Hundred more times?? This is getting old, very old.

America needs jobs, not health care. How is the normal struggling American family going to even pay for this drivel if they don't have a job? Not many that's for sure.

Maybe Obama needs to get his nose out of Pelosi's behind and start paying attention to the real needs of America. But... you and I know that is not going to happen. He's too much a brown noser as his history has shown.

If this is passed - does that mean that I can go to any Micky D's or BK and slap that burger and fries out of some fatty's hands so they don't get onto disability for being self induced obese? Gosh, I hope so. I've got my shovel ready and I'm getting into my car to cruise the local junk fast food places... so look out fatties I've got my Entrenching Tool ready. Makes for a dandy "swatting" the burgers out of fatties hands tool.

Hello again:

I spoke a while ago about the Democrats losing the talking points battle. They don't even try to defend their action. What further proof of that is there, than the Republicans loudly threatening the Democrats with losing their seats IF they pass the bill.

Where are the Democrats threatening the Republicans with THEIR seats if they oppose it?

If the Democrats win, it's not because they deserve it.

excon

But, between Obama and the Health Insurers and Big Pharma. They both cut deals with Obama and they both essentially support the bill.

You forgot to mention their largest constituency... the trial lawyers.

Perhaps the Democrats are the party of big corporatism ,and I don't know who the Republicans stand for . I am for the American people... and they are getting a raw deal tonight.

If this is passed - does that mean that I can go to any Micky D's or BK and slap that burger and fries out of some fatty's hands so they don't get onto disability for being self induced obese? Gosh, I hope so. I've got my shovel ready and I'm getting into my car to cruise the local junk fast food places...... so look out fatties I've got my Entrenching Tool ready. Makes for a dandy "swatting" the burgers out of fatties hands tool.

So now we are going to have the fast food vigilantees, tell me twinkie where have you been for the past fifty years? You have had ample opportunity to protest chew and spew and what have you done, nothing! No, because you think there might be a link between the unhealthy american lifestyle and obesity you are going to attack the victims of corporate america. What a dill, please change your avatar to dilldonothing. What you need to do is lead the backwash party and have all fast food outlets closed, Ban McD, BK, KFC, pizza whatever, donut king, Krispy Kremes, hey the list is so long you are going to have to enlist an army

So now we are going to have the fast food vigilantees, tell me twinkie where have you been for the past fifty years? You have had ample opportunity to protest chew and spew and what have you done, nothing! No, because you think there might be a link between the unhealthy american lifestyle and obesity you are going to attack the victims of corporate america. What a dill, please change your avatar to dilldonothing. What you need to do is lead the backwash party and have all fast food outlets closed, Ban McD, BK, KFC, pizza whatever, donut king, Krispy Kremes, hey the list is so long you are going to have to enlist an army

You think there MIGHT be a link? Yes, there definitely is a huge link with obesity and fast food there buddy. McDonalds and BK serve "fake food" that does not even mold or rot or decompose! Yup. And yes, I would definitely deprive corporate america of such mass poisoning of America. Some folks are too stupid to know real food from fake food as the fake food has additives and food enhancing flavors and aromas to fool the nose and tastebuds. Well known fact, Para. Even the french fries are fake with all sorts of additives added to real potatoes that people literally crave due to the additives. Proven fact, the typical fast food diner eats their fries first, burgers second.

I have the television now turned on and watching all the groveling speeches given by the drolls in Congress of just why it is so important to pass this bill. I almost upchucked and had to change the channel. I'll find out later what the outcome is/was.

My silly congresswomen is voting for it and I don't think we even got a deal for Georgia. I mean what sort of polictical person she is, we needed our payoff or bribe like everyone else

The Senate bill is the law of the land as soon as the President signs it today... The sucker Stupak sold out to a fiction. The EO by the President is a myth in a number of ways ;most importantly that it cannot trump the law of the land (see Commerce of U.S. v Reich and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld .Once the President signs the Senate version Federal funding for abortions becomes the law.

The sidebar/reconcilliation bill must run a gauntlet of points of order and possibly rewrites and fillibusters . It is unknown how the Dems can navigate this through the reconcilliation process because never before has it been attempted for a major sea-change legislation.
My bet is that the Senate version remains the law and there will be many Dems in the House who feel betrayed over the lack of effort.

Now that the Senate bill is passed ,and signed into law today where is the incentive for POTUS to push any more this session ? Already he has moved on to immigration. The Democrat Representatives who are counting on the reconcilliation bill to save their hide are more sacrificial lambs under the President's bus.

You think there MIGHT be a link? Yes, there definitely is a huge link with obesity and fast food there buddy. McDonalds and BK serve "fake food" that does not even mold or rot or decompose! Yup. And yes, I would definitely deprive corporate america of such mass poisoning of America. Some folks are too stupid to know real food from fake food as the fake food has additives and food enhancing flavors and aromas to fool the nose and tastebuds. Well known fact, Para. Even the french fries are fake with all sorts of additives added to real potatoes that people literally crave due to the additives. Proven fact, the typical fast food diner eats their fries first, burgers second.

You don't get do you? You don't attack the addict, you attack the seller of the junk. You bring down corporate america who thinks it's cool to lie and sell fake food just for a quick buck, you close down all the outlets of this junk and make it illegal, but no you won't do that because it's easier to blame the victim. When I buy a burger or chicken that's what I expect to get, not something that has been ground up and reconstituted. And while you are at it you close down tobacco and you close down the alcohol industry because that is corporate america breading disease and poisening america too.

But you won't do that because it will cause unemployment, just as doing something real about health care will cause unemployment too, just think of it unemployed insurance adjusters and lawyers. But No you have a solution that creates employment and maintains employment in the medical industry and the insurance industry

I think the food nazi thread should be separate from the health care thread .

Then again it is all part and partial with the larger problem... the central government being the nanny state to a compliant population that demands more and more services from the government but expects their children to pay for it.

Then again it is all part and partial with the larger problem ....The larger problem being that left to their own devices many Americans make poor choices.

The Democrat Representatives who are counting on the reconcilliation bill to save their hide are more sacrificial lambs under the President's bus.Hello again, tom:

Yup, it's the law of the land... And, I think you're wrong. It's the Republican's who didn't support the bill whose jobs are in jeopardy. You see, I think this is a center LEFT country.

excon

NK


Canada ranks 35 on a 2007 list of fattest countries with a percentage of 61.1% of its citizens with an unhealthy weight.
In children, obesity has substantially increased between 1989 and 2004 with rates in boys increasing from 2% to 10% and rates among girls increasing from 2% to 9%.

Obesity in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_Canada)

Perhaps you should tend to your own .

Come November I think a LOT of Americans will be shopping for new representatives in congress. That is the only means we have to control these idiots. Get them out of office, or hobble them.

Perhaps you should tend to your own .We do, we have universal health care. :)

But seriously: World's Fattest Countries - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat_2.html)
You = 9th, us = 35th

Come November I think a LOT of Americans will be shopping for new representatives in congress. That is the only means we have to control these idiots. Get them out of office, or hobble them.
Good luck! Your politicians don't represent you, they represent big business - because the free market makes the best choices!

You can think we're center left all you want, ex, it won't make it any more true than the notion that Americans wanted this bill passed. I'll give the Dems credit though, for being the slimiest congressional majority and administration in the history of this once great nation.

You can think we're center left all you want, ex, it won't make it any more true than the notion that Americans wanted this bill passed. I'll give the Dems credit though, for being the slimiest congressional majority and administration in the history of this once great nation.
^^
Tea Party-Type hyperbole. LOL!

^^
Tea Party-Type hyperbole. LOL!

Knee-jerk idiocy, lol.

I'll give the Dems credit though, for being the slimiest congressional majority and administration in the history of this once great nation.Hello again, Steve:

I don't know. You're proud of Bush, whose legacy is torture, but you don't like the guy whose legacy is health care for all. I think you got things BACKWARDS!

excon

The Dems are doing a lot of damage control this morning . Why does the President still need to go on a campaign to convince the people it is such a good deal after over a year of debate if this country is so leftist ? Why did he have to bribe so many lawmakers to make it happen ?

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/01/gall.bush.lincoln.gi.jpg

I dunno. You're proud of Bush, whose legacy is torture, but you don't like the guy whose legacy is health care for all. I think you got things BACKWARDS!

Aren't you the one who keeps complaining Obama is too much like Bush? And for at least the 3rd time in as many days I'm all for health care for all, I'm just not for destroying the country in the process.

