[Catsmine]

That was about 500 years ago -- in the '70s. Women didn't really have rights yet.

I was busy getting shot at the time. For what I thought were your freedoms.

[cdad]

That was about 500 years ago -- in the '70s. Women didn't really have rights yet.

What was all that bra burning stuff about in the 60's ? Or women's suffrage so they could vote ?

[Wondergirl]

What was all that bra burning stuff about in the 60's ? Or womens sufferage so they could vote ?

Women's suffrage in the U.S. - 1920, 19th Amendment

Bra burning didn't hit Illinois until the mid- to late '70s. Until then, we stayed home raising our kids and cooking three squares a day and cleaning house.

[smoothy]

Hello dad:

They DIDN'T take over the health industry no matter what FOX says. The insurance industry remains in tact. They're even strengthened under this bill...
excon

Do you really believe that propaganda? Really?

You do understand HOW insurance works... HOW they determine rates etc... and the fact they are only #88 on profitible businesses. With only 2.5% profit margine.

Dictate who gets covered rates go up... cover people who don't pay their share of premiums rates go way up.

Its NOT a zero sum action.

Listen to Nobama who says everyone gets covered for less money... believe that one and he has some prime Montana Ocean Front property to sell you for cheap too.

The budget office claims this will cost a LOT out of the gate... and yeah... you didn't see the revised numbers that came out after the preliminary numbers they left was waving around like they were final numbers did you? The drive by media didn't want everyone to see those numbers.

[excon]

Do you really believe that propaganda? Really?

You do understand HOW insurance works....HOW they determine rates etc....and the fact they are only #88 on profitible businesses. With only 2.5% profit margine.

Hello again, smoothy:

If you believe that regulation of ANY business means that government TOOK them over, then they've ALL been taken over, and we have NOTHING further to discuss.

excon

[tomder55]

When companies are faced with the choice of either offering insurance for all their employers ,or paying a fine that is much less than what a company typically pays in premiums for their employees... they will gladly dump their employees onto whatever government plan is concocted from this law.

The insurance companies will not be able to compete against a gvt. Entity that is designed to operate at a loss and we will get what the statists want... a government run and controlled health-care "entitlement ".
Where all the extra providers of services come from is an unanswered question at this point. But when some government death panel tells me they are going to deny me either services or drugs I will gladly point out to them that the Obots told me it was my God given right to the services they would deny me.

[smoothy]

Hello again, smoothy:

If you believe that regulation of ANY business means that government TOOK them over, then they've ALL been taken over, and we have NOTHING further to discuss.

excon

That isn't regulation.

You think 12 million Illegals will get covered for free? THey don't pay taxes... they don't exist here legally, How do you force THEM to pay their share rather than give them MORE free stuff for violating our laws.

You think anyone who puts their Cell phones as being more important than Health Insurance will get covered for free.


Well it might be free to them, but the rest of us who actually work for a living... and DO buy health insurance will be forced to pay THEIR bills.


You love big brother so much...


Let me see just what a bang-up job they have done thus far with Social Security... Medicare, Medicaid,

Hell, look at Obama... he has quadrupled the buget in just one year...

Funny how the people crying about Bushes buget which was 1/4 obamas was are silent.



They are all broke... and now they are going to ruin healthcare too.


What about the 16,000 NEW IRS agents that will get hired JUST to make sure that those of us who are responsible are FORCED to pay for those who won't make the sacrifice like the rest of us.

That's NO including the legions of OTHERS to "REGULATE" this that earn no profit... just suck more of our money from our wallets.

Nothing like hiring even more federal workers to "Save" money... real profitible bunch those federal workers are... without them we might actually be able to keep what we earn.

[excon]

Hello again, smoothy:

There's the law, and then there's what FOX SAYS the law is. Like our views on the Constitution, what the law is, and what FOX says it is, AIN'T THE SAME.

I can't argue with hysteria.

excon

[smoothy]

Hello again, smoothy:

There's the law, and then there's what FOX SAYS the law is. Like our views on the Constitution, what the law is, and what FOX says it is, AIN'T THE SAME.

I can't argue with hysteria.

excon

Really... Exactly WHAT section on WHAT page of the Healthcare bill are illegals SPECIFICALLY not covered...

What page are people who refuse to pay not covered...

Otherwise WE are being forced to pay which increases OUR costs.

