Who else thinks this bill will eventually be knocked down as unconstitutional?
edit: Maybe they should add an amendment if they want this bill?
I dont see this bill making any farther.
But then again we are in a different day/age.
Sorry, I’m posting from my blackberry so I didn’t reference/fully explain my statement or use the best choice of words. When I get to my computer later I will go more in depth.
We don’t use that outdated thing anymore. :roflpicard:
Can’t wait.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So anyways, am I the only one that hears “I’m a lazy piece of shit” every time someone, politician or otherwise, bitches about the length of the bill?
Nope.
I don’t quite understand how the GOP brags about how much shorter their bill is as a selling point. Half the pages in the bill are spent closing loopholes that people use to scam the system. It’s like 8 pages just to define who counts as someone’s dependent kid just because of all the shit people pull.
length of the bill should be irrelevant. Amount of time for the public and representatives to read it before a vote I can understand.
I completely agree, that is why I think more time is needed to make sure that one flood is not being stopped just to allow another to occur. It seems that taxing companies that manufacture medical devices at least 2.5% is a very bad idea to help cover the costs of this. Welch Allyn is already having trouble staying afloat here in New York and this along with all the other recent legislation does not make matters any easier. I do not pretend that I know the right answer, I just do not think it is a good idea to force such an important bill. There has got to be some way to come up with something that is agreed upon by more people as being a good solution. A 220-215 vote on something as important as this concerns me. I think that too many Representatives are voting along party lines rather than attempting to do what is best for our future. That is what I meant by not reading before they vote.
All of the wrangling is simply for how many extra Democrats they will get to sign on the bill. The Democrats in the house actually think for themselves and vote their conscience/ what their district wants. The republicans are simply the Party of No and vote no on everything, simply because the democrats propose it. If BHO’s surgeon finds the cure for cancer, it will pass on a party line vote. The Republicans put party above what’s good for the country. Their party leaders give them the understanding that anyone who has the courage to be independent on any major vote will be excommunicated and primaried to death.
The only Republican to break ranks was Anh Cao, who represents a district with 90% black Democrats and only got elected because his opponent was Dollar Bill Jefferson, who got caught with his freezer full of $100 bills just before the last election. He’s fighting for his political life.
http://www.politicalbyline.com/2009/11/08/joseph-cao-the-rino-traitor/
And it’s started. This is charming, from a conservative political blog. Joseph Cao is now being compared to Chairman Mao. You know, because Cao has secretly murdered and imprisoned millions.
I’ll bet liberals take that as a compliment.
Or maybe unlike your BS “the party of no”, and “they just vote against it because the democrats are for it” is really because these reps are actually listening to the people that elected them and the people that elected them do not want health reform if a public option is included. Last I checked that’s the way a representative democracy was supposed to work. If anything, it’s the democrats who seemed to have forgotten that little point. Don’t worry though, 2010 is coming fast and they’ll get an even stronger reminder than they got last Tuesday.
This vote didn’t come as a surprise at all. Democrats have a much larger majority in the house. It will not go as smoothly in the senate, especially with Lieberman on record saying a public option means a no vote from him.
So you mean to say that not ONE of the blue districts with republican reps wanted the bill? Seems like pretty good odds to only lose 1 out of nearly 200. The RNC has pretty much admitted to trying to make health care Obama’s Waterloo, at the expense of the whole country.
Other than Cao, Olympia Snowe, and on occasion Susan Collins, who else, out of over 200 Republicans in Congress, has the balls to stand up to their party’s national establishment? Every time they get one that isn’t extreme enough, they primary them out or they become a Democrat.
So let me flip that. Out of all the “yes” votes from Democrats you’re telling me none of those came from districts that don’t want a public option?
Face it, the country is bitterly split partisan wise. The big difference is your party picked up some seats by riding the coat tails of a very popular president and a very unpopular outgoing president. There are a lot of red regions in this country that are having buyers remorse right now and you’re going to see it in 2010.
I honestly hope the left keeps up this attitude of, “you tea party people are just a bunch of right wing crazies” because it will guarantee big gains for Republicans in 2010.
The Democrats have freedom in their caucus to vote their mind/what their district wants. Republicans don’t. Probably why they get their agenda through with a lot less votes than the Democrats need. They never had the choice even when they had the majority. I shudder to think how far right this country would be moved already if it had been the Republicans who got the numbers we have now.
We had to put some anti-abortion bullshit in there just to pass muster with the Conservative Democrats. That would be the day that Tom DeLay et al added liberal provisions to their bills to pass with a huge majority.
How far has the Right (and the Left) moved to the right in the past 40 years? Bear with me as I take you into the past.
