Health Care- the bill

[James48843]

Today, after more than 700 hours of hearings, after adopting more than 190 Republican amendments to the original House bill, and after months of hearings, the final House version of the Health Care bill has been posted on internet, and introduced today.

Some complained they wanted 72 hours before the House took a vote. Ok.- here is the 72 hours. The bill is now posted on the internet, and the Speaker of the House says it will be next week before a floor vote is taken- allowing everyone plenty of time to review the bill, and let their Congressmen/women know what they think. Democrats held open markup this week to merge elements from three different committee bills. Anyone could walk in an listen, and see, as amendments from both sides of the aisle, from all three versions of committee bills were aired, some ideas being adopted- others not- but all being considered seriously. It protects senior citizens- closes the Medicare prescription doughnut hole, eliminates disenrollment for "preexisting conditions", and provides for improved health care for the future.

Here is the link to H.R. 3962- introduced today by Michigan Congressman John Dingle as prime sponsor.

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

Read it for yourself.

4Ccy1qMGiz8

[McDuck]

It's 1900+ pages. And I'm not a speed reader. BHO took 8 months to pick a dog for Millie and Suzie, isn't 1/6 of the economy just as important?

[nnuut]

It doesn't take long to find some really interesting things in this Monster!:o

SEC. 552. EXCISE TAX ON MEDICAL DEVICES.
9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 31 of the Internal Rev10
enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the
11 following new subchapter:
12 ‘‘Subchapter D—Medical Devices
‘‘Sec. 4061. Medical devices.
13 ‘‘SEC. 4061. MEDICAL DEVICES.
14 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby imposed on the
15 first taxable sale of any medical device a tax equal to 2.5
16 percent of the price for which so sold.
17 ‘‘(b) FIRST TAXABLE SALE.—For purposes of this
18 section—
19 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘first taxable
20 sale’ means the first sale, for a purpose other than
21 for resale, after production, manufacture, or importation.
VerDate Nov

[grandma]

It's 1900+ pages. And I'm not a speed reader. BHO took 8 months to pick a dog for Millie and Suzie, isn't 1/6 of the economy just as important?
well, I guess we could div'ee it up & each take a page or two ..7111

7112.

[Show-me]

Way to tax the end user of a medical device. A medical device can be anything, contacts, catheter, stints, pace maker, glue for bone fusion, test kits for anything, Hepatitis, breast cancer, glucose, etc.

Sounds like the Dem's needed to come up with some serious money to tax everyone for their medical devices.

They would add 2.5% onto my son's $20k spinal fusion rods and screws. Plus all the other small things you don't think of like catheters. NO MORE TAXES!

I say bunk.

[nnuut]

Dig deeper just search for TAX!!!!!:cool:

[tsptalk]

Pelosi Gives Big Present to Trial Lawyers... (http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/30/pelosi-health-care-bill-blows-a-kiss-to-trial-lawyers/#more-23042)

"Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. …… [B]a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages."

The exact opposite of what should have been done!

[Minnow]

From another site... read at your own leisure... oh wait... 1900 pages... you better get cracking: this is one site's interpretation of the bill... I'm just going to figure that, just like the stimulus, it doesn't matter what the ratio of opposed letters/phone calls, etc., the powers that be will do whatever they want.
http://www.atr.org/breaking-comprehensiv.... (http://www.atr.org/breaking-comprehensive-list-taxesbr-house-democrat-a4113#)

H.R. 3962, the "Affordable Health Care for America Act" has been introduced--all 1990 pages of it. This gargantuan beast contains thirteen new tax hikes. Here they all are, with description and page number (PDF version):

***

Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).

Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.

Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.

Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped).

Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)

Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services.

Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.

Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price. It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344): Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments. Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons. Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.

Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345): Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act

Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346): Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.

Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.

Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357): Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties. If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.

[James48843]

0aGotoToWSg

Health Care Reform.


NOW.

[grandma]

James, this video reminds me of a `joke' I just got - you buy an oversize ice cream cone, pay, then the counter guy takes the ice cream from you, hands it (no picture of how that was done!) to the guy in line behind you who had no money to buy one for himself.
So now you - You are left with an empty wallet and no change, holding an empty cone with no hope of getting any ice cream. Are you stimulated?????????

[James48843]

1pM90A1c2a8

Would you stop to help?

[James48843]

Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).


I'm fine with that. A $500,000 payroll is not a tiny operation. It scales up to 8% tops. In Germany, which has a great health care system, they pay about 15% tax on all earnings, from zero to infinity. Those who make a small amount pay very little, and those who make a lot of money pay more. But it works because everyone is treated the same- with world class health care provided, and every single person is covered.

[Buster]

1pM90A1c2a8

Would you stop to help?


Yes I would stop to help...But holy moly..that is an extreme comparison and guilt trip not needed IMO..

[grandma]

In Germany, which has a great health care system, they pay about 15% tax on all earnings, from zero to infinity. Those who make a small amount pay very little, and those who make a lot of money pay more. But it works because everyone is treated the same- with world class health care provided, and every single person is covered.
Not so - see the statistics from Lancet Oncology Sept 2007 - posted
#376 in Obama on Health Care forum.

[James48843]

In fact, looking at all the tax provisions cited, I am perfectly happy with all of those. Those making a million dollars a year pay a higher tax rate than they currently do-- but that rate is still lower than it was for most of the 20th century- a period when America did pretty darn good.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

[Buster]

I'm fine with that. A $500,000 payroll is not a tiny operation. It scales up to 8% tops. In Germany, which has a great health care system, they pay about 15% tax on all earnings, from zero to infinity. Those who make a small amount pay very little, and those who make a lot of money pay more. But it works because everyone is treated the same- with world class health care provided, and every single person is covered.
$60,000 out of an employer's (@$751,000) til, could also mean one less person employed....just keeping it real:)

[James48843]

Not so - see the statistics from Lancet Oncology Sept 2007 - posted
#376 in Obama on Health Care forum.

Any one can pick and choose ONE small statistic, and try and make it say whatever the want it to say. If you look at the whole system, however, Germany's system is far superior to our own as far as covering everyone, and delivering high quality care, at a much lower price.

From:

http://www.amiexpat.com/2009/08/18/health-care-in-germany/



Life expectancy at birth, for both sexes combined, is 80 years in Germany and 78 in the US
Healthy life expectancy at birth, for both sexes combined, is 72 years in Germany, 69 years in the US
Infant mortality rate (per 1000 births) for Germany is 4.0, the US is 7.0
Hospital beds (per 10000 people) is 83 in Germany and 32 in the US
Physician density (per 10000 people) is 34 in Germany and 26 in the US
Total expenditure on health as percentage of GDP for Germany is 10.7%, the US is 15.2%
and Per capita expenditure on health is $3250 in Germany and $6350 in the US

[grandma]

Any one can pick and choose ONE small statistic, and try and make it say whatever the want it to say. If you look at the whole system, however, Germany's system is far superior to our own as far as covering everyone, and delivering high quality care, at a much lower price.
From:
http://www.amiexpat.com/2009/08/18/health-care-in-germany/Life and

after I posted the note, & went back & re-read what I'd posted there, I realized that as far as Germany was concerned, the article had only addressed breast cancer...that being, I guess, because it is a cancer journal... !!
thank you for the additional info. How long did it take Germany to develop
their healthcare into the system it now has? I wonder, too, is Germany one of the countries that doesn't count a birth until days after the actual delivery?

[James48843]

$60,000 out of an employer's (@$751,000) til, could also mean one less person employed....just keeping it real:)


Yep. You are right.

Eleven people employed (meaning 11 people with no health insurance), or ten people employed, all of whom have health insurance, and therefore at much less risk of going bankrupt if they get sick. Or losing their house of they get sick. Or of dieing because they put off seeking treatment because they have no health insurance.

You are right. This is the debate which is taking place right now. Which is more desirable as a society- 11 people at great risk, or 10 people covered by their employer, and one person having to be employed somewhere else.

I choose covering EVERYONE some way, some how.

I think everyone has an individual responsibility to have some kind of a health care plan.

[James48843]

... How long did it take Germany to develop
their healthcare into the system it now has?

Germany was the first industrialized nation in the world to adopt a national health care system. Also known as the Bismark Model, after Otto von Bismark, the system of national health care became law in Germany in 1883.

In reality, a major reason Bismark pressed for a national health care plan was for military preparedness. In the 1880s, the ability to field a large army rapidly depended on being able to draft and mobilize a large number of healthy people. Bismark's national health care plan did what he intended, and also allowed Germany to become a major European power in the process.

[grandma]

Is this a question that belongs elsewhere? :
I keep hearing that none, or very little, of this health plan will affect the Congress and others in the hierarchy. ...that they nor their family/ies will be required to take part in it. How does that relate to us in the FEHBP?

[Buster]

Yep. You are right.

Eleven people employed (meaning 11 people with no health insurance), or ten people employed, all of whom have health insurance, and therefore at much less risk of going bankrupt if they get sick. Or losing their house of they get sick. Or of dieing because they put off seeking treatment because they have no health insurance.

You are right. This is the debate which is taking place right now. Which is more desirable as a society- 11 people at great risk, or 10 people covered by their employer, and one person having to be employed somewhere else.

I choose covering EVERYONE some way, some how.

I think everyone has an individual responsibility to have some kind of a health care plan.Your point has been noted..I will ponder this and see how it can be rationalized either way for the betterment of our total US economy..