I've never seen as much slime and brazen contempt for the American people by our elected leaders in all my life as what the Dems have done the past few weeks - and they're busy patting themselves on the back for it. The most ethical congress and administration EVER!

The Dems are doing alot of damage control this morning . Why does the President still need to go on a campaign to convince the people it is such a good deal after over a year of debate if this country is so leftist ? Why did he have to bribe so many lawmakers to make it happen ?Hello again, tom:

Politics is the art of compromise. That means horse trading. If you think the Republicans didn't engage in it when they were in charge, you're either naïve or blind, or telling stories.

The cool thing about this passage, is that even though the right wing lied through their teeth about it, and the Dems didn't counter at ALL, they still won. I agree with you however. It IS a shame that the president still needs to counter the lies being told today..

excon

PS> I didn't say SO LEFTIST. I said center left. That means there are still some conservative Democrats that needed persuading.

PPS> Have you gone off the rails? I didn't think this passage would upset you so.

PPPS> Maybe NOW, you know how I felt when I saw my beloved country being taken away by TORTURERS.

PPS> Have you gone off the rails? I didn't think this passage would upset you so.


I always fret when a millstone is placed around me and my family and my nation's neck.If I wanted Euro-nanny statism I would've moved there years ago.

What suprises me is someone who as much as anyone here professes to individualism would so willingly subscribe to this . Don't complain to me about the scope of the power of the central government... as Pelosi says.. the door has been kicked open.

Good luck! Your politicians don't represent you, they represent big business - because the free market makes the best choices!

If that were even remotely true, why would "big business" cut it's own throats with the universal health care fiasco?

What suprises me is someone who as much as anyone here professes to individualism would so willingly subscribe to this .Hello again, tom:

Yeah, I have to wonder about that too... Fortunately, I'm NOT an ideologue. Ideologue's can't get out of their boxes.. I don't have a box.

I'm a believer in individualism, and I'm a believer in a government safety net. I, frankly, don't see a conflict between the two. Of course, if I were a right winged type of person, who buy's into the idea that this is only the first step toward SOCIALISM, I'd be worried too. But, I don't believe the right wing crap. You shouldn't either.

excon

OK, ex, we've already made our point by what the Dems themselves have said but you don't believe them so just watch what they do.

You don't get do you? you don't attack the addict, you attack the seller of the junk. You bring down corporate america who thinks it's cool to lie and sell fake food just for a quick buck, you close down all the outlets of this junk and make it illegal, but no you won't do that becuase it's easier to blame the victim. When I buy a burger or chicken that's what I expect to get, not something that has been ground up and reconstituted. And while you are at it you close down tobacco and you close down the alcohol industry because that is corporate america breading disease and poisening america too.

But you won't do that because it will cause unemployment, just as doing something real about health care will cause unemployment too, just think of it unemployed insurance adjusters and lawyers. But No you have a solution that creates employment and maintains employment in the medical industry and the insurance industry


I'm beginning to think you've fallen out of bed on your head some days.

Believe it . Buried in the bill is the under-reported takeover of the student loan industry also. Anthing they can label as "comprehensive reform "will be railroaded through in the same manner this was achieved. Comprehensive immigration, comprehensive energy, comprehensive banking reform are on the way. They have already nationalized the domestic auto industry and are well on their way to nationalizing the financial ,energy ,education sectors .

Gone are the days when the Obot's needed phrases like “reaching across the aisle" and other campaign pablum that some of us saw through. He is fulfilling our predictions .

believe it . buried in the bill is the under-reported takeover of the student loan industry also.
Can you post the exact text from the bill please?

OK, ex, we've already made our point by what the Dems themselves have said but you don't believe them so just watch what they do.Hello again, Steve:

I think we've talked before about your finding obscure off the wall lefties, and ascribing their crap to the party as a whole.

Here's where we differ. Even in the face of right wing nuts, I believe there ARE reasonable people in the Republican party who DON'T want to turn this country into a fascist state. You, however, in the face of left wing nuts, believe they represent everybody on the left.

That's the problem with ideology.

excon

Can you post the exact text from the bill please?

Dude, it was reported in the news today everywhere.

Dude, it was reported in the news today everywhere.Ok, then link to the exact text.

I think we've talked before about your finding obscure off the wall lefties, and ascribing their crap to the party as a whole.

Um, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, President Obama... they are as mainstream as it gets. And they're in charge.

believe it . buried in the bill is the under-reported takeover of the student loan industry also.Hello again, tom:

Yeah, it's kind of like a public option in the student loan industry. Of course, the banks don't like it. But, the banks abused (cheated) their customers... If they didn't do that, they could could still be in that business. But, you're right. The government loan program will drive them out of business, and I ain't going to lose any sleep over it.

I'm a believer in the free market. But, when businessmen discovered that they could lobby congress for laws that made them profits, instead of having to earn their profits the old fashioned way, by taking care of their customers, they STOPPED taking care of their customers. Whoda thunk they'd do that?

But, they did. So, as it turns out, students who borrowed from them (and it didn't matter which one, because they ALL had the game rigged), were in debt up to their eyeballs before they even found a job... The bankers called up their friends in congress and asked them to pass a law that PREVENTED students from discharging these loans through bankruptcy, and guess what? Their pliant congressmen DID their bidding...

So, as antithetical as it might appear to my private enterprise stance, I believe government needs to correct the abuses of the past.. Now, if businessmen competed like they USED to, I wouldn't be saying, what I'm saying.

excon

NK it doesn't surprise me that you didn't hear of this as they tacked this major seizure of a different industry as an amendment to an unrelated bill.

washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032103548.html)

I found it: House backs Obama's bid to revamp student loans | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62L0JX20100322)

Nonpartisan congressional budget analysts project that the measure would save about $61 billion over 10 years. Savings would go increased federal grants to the neediest students as well as to other education programs... House Education Committee Chairman Miller defended the proposal, saying, "We can reform the student loan program by taking these wasteful subsidies (to private lenders) -- and redeem the savings for millions of families and students who want a shot at attending college."

Ok, then link to the exact text.


SEC. 2202. TERMINATION OF FEDERAL LOAN INSURANCE (http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr4872_amndsub.pdf)
12 PROGRAM.
13 Section 424(a) (20 U.S.C. 1074(a)) is amended by
14 striking ‘‘September 30, 1976,’’ and all that follows and
15 inserting ‘‘September 30, 1976, for each of the succeeding
16 fiscal years ending prior to October 1, 2009, and for the
17 period from October 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010, for loans
18 first disbursed on or before June 30, 2010.’’.

Got it?

YouTube - Key House Democrat: "There Are No Rules Here ... We Make Them Up As We Go Along" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbHTJSu_2Lk)

Al Sharpton put it bluntly, the American people voted foer Socialism when they voted for Obama.


"First of all, then we have to say the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama," Sharpton said. "Let's not act as though the president didn't tell the American people - the president offered the American people health reform when he ran. He was overwhelmingly elected running on that and he has delivered what he promised."

I think he's wrong, the American people did not vote FOR socialism, they voted FOR an illusion.

Al Sharpton put it bluntly, the American people voted foer Socialism when they voted for Obama.Hello again, Steve:

Finding these off the wall dingbats who have dingbat opinions does NOT make them so. I actually argue what is happening - NOT what some dingbat says is happening. I wish you'd do the same.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Finding these off the wall dingbats who have dingbat opinions does NOT make them so. I actually argue what is happening - NOT what some dingbat says is happening. I wish you'd do the same.

excon
Totally agree here. We haven't trotted out the racist remarks by tea partiers and attributed them to all conservatives.

The question then becomes ;will the majority of the Dems be willing to march with the leadership over the cliff and sacrifice themselves for their ideology ?

I don't know, but Bart was partying on last night (http://www.rollcall.com/news/44508-1.html?type=aggregate_friendly).

Finding these off the wall dingbats who have dingbat opinions does NOT make them so. I actually argue what is happening - NOT what some dingbat says is happening. I wish you'd do the same.

Dingbat or not, if he's right he's right. I'm not the one that made Sharpton a 'leader' on the left.

I don't know, but Bart was partying on last night (http://www.rollcall.com/news/44508-1.html?type=aggregate_friendly).
Oh My GOD! That's awful! They had drinks after work!!

Totally agree here. We haven't trotted out the racist remarks by tea partiers and attributed them to all conservatives.

Your knees still jerking I see.

Your knees still jerking I see.
I don't even know what that means. Can you explain it?

I don't even know what that means. Can you explain it?

Figure it out.

Figure it out.
Ah so you don't know either the words that you type.