Let the lazy and cheap people pay do without. Or make the sacrifices I had to make the last 30 years to pay for my own... as far as I'm concerned they can die in the gutter if they don't make the sacrifice because I earned my money... they are NOT entitled to take it.

Exactly HOW do you expect to cover the lazy inner city slum Dwellers that have money for drugs but not health insurance...


YOU are the way claiming that the Bill says something OTHER than what those NOT in Obamas worship circle say.

Obama is the biggest liar on the Planet...

I bet he never even graduated from Havard... There are no publicly available records to prove it.

Exactly WHY should I believe a word that liar has to say... I haven't seen proof of Anything Bozo ears has said yet. And just Because Pravda says it, doesn't nake it fact.


CBS... Caught Fabricating stories.

NY Times... caught fabricating stories...

Washington Post... caught fabricating stories...

All of them having an obvious love affair with Obama... yeah... real objective journalism there... (thats sarcasm if its not obvious)

They just repeat whatever propaganda the DNC puts out without questioning it.



THey claimed the it saves money... the CBO says it's a money loser out of the gate... why don't you hear THAT in any of those propaganda outlets?

[smoothy]

Oh... I get it.

Obama is the most honest man who ever walked the Planet, He is Jesus Christ returned and we should all bow to him and whorship him and anything he says as gospel.


Sorry... I don't whorship the man... and I have a deep seated mistrust of con-men who talk constantly trying to take your money but BS'ing you with lies and half truths.

Really did you ever look at what's in it? And not blindly believe what the DNC says that its all good, but don't believe what anyone else says and don't read it... if you are a good democrat you will not read the bill... just take their word for it.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The bill sets the tone for a Washington takeover of the health care system-one defined by federal regulation, mandates, myriad new programs, and higher federal spending. The bill would ensure the heavy hand of federal bureaucrats over the United States health care system, levying costly new taxes on individuals and businesses who do not comply. Many Members may question how additional federal mandates and bureaucratic diktats raising costs appreciably for all Americans would make health care more "affordable." Many Members may also be concerned that the bill's provisions-only partially masked by budgetary gimmicks and "smoke-and-mirrors" accounting-cost nearly $1.3 trillion, financed largely by significant job-killing tax increases imposed on small businesses during a recession.

Buried within the contents of the 1,990 page bill-as well as a separate 13-page bill (H.R. 3961) that would increase the deficit by more than $200 billion-are details that will see a massive federal involvement in the health care of every American, including the following:

•Creation of a government-run health plan that experts say would result in up to 114 million Americans losing their current coverage-a clear violation of any pledge to allow individuals to keep their current health plan;
•Nearly half a trillion dollars in tax increases on certain income filers, a majority of whom are small businesses-and $729.5 billion in tax increases overall;
•Insurance regulations that would raise costs for nearly all Americans, particularly young Americans, and confine choice of plans to those approved by a board of bureaucrats;
•New price controls on health insurance companies that provide perverse incentives to keep individuals sick rather than managing chronic disease, while impeding patient access to important services just because those services do not provide a direct clinical benefit;
•Additional federal mandates that would significantly erode the flexibility currently provided to employers-and could result in firms dropping coverage;
•Massive expansion of Medicaid to all individuals with incomes below 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Level ($33,075 for a family of four), replacing the existing private health coverage of millions with taxpayer-funded health care-and imposing tens of billions of dollars in new unfunded mandates on States;
•Denial of health plan choice to 15 million Americans, consigning them instead to a Medicaid program riddled with bureaucratic obstacles and poor access to care, such that its own beneficiaries do not consider it "real insurance;"
•Language opening employers operating group health plans to State law remedies and private causes of action-subjecting employers to review by 50 different State court rulings, thereby raising costs and encouraging more employers to drop their current health plans;
•Liability "reforms" intended to ensure trial lawyers do not have their compensation reduced, rather than meaningful changes that would reduce the cost of health care by eliminating wasteful defensive medicine practices;
•Establishment of a bureaucrat-run health Exchange that would abolish the private market for individual insurance outside the Exchange-and could evolve into a single-payer approach due to the Exchange's ability to cannibalize existing employer plans;
•Creation of a new government board, the "Health Benefits Advisory Committee," that would empower federal bureaucrats to impose new mandates on individuals and insurance carriers;
•Taxation of individuals who do not purchase a level of health coverage that meets the diktats of a board of bureaucrats-including those who cannot afford the coverage options provided;
•New, job-killing taxes-$135 billion worth-on employers who cannot afford to provide their workers health insurance, resulting in up to 5.5 million lost jobs, according to a model developed by President Obama's chief economic advisor;
•Penalties as high as $500,000 on employers who make honest mistakes when filing paperwork with the government health board-which would likely dissuade businesses from continuing to provide coverage, increasing enrollment in the bureaucrat-run Exchange;
•"Low-income" health insurance subsidies to a family of four making up to $88,200;
•Arbitrary and harmful cuts to popular Medicare Advantage plans that would result in millions of seniors losing their current health coverage; and
•Expanded price controls on pharmaceutical products that would discourage companies from producing life-saving breakthrough treatments.