Ponder this in the mean time..11 people employed, may also be able to afford their own insurance (a good insurance) through group plans...I know, I once sold this type of policy before my GOV career..employer paid nothing...And this helped the employer pay higher wages.

[James48843]

I wonder, too, is Germany one of the countries that doesn't count a birth until days after the actual delivery?

Answer:

BIRTH COUNT DATA
The birth statistics include live births to all mothers who had their residence in Germany. The definition of a live birth changed in 1958 (Statistisches Bundesamt, 1993, p. 14).

· Since 1958, live births include all births where "there was respiration, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or a heartbeat of the child after the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother.”

· Before 1958, a live birth was defined as a birth where: "there was respiration after complete expulsion or extraction".


Source: http://www.demogr.mpg.de/publications/files/2301_1153324716_1_FRGcom.pdf Page 2.

[James48843]

Is this a question that belongs elsewhere? :
I keep hearing that none, or very little, of this health plan will affect the Congress and others in the hierarchy. ...that they nor their family/ies will be required to take part in it. How does that relate to us in the FEHBP?

As far as I have been able to tell so far, if you currently have a health care plan, nothing changes to existing FEHBP plans. Congress is also covered by FEHBP. For the vast majority of Americans who currently get insurance with their employer, and who do not change employers, nothing changes, except that they no longer will have hassels with "pre-existing conditions".

[tsptalk]

If me or my family had no health insurance, for whatever reason, I'd probably get a part-time job at Starbucks, Lowe's JCPenny, just for the benefits. Many companies pay benefits to part-time employees.

Others may prefer to get an unemployment check, welfare, etc., and receive free health care from someone else who pays the bill. I couldn't live with myself if I lived on handouts. You do what it takes.

Of the 30-47 million that don't have insurance, how many REALLY can't get it if they tried (besides illegals)? And why do we have to turn our current system upside down to give it them?

Take the money they plan on saving from Medicare fraud and abuse, and start a little program to help those who can't help themselves. The rest need to take more personal responsibility.

[grandma]

Answer:
BIRTH COUNT DATA
· Since 1958, live births include all births where "there was respiration, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or a heartbeat of the child after the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother.”

That would make a difference here, considering a Senator from Illinois once voted `No Way' that certain newborns (even breathing, crying) should be afforded life preserving attention, even to not being held. I wonder how that reads in the newly published health care plan.

[James48843]

That would make a difference here, considering a Senator from Illinois once voted `No Way' that certain newborns (even breathing, crying) should be afforded life preserving attention, even to not being held. I wonder how that reads in the newly published health care plan.

That simply is not true. President Obama NEVER voted "no way" that living, breathing newborns should be afforded life preserving attention.

Here are the facts-

In 2001, while an Illinois Senator, there was a bill up for debate. Here is the transcript of what then State Senator Obama said that day- in reference to the bill in question being blatently unconstitutional, and therefore not about saving lives of children, but about trying to outright illegally ban all abortions. Here are his words at the time:

This is a story about the Washington Times newspaper publishing an opinion piece, an editorial, that claimed that the position Obama took on "babies who survive botched late-term abortions" while in the state Senate "should horrify the two-fifths of Americans who consider themselves pro-life":


Yet in the quote that the Times referenced, Obama was asserting that the bill, sponsored by Republican state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, was unconstitutional because it would "define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution" and therefore represent a de facto restriction on all abortions. From Obama's March 30, 2001, statement on the Illinois Senate floor:

OBAMA: Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.
Additionally, Obama listed a "second reason" in his floor statement that the proposed law was "unconstitutional" -- it would "plac[e] a burden on the doctor" that would prevent many facilities from having the resources necessary to perform abortions:

OBAMA: The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality.
Obama also said: "I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and -- and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill."
From the February 1 Washington Times editorial:

Candidate Barack Obama frequently promises to soar above partisan politics. But the theatrics of such declarations keep bumping into the reality of Mr. Obama's left-liberal record in Washington and the left-liberal record in Illinois state politics which preceded it. The latest reminder: As recently as 2004, Mr. Obama supported decriminalizing marijuana, opening relations with Communist Cuba and providing health care for illegal aliens. In a little-noticed 2004 video featured today in The Washington Times, Mr. Obama sounds quite comfortable voicing his leftist leanings. "I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws," Mr. Obama told a Northwestern University audience as he campaigned for the Senate in 2004. "But I'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana." Fast forward to the fall of 2007, and Mr. Obama can be found hedging these views -- meekly raising his hand at a Democratic presidential debate to oppose decriminalization. Wrongly, it turns out. Mr. Obama still supports it, according to a spokesman. It is not just marijuana, relations with Cuba or health care for illegals. Mr. Obama is also one of the most pro-choice presidential contenders in history. His 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council as a state senator was just the beginning. Mr. Obama is known in pro-life circles for arguing cold-bloodedly on the Illinois Senate floor that babies who survive botched late-term abortions should not be considered "persons" because this would be tantamount to admitting "that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term." This should horrify the two-fifths of Americans who consider themselves pro-life. It surely won't "unify." Let's be realistic. Mr. Obama scores a 95 percent in the liberal activist group Americans for Democratic Action's ratings. He scores in the single digits when judged by conservative groups.
From Obama's March 30, 2001, floor statement:

OBAMA: This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary Committee, and so I won't belabor the issue. I do want to just make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Senator O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill? O'MALLEY: Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the -- the way children are treated following their birth under these circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States. OBAMA: Well, it turned out -- that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your -- you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child. Then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably won't make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I -- I won't, as I said, belabor the point. I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and -- and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present.


Not the same thing at all. The President did not, and does not, advocate killing babies.

Period.

[Show-me]

Pelosi Gives Big Present to Trial Lawyers... (http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/30/pelosi-health-care-bill-blows-a-kiss-to-trial-lawyers/#more-23042)

"Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. …… [B]a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages."

The exact opposite of what should have been done!

This would explain why they will not take the simple route and address tort reform.

[James48843]

..I wonder how that reads in the newly published health care plan.

Read the plan? That's why it's on the net. For everyone to read.

Here is what it says about Abortion:

In the section titled

‘‘SEC. 399Z–1. SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH CLINICS.

It says:



‘‘(c) USE OF FUNDS.—Funds awarded under a grant
10 under this section—

21 ‘‘(2) may not be used to provide abortions.




In Section 222, where it defines what is in the minimum acceptable health insurance plan to participate in the Health Exchange, it says:


SEC. 222. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED.

...

(e) ABORTION COVERAGE PROHIBITED AS PART OF
MINIMUM BENEFITS PACKAGE.—
(1) PROHIBITION OF REQUIRED COVERAGE.—

The Health Benefits Advisory Committee may not
recommend under section 223(b), and the Secretary
may not adopt in standards under section 224(b),
the services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B)
as part of the essential benefits package and the
Commissioner may not require such services for
qualified health benefits plans to participate in the
Health Insurance Exchange.


In section 804, it says:

"‘‘SEC. 804. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS APPROPRIATED
2 TO INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE.
3 ‘‘Any limitation on the use of funds contained in an
4 Act providing appropriations for the Department for a pe5
riod with respect to the performance of abortions shall
6 apply for that period with respect to the performance of
7 abortions using funds contained in an Act providing ap8
propriations for the Service.


it goes on to say, in the essentional benefits section, that money that is currently prohibited by law from being used on abortion, continues to be prohibited. and anything that is legal today, continues to be treated the same. this bill does not change anything about the way money for abortion is handled. The exact language is:

(4) ABORTION SERVICES.—
9 (A) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUND10
ING IS PROHIBITED.—The services described in
11 this subparagraph are abortions for which the
12 expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for
13 the Department of Health and Human Services
14 is not permitted, based on the law as in effect
15 as of the date that is 6 months before the be16
ginning of the plan year involved.

17 (B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUND18
ING IS ALLOWED.—The services described in
19 this subparagraph are abortions for which the
20 expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for
21 the Department of Health and Human Services
22 is permitted, based on the law as in effect as
23 of the date that is 6 months before the begin24
ning of the plan year involved.


and this: This law does not alter any state or federal law regarding abortion:



3 SEC. 258. APPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS RE4
GARDING ABORTION.
5 (a) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING
6 ABORTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
7 preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regard8
ing the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, fund9
ing, or procedural requirements on abortions, including
10 parental notification or consent for the performance of an
11 abortion on a minor.
12 (b) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING
13 ABORTION.—
14 (1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act shall be
15 construed to have any effect on Federal laws regard16
ing—
17 (A) conscience protection;
18 (B) willingness or refusal to provide abor19
tion; and
20 (C) discrimination on the basis of the will21
ingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or
22 refer for abortion or to provide or participate in
23 training to provide abortion.

[James48843]

There are some other references to abortion, but they pretty much are all the same - nothing changes existing law, nothing authorizes new money to be used for abortions.

Any other objections?

We need to pass this bill now.

Next week it will get floor debate, possibly some amendments, and then I think it will be voted on and passed before Thanksgiving. At least that is what I am hoping for.

[James48843]

If me or my family had no health insurance, for whatever reason, I'd probably get a part-time job at Starbucks, ...


Starbucks is upping the premiums for its employees - and reducing the number of part-timers who get health care.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/starbucks-workers-protest-rise-in-health-premiums/

[Show-me]

That is the conundrum. Employers are moving away from giving benefits. Why? We have a glut of labor. No medical, dental, 401k matching funds, vacations, holidays. All benefits gone thanks to world competition and NAFTA.