Your knees still jerking I see.Hello again, Steve:

If we LOOKED for righty's who make you look bad, they're all over the place. NK brings up only the most recent. I don't know why you think your finding a dingbat is news, but if we found one, our knees are jerking...

I think you're being one way, old Steve. That ain't right.

excon

If we LOOKED for righty's who make you look bad, they're all over the place.

If I were LOOKING for lefties to make them look bad that would be no challenge either, but I'm not looking for any such thing. Al just happened to be in the news this morning as in "current events" on the subject we're discussing.

And, if I were echoing "Tea Party-Type hyperbole" he might have a point, but I expressed my opinion based on my observations using my own words from my own original thoughts.

NK is jumping to conclusions, making assumptions, reacting without regard to fact, i.e. his knees are jerking.

Ah so you don't know either the words that you type.

When you can tell me I've used it wrong you may have a point.

NK is jumping to conclusions, making assumptions, reacting without regard to fact, i.e. his knees are jerking.How does that apply here where you used it: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/2284417-post140.html

You used Al Sharpton as an example and I told you that we could use the teabaggers as the same type of example. The only jerking I see here is the conservative ranting circlejerk.

We do, we have universal health care. :)

But seriously: World's Fattest Countries - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat_2.html)
You = 9th, us = 35th

I see the US is right up there with the poorest countries in the world, If I didn't know better I would think there is a correlation between obesity and wealth.

I can remember when LBJ & crew forced all the seniors to drop their private insurance and go on medicare. It will be better for you, they said. Premiums will be lower, they said, and they were, for a while.

Now, 50 years later, the budget for Medicare is merely 8 times what the government figures said it would be now.

With what is being touted as the bill for this health crash program, just multiply they by 8 or 10 to see what it will really cost.

How long can we continue to borrow money to pay interest on the national debt?

And when, (not if) our economy fails as did that of the USSR, it will surely bring down the economies of the rest of the industralized world.

Talk about chaos!

That's when the 4 horsemen of the Book of Revelation will ride.

The world bankers have finally set up a doomsday financial machine that will bring war, famine, and global death on a massive scale.

They will be caught in it as well as everyone else.

(Hey, my guesses are as accurate as anyone else's.)

Do the Markets Love the Health Care Revamp? - MarketBeat - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/03/22/do-the-markets-the-love-health-care-revamp/)

Despite all the warnings of a government takeover and socialism in the healthcare sector, I think this bill is actually good thing for big healthcare / pharma corporations. Surely they had enough money to 1] eliminate the public option, which I am not in favor anyhow, 2] and enough political clout to write, and I have not read this 2000 page bill, provisions that favor them.
Forced new customers, whom they can cherry pick the healthiest and leave the sickest and most costly to the taxpayers. Hmmmm privatized profits and socialized risk, déjà vu, ahem... housing bubble and crash. Just lovely.


G&P

It's wonderful that we have such great constitutional minds like John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, looking out for us. He said Obamacare is constitutional under the "good and welfare clause (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63182)."


Conyers said: “Under several clauses, the good and welfare clause and a couple others. All the scholars, the constitutional scholars that I know -- I’m chairman of the Judiciary committee, as you know -- they all say that there’s nothing unconstitutional in this bill and if there were, I would have tried to correct it if I thought there were.”

Can someone point me to the "good and welfare clause?"

Of course there is no such thing ;although he is probably referring to the "general welfare clause " which is actually a subtext to the " taxing and spending clause" Article 1 Sec 8 clause 1 .

It is useful to note that when discussing the general welfare clause and if it was a grant of unbridled power to Congress power to Congress James Madison observed that
If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once. The founders were clear that the specific powers granted Congress in Article One were enumerated ,specific ,and limitted . It did not include a power to force people to buy a service . That is where the law suits should begin.

I think it is useful to note that when discussing the "general welfare clause" would be that the founding fathers thought it important enough to mention twice.

Hello Steve:

I don't know what he's talking about, but he's not going to be ruling on the Constitutionality of the issue. The Supreme Court is. Here's what I found. The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

It's been used as the basis for laws that tell you what you CAN'T buy. It just seems logical to me, that if the government has the power to tell you what you CAN'T buy, it's a short leap to assume they also have the power to tell you what you MUST buy. The Constitution makes no distinction between which PART of a transaction can be "regulated", and which part can't. In fact, the term "regulate commerce" means exactly that. They have the power to REGULATE commerce. That certainly must include the power to make you buy stuff. No?

Tom has argued that it's good for the government to be able to prevent you from buying stuff like unhealthy meat, untested prescription medications, and all sorts of illegal drugs... I don't disagree. However, laws in this country are Constitutional, NOT because they have a good result. They're legal because the Constitution says so. That's the ONLY guideline we use.

excon

I see no 'individual' mandate whatsoever in that clause. You listed what was specifically enumerated, specific entities, "foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." I don't see Steve's name in there.

It is useful to note that when Roosevelt got Social Security he argued that it was an insurance plan.But he knew the courts would never buy the argument that people could be forced to buy a service. So Congress jumped through hoops to twist the language in the law. When SS went before the court Roosevelt's lawyers argued that it was not an insurance policy at all ;but instead just another tax. I'm not sure if the courts bought that or not . What I do know is that SCOTUS was intimidated by Roosevelt who had just recently attempted to pack the court ;so they ruled in his favor.

There is nothing in the reading of the commerce clause that would suggest that Congress has the authority to compel every man women and child in the country to purchase a product whether they wanted to or not.
All the cases where the Commerce clause has been used expansively have been in the selling and production of a good and not in the purchase .
Since the consumer is not involved in the production of the product ;the argument that the commerce clause is applicible is a bridge too far.


In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the court upheld a federal law regulating the national wheat markets. The law was drawn so broadly that wheat grown for consumption on individual farms also was regulated. Even though this rule reached purely local (rather than interstate) activity, the court reasoned that the consumption of homegrown wheat by individual farms would, in the aggregate, have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and so was within Congress's reach.

The court reaffirmed this rationale in 2005 in Gonzales v. Raich, when it validated Congress's authority to regulate the home cultivation of marijuana for personal use. In doing so, however, the justices emphasized that -- as in the wheat case -- "the activities regulated by the [Controlled Substances Act] are quintessentially economic." That simply would not be true with regard to an individual health insurance mandate.

The otherwise uninsured would be required to buy coverage, not because they were even tangentially engaged in the "production, distribution or consumption of commodities," but for no other reason than that people without health insurance exist. The federal government does not have the power to regulate Americans simply because they are there. Significantly, in two key cases, United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court specifically rejected the proposition that the commerce clause allowed Congress to regulate noneconomic activities merely because, through a chain of causal effects, they might have an economic impact. These decisions reflect judicial recognition that the commerce clause is not infinitely elastic and that, by enumerating its powers, the framers denied Congress the type of general police power that is freely exercised by the states.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082103033.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Hello again, tom:

It's a good argument. I don't know what argument the Dems will come up with. I made that stuff up about the Commerce Clause. I ain't no constitutional lawyer - although I play one on AMHD.

excon

All I know is all this celebrating over this 'victory' is rather unbecoming. Joe "God rest her soul" Biden said this morning "this is a big f---ing deal!" during his celebration.

Just who did the Dems defeat? The American people is who, and they oughtta be damned ashamed for celebrating the defeat of the their own people. That is a big f---ing deal...

Hello again, Steve:

In our center left country, lots of people think it IS a big deal.

excon

PS> You keep on saying we're center right, but you lost the elections of '06. You lost in '08, and you just lost again in '10. Looks pretty center left to me. I'm just saying...

Not surprisingly you missed the point. Every indicator showed the American people opposed this legislation. The Dems defeated not the Republicans, but the American people and now they're celebrating that 'victory.'

And if we're 'center left' you'd think Obama would be over 46%, Pelosi would be over 11% and Harry Reid would be over 8% in their approval ratings.

Hello Steve:

Way back when your side was in charge, you people spent years funding the Iraq War without end and without conditions even in the face of extreme public opposition, which consistently remained in the 60-65% range. Indeed, the wholesale irrelevance of public opinion was a central tenet of GOP rule for eight years, as illustrated by this classic exchange between Cheney and ABC News' Martha Radditz in May, 2008, regarding the administration's escalation of the war at exactly the same time that public demands for withdrawal were at their height:

RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it's not worth fighting.

CHENEY: So?

RADDATZ: So? You don't care what the American people think?

CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

excon

Every indicator showed the American people opposed this legislation.Hello again, Steve:

Every indicator?? Nahhh. I don't think so. As a matter of fact, I think you interpret THIS poll like you did all the others. That would be exactly WRONG. A new CNN poll today finds that Americans oppose the current health care plan by a margin of 59-39%. However, a sizable portion of those opposed, 13%, oppose it because "it is not liberal enough".

Thus, a majority of Americans either support the plan or believe it should be more liberal (52%), while only a minority (43%) oppose the plan on the ground that it is too liberal.

Them's the numbers.

excon

Going in they were supportive, no? Going in how many Democrats were on board? That's not how it was with health care now was it?

P.S. Inspired by the pro-abortion crowd I intend to start a campaign for Congress to "keep their laws off my body."

Hello again, Steve:

Every indicator??? Nahhh. I don't think so. As a matter of fact, I think you interpret THIS poll like you did all the others. That would be exactly WRONG. A new CNN poll today finds that Americans oppose the current health care plan by a margin of 59-39%. However, a sizable portion of those opposed, 13%, oppose it because "it is not liberal enough".

Thus, a majority of Americans either support the plan or believe it should be more liberal (52%), while only a minority (43%) oppose the plan on the ground that it is too liberal.

Them's the numbers.

excon

A prime example of the Will Rogers classic "lies, d*mn lies, and statistics."

Them's the numbers.

I don't care why, Americans opposed passage and they did it anyway. ABC summed it up for you:


An additional point is the very stable nature of these views (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/03/health-care-reform-an-opinion-summary.html). While individual measures differ in their results, each, generally, has been little changed over time. Opposition, as CNN measures it, was essentially the same in January as it is now (57 percent then vs. today's 59 percent). The even division, as Kaiser measures it, has been steady for months, as it has in our own polling.

I don't care why, Americans opposed passage and they did it anyway. Hello again, Steve:

So?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

So?

And that sums up exactly the attitude of this congress and this administration.

I don't care about public opinion... it is a yo-yo . Perhaps the people who like what happened last week can look to Mass. For portents of things to come.


The Bay State is also suffering from what the Massachusetts Medical Society calls a "critical shortage" of primary-care physicians. As one would expect, expanded insurance has caused an increase in demand for medical services. But there hasn't been a corresponding increase in the number of doctors. As a result, many patients are insured in name only: They have health coverage but can't find a doctor.

Fifty-six percent of Massachusetts internal medicine physicians no longer are accepting new patients, according to a 2009 physician work-force study conducted by the Massachusetts Medical Society. For new patients who do get an appointment with a primary-care doctor, the average waiting time is 44 days, the Medical Society found.

As Dr. Sandra Schneider, the vice president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, told the Boston Globe last April, "Just because you have insurance doesn't mean there's a [primary care] physician who can see you."

The difficulties in getting primary care have led to an increasing number of patients who rely on emergency rooms for basic medical services. Emergency room visits jumped 7% between 2005 and 2007. Officials have determined that half of those added ER visits didn't actually require immediate treatment and could have been dealt with at a doctor's office—if patients could have found one.

Grace-Marie Turner: The Failure of RomneyCare - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703625304575115691871093652.html)

And that sums up exactly the attitude of this congress and this administration.Hello again, Steve:

See #161 above.

excon

That meshes with a recent survey (http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/17/medicus-survey-finds-doctors-do-not-like-this-health-care-bill-one-bit/#ixzz0j6izDAsa) of physicians that said "46.3% of primary care physicians (family medicine and internal medicine) feel that the passing of health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine." A lot of good insurance will do if you can't get to a doctor.

On the legislation front, Tom Coburn (who made an awesome warning (http://townhall.com/blog/g/337b7a12-3d2e-45df-8aa0-299dceec5b7d) to Dems last week), has proposed an amendment (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/23/dems-to-oppose-the-most-a_n_510675.html) that's pretty tough to vote against - although the Dems are vowing to do so - because they can't afford for the bill to be sent back to the House for another vote.


On Tuesday, the GOP put its strategy into action, with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okl.) introducing an amendment beyond agreeable. Titled "No Erectile Dysfunction Drugs To Sex Offenders" it would literally prohibit convicted child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders from getting erectile dysfunction medication from their health care providers.

While it will undoubtedly be difficult for Democrats to vote against the measure (one can conjure up the campaign ads already), the party plans to do just that.

"Democrats in the Senate are very unified that this is not going back to the House," Sen. Wyden (D-Ore.) told the Huffington Post on Tuesday, minutes before the Coburn amendment was introduced.

LOL, I can't wait to see Dems defend that one this fall.

LOL, I can't wait to see Dems defend that one this fall.Hello again, Steve:

You don't have to wait. The bill is unconstitutional on its face. If a sex offender shouldn't be on the streets, there's laws that can be passed that KEEP him in jail. If someone is dangerous, THAT'S the PROPER avenue to take. But, to let someone out of prison, and then punish them for the rest of their lives is abhorrent to the American way. It punishes people for what they MIGHT do. That's against the Constitution. You can't retroactively enact a law, meaning all the offenders presently ON the registry's won't be affected. Besides, I thought you didn't like the government standing in between you and your doctor.

Then, of course, there's the kids who are sexting each other today and being convicted of child porn. You don't want THEM to have a sex life. What about the guy who did nothing more than take a wizz in the alley? You don't want him to have a life either...

Nope. It's draconian, over the top, and exactly what I expect out of the right wing today. Once a society accepts that it should TORTURE, this kind of stuff is a natural outgrowth of that kind of demented thought.

excon

I fail to see where this amendment would punish a sex offender, it does nothing to prevent him/her from enjoying sex.

I fail to see where this amendment would punish a sex offender, it does nothing to prevent him/her from enjoying sex.You don't require an erect penis for sex?

I fail to see where this amendment would punish a sex offender, it does nothing to prevent him/her from enjoying sex.Hello again, Steve:

I didn't think you would. And, I'm not going to convince you. Trust me, I'm right.

excon

All it does is prevent insurance coverage for erectile dysfunction drugs to convicted sex offenders. It does nothing to prevent them from obtaining these or other treatments by other means. And since my tax dollars will be going to insure these sex offenders I darn sure don't want any part of paying for their erections. They can just buy it from one of those terrific Canadian pharmacies...

That's funny... you would think that is a bill that would get bipartisan support.

I'm thinking perhaps Barbara Boxer might co-sponsor the amendment .
Boxer: Cover Viagra? Then cover abortion - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/71217-boxer-cover-viagra-then-cover-abortion)

I think this is what will happen.

Everyone will pay for health insurance.

When they actually need health care, they will have to go to a doctor that does not accept insurance and only accepts cash.

Hello again, Steve:

You don't have to wait. The bill is unconstitutional on its face. If a sex offender shouldn't be on the streets, there's laws that can be passed that KEEP him in jail. If someone is dangerous, THAT'S the PROPER avenue to take. But, to let someone out of prison, and then punish them for the rest of their lives is abhorrent to the American way. It punishes people for what they MIGHT do. That's against the Constitution. You can't retroactively enact a law, meaning all the offenders presently ON the registry's won't be affected. Besides, I thought you didn't like the government standing in between you and your doctor.

Then, of course, there's the kids who are sexting each other today and being convicted of child porn. You don't want THEM to have a sex life. What about the guy who did nothing more than take a wizz in the alley? You don't want him to have a life either....

Nope. It's draconian, over the top, and exactly what I expect out of the right wing today. Once a society accepts that it should TORTURE, this kind of stuff is a natural outgrowth of that kind of demented thought.

excon

What they MIGHT do? They have already done it. Your sympathy lies with the offender and not those that were victimized or new victims?

Where in the constitution is it a "right" for any man to be able to have an erection? And at taxpayer expense?


G&P

I don't care about public opinion ....it is a yo-yo . Perhaps the people who like what happened last week can look to Mass. for portents of things to come.


Grace-Marie Turner: The Failure of RomneyCare - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703625304575115691871093652.html)

Agree and :

Medical News: Record Match Day Sees Increase in Primary Care Placements - in Public Health & Policy, Work Force from MedPage Today (http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/WorkForce/19112)

No amount of legislation or taxation can alter the reality of supply and demand.

Add 30 million "insured," to baby boomers now hitting medicare age, to an inadequate supply of primary care doctors, equals... WAITING LINES. Throw in "cost containment" and you have... RATIONING.

About half of primary care residency slots are not filled by US grads. The shortfall is made up of foreign medical grads [FMGs] . Why do foreign medical students come here? A better paying job. With "cost containment" limiting pay, or working harder for the same or less pay, the supply of FMGs to fill primary care slots will also go down. If you have not already noticed, seeing the doctor often means seeing their "extender" [ PA, NP ] and this trend will only increase.