Link to the complete 30 page unedited summary...

http://www.gop.gov/resources/library...y%20110309.pdf

[excon]

Obama is the biggest liar on the Planet.....

Hello again, smoothy:

Did you have a good weekend?

A while ago we were having a nice discussion. You were saying one thing about the law, and I was reading you the words... It was working pretty good, although you NEVER engaged me in any argument about what the words said, and what they meant. You just kept on bringing up NEW stuff that I debunked equally as well.

I actually thought you were listening. After all, the words in the Bill of Rights ARE pretty clear. But, like a good tea bagger, you ignore all those facts and you just keep on, keeping on.

I bring up my Constitutional stuff, only to show you that you and your birther ilk WILL NOT be convinced by facts or rational argument. You're just going to keep on, keeping on.

I cannot, and will not argue with hysteria. I think we're done here.

excon

[smoothy]

Hello again, smoothy:

Did you have a good weekend?

A while ago we were having a nice discussion. You were saying one thing about the law, and I was reading you the words... It was working pretty good, although you NEVER engaged me in any argument about what the words said, and what they meant. You just kept on bringing up NEW stuff that I debunked equally as well.

I actually thought you were listening. After all, the words in the Bill of Rights ARE pretty clear. But, like a good tea bagger, you ignore all those facts and you just keep on, keeping on.

I bring up my Constitutional stuff, only to show you that you and your birther ilk WILL NOT be convinced by facts or rational argument. You're just gonna keep on, keeping on.

I cannot, and will not argue with hysteria. I think we're done here.

excon

Well, you like any good "socialist"... thinks that those who earn more than you owe you that money... and that someone should get something free while someone that's worked hard to get success should have to pay for it.



Now, before you use that derogatory term... "Teabagger" again... which really, really, REALLY tickes me off. At least look it up and see what it means.

And you will be surprised it has NOTHING to do with the Tea party movement or conservatives in any way.

Urban Dictionary: tea bagger

The cheeky Urban Dictionary has expanded its definition of "tea bagger" from "a man that dips his scrotum and testicles into the mouth of another person" to include "a conservative activist who is so ignorant that they protest against tax cuts (that benefit them) by throwing tea into a river."

As any gay man who has ventured into some of our more louche nightspots can testify, the practice is venerated among go-go boys dancing on top of bars and boxes who will dip their family jewels into the welcoming mouth of a generous tipper. (It should be noted that the Urban Dictionary started its definition originally with a male-female scenario, so, as in so many cases of late, there is sexual parity here.)

Quote taken from... http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?...&sc3=&id=89676



Tea bagger and Tea Party are not the same...

Tea Party has to do with reckless spending... and taxing stupid ammounts to pay for it.

Refer back to the Boston Tea party in American History.

Now while Democrat Party may feel they are entitled to everything you make... the vast majority of the American public dioes not.

Someone else mentioned this before... I mentioning it again.


I'll assume you were not aware of its primary meaning, until now. It's not exactly common knowledge. I only learned what it was a few years ago being I don't run in those circles.

[costas0811]

One thing is for certain its definitely all about winning now. The dems push bills through. Good for them they are the winners. Meanwhile half the country is not represented. Makes no sense at all to govern like that. At least with Bush there was some potential for recourse, although I think he barely vetoed anything regardless of which party was the majority in congress.

The other thing that is certain is resorting to calling a political movement "teabaggers" is really pathetic. I mean to say something like that makes it apparent that you have little to no value or respect for other people. Not to mention ruining another perfectly good term of the internet generation.

[Wondergirl]

and that someone should get something free

Who's going to get something free?