Universal health care is needed but not like this. Tort reform first, open competition, allow full deduction of all medical expenses. Start training Doc. on the taxpayer dime in return for their service.

[nnuut]

How about a CT Scan or an MRI?:o

14
‘‘(III) CHANGE IN PRESUMED

15
UTILIZATION LEVEL OF CERTAIN AD16
VANCED DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING SERV

17
ICES
.—Effective for fee schedules es18
tablished beginning with 2011, re
19
duced expenditures attributable to the
20
presumed utilization of 75 percent
21
under subsection (b)(4)(C) instead of
22
a presumed utilization of imaging
23
equipment of 50 percent.’’.
24
(b) ADJUSTMENT IN TECHNICAL COMPONENT ‘DIS25
COUNT
’’ ON SINGLE-SESSION IMAGING TO CONSECUTIVE
429
1
BODY PARTS.—Section 1848 of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395w–4) is further amended—
3
(1) in subsection (b)(4), by adding at the end
4
the following new subparagraph:
5
‘‘(D) ADJUSTMENT IN TECHNICAL COMPO6

NENT DISCOUNT ON SINGLE

-SESSION IMAGING
7
INVOLVING CONSECUTIVE BODY PARTS.—For
8
ervices furnished on or after January 1, 2011,
9
he Secretary shall increase the reduction in ex10
penditures attributable to the multiple proce
1
dure payment reduction applicable to the tech
12
nical component for imaging under the final

13
rule published by the Secretary in the Federal

Register on November 21, 2005 (part 405 of
15
title 42, Code of Federal Regulations) from 25
16
percent to 50 percent.’’; and
17
(2) in subsection (c)(2)(B)(v), by adding at the

18
nd the following new subclause:
19
‘‘(III) ADDITIONAL REDUCED
20

PAYMENT FOR MULTIPLE IMAGING

21

PROCEDURES.—Effective for fee
22
schedules established beginning with
23
2011, reduced expenditures attrib24

utable to the increase in the multiple


25

procedure payment reduction from 25



430


1

percent to 50 percent as described in
2 subsection (b)(4)(D).’’.

[CountryBoy]

That is the conundrum. Employers are moving away from giving benefits. Why? We have a glut of labor. No medical, dental, 401k matching funds, vacations, holidays. All benefits gone thanks to world competition and NAFTA.

Universal health care is needed but not like this. Tort reform first, open competition, allow full deduction of all medical expenses. Start training Doc. on the taxpayer dime in return for their service.

If it is up to Pelosi, there WILL NOT be any tort reform, she just blew them a big kiss.

For example, check out this juicy morsel to the trial lawyers (page 1431-1433 of the bill):

Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/30/pelosi-health-care-bill-blows-a-kiss-to-trial-lawyers/#more-23042

Let's see, over 1,900 pages and we expect this major overhaul to our gov't to be read and understood, by the nimrods in Congress? :laugh: Who in there right mind would want this rushed thru?? We have until after bHo is gone (2013 before this takes affect, some crisi huh) before it takes effect, otherwise he wouldn't be re-elected, cause the American people will suddenly realize the shafting they are getting by bHo and his obamatons. :mad:

Wait til 2013 and the SHTF and some fols had better crawl back under that rock they came from. I bet they'll proudly proclaim their undying devotion to bHo and all things socialist then. :rolleyes:

[phil]

I'm not with you on tort reform. The issue here is that nothing, and no one, is infallible.

The reason why our buildings don't fall down, like in so many other countries, is that the engineers and architects (and the companies they work for) can be sued if they fail for some reason. It's why they have inspections continually to make sure that the structures won't come down. The same can be argued for medicine. It's not an Act of God, like a tsunami. The buildings in California have to pass very strict building codes for earthquake considerations.

We also have to consider the punitive damages from people in our own government. Oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional actions by the servants of government can and should be punished. Our medical professionals are not immune from the law, nor should they be. I'm not, and no one should be above the law itself.

Let's also not forget that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in a case. For every case that you may feel is unfair, where the hospital/doctor may have lost a judgment, there are many, many more that simply couldn't be resolved for lack of proof, though there was clear wrongdoing in the case.

Finally, let's let a judge and jury make those decisions. In the end, the people are the final arbiters of justice.

[OBGibby]

In my opinion, no health care bill will be passed by the Congress. The differences between the House and the Senate are many, and the costs too much. I'll be happy to see it whither away. I don't doubt the good intentions of many of its' supporters; however, I wholeheartedly disagree that common good will result.

What has piqued my interest of late is why the Administration is pushing so hard for this now, yet it wouldn't - if passed - take effect until 2013. If the need is so urgent to "reform" health care, why not the urgency to enact immediate so-called reform? On the flip side, if the changes aren't going to take effect for another four years, why the haste in pushing through legislation that many feel will do more harm than good in the long run? Why not take the time to have a considered and lengthy public debate and propose well crafted bills? Can't seem to figure that contradiction out - though I suspect I know the reasoning behind it.

[Minnow]

From Karl at the Market Ticker:

(I particularly like publishing the price list, by the way).


Ok, so President Obama once again wants to act like he's still running for office instead of inhabiting the Oval Office.
I get it.
My objection is simple: Neither the Republicans or Democrats have put forward a plan that actually addresses the structural problems we have with medical coverage in America.
I am going to reprint and expand on my actual fix for Health Care, for the following reasons:
It will work and control costs by dramatically increasing competition. Today, employed persons typically have one choice for insurance coverage. This plan will bring them dozens to hundreds of choices at competitive prices. You wouldn't accept a system where there were a dozen stores but only one where you could shop because of the company you worked for, but if the grocery business had such restrictions a gallon of milk would cost $20, because the store you could buy from would know that you couldn't go next door.
It will end cost-shifting and cost-hiding, which is bankrupting millions of Americans and is the core problem underlying the imbalances in the system today.
Finally, it will not increase the budget deficit one nickel.
Here it is; you can read the original as well if you want: (http://www.tsptalk.com/archives/1310-Fixing-Health-Care-A-Real-Solution.html)
Let's reprint the key points, simplify and expand on them:
If you sell "insurance" to anyone in a given state, you must accept all persons in that state on the same terms and at the same price. If an insurer has a "we accept anyone at the same price" policy for a business, you must be able to buy into their plan for the same amount of money that the employer is charged on a per-person basis. That is, all plans must be "open enrollment" for everyone within the state - period. This immediately gets rid of the "tie" between employment and health "insurance", and it also removes one of the biggest issues that small business and self-employed people face - the inability to buy insurance at any reasonable price if there has ever been anything wrong with them medically. The solution to the "adverse selection" problem is identical to that which exists in corporations - you typically can only elect out or in of a policy or plan on an annual basis - that is, you're obligated to participate for a full calendar year. Enforcing the same terms (you can only opt in during one month, and are obligated for the entire year) solves the problem of someone deciding to buy only when they get ill, as you would have to wait for the enrollment window to open. For acute conditions where adverse selection becomes most important this restriction resolves the problem. This also resolves the pre-existing condition problem that the self-employed have today.
All health providers must publish a price list and may not bill or accept payment at anything other than that price; doing so becomes a violation of Robinson-Patman and exposes the provider to civil suit for treble damages. This instantly stops the practice of billing the uninsured or privately insured at a higher price than Medicare, for example - a practice that is rampant, particularly among hospitals. Every hospital has a detailed price list for every function and thing in their health care panoply - this enforces even billing and even pricing for everyone, without discrimination. The complaint that health providers cannot make a living at Medicare's reimbursement rates does not give that provider license to cost shift the expense of government-subsidized care to privately-insured or uninsured patients. Everyone would raise hell if your car was three times as expensive if you worked for Ford than if you worked for GM, yet it is accepted that if you're not insured by Kaiser (for example) your heart bypass surgery costs a different amount. If Medicare's "price schedule" is inadequate the solution is for providers to refuse to provide the service at that price and thus negotiate for a higher price for that procedure, not cost-shift the care of older Americans onto younger. This is a more than $200 billion dollar a year rip-off of working-age Americans, it bankrupts the uninsured or those denied coverage after a health event, and it must be made explicitly unlawful.
If you show up without insurance or ability to pay with a life-threatening condition, you will be treated, but the hospital cannot cost-shift the bill - it instead bills The Federal Government. We have created an expectation that if you show up needing emergency treatment you will get it, irrespective of ability to pay. This creates a monstrous problem for hospitals and results in the $30 aspirin, among other outrageous distortions. The solution is to have The Federal Government receive all uninsured and unpaid bills, with the debt being immediately paid by the government. Said debt then becomes a collection item against the citizen - a debt to the Treasury, administered by the Internal Revenue Service. If you cannot pay cash, that's fine - the IRS will be happy to take payments (at interest.) If you're an illegal alien the Federal Government will be mandated (by statute) to collect from the other nation, and if they refuse to pay, to deduct any such amount from foreign aid of any type and source on a dollar-for-dollar basis.
We must reform the tort system. The trial lawyers will hate it. So what. The simplest proposal is this: you may sue only for gross negligence. If the wrong arm is amputated, you have a lawsuit. But we, as a society, must admit and accept that we call it practicing medicine, and by the very name - "practice" - we therefore admit and accept that outcomes will neither be perfect or predictable. But while we must accept that medicine is not a perfect science and outcomes cannot always be predicted, every person has a right to know their physician's record. In exchange for this partial immunity from suits all outcomes and counts of procedures performed, by the patient's own evaluation as to degree of success or failure, are to be published online in a searchable database for use by any person at any time in making medical decisions, and the intentional concealment or tampering with such reporting shall be made a felony. The patient's evaluation shall be an absolutely protected form of speech.
If you want a health care solution, there's one that will work.
Four points that will:

Bring instant competition to the health care system, enabling citizens to choose between dozens if not hundreds of competing insurance plans for the precise same price that an employer pays to cover the same person were they working for that company.
Allow you to keep your current plan and doctor if you wish. Since this does not tamper with any existing insurance program there is no impact for those who like their current health care plan. If your plan is particularly good, in fact, it is likely to get cheaper as more people join it.
Stop the pre-existing condition problem dead in its tracks. No large or mid-sized employer accepts this in their plans. You shouldn't have to either.
Prevents illegal aliens and the uninsured from shifting their care onto your wallet. You're free to be uninsured but you will get billed by the government if you need emergency care. Illegal aliens will get emergency care but the government of their citizenship will be billed. The day of the $30 aspirin will be over.
Prevent gouging for cash-paying customers. Level billing will stop the abusive cost-shifting that bankrupts tens of thousands of Americans every year.
Not cost the taxpayer a nickel. No budget impact - period. In fact forcing the uninsured and illegal aliens' bills back onto the responsible parties will almost certainly decrease costs for Medicare and Medicaid, thereby saving money.
In the current debate why isn't a plan like this part of the discussion?

I guess it has too much common sense attached to it.

[James48843]

...Why not take the time to have a considered and lengthy public debate and propose well crafted bills?

It's been on the drawing boards since 1913. It's been taking up the major portion of Congress's time since March of this year. There have been dozens and dozens of hearings, witnesses, testimony, committee meetings, draftings of bills, discussions of bills, amendments to bills, etc.

What more time do you think is necessary?

By the way-- some of the provisions kick in immediately. Others, like the Exchange, will take time to set up and qualify plans to be offered. So there are portions of the bill that will take time to implement.

All in all, I would have much rather just do away with insurance companies all together, and done a single-payer system for everything. That would have been much more efficient. But you do what you can do, and I look forward to this bill, and the Senate bill, being worked out in conference, and for the legislation to pass and a plan and roadmap to be in place before the end of the year.

[tsptalk]

Starbucks is upping the premiums for its employees - and reducing the number of part-timers who get health care.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/starbucks-workers-protest-rise-in-health-premiums/ (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/starbucks-workers-protest-rise-in-health-premiums/)
I guess everyone is trying to cut back. Tough times.

It's a little ironic that the owner of Starbucks is a big liberal supporter and now the union is busting his butt...

"The coffee company has battled with the union repeatedly, and in December, the National Labor Relations Board judge ruled that Starbucks had illegally fired three baristas (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/nyregion/24starbucks.html) and otherwise violated federal labor laws at several of its nearly 600 locations in New York City, in an effort to halt the unionization efforts."

"This might be a good time to add that the owner of Starbucks made a large donation to a liberal candidate's campaign." ...
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45694 (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45694)

[CountryBoy]

I'm not with you on tort reform. The issue here is that nothing, and no one, is infallible.

The reason why our buildings don't fall down, like in so many other countries, is that the engineers and architects (and the companies they work for) can be sued if they fail for some reason. It's why they have inspections continually to make sure that the structures won't come down. The same can be argued for medicine. It's not an Act of God, like a tsunami. The buildings in California have to pass very strict building codes for earthquake considerations.

We also have to consider the punitive damages from people in our own government. Oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional actions by the servants of government can and should be punished. Our medical professionals are not immune from the law, nor should they be. I'm not, and no one should be above the law itself.

Let's also not forget that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in a case. For every case that you may feel is unfair, where the hospital/doctor may have lost a judgment, there are many, many more that simply couldn't be resolved for lack of proof, though there was clear wrongdoing in the case.

Finally, let's let a judge and jury make those decisions. In the end, the people are the final arbiters of justice.

I don't support the lawsuit lottery and activist juries and judges that have an axe to grind, but then people are always so fair and unbiased. :laugh: Tooth Fairy? ;)

And of course mo problem with this....

Let's see, over 1,900 pages and we expect this major overhaul to our gov't to be read and understood, by the nimrods in Congress? Who in there right mind would want this rushed thru?? We have until after bHo is gone (2013 before this takes affect, some crisi huh) before it takes effect, otherwise he wouldn't be re-elected, cause the American people will suddenly realize the shafting they are getting by bHo and his obamatons.

Wait til 2013 and the SHTF and some fols had better crawl back under that rock they came from. I bet they'll proudly proclaim their undying devotion to bHo and all things socialist then.


That explains alot.

[phil]

This is what's so very ironic about the health-care bill. The opposition keeps saying, again and again, that there needs to be time to examine each and every piece of the legislation. Then, they continually defeat it before it can be voted on, and add on all sorts of amendments to water it down.

Another complaint has been that the bill is far too lengthy. Had it been passed in 1913, it wouldn't have been nearly as cumbersome, since there were so few lobbyists from the health-care industry to insert language into it at that time.

Me, I think it's a horribly flawed bill, and I have to say that the finest politician in Washington is Dennis Kucinich, when he spoke the truth about the bill. All that being said, half a loaf is better than none, and it's a good start. I also agree with the single-payer system. It would make everything so much simpler.
Kucinich also spoke the truth about the war in Iraq. I'd vote for him for President any day.



It's been on the drawing boards since 1913. It's been taking up the major portion of Congress's time since March of this year. There have been dozens and dozens of hearings, witnesses, testimony, committee meetings, draftings of bills, discussions of bills, amendments to bills, etc.

What more time do you think is necessary?

By the way-- some of the provisions kick in immediately. Others, like the Exchange, will take time to set up and qualify plans to be offered. So there are portions of the bill that will take time to implement.

All in all, I would have much rather just do away with insurance companies all together, and done a single-payer system for everything. That would have been much more efficient. But you do what you can do, and I look forward to this bill, and the Senate bill, being worked out in conference, and for the legislation to pass and a plan and roadmap to be in place before the end of the year.

[James48843]

I guess everyone is trying to cut back. Tough times.

It's a little ironic that the owner of Starbucks is a big liberal supporter and now the union is busting his butt...

"The coffee company has battled with the union repeatedly, and in December, the National Labor Relations Board judge ruled that Starbucks had illegally fired three baristas (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/nyregion/24starbucks.html) and otherwise violated federal labor laws at several of its nearly 600 locations in New York City, in an effort to halt the unionization efforts."

"This might be a good time to add that the owner of Starbucks made a large donation to a liberal candidate's campaign." ...
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45694 (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45694)

Hey Tom, you are the one who said you wanted to go work for Starbucks. I didn't bring them up. :)

[tsptalk]

I didn't want to... I said I would if my family needed health care. But I have thought about opening a coffee shop / art gallery type place. :)

I was just surprised to read about Starbucks "battling" with the union. I added the political irony. :D

[wv-girl]

I didn't want to... I said I would if my family needed health care. But I have thought about opening a coffee shop / art gallery type place. :)

I was just surprised to read about Starbucks "battling" with the union. I added the political irony. :D


Talking about Unions. I keep wondering why Wal-Mart isn't being targeted. They have been known to close stores down to keep from being unionized. They are the USA's largest employer, at least for now.

If the healthcare reform is passed the feds will become the country's largest employer. Irony is you have healthcare workers working to pay taxes so they fund their own healthcare. Kinda makes one dizzy to think about.

[grandma]

That simply is not true. President Obama NEVER voted "no way" that living, breathing newborns should be afforded life preserving attention.

Here are the facts-

In 2001, while an Illinois Senator, there was a bill up for debate. Here is the transcript of what then State Senator Obama said that day- in reference to the bill in question being blatently unconstitutional, and therefore not about saving lives of children, but about trying to outright illegally ban all abortions. Here are his words at the time:

This is a story about the Washington Times newspaper publishing an opinion piece, an editorial, that claimed that the position Obama took on "babies who survive botched late-term abortions" while in the state Senate "should horrify the two-fifths of Americans who consider themselves pro-life":


Yet in the quote that the Times referenced, Obama was asserting that the bill, sponsored by Republican state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, was unconstitutional because it would "define a previable fetus as a person...
OBAMA: The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality.
the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so ....

Then James, what was the reason ... when this bill was rewritten in same wording as the Fed's - what was the reason for the Senator to disallow, to refuse to let it be read/heard/placed...whatever it is when the Senate is presented with new bills? :confused:

[grandma]

...the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child. Then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to ...

Also, this has allowed the hospitals to declare these breathing kicking babies as non-living, to deny the nurses to give any TLC.
That because it would be `unconstituitional' to treat the kid, it there fore is mandated to not touch `it.'
The Senate could not stand up & say, yes, this IS a child, even tho it survived the abortion.
Well - I think this is as far as I want to discuss this - here, anyway. Sorry I can't agree with you, James, about what the Senator's intentions are (were), the phraseology, etc. You are right, the bill is right here for me to read - Thank you - grandma :)

[phil]

I don't support the lawsuit lottery and activist juries and judges that have an axe to grind, but then people are always so fair and unbiased.