G&P

In retrospect, Nancy Pelosi had a point. She said they'd have to pass Obamacare so we could know what was in it and she was right. The Dems didn't know it may not cover children until 2014, and now we're finding out sn alleged $5.4 billion revenue source for Obamacare will likely be negated by companies dropping prescription drug coverage for millions of retirees (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gmzNv5LYXOA6UM_XmUHdOe9augtQD9ELVL3G1).

And who is going to suffer the consequences? All those seniors who will be thrown into Medicare part D. Oh well, whatever it it takes to pass your agenda, right Claire McCaskill (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/89307-mccaskill-dems-overpromising-but-gop-run-by-chicken-little)?



McCaskill: Dems 'overpromising' on healthcare
By Eric Zimmermann - 03/26/10 10:22 AM ET

Democrats are "overpromising" about the benefits of healthcare, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said this morning.

The Missouri Democrat said her party has probably oversold the legislation that just became law.

"The side on which I'm on, that voted for the bill, probably is overpromising, [has] not been clear enough about the fact that this is going to be an incremental approach over time, [and] the benefits aren't going to be felt by most Americans immediately," McCaskill told MSNBC's Mornine Joe.

Hurry and Get your free Barack Obama commemorative health care reform certificate today! (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/get-your-free-barack-obama-commemorative-health-care-reform-certificate-today.html#ixzz0jlNQlruD)

Sheesh, how many Americans already have health insurance? How does that make health care "the privilege of a few" as this self-serving certificate says?

Questions reflecting confusion have flooded insurance companies, doctors' offices, human resources departments and business groups.

"They're saying, 'Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?' " said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com. The California-based company sells coverage from 185 health insurance carriers in 50 states.

Health care overhaul spawns mass confusion for public | McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/06/91696/health-care-overhaul-spawns-mass.html#ixzz0kQAF5XhX)

Health care overhaul spawns mass confusion for public Hello again, tom:

With the Democrats inability to explain it, and the Republicans lying about it, who's surprised?

excon

Hello again, tom:

With the Democrats inability to explain it,

They can't explain something they haven't read.


and the Republicans lying about it, who's surprised?

As if the Dems have been open and honest?

As if the Dems have been open and honest?Hello again, Steve:

Do you remember how lurch couldn't answer a simple question? It wasn't because he wasn't open and honest. It was because he couldn't speak plainly. The Republicans, even if what they spoke was a lie, spoke it plainly. Death panels is only two words - but it conveys sooooo much.

excon

Guess they had trouble explaining their stimulus plan also

YouTube - Obama Money - Where Did it Come From? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZ-Etb0k0Q#)

Do you remember how lurch couldn't answer a simple question? It wasn't because he wasn't open and honest. It was because he couldn't speak plainly.

I realize Democrats have trouble speaking plainly at times, Obama just uttered (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/04/it-must-be-a-record-for-the-week-if-the-not-the-year-or----who-knows----perhaps-the-entire-obama-presidencybut-in-boston-th.html) one sentence that was a mind-numbing 304 words long - but Pelosi was very plain when she said they'd have to pass the bill so we could know what was in it.

YouTube - Obama Money - Where Did it Come From?Hello again, tom:

You and Steve's penchant for finding boobs on the internet doesn't forward your arguments much. In fact, it diminishes from them if you need to use idiots to make your points.

excon

Hello again, tom:

You and Steve's penchant for finding boobs on the internet doesn't forward your arguments much. In fact, it diminishes from them if you need to use idiots to make your points.

A few boobs? Insurance companies are reporting on the boobs (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/07/1567193/public-confused-over-implementation.html#ixzz0kQoJ18A4), people calling and asking "'Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?'"

Gee ex, you're having a bad run lately with timely info coming out to refute your arguments. Although it doesn't say "death panels," a NY Times article today gets to the point we've been making, How can we learn to say no? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/business/economy/07leonhardt.html?hp)

We came to the same conclusions long before Obamacare passed while the enablers like the Times denied any such thing. Now that it has passed they're admitting the inevitable, what they've known all along but wouldn't say BEFORE the legislation passed... all those things you mocked us for as liars.

Aside from "learning how to say no," we're also hearing how taxes are going to have to be raised to pay for this in spite of all of O's promises not to, and that this would not only magically pay for itself, but save money and reduce the deficit. The WH is already hinting at a VAT (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6355N520100406). Welcome to the United States of Europe.

Although it doesn't say "death panels," a NY Times article today gets to the point we've been making, How can we learn to say no? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/business/economy/07leonhardt.html?hp) Actually if you read the article it says nothing of the sort. The article is written to showcase that insurance companies would order often unnecassary treatments to elevate their profits and americans have come to view this as normal. This will likely come to an end. Here's an excerpt:

We want the best possible care, no matter what. Yet we often do not get it because the current system tends to deliver more care even when it means worse care.

It’s not just CT scans. Caesarean births have become more common, with little benefit to babies and significant burden to mothers. Men who would never have died from prostate cancer have been treated for it and left incontinent or impotent. Cardiac stenting and bypasses, with all their side effects, have become popular partly because people believe they reduce heart attacks. For many patients, the evidence suggests, that’s not true.

The same Slimes that writes that paragraph does little to address tort reform ;which is the real reason excessive testing and procedures are conducted .


It is not the insurance companies ordering them.. that doesn't even make sense. The last thing they want to do is cover unnecessary treatment . I thought the big belly -ache with the insurance companies was the denial of services... and not ordering more they would have to cover.

Actually if you read the article it says nothing of the sort. The article is written to showcase that insurance companies would order often unnecassary treatments to elevate their profits and americans have come to view this as normal. This will likely come to an end. Here's an excerpt:

You might want to rethink that. If an insurance company pays for more tests and treatments it certainly doesn't elevate their profits.

No matter how the Times spins this, the fact is the government will now be more and more involved in treatment decisions, and necessarily because of the cost, more denials.

Actually if you read the article it says nothing of the sort. The article is written to showcase that insurance companies would order often unnecassary treatments to elevate their profits and americans have come to view this as normal. This will likely come to an end. Here's an excerpt:

It is the doctors that order tests, and often times they have to get "approval" from the insurance company before certain tests or procedures are ordered. The writer is clearly not in the medical field.

If you read and analyze any good clinical trial - the conclusions are nuanced and subpopulation data are analyzed. To say that cardiac bypass or stenting does not save lives or prevent heart attacks or a worse heart attack is clearly a gross misrepresentation of the procedure.

The link to the "Courage " trial clearly state that in STABLE coronary artery disease... someone who is having symptoms of an ACUTE heart attack or UNSTABLE heart disease is going to BENEFIT from intervention. But the NYT article does not mention this.

This is why the professionals [ doctors ] : not the politicians, not the accountants, not the insurance companies, not the lawyers, not the journalists, not the drug companies, and certainly not thousands of pages of legalese should, in partnership with the patient, determine what is best.




G&P

This is why the professionals [ doctors ] : not the politicians, not the accountants, not the insurance companies, not the lawyers, not the journalists, not the drug companies, and certainly not thousands of pages of legalese should, in partnership with the patient, determine what is best.This is how we have it in Canada. No legalese, just us and our doctor.
Remember, it's Speech who submitted that newspaper article as representative of what they were saying so take up it's validity with him not me.

A day before the McClatchy story ran, the Financial Times reported that the "demand for free medicines in the U.S. has increased sharply following the 2008 economic crisis."

Rich Sagall, creator of NeedyMeds.org, a clearinghouse that helps patients find free medication, told the Times that he is "receiving 14,000 inquiries a day, up from 10,000 in late 2008."

This is happening at a time when "pharmaceutical companies say they have expanded donations through 'patient assistance programs' by typically 15% to 25%."

The United States was once a nation of proudly independent people. But now Americans in large numbers think they deserve free access to the Web, no-cost college educations, and jobs they don't deserve and can't be fired from. They believe others should be responsible for their mortgages and feel they have a right to early, cushy retirements at someone else's expense.

This unsustainable condition is perpetuated by a federal tax code that is forcing a shrinking number of taxpayers to fund the government while removing a growing number of Americans from the income tax rolls.

According to the Tax Foundation, 60% of U.S. households were taking in more in benefits and services from government six years ago than they paid out in taxes. That will rise to 70% or more under President Obama's spending hikes.

