[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:
Nannnn. We're MUCH nicer than you..

LOL, that must be why the White House is calling Republicans terrorists and calling Iran instead of them.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

the Repubics were shut out of the process completely by Reid and Pelosi.

That's the spin, isn't it? The truth is, if Democrats had their way, we'd have single payer.

Excon

[tomder55]

No it's the fact . The Repubics were complaining about it as it happened in 2009 . All the negotiations were held in secret in the White House... show me the day that C-Span aired any of them as the emperor promised. 45 Republic amendments were proposed.. All were knocked out without any debate.
Not only that ;but when the Repubics tried to hold hearings on their own to get their ideas out ,this is how they were greeted :

"Top aides to Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) called a last-minute, pre-emptive strike on Wednesday with a group of prominent Democratic lobbyists, warning them to advise their clients not to attend a meeting with Senate Republicans set for Thursday. Russell Sullivan, the top staffer on Finance, and Jon Selib, Baucus' chief of staff, met with a bloc of more than 20 contract lobbyists, including several former Baucus aides. "They said, 'Republicans are having this meeting and you need to let all of your clients know if they have someone there, that will be viewed as a hostile act,'"said a Democratic lobbyist who attended the meeting. "Going to the Republican meeting will say, 'I'm interested in working with Republicans to stop health care reform,'"the lobbyist added."

The fact is that the ONLY reason we don't have that universal cr@p sandwich is because the Dems took over the House in 2006 by recruiting a bunch of blue dog Dems to run.. They had to keep them in line and they would never approve a universal plan. So they passed Obamacare to ensure they got the moderate Dem vote . It had nothing to do with consideration for Republic ideas . None of them were incorporated .

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

It had nothing to do with consideration for Republic ideas . None of them were incorporated .

No?? The whole damn thing was based on a REPUBLICAN idea.

Dude!

Let me say again, if the Democrats wanted to shove something down your throat, it would have been single payer.

Excon

[smoothy]

Since I'm getting in on this thread fairly late... a lot of us knew this is exactly what was going to happen right after they rammed this through without a vote.

Now everyone else is going to find out about the propaganda they were fed by the lame stream media the last few years.

And they are going to learn it came from the pig farm out back and not the kitchen.

[excon]

Hello again, smoothy:

they rammed this through without a vote.

Without a vote, huh? And, the Supreme Court found it to BE Constitutional??

Dude. Step away from the FOX News channel. It's rotting your brain.

Excon

[smoothy]

Hello again, smoothy:
Without a vote, huh? And, the Supreme Court found it to BE Constitutional????

Dude. Step away from the FOX News channel. It's rotting your brain.

excon

What part of it didn't get a vote like it should have is beyond your capacity to iunderstand...

[talaniman]

the Repubics were shut out of the process completely by Reid and Pelosi.

No they weren't they were in it all the way until it was time to vote on it for passage. Then they said NO. So we got it passed despite your plot to kill it after you stalled it.

And this last assassination plot is the desperate final chance after 43 other attempts that FAILED. Governing by fear and extortion will FAIL!

[excon]

Hello again, smoothy

What part of it didn't get a vote like it should have is beyond your capacity to iunderstand...

Splain it to me.

Excon

[smoothy]

Would it make any difference? You Obamacare prophets isnist its going to save EVERYONE money... and give better care to everyone... despite there being ZERO proof of that. Only Obamas claims that NOBODY else can prove.. not even the CBO.

Incidentally... look it up yourself here's the link...

The Legislative Process · House.gov


Because this is NOT how it happened...

Introduction and Referral to Committee

Any member in the House of Representatives may introduce a bill at any time while the House is in session by simply placing it in the “hopper” at the side of the Clerk's desk in the House Chamber. The sponsor's signature must appear on the bill. A public bill may have an unlimited number of co-sponsoring members. The bill is assigned its legislative number by the Clerk and referred to the appropriate committee by the Speaker, with the assistance of the Parliamentarian. The bill is then printed in its introduced form, which you can read in Bill Text.