This is where we differ. I think that people on a jury are fair and unbiased. It's the last bastion of democracy, the courtroom. It doesn't matter who you are to the jury or to the court. In my own personal experience, it's usually the people who complain the most about attorneys who are the most vulnerable when it comes to wanting their own case to be heard, their own injustice to be rectified. Activist judges only really exist in the movies. It's usually the larger corporations that can afford to buy justice. The larger companies also have advantages in non-disclosure clauses. So does our own government.

Let's see, over 1,900 pages and we expect this major overhaul to our gov't to be read and understood, by the nimrods in Congress? Who in there right mind would want this rushed thru?? We have until after bHo is gone (2013 before this takes affect, some crisi huh) before it takes effect, otherwise he wouldn't be re-elected, cause the American people will suddenly realize the shafting they are getting by bHo and his obamatons.

Well, I agree with you on the length of the bill. I think that it would have been a third of the current side if the healthcare industry had not become so involved in writing a lot of it. About the wait......since the first bill had been introduced in 1913, I think 100 years is probably long enough. I don't see that as being rushed through.

[grandma]

...been introduced in 1913, I think 100 years is probably long enough. I don't see that as being rushed through.

Still... it has been thrown at our generation (us'uns) in one fell swoop, with we are doing this today type of attitude. What we have seen published on the net this weekend, is the first anyone who will be affected by it, has seen it. Rumours thru these past months, assurances of yea, nay about what is in it, but nothing in print, where we don't have two or three congress people vacillating/disagreeing over the yea or nays; with one congressman stating he didn't know for sure what was in it, that he wasn't going to read it. Can any one doubt that if there hadn't been a hulablaoo raised at the very beginning, that even what is there now would not have had some reconsideration?
Don't forget to turn your clocks back tonight - !!!

[phil]

I don't really follow the idea that the bill is any longer, or less transparent than any defense appropriation bill in entirety, for just about any year. Take a look at

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr279)

and

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110FSpWlq::

and there's quite a lot here that's hidden or black budget. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/pentagons-black-budget-grows-to-more-than-50-billion/

Now, should we say that, since all the congress didn't read this bill in entirety, or that we, the people, don't know what's going into about a 50 billion dollar expenditure account, that we therefore shouldn't allow passage?


Still... it has been thrown at our generation (us'uns) in one fell swoop, with we are doing this today type of attitude. What we have seen published on the net this weekend, is the first anyone who will be affected by it, has seen it. Rumours thru these past months, assurances of yea, nay about what is in it, but nothing in print, where we don't have two or three congress people vacillating/disagreeing over the yea or nays; with one congressman stating he didn't know for sure what was in it, that he wasn't going to read it. Can any one doubt that if there hadn't been a hulablaoo raised at the very beginning, that even what is there now would not have had some reconsideration?
Don't forget to turn your clocks back tonight - !!!

[James48843]

Don't forget to turn your clocks back tonight - !!!


Well, see? There ya go Grandma.

You get an extra hour to read the bill. :D

Much of what is in the current bill, was in the previous bills in one form or another. It's been out for public discussion all summer, in bills that have been proposed. Yes, this version has differences from those previous bills. Those differences are the results of all the discussions and ideas that people brought forth.


I found an interesting video on Youtube that hasn't gotten the million hits that some anti-health care reform videos have gotten. It's a discussion, by Canadians, about the falsehoods being put forth by some anti-reform Americans.

It's an interesting clip worth watching.

Remember this, however. None of the plans now being seriously considered are single--payer plans. The House bill does not create a single-payer plan like Canada, no matter what the fear-mongers want to try and tell you.

But this video is pretty good at telling what Canadians are thinking about the U.S. health care debate.

gG4AZaubFew

[grandma]

Well, see? There ya go Grandma.
You get an extra hour to read the bill. :D


That is good, James !! :laugh:I see You've gone to bed Though!!!!
I have to get new speakers before I can listen to anything anymore -they've been getting more crack-elly everytime I try to hear things - probably the cats knocking them off the desk , tho I usually say it was some of those cool vid music ! Not Tom's boy, tho ! I took the one apart but couldn't see any loose wires - I might try wh(ah)pping it on the floor one more time, tho, ....:rolleyes:

And, Phil,
Now, should we say that, since all the congress didn't read this bill in entirety, or that we, the people, don't know what's going into about a 50 billion dollar expenditure account, that we therefore shouldn't allow passage?

I will check out your sites tomorrow -
Am I interpreting your note about the defense bills, that long detailed bills presented in Congress aren't read in their entirety? Or maybe it is that each person reads some and then they can share their section? How can congress debate/discuss if at least the bulk of them haven't read it? Do the writers/compilers of the bill(s) write Cliff Notes on them? Geez - what an education for a (acch-hem) year old !!! Well - anyway, I'll read that tomorrow.
Prayers tonight & Sunday church for Frixxxx, Jovan, Sugar, Show-me (so he gets grippers on his shoes), Squalebear,
SkyPilot in the Ukraine on Serious Business for the Lord, & who(m)ever else....

[CountryBoy]

I don't really follow the idea that the bill is any longer, or less transparent than any defense appropriation bill in entirety, for just about any year. Take a look at

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr279)

and

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110FSpWlq::

and there's quite a lot here that's hidden or black budget. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/pentagons-black-budget-grows-to-more-than-50-billion/

Now, should we say that, since all the congress didn't read this bill in entirety, or that we, the people, don't know what's going into about a 50 billion dollar expenditure account, that we therefore shouldn't allow passage?

Defense of this country is part of the Constitution not health care. But it wouldn't suprise me that our worthless pols try to sneak it thru on the tails of the Defense Appro. I'm sure they've attache other amendments to the bill that wouldn't have been passed otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, each bill passed, should stand on it's own 2 feet and passed on it's merits alone, not attaching a bunch of riders/pork to get others to support it. Then maybe, we'd get just what is required under the Constitution and folks would have to start tqaking some personal responsibility for their lives. I know that's a novel idea for you Nanny Staters, but it makes to much sense and we've got almost, I said almost, 50% of the country paying no income tax. That's scary.


I also didn't read or hear, that part of the defense appropriation bill, where it mandates that I go to Iraq, A'stan or some other country, under threat of fine and/or prison. It is voluntary now. And if I'm mistaken, and defense of this country, is not part of the Constitution, whereas, everyone must have health care is contained in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights, please point that out. But at least you didn't run that tired old Car insurance analogy up the flag pole as bHo tried early on.

Long day ahead.

[James48843]

Blue Cross of North Carolina raises premiums 11%, uses the money to lobby against Health Care Reform that would bring them competition.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local_state/story/161435.html

BCBS plea to customers on reform hits a nerve


BY SARAH AVERY - Staff Writer
Maybe it was just lousy timing, but many customers of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina are ticked off at the mail they've received recently from the state's largest insurer.

First, they learned their rates will rise by an average of 11 percent next year.

Next, they opened a slick flier from the insurer urging them to send an enclosed pre-printed, postage-paid note to Sen. Kay Hagan denouncing what the company says is unfair competition that would be imposed by a government-backed insurance plan. The so-called public option is likely to be considered by Congress in the health-care overhaul debate.

"No matter what you call it, if the federal government intervenes in the private health insurance market, it's a slippery slope to a single-payer system," the BCBS flier read. "Who wants that?"

Plenty of people, it turns out.

Indignant Blue Cross customers have rebelled against the insurer's message, complaining that their premium dollars have funded such a campaign.

More: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local_state/story/161435.html

[phil]

I'm a bit confused as to where defense spending is a part of the Constitution. Please point that one out. Other than - provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare. Did I miss an amendment somewhere? Was there a military coup while I wasn't watching?

All I see on this is:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It doesn't say anything about spending, and in fact places a limitation on the timeframe of expenditure. After 8 years in Iraq, I think our founding fathers are rolling in their graves.

Defense of this country is part of the Constitution not health care. But it wouldn't suprise me that our worthless pols try to sneak it thru on the tails of the Defense Appro. I'm sure they've attache other amendments to the bill that wouldn't have been passed otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, each bill passed, should stand on it's own 2 feet and passed on it's merits alone, not attaching a bunch of riders/pork to get others to support it. Then maybe, we'd get just what is required under the Constitution and folks would have to start tqaking some personal responsibility for their lives. I know that's a novel idea for you Nanny Staters, but it makes to much sense and we've got almost, I said almost, 50% of the country paying no income tax. That's scary.


I also didn't read or hear, that part of the defense appropriation bill, where it mandates that I go to Iraq, A'stan or some other country, under threat of fine and/or prison. It is voluntary now. And if I'm mistaken, and defense of this country, is not part of the Constitution, whereas, everyone must have health care is contained in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights, please point that out. But at least you didn't run that tired old Car insurance analogy up the flag pole as bHo tried early on.

Long day ahead.

[CountryBoy]

I'm a bit confused as to where defense spending is a part of the Constitution. Please point that one out. Other than - provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare. Did I miss an amendment somewhere? Was there a military coup while I wasn't watching?

All I see on this is:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It doesn't say anything about spending, and in fact places a limitation on the timeframe of expenditure. After 8 years in Iraq, I think our founding fathers are rolling in their graves.

To be able to provide the above, you must spend money on a military. Plain and simple, straight line between 2 points, but if you're not able to see the corrolation between the 2, I've definately got better things to do than debate such an obvious conclusion and how to provide for such protection, but I really didn't expect anything more, from someone that would rather talk a person to death. Last time I waste my time with a troll. I should've have listened to what others have been telling me. My fault. :D

[James48843]

Well, CB, he has a point there, ya know.