At some point, there won't be enough independent and productive citizens to keep the freeloaders living in the luxury to which they've become accustomed. That won't be the end of America, but we'll be able to see it from there.
'I Want My Free M.D.' - IBD - Investors.com (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=529592)

But now Americans in large numbers think they deserve free access to the Web, no-cost college educations, and jobs they don't deserve and can't be fired from. They believe others should be responsible for their mortgages and feel they have a right to early, cushy retirements at someone else's expense.Where does he get his data to come up with that conclusion?

But now Americans in large numbers think they deserve free access to the Web, no-cost college educations, and jobs they don't deserve and can't be fired from. They believe others should be responsible for their mortgages and feel they have a right to early, cushy retirements at someone else's expense.Hello again, tom:

I'm just guessing here, but when Americans see corporate America getting subsidy's they don't deserve, bailouts they don't get, government guaranteeing their investments, and a genuine distaste by lawmakers to hold them accountable for the billions they ripped us off for, Americans just want their share. I don't blame 'em.

They DID, did they not, just witness a HUGE giveaway of their money to the health insurance industry and big pharma??

excon

This is how we have it in Canada. No legalese, just us and our doctor.
Remember, it's Speech who submitted that newspaper article as representative of what they were saying so take up it's validity with him not me.

Yep, the doc may think knee replacement surgery is the answer and you agree... and 293 days later (http://www.waittimes.net/waittimes/en/wt_data_map.aspx?LHIN=10&Mod=0) you can have one at the Kingston General Hospital.

My mother had hers 8 days later.

See... you are a tea partier after all! But maybe not .

Because tea partiers also see their neighbor who gamed the system getting a mortgage deal by the government that their taxes are paying for... when they sacrificed and lived in cheap rentals to build up equity and then purchased a home within their means.

None of that would've happened if there weren't a politician involved trying to level the playing field or being compassionate with other people's money .

In fact this whole health care thingy is an attempt at that compassion with other people's money that our pols are so good at.

Hello again:

Dudes...

In response to the right wing screed that the government is going to ration health care, I've argued here many times, that insurance companies ALREADY ration care. I've pointed out that our system of paid for health care itself, rations care to those who can afford it. Plus, what I haven't mentioned, is that your own doctor, by himself and WITHOUT any government intervention, rations your medical care.

Health care ALL over the world IS rationed. That's just so. There are MORE people needing care, than there are people providing it. It ain't no different here. Get over it. THIS law is an attempt to serve MORE people with limited care. Does that mean, that even here, in this great country of ours, that if you need a knee replaced, you might have to wait longer than you'd like, so we can take care of the people who need emergency care? I think it does.

I'm fine with that.

excon

My mother had hers 8 days later.

Good for her, NK, but does anything satisfy you as a factual presentation on Canadian health care? The link (http://www.waittimes.net/waittimes/en/wt_data_map.aspx?LHIN=10&Mod=0) I furnished showing a 293 day wait time for a knee replacement at the Kingston General Hospital came straight from your government (http://www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation/wait_times/wait_mn.html).

P.S. You should find it disturbing just knowing your government has to set up a website for Canadian citizens to check on wait times.

The link (http://www.waittimes.net/waittimes/en/wt_data_map.aspx?LHIN=10&Mod=0) I furnished showing a 293 day wait time for a knee replacement at the Kingston General Hospital .No it doesn't. It doesn't show that at all. Do you even visit the pages you link to??

No it doesn't. It doesn't show that at all. Do you even visit the pages you link to????

I'm not that stupid, NK, the page must have expired or something. Here's the pdf attached. I'm still amazed you don't find it disturbing that your government has to even list wait times.

Hello again:

Dudes....

In response to the right wing screed that the government is going to ration health care, I've argued here many times, that insurance companies ALREADY ration care. I've pointed out that our system of paid for health care itself, rations care to those who can afford it. Plus, what I haven't mentioned, is that your own doctor, by himself and WITHOUT any government intervention, rations your medical care.

Health care ALL over the world IS rationed. That's just so. There are MORE people needing care, than there are people providing it. It ain't no different here. Get over it. THIS law is an attempt to serve MORE people with limited care. Does that mean, that even here, in this great country of ours, that if you need a knee replaced, you might have to wait longer than you'd like, so we can take care of the people who need emergency care? I think it does.

I'm fine with that.

excon

The rationing, because there is finite resources that can't meet the demand, in Obamacare - is coming from the government. You're a vet - I've worked in the VA system. The VA hospital is, more often than not, not local but hour[s] away depending on what part of the country your in. Medication formularies are limited. You should know all this.

If we went to a mandatory catastrophic coverage only system, and increase flex accounts, not limit them, and increase HSAs for everything else - each individual rations his own healthcare dollars as they see fit - without a huge money sucking government or private insurance company in the mix.

I thought you were a libertarian?

We would still have health departments, medicaid for the truly needy.

Speaking of rationing : do the math:

Limited physician and nurse supply, dwindling birthrates and a lesser percent of the population that is productive [ about40% or more do not pay any federal income tax ]

Plus

Increasing demand: baby boomers now medicare age, 30- 50 million more people now on government dependency program. Illegals?

Does not equal lower costs or even stable costs but RATIONING AND WAITING LISTS BY THE GOVERNMENT.



G&P

I wonder if Robert Gibbs is dumb enough to believe the propaganda he is expected to regurgitate in front of reporters... or if he's just a liar who will say anything he's told to say by his party.

limited physician and nurse supply, dwindling birthrates and a lesser percent of the population that is productive [ about40% or more do not pay any federal income tax ]

Just reported on Wednesday, almost half of US households pay no federal income tax (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1).


The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

I must be doing something wrong, I'm still paying my own way.

almost half of US households pay no federal income tax.Hello again, Steve:

Yeah. The middle class is disappearing. You don't pay any taxes when the factory you used to work for closed down, and now you're flipping burgers for Wendy's.

excon

Well this affordable health care is going to break me.

Just got our company insurance statement for this coming year, they are raising the rates at least 50 percent, soif you were paying 400 a month, now you will be paying 600 a month. A lot of workers don't know how they will be able to keep their insurance.

That's the price of having to pay for all the other people that will get it for free.

Democrats believe that is fair somehow.

Thats the price of having to pay for all the other people that will get it for free. Democrats believe that is fair somehow.Hello again, smoothy:

As we've discussed, your fire department is a perfect example of socialism at work. It just so happens to be socialism you LIKE, though. Tell me, if your town has to raise taxes to pay for the fire department, do you get pissed at the people who had their fires put out for FREE?

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

As we've discussed, your fire department is a perfect example of socialism at work. It just so happens to be socialism you LIKE, though. Tell me, if your town has to raise taxes to pay for the fire department, do you get pissed at the people who had their fires put out for FREE?

excon

Make the 48% of the Anerican public that pay absolutely NO federal taxes NOW pay them and we might have a discussion here.

Why should the lazy 48% gert something FREE while the 52% that actually pay taxes have to pay everything. Except fopr Congress that exempts themselves... and Hollywood who doesn't do their share even if THEY are grossly overpaid.

And exactly since when do Fire Departments get paid by the Federal Government.

95% of the fire departments where I have ever lived get no pay at all... or any tax reimbursement at all. They are volunteer, and raise their own money for equipment.

If you like Socialism so damn much... hand over ALL of your money to the government, you and all the other liberals... or is it like typical iberals... they are incredibly generous with everyone ELSE'S money... but not their own.

I suppose YOU don't contribute anything on Boot drives the Fire Depts hold... do you? And do you even KNOW a fireman... much less several?

And exactly since when do Fire Departments get paid by the Federal Government. Why should the lazy 48% gert something FREE while the 52% that actualy pay taxes have to pay everything.Hello again, smoothy:

As I explained earlier, socialism is an IDEA. It can be practiced on a national level, or on a local level, exactly like your fire department. It has nothing to do with the federal government. It has to do with pooling risk. You should know what these terms you bandy about mean.

So, I gather you DO get pissed at the lazy people who let their city or town put out their fires for them - for FREE. I understand..

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

As I explained earlier, socialism is an IDEA. It can be practiced on a national level, or on a local level, exactly like your fire department. It has nothing to do with the federal government. It has to do with pooling risk. You should know what these terms you bandy about mean.

So, I gather you DO get pissed at the lazy people who let their city or town put out their fires for them - for FREE. I understand..

exconHow is a fire department socialist? I get pissed at the Lazy people who pay no taxes... contribute little to the community... and yet suck it dry begging for handouts they think they are owed.

Lazy people don't join the fire department, its too much like real work, which it is, and they are too special to work for wages on par with their education, experience, and ability level... they rarely make good neighbors, cause MOST of the crime the police have to deal with... and always cause our taxes to be far higher then they should be.