I don't hear Big Pharma complaining. I don't hear insurance companies complaining.

What would the economy have been like right now had the McCain-Palin ticket won?

[cdad]

One thing is for certain its definitely all about winning now. The dems push bills through. Good for them they are the winners. Meanwhile half the country is not represented. Makes no sense at all to govern like that. At least with Bush there was some potential for recourse, although i think he barely vetoed anything regardless of which party was the majority in congress.

The other thing that is certain is resorting to calling a political movement "teabaggers" is really pathetic. I mean to say something like that makes it apparent that you have little to no value or respect for other people. Not to mention ruining another perfectly good term of the internet generation.

I think you missed something along the way. The name started by a campaign that started with people mailing tbags to their representatives. They were doing so in the tradition of the boston tea party. That's how the whole thing got started.

[Catsmine]

I think you missed something along the way. The name started by a campaign that started with people mailing tbags to thier representatives. They were doing so in the tradition of the boston tea party. Thats how the whole thing got started.

And the term "teabaggers" was first used on April 16th, 2009 by Janeane Garofolo on Keith Olberman's show to denigrate the tax protesters. In the same sentence she also said they were just racists who hated Obama.

YouTube - Janeane Garofalo calls teabaggers "racist rednecks"

[NeedKarma]

Cats:
Conservatives Debate: Is 'Teabagger' Their 'N-Word'? | TPMDC and Rise of an Epithet by Jay Nordlinger on National Review / Digital

The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was "Tea Bag the Fools in D.C." A protester was spotted with a sign saying, "Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You." So, conservatives started it: started with this terminology. But others ran with it and ran with it.

[tomder55]

The extent of the dialogue post-passage of the health care law has been the Dems crowing about accomplishing something ,and calling anyone who opposed it racists .
What is missing is details . The President started to tout the immediate application of no child with pre-conditions left behind... until we found out that was not true... it doesn't immediately cover them. Since then there has been a dearth of detail except where companies have gone public about how the bill screws their employees.

Henry Waxman's reaction was to (in their words) "haul " these companies into Congressional hearings ' to warn them to shut up.

[speechlesstx]

Not only are they going to haul those companies in for the inquisition, the Dems were "furious" that insurance companies pointed out their coverage for children error.

[smoothy]

Who's going to get something free?

I don't hear Big Pharma complaining. I don't hear insurance companies complaining.

What would the economy have been like right now had the McCain-Palin ticket won?

Young people... welfare people... people who choose now to give every member of the household cell phones, Cable TV with ALL the options... rather than pay for medical insurance.. illegals, and those are the majority.

And of course... those of us who actually worked hard and made sacrifices to get where we are today, are expected to fully fund that coverage for some... and subsidise coverage for the others.

Make $20K a year? Then what in the hell are you having four kids for if you can't properly provide for them.

The economy would be far better (not perfect, but better)... because Obama is doing everything that is ANTI-business... and when businesses are under assault... they hold back on hiring.

After all how many "poor" people hire others... right, none do. But nearly everyone that does makes over $250K a year who are epected to pay for everything... not just 90% of everything.

That's not responsible, or sustainible. No wonder so many places move production to countries with more favorible tax structures. And its NOT all about wages which appears to be one of the lefts talking points.

Oh wages are PART of it... but TAXES are part of it too.

I don't think ANY group should be exempted from taxes... because that is socialism... which Obama calls "Spreading the wealth around". Or otherwise known as Wealth Redistribution... like Property redistribution in socialist countries... Stealing from on and GIVING it to someone else who neither paid for it or earned it.


You didn't hear them complaining? Exactly where and to whom have you been listening? Insurance relies on Actuarial tables to provide coverage and set rates at a price people can afford based on risk.

Obama wants to toss those out and force Fat, smoking alcoholics to get the same rates paid by those who are health fanatics. Which of course means... those who are responsible get it up the butt, and those with NO self control... get a free ride.

Otherwise... they will pay out more than they take in... and no business can continue to operate long like that.

I'm not even in the Insurance industry... but I can understand how it works.


Put it in simpler terms... why should a responsible driver who never excedes the limit... follows all the rules and pays attention when they drive pay the same rates as someone who drives as fast as they want... follows none of the rules, constantly has accidents because they are on their cell phone and has had their license to drive suspended several times?


Its really not any different... Insurance is insurance when it comes to setting rates for any individual. Its all about risk...