If one believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, that would also have to include the fact that the founding fathers never intended to maintain a standing army.

They specifically used the word "Provide" for a Navy, as they knew that you can't build a ship fast enough during time of war.

But they intended that no standing army be "provided". Instead, they gave authority to "raise and support"- when needed- and relied solely on the fact that a citizen militia could be turned out, citizen soldiers, to FORM an army in the event we needed to repel an invasion (Like War of 1812...) but, at the same time- limited that in the Constitution- by saying specifically that they wanted no longer than 2 years worth of appropriation to keep that army in the field.

Either you support the strict interpretation of the Constitution, or you don't. That's the point.

[nnuut]

Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretarThe President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;ies; Pardons

he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. The President is the military's commander-in-chief; however Article One (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution) gives Congress and not the President the authority to declare war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause). Presidents have often deployed troops with Congressional authorization, but without an explicit declaration of war. (Since WW II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), every major military action has been technically a U.S. military operation or a U.N. "police action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_action)", which are deemed legally legitimate because of decisions such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution), Authorization for Use of Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution) by Congress, and various U.N. Resolutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Resolution). This is also true in the case of the Korean War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War), which was only retroactively deemed a war—50 years to the day, after the fact—by a ceremonial Act of Congress.) more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_1:_Command_of_military.3B_Opinions_of_cabinet_s ecretaries.3B_Pardons

[phil]

Tsk. Tsk. No, I don't see the "straight line". There are actually a lot of twists and turns to arrive from the "provide for a common defense" and the invasion of a sovereign country. Debating an obvious conclusion, particularly (as you say) with a troll only leads me, and many others, in the same direction. The US at one point had a great deal of moral authority in the world. Trying to regain that moral authority is an enormous task that our current President has to try to do.

Yes, the Congress basically emasculated themselves by voting for the war powers act to invade Iraq. I'm sure there are many people who regret that now. Just about all of the congress who voted against the war were labelled as "unpatriotic". That was just silly.

To be able to provide the above, you must spend money on a military. Plain and simple, straight line between 2 points, but if you're not able to see the corrolation between the 2, I've definately got better things to do than debate such an obvious conclusion and how to provide for such protection, but I really didn't expect anything more, from someone that would rather talk a person to death. Last time I waste my time with a troll. I should've have listened to what others have been telling me. My fault. :D

[CountryBoy]

Well, CB, he has a point there, ya know.

If one believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, that would also have to include the fact that the founding fathers never intended to maintain a standing army.

They specifically used the word "Provide" for a Navy, as they knew that you can't build a ship fast enough during time of war.

But they intended that no standing army be "provided". Instead, they gave authority to "raise and support"- when needed- and relied solely on the fact that a citizen militia could be turned out, citizen soldiers, to FORM an army in the event we needed to repel an invasion (Like War of 1812...) but, at the same time- limited that in the Constitution- by saying specifically that they wanted no longer than 2 years worth of appropriation to keep that army in the field.

Either you support the strict interpretation of the Constitution, or you don't. That's the point.

Glad you agree about peas in a pod, not that it didn't suprise me. Now back to sighting in my new investment. ;)

[James48843]

Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretarThe President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;ies;

NNuut: Take a read of Federalist #8, where they talk about standing armies, and the fact that the Constitution never intended to have one.

""The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/usconst.asp); and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it.1 Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them."

Federalist #8. (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed08.asp)


And this, from Federalisrt # 26:

"The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence. As the spirit of party, in different degrees, must be expected to infect all political bodies, there will be, no doubt, persons in the national legislature willing enough to arraign the measures and criminate the views of the majority. The provision for the support of a military force will always be a favorable topic for declamation. As often as the question comes forward, the public attention will be roused and attracted to the subject, by the party in opposition; and if the majority should be really disposed to exceed the proper limits, the community will be warned of the danger, and will have an opportunity of taking measures to guard against it. Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent."

Federalist #26. (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed26.asp)

The point is, those who wrote the Constitution had a great aversion to holding standing armies, and made sure that Congress would have to authorize any standing army, and vote at least every two years on the funding for such.

[phil]

From the Federalist #8:

There is a wide difference, also, between military establishments in a country seldom exposed by its situation to internal invasions, and in one which is often subject to them, and always apprehensive of them. The rulers of the former can have a good pretext, if they are even so inclined, to keep on foot armies so numerous as must of necessity be maintained in the latter. These armies being, in the first case, rarely, if at all, called into activity for interior defense, the people are in no danger of being broken to military subordination. The laws are not accustomed to relaxations, in favor of military exigencies; the civil state remains in full vigor, neither corrupted, nor confounded with the principles or propensities of the other state. The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an over-match for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil, and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights. The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against the united efforts of the great body of the people.
In a country in the predicament last described, the contrary of all this happens. The perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. The inhabitants of territories, often the theatre of war, are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights; and by degrees the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of considering them masters, is neither remote nor difficult; but it is very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions, to make a bold or effectual resistance to usurpations supported by the military power.

I always liked reading the Federalist Papers. It explains so much about how and why we became a separate nation. The founders envisioned a small army defending against invaders. I don't think they would approve of us being the invaders of other nations. What's so troubling is that when a lot of conservatives read this, they only pick and choose the ideas. Most definitely don't quote this piece, and I don't wonder why.

The founders of our nation were always uncertain about how much authority they wanted to concede to the President.

Recently, there was a leak of the documents that described the troop levels "needed" in Afghanistan. If I were the Congress, and the administration, I would pursue that one to the ends of the earth to discover how and why this information was leaked. It would be "most" revealing.

[tsptalk]

PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail; (http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583)
Failure to Comply, 5 Years in Prison...

[nnuut]

Check out CSPAN live someone is trying to delay the vote, a real fight between the DEMS and REPS. I think the DEMS don't have the votes and are trying to put off the vote?:sick:

[alevin]

Here is one of the things that concerns me a bit-maybe not so much immediately, but would potentially have increasing impact on real post-tax income for middle class. The closer I get to retirement 10 years from now, the more impact there would be. The way I understand it, impacts would be similar to stagflation.....someone please explain to me if I have that all wrong.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703932904574511794170939688.html

[nnuut]

Check out CSPAN live someone is trying to delay the vote, a real fight between the DEMS and REPS. I think the DEMS don't have the votes and are trying to put off the vote?:sick:
Now the GOP is countering with using the same delaying ploy, How do they ever get anything done?

[OBGibby]

ObamaCare: What Gov't Will Require You to Do (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html) - Betsy McCaughey, WSJ

[CountryBoy]

ObamaCare: What Gov't Will Require You to Do (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html) - Betsy McCaughey, WSJ

Don't confuse these Socialist with the facts, they are omnipotent and we are just dumb Americans, who must be told what to do and how to spend our money, that's if Prez Pelosi doesn't put us in jail for not doing what she id mandating. :mad:

CB

[phil]

Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.

Sounds good to me.

[James48843]

Obama delivers remarks prior to the House health-care vote

Courtesy of the White House
Saturday, November 7, 2009 2:19 PM


PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good afternoon, everybody. I just want to say a few words about the landmark vote that the House of Representatives is poised to take today -- a vote that can bring us one step closer to making real the promise of quality, affordable health care for the American people.

For the better part of a year now, members of the House and the Senate have been working diligently and constructively to craft legislation that will benefit millions of American families and millions of American businesses who urgently need it. For the first time ever, they've passed bills through every single committee responsible for reform. They've brought us closer than we have ever been to passing health insurance reform on behalf of the American people.

Now is the time to finish the job. The bill that the House has produced will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality, affordable options for those who don't; and lower costs for American families and American businesses. And as I've insisted from the beginning, it is a bill that is fully paid for and will actually reduce our long-term federal deficit.

This bill is change that the American people urgently need. Don't just take my word for it. Consider the national groups who've come out in support of this bill on behalf of their members: The Consumers Union supports it because it will create -- and I quote -- "a more secure, affordable health care system for the American people."

The American Medical Association and the American Nurses Association support it on behalf of doctors and nurses and medical professionals who know firsthand what's broken in our current system, and who see what happens when their patients can't get the care they need because of insurance industry bureaucracies.

The National Farmers Union supports this bill because it will control costs for farmers and ranchers, and address the unique challenges rural Americans face when it comes to receiving quality care.

And the AARP supports it because it will achieve the goal for which the AARP has been fighting for decades -- reducing the cost of health care, expanding coverage for America's seniors, and strengthening Medicare for the long haul.

Now, no bill can ever contain everything that everybody wants, or please every constituency and every district. That's an impossible task. But what is possible, what's in our grasp right now is the chance to prevent a future where every day 14,000 Americans continue to lose their health insurance, and every year 18,000 Americans die because they don't have it; a future where crushing costs keep small businesses from succeeding and big businesses from competing in the global economy; a future where countless dreams are deferred or scaled back because of a broken system we could have fixed when we had the chance.

What we can do right now is choose a better future and pass a bill that brings us to the very cusp of building what so many generations of Americans have sought to build -- a better health care system for this country.

Millions of Americans are watching right now. Their families and their businesses are counting on us. After all, this is why they sent us here, to finally confront the challenges that Washington had been putting off for decades -- to make their lives better, to leave this country stronger than we found it.

I just came from the Hill where I talked to the members of Congress there, and I reminded them that opportunities like this come around maybe once in a generation. Most public servants pass through their entire careers without a chance to make as important a difference in the lives of their constituents and the life of this country. This is their moment, this is our moment, to live up to the trust that the American people have placed in us -- even when it's hard; especially when it's hard. This is our moment to deliver.