Most firemen in the country do not draw a paycheck from the fire dept... they all have other jobs. Its usually in the larger cities where too many lazy people tend to congregate to have enough volunteers that you find paid firemen.

Hello again, smoothy:

As I explained earlier, socialism is an IDEA. It can be practiced on a national level, or on a local level, exactly like your fire department. It has nothing to do with the federal government. It has to do with pooling risk. You should know what these terms you bandy about mean.

So, I gather you DO get pissed at the lazy people who let their city or town put out their fires for them - for FREE. I understand..

excon

We don't have any of those. The municipal Fire Department is paid from City property taxes.

Socialism is about the ownership and control of the means of production of goods, not the provision of a service.
Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism)

Socialism is about the ownership and control of the means of production of goods, not the provision of a service.Hello again, Cats:

Then you guys are going to have to stop calling the health care law socialized medicine, cause that's a service. The service the fire department produces is putting out fires. The means of production of that service, are wholly owned by the government. That's socialism too, like it or not.

Smoothy won't answer my question. Maybe you will. Does it piss you off that you pay for the service that saves your neighbors house, and he doesn't pay any more than you do? Smoothy doesn't see the connection to the recently passed health care law? I'll bet you do.

excon

Hello again, Cats:

Then you guys are going to have to stop calling the health care law socialized medicine, cause that's a service. The service the fire department produces is putting out fires. The means of production of that service, are wholly owned by the government. That's socialism too, like it or not.

Smoothy won't answer my question. Maybe you will. Does it piss you off that you pay for the service that saves your neighbors house, and he doesn't pay any more than you do? Smoothy doesn't see the connection to the recently passed health care law? I'll bet you do.

excon

The recently enacted bill deals with Insurance coverage, a product.

It doesn't bother me a bit if they put my neighbor's house out. They keep it from spreading to my house and prevent me from smelling burnt house for months.

Food for thought on firefighter issues.

Ref:

An Onymous Lefty: Fire Department Stands On Principle, leaves house of non-member to burn down (http://anonymouslefty.blogspot.com/2006/03/fire-department-stands-on-principle.html)

Government run and mandated health care IS socialized medicine.

Just like any other sector of the economy that can be and should be privately and competitively run by either private or publicly owned corporations or individuals.

Look at Cuba...

Look at the old East Germany...

Look at the old Soviet Union...

Look at any other commie loving country with a domineering and overbearing government.

Name one Government run and owned enterprise that consumes NO tax dollars... and turns a profit purely based on the quality of services it offers without enjoying a government mandated monopoly status? And that doesn't force one group to buy its own services as well as pay for those of another who aren't required to pay their fair share.


And Robin Hood was not an upstanding citizen, robbery is robbery.

Hello again, smoothy:

So, you ARE pissed off at your lazy neighbor who let's YOU pay for his house NOT burning down. I understand.

excon

And Robin Hood was not an upstanding citizen, robbery is robbery.

Yes and the spirit of Robin Hood lives on in capitalist government. Haven't you seen it robbing the rich through taxation and giving to the poor. When the people were poor they loved the idea but as soon as they got some money...

yes and the spirit of Robin Hood lives on in capitalist government. Haven't you seen it robbing the rich through taxation and giving to the poor. When the people were poor they loved the idea but as soon as they got some money..................

Yeah... exactly the problem with so many people today. Why work for it if you can demand to get it free...

Hello again, smoothy:

So, you ARE pissed off at your lazy neighbor who let's YOU pay for his house NOT burning down. I understand.

excon

I don't have any lazy neighbors... they couldn't afford my neighborhood if they were. And any apartments are clear across town. That's where the bums live and most of our local crime occurs.

One of THE reasons I picked to live where I did. Far too few renters really give a hoot about respect for other peoples property... and not just their landlords property. And you aren't renting a house anywhere near me for less than $2,800 a month. And we have strict ordinances about who and how many unrelated people can share a property. And they ARE strictly enforced.

Hello again, smoothy:

I've TRIED to engage you in a discussion. You don't want to discuss. You want to spout slogans. I can't argue with a billboard. There's no satisfaction in that. I know you don't understand what I'm talking about. S'fine with me. Later.

excon

Gee, and I thought all that crap called Obamacare was supposed to fix this:

Senate Bill Sets a Plan to Regulate Premiums (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/health/policy/21health.html?ref=politics)


Fearing that health insurance premiums may shoot up in the next few years, Senate Democrats laid a foundation on Tuesday for federal regulation of rates, four weeks after President Obama signed a law intended to rein in soaring health costs.

Maybe that will help get them that Obamacare bounce they've been expecting.

Yes ,weren't we told premiums would go down under Obamacare ? I guess it's our fault as we fought complete takeover of a major percentage of the national economy .Silly us ;if only we had succumbed to the will of the collective.

yes ,weren't we told premiums would go down under Obamacare ? I guess it's our fault as we fought complete takeover of a a major percentage of the national economy .Silly us ;if only we had succumbed to the will of the collective.

Haven't you guys learned the one thing that is constant about insurance, premiums never go down? And here I was believing you are an advanced society

haven't you guys learned the one thing that is constant about insurance, premiums never go down? and here I was believing you are an advanced societyAnd another is NO government agencyever has ANY incentive to be efficient, their budgets would be reduced if that were true... and they NEVER want that to happen. They ALL or a 100% drain on taxpayers... leeches sucking the money out of the productive members of society to benefit themselves and the lazy members of the population.

leeches sucking the money out of the productive members of society to benifit themselves and the lazy members of the population.Hello again, smoothy:

So, it DOES piss you off that your lazy neighbors get their fire put out for free, while YOU'RE paying for it. I knew it.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

So, it DOES piss you off that your lazy neighbors get their fire put out for free, while YOU'RE paying for it. I knew it.

excon

You're living in a dream world.

Most fire departments in the country AREN'T paid for by tax dollars. They aren't where I live either. MY fire department is a volunteer dept.

MY tax dollars ARE however going to pay for illegals, and their demon spawn who occupy and consume 19% of our school budget EVERY year (actual numbers from MY counties school budget).

And since illegals can't have taxpayer ID's... they can't be paying taxes... and even if they were, 47% of the population pays NO income tax now... leaving 53% to pay for their lazy butts.

Ex, this ain't about fire departments you master of misdirection. I would say we were sold a bill of goods but it was rammed through against the will of the people under various guises, one of which was reducing premiums. The bill is crap, but at least Pelosi was right about needing to pass it so we'd know what it would (or wouldn't) do.

ex, this ain't about fire departments you master of misdirection.Hello again, Steve:

It's closer to fire departments than you think. The IDEA behind fire departments is that we POOL the risk of our houses burning down, and we ALL pay for that protection. Health care reform is the SAME thing. We POOL the risk of getting sick, and we ALL pay for that protection.

It's the SAME thing. It really is. Smoothy's point that it's different because HIS firemen aren't paid, is really rather ridiculous. Certainly, the fire trucks are taxpayer property. The 911 system IS taxpayer property. The fuel that goes into those trucks is paid for by the taxpayer.. However, the POINT that I was attempting to make, is that NOBODY pay's for their own fire protection. You pay for your neighbors and he pays for yours.

Now, I realize that it's just not possible for you righty's to make that connection.. But, that's NOT going to stop me from trying to educate you.

excon

You're living in a dream world.

Most fire departments in the country AREN'T paid for by tax dollars. They aren't where I live either. MY fire department is a volunteer dept.Hello again, smoothy:

Unless your community hires a PRIVATE fire department, ALL the fire departments in this great country of ours are TAX PAYER SUPPORTED. To argue that they're NOT, because YOUR fire fighters are volunteers, misses the point.

But, I used to you missing the point.

excon

Apples and oranges. If my neighbors house goes up in smoke there is a risk to me because my house could catch fire from the sparks.
That is why communities think it a good use of tax dollars; to provide for the common safety of the community .

apples and oranges. If my neighbors house goes up in smoke there is a risk to me because my house could catch fire from the sparks.
That is why communities think it a good use of tax dollars; to provide for the common safety of the community .Hello again, tom:

Apples and APPLES. If your neighbor girl goes to school with UNTREATED strep throat, your CHILDREN are at RISK, and so is your FAMILY. That's why looking out for your neighbor's health is a GOOD use of tax dollars - to provide for the common safety of the community.