An important phase of the legislative process is the action taken by committees. It is during committee action that the most intense consideration is given to the proposed measures; this is also the time when the people are given the opportunity to be heard. Each piece of legislation is referred to the committee that has jurisdiction over the area affected by the measure.

Consideration by Committee

Public Hearings and Markup Sessions

Usually the first step in this process is a public hearing, where the committee members hear witnesses representing various viewpoints on the measure. Each committee makes public the date, place and subject of any hearing it conducts. The committee meetings scheduled for today are available along with other House Schedules. Public announcements are also published in the Daily Digest portion of the Congressional Record.

A transcript of the testimony taken at a hearing is made available for inspection in the committee office, and frequently the complete transcript is printed and distributed by the committee.

After hearings are completed, the bill is considered in a session that is popularly known as the “mark-up” session. Members of the committee study the viewpoints presented in detail. Amendments may be offered to the bill, and the committee members vote to accept or reject these changes.

This process can take place at either the subcommittee level or the full committee level, or at both. Hearings and markup sessions are status steps noted in the Legislative Action portion of Bill Status.

Committee Action

At the conclusion of deliberation, a vote of committee or subcommittee members is taken to determine what action to take on the measure. It can be reported, with or without amendment, or tabled, which means no further action on it will occur. If the committee has approved extensive amendments, they may decide to report a new bill incorporating all the amendments. This is known as a “clean bill”, which will have a new number. Votes in committee can be found in Committee Votes.
If the committee votes to report a bill, the Committee Report is written. This report describes the purpose and scope of the measure and the reasons for recommended approval. House Report numbers are prefixed with “H.Rpt.” and then a number indicating the Congress (currently 107).

House Floor Consideration

Consideration of a measure by the full House can be a simple or very complex operation. In general a measure is ready for consideration by the full House after it has been reported by a committee. Under certain circumstances, it may be brought to the Floor directly.

The consideration of a measure may be governed by a “rule”. A rule is itself a simple resolution, which must be passed by the House, that sets out the particulars of debate for a specific bill—how much time will be allowed for debate, whether amendments can be offered, and other matters.

Debate time for a measure is normally divided between proponents and opponents. Each side yields time to those members who wish to speak on the bill. When amendments are offered, these are also debated and voted upon. If the House is in session today, you can see a summary of Current House Floor Proceedings.

After all debate is concluded and amendments decided upon, the House is ready to vote on final passage. In some cases, a vote to “recommit” the bill to committee is requested. This is usually an effort by opponents to change some portion or table the measure. If the attempt to recommit fails, a vote on final passage is ordered.

Votes on final passage, as well as all other votes in the House, may be taken by the electronic voting system which registers each individual member's response. These votes are referred to as Yea/Nay votes or recorded votes, and are available in House Votes by bill number, roll call vote number or words describing the reason for the vote.

Votes in the House may also be by voice vote, and no record of individual responses is available.

Senate Action

After a measure passes in the House, it goes to the Senate for consideration. A bill must pass both bodies in the same form before it can be presented to the President for signature into law.

Resolving Differences

If the Senate changes the language of the measure, it must return to the House for concurrence or additional changes. This back-and-forth negotiation may occur on the House floor, with the House accepting or rejecting Senate amendments or complete Senate text. Often a conference committee will be appointed with both House and Senate members. This group will resolve the differences in committee and report the identical measure back to both bodies for a vote. Conference committees also issue reports outlining the final version of the bill.

Consideration by the President

After a measure has been passed in identical form by both the House and Senate, it is considered “enrolled”. It is sent to the President who may sign the measure into law, veto it and return it to Congress, let it become law without signature, or at the end of a session, pocket-veto it.

[tomder55]

Hello again, tom:
No?? The whole damn thing was based on a REPUBLICAN idea.

Dude!

Let me say again, if the Democrats wanted to shove something down your throat, it would have been single payer.