I urge members of Congress to rise to this moment. Answer the call of history, and vote yes for health insurance reform for America.

Thanks.

[Buster]

Obama delivers remarks prior to the House health-care vote

Courtesy of the White House
Saturday, November 7, 2009 2:19 PM


PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good afternoon, everybody. I just want to say a few words about the landmark vote that the House of Representatives is poised to take today -- a vote that can bring us one step closer to making real the promise of quality, affordable health care for the American people.

For the better part of a year now, members of the House and the Senate have been working diligently and constructively to craft legislation that will benefit millions of American families and millions of American businesses who urgently need it. For the first time ever, they've passed bills through every single committee responsible for reform. They've brought us closer than we have ever been to passing health insurance reform on behalf of the American people.

Now is the time to finish the job. The bill that the House has produced will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality, affordable options for those who don't; and lower costs for American families and American businesses. And as I've insisted from the beginning, it is a bill that is fully paid for and will actually reduce our long-term federal deficit.

This bill is change that the American people urgently need. Don't just take my word for it. Consider the national groups who've come out in support of this bill on behalf of their members: The Consumers Union supports it because it will create -- and I quote -- "a more secure, affordable health care system for the American people."

The American Medical Association and the American Nurses Association support it on behalf of doctors and nurses and medical professionals who know firsthand what's broken in our current system, and who see what happens when their patients can't get the care they need because of insurance industry bureaucracies.

The National Farmers Union supports this bill because it will control costs for farmers and ranchers, and address the unique challenges rural Americans face when it comes to receiving quality care.

And the AARP supports it because it will achieve the goal for which the AARP has been fighting for decades -- reducing the cost of health care, expanding coverage for America's seniors, and strengthening Medicare for the long haul.

Now, no bill can ever contain everything that everybody wants, or please every constituency and every district. That's an impossible task. But what is possible, what's in our grasp right now is the chance to prevent a future where every day 14,000 Americans continue to lose their health insurance, and every year 18,000 Americans die because they don't have it; a future where crushing costs keep small businesses from succeeding and big businesses from competing in the global economy; a future where countless dreams are deferred or scaled back because of a broken system we could have fixed when we had the chance.

What we can do right now is choose a better future and pass a bill that brings us to the very cusp of building what so many generations of Americans have sought to build -- a better health care system for this country.

Millions of Americans are watching right now. Their families and their businesses are counting on us. After all, this is why they sent us here, to finally confront the challenges that Washington had been putting off for decades -- to make their lives better, to leave this country stronger than we found it.

I just came from the Hill where I talked to the members of Congress there, and I reminded them that opportunities like this come around maybe once in a generation. Most public servants pass through their entire careers without a chance to make as important a difference in the lives of their constituents and the life of this country. This is their moment, this is our moment, to live up to the trust that the American people have placed in us -- even when it's hard; especially when it's hard. This is our moment to deliver.

I urge members of Congress to rise to this moment. Answer the call of history, and vote yes for health insurance reform for America.

Thanks.

He ended with just a "Thanks" ?:confused:..seems a bit casual and out of character for a President after a Speech.:confused:

[nnuut]

Now they have to deal with the Senate, best of luck on that one!!!:rolleyes:
If it does pass the Senate it won't be the same Bill in the end and that could be GOOD!! 7175

[phil]

We'll see where this ends up. I own that it may not be the same bill, and reconciliation may change a lot in it, particularly when so many Senators are one the insurance industry payroll. They've been that way for many many years. The opposition is well funded, and they have the support of a lot of people that have an agenda against the current administration. Next year may bring a lot of structural changes to the US government, I hope.

It seems we're able to spend trillions on stupidity, but hardly a dime on common sense. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have served to empty the national treasury, squandering our children's future, and helping only to create enormous problems for us and the rest of the world.

[PessOptimist]

To everyone

I am very curious, what kind of health insurance plan you have and how do you feel this bill may change it?

I am enrolled in FEHBP and use Tri-Care prime as a secondary. Both are increasing the rates.

Why this bizarre arrangement? Keeps peace in the family.

There is so much information, non-information and dis-information about this bill (H.R. 3962) and seemingly contradictory language in the different sections after trying to read it, that I wonder if the enthusiastic supporters have any opinions on how it will change their personal situations.

And please, no replies about how much any administration has wasted on anything other than health care. Read the title of the thread.

[James48843]

I have an HMO family plan. I will not be eligible for Tri-Care until I start collecting Guard retirement ten years from now.

In January, my rates will rise. Again. Like they do every January.

After reading the bill - I don't think really anything will change for me at all.

My HMO pretty much covers exactly what is in the definition of a qualified plan already- so any tweaks will be minor. I do about a grand a year in FSA account too- but nothing in this bill affects that either. I'm lucky I have no large health bills in store that I am expecting. No prescriptions, etc.

So for people like me, not much changes under this bill.

I would expect to see something different out of whatever the Senate comes up with, so it is pretty much too early to get a good handle on whatever the final product is going to be.

The House bill raises tax marginal rates on those over $500K in income (single, $1 million for married filing joint) . I won't EVER come close to that.

But the Senate bills passed out of committee so far don't have the same financing mechanisms. So we'll just have to see what the Senate comes up with for financing it.

[PessOptimist]

Thanks, james

Exactly the kind of reply I'm hoping for.

[phil]

Okay. Okay. I note your objection. I'll try to do better. I'm not completely dense.
At least it's not a personal attack, okay?

To everyone

I am very curious, what kind of health insurance plan you have and how do you feel this bill may change it?

I am enrolled in FEHBP and use Tri-Care prime as a secondary. Both are increasing the rates.

Why this bizarre arrangement? Keeps peace in the family.

There is so much information, non-information and dis-information about this bill (H.R. 3962) and seemingly contradictory language in the different sections after trying to read it, that I wonder if the enthusiastic supporters have any opinions on how it will change their personal situations.

And please, no replies about how much any administration has wasted on anything other than health care. Read the title of the thread.

[coolhand]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29393.html

[grandma]

This is the e-mail letter I have just received from my local Arkansas Senator, Sen. Blanche Lincoln - in case anyone would like to read it at her website :

Earlier today, I announced that I will post the complete text of the proposed Senate health care reform legislation online as soon as it is available. The text will be posted on my existing Health Care Resources Page at www.lincoln.senate.gov/arkansas/healthcare (http://lincoln.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?mailaction=clickthru&gpiv=2100050372.33569.109&gen=1&mailing_linkid=2327).
I’m looking forward to reviewing the bill when it becomes available, and I want to ensure that my constituents have the same opportunity. Over the past months, I have heard from many Arkansans who are frustrated and lack accurate information on the health care proposals in Congress. In response to their comments, I created my ‘Health Resources Page’ to streamline materials from my own website and other Congressional resources. I will continue to update this page with any materials relevant to the ongoing health reform proposals before Congress.
Last month, I also led a group of Democratic Senators in pressuring Senate leaders for greater transparency in the health insurance reform debate. Senate leaders have yet to guarantee my request that the bill be posted on a public website at least 72 hours prior to the first vote to proceed to health reform.
In addition to posting the original bill, I requested that:
• The legislative text and complete costs of the health care bill as amended are made available to the public for 72 hours prior to the vote on final passage of the Senate bill;
• The legislative text of all amendments filed and offered for debate on the Senate floor are posted on a public website prior to beginning debate on the amendment;
• The final agreement between the House of Representatives and the Senate and complete costs of the final bill are made available to the public for 72 hours prior to the vote on final passage in the Senate.
As always, please feel free to contact me (http://lincoln.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?mailaction=clickthru&gpiv=2100050372.33569.109&gen=1&mailing_linkid=2328) via my website or by phone. I look forward to hearing from you.
With Arkansas Pride,
Blanche L. Lincoln

[nnuut]

Did they mention the Price? From what I heard on TV tonight it will cost somewhat more than people are paying for private insurance like BCBS. Man O Man!:cool:

[tsptalk]

Taxpayers' money at work...

The $100 Million Health Care Vote?

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)
Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html)

[nnuut]

Taxpayers' money at work...

The $100 Million Health Care Vote?

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)
Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html)
If I was her I would turn it down and denounce Reid for his trickery, There were other states that had Major Disasters!!:suspicious:

[2EASY]

To everyone

I am very curious, what kind of health insurance plan you have and how do you feel this bill may change it?

I am enrolled in FEHBP and use Tri-Care prime as a secondary. Both are increasing the rates.

Why this bizarre arrangement? Keeps peace in the family.

There is so much information, non-information and dis-information about this bill (H.R. 3962) and seemingly contradictory language in the different sections after trying to read it, that I wonder if the enthusiastic supporters have any opinions on how it will change their personal situations.

And please, no replies about how much any administration has wasted on anything other than health care. Read the title of the thread.


Tricare prime for Retired Military - it's great! Pay less than $500 a year. Who says govt health plan ca't work :D

[Show-me]

Wow, a $100 million taxpayer funded bribe to the Great State of Louisiana.

[James48843]

Taxpayers' money at work...

The $100 Million Health Care Vote?

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)
Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html)

I checked.


(page 432)
‘‘(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y),

increased by 50 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage deter mined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less
than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c)
of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5.


Yep. it looks like that is the case.

I can just see that phone call now..between Senator Harry Reid, and Senator Mary Landrieu...



Harry: Mary, hi. This is Harry.