Like I said, the connection is IMPOSSIBLE for righty's to make. Maybe it's because you guys all eat the same thing. Or, maybe you all watch the same TV channel.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Unless your community hires a PRIVATE fire department, ALL the fire departments in this great country of ours are TAX PAYER SUPPORTED. To argue that they're NOT, because YOUR fire fighters are volunteers, misses the point.

But, I used to you missing the point.

excon

YOU are missing the point... volunteer fire departments are NOT taxpayer supported. I don't know where in the hell you are pulling that information from... but it's a dark place that doesn't smell very pleasant.

I have a number of personal friends who are volunteer firemen... and in fact family members have been going back further than 30 years. They don't get grants... or even matching funds, much less have the bills paid by taxpayers via tax dollars.

And certainly unlike Obamas brand of SOCIALISM... his homeboys don't get something for free when 53% of the public is extorted to pay not only for their own... but the lazy 47% who won't as well.

That's only a good idea to the lazy SOB's who won't be forced to pay anything.

It then would be in the community interest to decide that sick children shouldn't go to school.But it is not the community's responsibility to make sure she goes to the doctor or to pay for it.

Perhaps you could make the argument that a vaccination program is in the community interest . I see no rationale that says my neighbor should pay for my sniffles .

Take your argument to it's logical conclusion .If it's in my interest to make sure my neighbor or my neighbor's daughter doesn't get sick then why not mandate that they go for an annual check up and have their records public ? Why not ? If mine and your health is really a matter of public concern then let's post everyone's health records .
Let's really get draconian and demand that my neighbor and child participate in mandatory exercise regime to keep their weight in check . I want details about what they eat and drink.

Back to your fire analogy..
If your house becomes a fire hazard it becomes a community concern subject to enforcement action . You can't wire it without a certified electrician right? and if you attempted to an inspector would stop you and post a bright red notice on your house telling your neighbors of your violation.

Is that what you are advocating ? Nope ,you just want us to pay without demanding any reciprocal responsible actions in return.

YOU are missing the point.....volunteer fire departments are NOT taxpayer supported. Hello again, smoothy:

Let's take this a step at a time. It's fine that YOUR firemen don't get paid. There's lots of community's that are served that way. But, there's a lot of other expenses involved with running a fire department than just payroll. Who owns the fire trucks your volunteer department uses? Who pays the 911 operator? Who pays for gasoline that goes into those trucks? Who owns or pays rent on the station WHERE the fire truck is kept? Who buys the firefighters equipment?

I'm going to stop there. I know you don't get it. I'm not trying to convince you, though. That AIN'T going to happen. I'm writing for the other people who're reading this thread.

excon

You pay for your neighbors and he pays for yours.

Actually, more and more fire departments are assessing fees for fire and other emergency services (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=7wd&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=fire+department+fees&aq=f&aqi=g2g-z1g7&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=). Where've you been?

Now can we get back to this crap of a bill that's been foisted on us by a bunch of out of control Democrats?

Actually, more and more fire departments are assessing fees for fire and other emergency services (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=7wd&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=fire+department+fees&aq=f&aqi=g2g-z1g7&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=). Where've you been?

Now can we get back to this crap of a bill that's been foisted on us by a bunch of out of control Democrats?Hello again, Steve:

Where have I been? Living in a progressive city where they don't do those things.

Foisted?? FOISTED?? I don't know. The Democrats were ELECTED. The Constitution says that the majority can pass laws. If the minority doesn't like it, they can throw the bums out. That doesn't sound like "foisted" to me. It sounds like our democratic Constitutional process at work.

However, I'm used to you guys screaming words like tyranny, foisted, and rammed down our throats. But, that can simply be chalked up to sniveling by the losers.

I do agree with you though. Turning my beloved country into torturers was FOISTED on me.

excon

Foisted (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/foisted): 1. To pass off as genuine, valuable, or worthy

2. To impose (something or someone unwanted) upon another by coercion or trickery

3. To insert fraudulently or deceitfully

I'd say my use of the word is proper.

Hello again, smoothy:

Let's take this a step at a time. It's fine that YOUR firemen don't get paid. There's lots of community's that are served that way. But, there's a lot of other expenses involved with running a fire department than just payroll. Who owns the fire trucks your volunteer department uses? Who pays the 911 operator? Who pays for gasoline that goes into those trucks? Who owns or pays rent on the station WHERE the fire truck is kept? Who buys the firefighters equipment?

I'm gonna stop there. I know you don't get it. I'm not trying to convince you, though. That AIN'T gonna happen. I'm writing for the other people who're reading this thread.

excon

The fire dept pays for ALL that stuff, and THEY own it... not the local government... YOU are talking out of your butt. And what does the 911 system have to do with local fire departments anyway. THey don't hold boot drives and have bingo for the fun of it. And yeah.. it gets expensive.


And unlike you... I am talking about a number of volunteer fire departments in three different states, ALL of which get no tax money, nor any pay for the work they do.

Now just because YOUR local fire department isn't a volunteer department doesn't mean they all are.

And in fact I did have ONE uncle who was a professional Fireman, who was NOT a volunteer, all the rest were volunteers in a number of different departments. Two even ran those departments. The others volunteered in different capacities.


Yes I grew up around that stuff even though I myself was never one... and am not just repeating misconceptions like some people.

My brother was one for decades... three uncles were volunteers, one more was a professional, and about a dozen friends and neighbors over the years were volunteers.

As tom alluded to (since we all eat the same thing), in the olden days we tried to keep our sick children home from school.


Like I said, the connection is IMPOSSIBLE for righty's to make.

I know, ignorant racists that we are. Btw, I provide equipment to with many a volunteer fire department for a living. They do or can get federal grants at times, some cities and counties do fund them to a certain degree, most get hand me down equipment, but this is how they typically raise money, fundraisers (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=kHz&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&ei=b3DQS_TFJ5LC8wTvsKg_&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAsQBSgA&q=vfd+fundraiser&spell=1).

Now can we get back to this crap bill that was foisted on us?

I think a great place to start is STOP allowing 47% of the population to avoid ALL federal taxes. If you live here and breath... you pay a tax like everyone else who works hard. And they should pay the same rates the rest of us do... so they have the same stake in anything that bumps up those rates at all.

See how many think freebies and handouts are such a great idea when THEY have to pay for them.

The fire dept pays for ALL that stuff, and THEY own it...not the local government....YOU are talking out of your butt. And what does the 911 system have to do with local fire departments anyway. THey don't hold boot drives and have bingo for the fun of it. And yeah..it gets expensive.s.Hello again, smoothy:

So, the fire department owns it, and it pays for all that stuff. Really? Is THAT what you think? It doesn't dawn on you to ask who owns the fire department? The fact that you hold events to raise money for your department, doesn't clue you in that your community owns the fire department.

Now, the word "community" has no legal bearing, so I suggest that there's another entity that owns the fire department, and that's probably your county. But, that's OK. We don't have to identify the particular entity that's responsible for the bills. Identifying it as COMMUNITY owned is good enough for my argument.

That's because a COMMUNITY owned fire department is SOCIALISM at work on the local level. Now, because your community needs to have bake sales and bingo to pay for your fire department only means that the entity that owns it, like your county, is going broke. It doesn't change the fact that you pool your risk against fire. Pooling risk is Socialism.

Socialism WORKS for you and your community. That would be unless you tell me that your fire department and your police department are PRIVATELY owned. Because that's the ONLY alternative to community owned. There ain't no in between.

Again, smoothy my friend, I know you don't understand what I just said. It's OK.

excon

Foisted (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/foisted): 1. To pass off as genuine, valuable, or worthy

2. To impose (something or someone unwanted) upon another by coercion or trickery

3. To insert fraudulently or deceitfully

I'd say my use of the word is proper.Hello again, Steve:

You say it was something that wasn't wanted. I say it was. You cite polls that support your conclusion. I cite the ELECTION which supports mine. You say it was trickery. I say it was our Constitution in action.

Aren't you the guys who call for RESTORING the Constitution?? You just saw it WORK the way it was DESIGNED to work. I can't image what Constitution you'd be referring to. We only have ONE.

Now, I agree with you. We were told that waterboarding ISN'T torture. We got tricked, but it was cool with you then.

excon

You say it was something that wasn't wanted. I say it was.

The FACTS are on my side, then and now.

I was talking to my wife's audiologist and learned that they have had to let one employee go and work themselves until 8 or 9 at night to get all the paperwork done. One job lost to Obamacare, as the medicare payment for hearing testing has been cut.

Additionally, they are going to have to buy expensive software and spend MANY hours transferring paper records to computer to satisfy government mandates.

Multiply this scenario by thousands or millions and see the unintended consequences of this health care boondoggle.