Excon

A policy paper by Heritage in the early 90's?? That's where you get this idea that the 21st century Republican party endorses it ?
From the Heritage amicus to SCOTUS :

Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage’s legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.

I've said it before that the only mandate to insurance polices that states should be required is providing catastrophic insurance. If that is all that was in Obamacare then I would support it too.

[talaniman]

So you don't see the need for regular checkups and prevention as something really important to consumers huh, or ones with kids? Or drug coverage for lets say high blood pressure or other medical conditions that can be treated if found early?

Catastrophic is great for car insurance, but people require more than cars do.

[tomder55]

So you don't see the need for regular checkups and prevention as something really important to consumers huh, or ones with kids? Or drug coverage for lets say high blood pressure or other medical conditions that can be treated if found early?

Catastrophic is great for car insurance, but people require more than cars do.

I think that's between the individual and the provider as to what degree of coverage they require . Cost would drop like a rock if there was competition and choice in coverage .

[talaniman]

You have just described the exchanges Tom, but with a broader minimum to include ALL the population, not just your favored, or acceptable socio-economic, or religious demographic.

Even republican governors are getting with the Medicaid expansion, and so will the rest when they get the bill for uninsured poor people in their states.

But what should I expect from the party that cuts welfare for poor people and gives it to rich people?

[tomder55]

You have just described the exchanges Tom, but with a broader minimum to include ALL the population, not just your favored, or acceptable socio-economic, or religious demographic.

Even republican governors are getting with the Medicaid expansion, and so will the rest when they get the bill for uninsured poor people in their states.

But what should I expect from the party that cuts welfare for poor people and gives it to rich people?

Not even close to true . I described a FREE MARKET consumer friendly alternative . Not your statist mandates .

[NeedKarma]

I described a FREE MARKET consumer friendly alternative .

It does sound like a republican utopia as a thesis paper, but given the way corporation screw people over I think it would be hell on earth for the citizens.

[tomder55]

Now we have apparatchiks in the National Cancer Institute redefining what cancer is for the purpose of cost saving.

By redefining the term “cancer,” the National Cancer Institute hopes to reduce patient anxiety and reduce the risks and expenses associated with supposedly unnecessary medical procedures. In technical terms, the government hopes to reduce “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment” of cancer.
It is true that some patients wrongly view the word “cancer” as the equivalent of a death sentence and become overly distraught. This can cloud their judgment when they most need their full rational faculties to make sound medical decisions.

But while there are legitimate scientific and medical questions about the proper definition and classification of any disease (including cancer), we must be careful that that any redefinition won't be used for inappropriate political purposes. Given the increasing government control over US health care, how the government defines medical terms can have serious economic and policy implications.

Why The Federal Government Wants To Redefine The Word 'Cancer' - Forbes

The article goes on to quote Dr. Milton Wolf, a practicing radiologist who cares for patients with DCIS warns against this Orwellian possibility:


Health care rationing takes many insidious forms but perhaps the most immoral is for the government to wage a public relations campaign designed specifically to dissuade patients and doctors from seeking available cures for cancer. They scheme to rename cancer, not to cure it, but to deny it exists. These government rationers have calculated that rather than actually treat patients with cancer, it's cheaper to simply keep them as calm as Hindu cows right up to the very end.

Or as the emperor says... “Maybe you're better off to tell your mother to take a pill"

[talaniman]

The free market has had decades to solve problems, they didn't. They have FAILED US!

[smoothy]

So out of spite... certain leftist Democrats are insistant on ruining everything for everyone?

[NeedKarma]

That's how insurance companies and doctors make all that money - unnecessary tests and procedures.

Doctors Call Out 90 More Unnecessary Medical Tests, Procedures - Forbes

HealthWatch: Saying 'No' To Unnecessary Medical Tests « CBS San Francisco

Medical Tests | Unnecessary Medical Tests & Treatments - Consumer Reports