A president sends a “Special Message” to Congress. He’s proposing comprehensive health care reform. Here are his words:
Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job.
Today the need is even more pressing because of the higher costs of medical care. Efforts to control medical costs under the New Economic Policy have been Inept with encouraging success, sharply reducing the rate of inflation for health care. Nevertheless, the overall cost of health care has still risen by more than 20 percent in the last two and one-half years, so that more and more Americans face staggering bills when they receive medical help today.
Guy makes a good point. What does he want to do?
Upon adoption of appropriate Federal and State legislation, the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan would offer to every American the same broad and balanced health protection through one of three major programs:
[1]–Employee Health Insurance, covering most Americans and offered at their place of employment, with the cost to be shared by the employer and employee on a basis which would prevent excessive burdens on either;How would that work?
Every employer would be required to offer all full-time employees the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan. Additional benefits could then be added by mutual agreement. The insurance plan would be jointly financed, with employers paying 65 percent of the premium for the first three years of the plan, and 75 percent thereafter. Employees would pay the balance of the premiums. Temporary Federal subsidies would be used to ease the initial burden on employers who face significant cost increases.
Now that’s a powerful employer mandate. I see no small business exclusion. That’s way more than anyone is pushing right now. Radical!
[2]–An improved Medicare Plan, covering those 65 and over and offered through a Medicare system that is modified to include additional, needed benefits.
So this president wants to strengthen Medicare. Fair enough. I’m listening. What’s the last part?[3]–Assisted Health Insurance, covering low-income persons, and persons who would be ineligible for the other two programs, with Federal and State government paying those costs beyond the means of the individual who is insured;
But how would this fancy Assisted Insurance work?
The program of Assisted Health Insurance is designed to cover everyone not offered coverage under Employee Health Insurance or Medicare, including the unemployed, the disabled, the self-employed, and those with low incomes. In addition, persons with higher incomes could also obtain Assisted Health Insurance if they cannot otherwise get coverage at reasonable rates. Included in this latter group might be persons whose health status or type of work puts them in high-risk insurance categories.Assisted Health Insurance would thus fill many of the gaps in our present health insurance system and would ensure that for the first time in our Nation’s history, all Americans would have financial access to health protection regardless of income or circumstances.
A principal feature of Assisted Health Insurance is that it relates premiums and out-of-pocket expenses to the income of the person or family enrolled. Working families with incomes of up to [a certain amount], for instance, would pay no premiums at all. Deductibles, co-insurance, and maximum liability would all be pegged to income levels.
Anything else?
There would be no exclusions of coverage based on the nature of the illness. For example, a person with heart disease would qualify for benefits as would a person with kidney disease.
And how would you make sure that happens?The States would approve specific plans, oversee rates, ensure adequate disclosure, require an annual audit and take other appropriate measures. For health care providers, the States would assure fair reimbursement for physician services, drugs and institutional services, including a prospective reimbursement system for hospitals.
That’s… a massive amount of government regulation. This guy loves his government oversight and intervention. Moreover, he doesn’t seem to want to leave anything to the free market system.OK, so we have lots of people getting insurance from their employer. People over 65 get strengthened Medicare. The rest would get subsidies to buy private insurance. No one could be denied insurance because of prior conditions. States would closely regulate insurance and reimbursement. This sounds awfully familiar; the conservatives must have hated him.
Who was this communist?
Richard Nixon.
Can we stop pretending this is government run amok? Can we stop pretending this is unprecedented? Can we stop pretending that every cry of socialism, of communism, of fascism is reasonable? Please?
President Obama has proposed a plan that is slightly to the right of President Nixon. It’s a remarkably moderate incremental sort of reform that a reasonable conservative should recognize as his or her own.
I don’t think this reform is enough, and I won’t stop saying so. There are plenty of rational reasons to criticize it. But it’s not nearly as radical as some are pretending it is. They should stop.
Cliffs: What the minority party portrays as SOCIALISM!!! is actually to the right of what Nixon proposed 40 years ago.
:tup: Ammendment to the House bill that limits federal funding for abortions to rape, incest, and if the mother’s life is in danger.
That amendment sucks. It doesn’t just limit federal funding, it says that no private health insurer can cover abortions either if they want to be on the national exchange. Do we really want to encourage low-income women whom the $1000 matters to to have more kids?
How about an ammendment that lets the kid live but aborts the parents if they’re on welfare and it’s their third abortion? But we don’t tell them. The doctor just says “sure another abortion’s no problem.” Then he yells “Surprise” and shoots them.
:tup:
or just stick the baby back inside until they can afford it?
word. Freeze it and start garnishing wages.