Mary: Hi.

Harry: Mary, I'm a little concerned. I heard your interview on TV, saying that you were hesitating to support the bill. Now, Mary, you know I need every single one of our Democrats in order to get this thing passed. What will it take to get you to come on board?

Mary: We'll Gee, Harry. You know we're pretty poor down here, and ...

Harry: Now hang on Mary, we've already funneled a gazillion taxpayer dollars down to you.

Mary: And we really appreciate it, Harry, to be sure. But we're still now back to our old New Orleans jazz days yet.

Harry: What? What do you mean?

Mary: Well, during Mardi Gras our business is still down. My guys really enjoy partying in the streets. What can you do for me to get them all partying in the streets in New Orleans?

Harry: Well, maybe we can do something...how about we fix the levies?

Mary: Oh Harry, you already gave us money to fix the levies, but nobody is partying yet.

Harry: Well, Mary, what can you think of?

Mary: How about we throw cash out of the second story windows of the French Quarter?

Harry: Hmmm... that would be good. How much do you think that will cost?

Mary: Oh, let's make it some nice round number. How about a Hundred Million?

Harry: A HUNDRED MILLION??? No way. There is NO WAY we can slip a Hundred Million into this bill, and no one know what it is for. How could we hide that?

Mary: Oh, come on Harry. Your staff and mine can get together, we'll come up with some good words, and we'll just slip it in somewhere in the middle of the bill. Your guys are great with words. No one will be able to tell it's for throwing cash out the second story window in teh French Quarter.

Harry- Well, maybe you are right. We'll call it something else. Like, hey, I know. We'll say it's for doctors and things. We won't tell them it's for the party favors at the AMA convention that week. Do you think that will work?

Mary: Sure, that sounds great. And I'll tell the AMA we were able to get their party favors for the Mardi Gras convention. Count me in.


Harry: Thanks Mary, I knew I could count on you.


7306

[tsptalk]

Taxpayers' money at work...

The $100 Million Health Care Vote?
And so it came to pass that Landrieu walked onto the Senate floor midafternoon Saturday to announce her aye vote -- and to trumpet the financial "fix" she had arranged for Louisiana. "I am not going to be defensive," she declared. "And it's not a $100 million fix. It's a $300 million fix."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102272_pf.html

[Silverbird]

Concierge Medicine - Drs rebelling agains insurance companies, pay more up front get better treatment. This is the trend with the current system.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33863680/ns/health-health_care/

[phil]

This is a good story about how people have been misled by politicians. The real length of the healthcare bill is 209 pages long.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_legislation_inflation

From the quoted article:

Indeed, legislation of comparable size was used to redefine an area of much more limited federal responsibility, education. That was the No Child Left Behind Act from the agenda of Republican President George W. Bush.
The nation's health care system accounts for one-sixth of the economy and no one really expects brevity when reinventing something so complex.

[PessOptimist]

This is a good story about how people have been misled by politicians. The real length of the healthcare bill is 209 pages long.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_legislation_inflation

From the quoted article:

Indeed, legislation of comparable size was used to redefine an area of much more limited federal responsibility, education. That was the No Child Left Behind Act from the agenda of Republican President George W. Bush.
The nation's health care system accounts for one-sixth of the economy and no one really expects brevity when reinventing something so complex.

Also from the quoted article:

The Senate bill is 318,512 words, shorter than the House version despite consuming more paper... The type is small and tight... It's 209 pages.

Thats average 1524 words per page. If you make the font small enough you could make it 100 pages if you wanted.

It's all spin. It doesn't matter how long it is. If it's crap, it's crap. If it's great, it's great. If it's the same old mediocre stuff our congress usually produces, it's the same old mediocre stuff our congress usually produces.

[phil]

The bill is posted online. I don't think it's the size that we were led to believe by the opposition. It's much shorter than the No Child Left Behind bill sponsored by the former administration. I didn't see many Dems crying about the size of the bill then.

Spin is simply spin. And here it's just plain ridiculous. And this bill is supposed to reorder a lot of the economy.


Also from the quoted article:

The Senate bill is 318,512 words, shorter than the House version despite consuming more paper... The type is small and tight... It's 209 pages.

Thats average 1524 words per page. If you make the font small enough you could make it 100 pages if you wanted.

It's all spin. It doesn't matter how long it is. If it's crap, it's crap. If it's great, it's great. If it's the same old mediocre stuff our congress usually produces, it's the same old mediocre stuff our congress usually produces.

[nnuut]

The only reason this one is smaller than the one in the House is PRESSURE by the Conservatives and the liberals sneaking out parts of the old bill that they didn't like! But this is more like it, is there still hope?:cool:
Cookin' the BOOKS!!:suspicious: 7345

[phil]

Maybe if we just called it "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Pre-existing Conditions" that people could then not be so very intimidated by the bill.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/09/house-health-care-bill-ac_n_350810.html?page=2&show_comment_id=34230278#comment_34230278

[PessOptimist]

The bill is posted online. I don't think it's the size that we were led to believe by the opposition. It's much shorter than the No Child Left Behind bill sponsored by the former administration. I didn't see many Dems crying about the size of the bill then.

Spin is simply spin. And here it's just plain ridiculous. And this bill is supposed to reorder a lot of the economy.

Phil, URL for the bill please. What is the bill number please? I do not really care what any former administration did.

[phil]

H.R. 3962. You can look it up.

[PessOptimist]

H.R. 3962. You can look it up.

It is in the Senate now, pardon my ignorance but this is the same old House of Representative's bill that has been around forever. Where is the new Senate bill? Should start with "S".

[PessOptimist]

Phil, what I really want is to find a copy of what Senator Reid is "passing around" at 209 pages. Please provide a link and what the SENATE bill number is.

[PessOptimist]

So where is the information on the U. S Senate health care bill introduced by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada?

What is the Senate bill number?

Where are copies of the "209 page" version?

I have searched trhe "Congressional Record". No joy!

I could get my information from the "news" on TV. Maybe MSNBC, maybe CNN, maybe FNC. I could get my information from many on line sources.

I could get all my information from "the internet" Lots of stuff, no mention of the bill number.

Don't give me H.R 3962. That is the House of Representative's bill.

What is the number of Senator Reid's bill and where can I actually read it? Saying it is on line and I can see it there doesn't cut it. If you make such a statement, give the URL.

DO NOT reply with H.R. 3962. The "bill" is in the United States Senate now. Wate is the Senate bill number?

If you do not know or cannot find it, perhaps you should start to search for the truth yourself.

[James48843]

PessOptimist:

It is here:
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.php?p=241962&postcount=311

and here:
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.php?p=241965&postcount=247

Bottom line- look on Thomas for SA 2786. You'll find joy there.

[nnuut]

How do you like these apples?:mad:

December 7, 2009, 3:29 PM ET

Federal Workers Gripe About Senate Health Bill


By Janet Adamy
Federal employees are the latest group that’s squawking about the Senate health bill.
The Association of Federal Health Organizations, which provides health benefits to eight million government workers and their dependents, found that many government health plans would soon be subject to the bill’s 40% excise tax on so-called generous health plans. Federal workers also would see their insurance premiums increase between $103 and $159 a year because of a flat tax on insurers to help pay for covering the uninsured.
The findings are part of a previously undisclosed November report obtained by The Wall Street Journal.
There’s an important caveat. The report was assembled at least in part by actuaries from the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, the insurer that administers the largest plan offered to federal employees. There have been a series of industry-driven reports sounding alarms that the health overhaul will raise, instead of lower, insurance premiums, and their conclusions haven’t always stood up to independent analysis.
That said, the report’s findings are worth considering given that lawmakers are looking to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program as a model for a public health insurance plan compromise. Democrats are considering requiring the Office of Personnel Management, which administers federal workers’ health plans, to establish a new national plan through nonprofit private insurance entities.
According to the report, about half of the self-only insurance policies that cover government workers would be subject to the 40% excise tax by 2015, because the value of those plans would cross the $8,500-a-year threshold for the tax by then. Current law prevents insurers from passing on the tax, so they’d likely scale back the benefits to keep the plans from exceeding the threshold.
Association members say the tax would hit low earners who don’t have lavish benefits. A rural letter carrier, for instance, earns an average salary of between $45,000 and $50,000 a year, said Larry Waligora, who manages health benefits for rural letter carriers and is also the chairman of the AFHO. While copayments are low — $10 for a generic drug under some plans – workers do share in their health costs, he says.
“I know they have to finance this some way but I think that they’re picking on the wrong folks,” he said. “It’s not what you would consider a Cadillac plan by any stretch of the imagination.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/07/federal-workers-gripe-about-senate-health-bill/

[James48843]

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.)said the health benefits tax would be stripped of the legislation once the House and the Senate have to merge their bills -- a step that would come after the Senate passes its own bill.

"I'll make a flat out prediction," he said. "Once we sit down in conference, I can assure you the excise tax as currently contained in the Senate bill will not survive."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/08/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5941153.shtml

[nnuut]

Updated December 08, 2009
10 Million Could Lose Employer Coverage Under Senate Health Bill, CBO Says


FOXNews.com

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that up to 10 million people could lose their employer-based insurance coverage under the Senate's health care reform bill.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that up to 10 million people could lose their employer-based insurance coverage under the Senate's health care reform bill.
In new figures out Monday, the nonpartisan office said the net loss would add up to about 5 million -- the anticipated loss of employer coverage on one end would be offset in part by the expectation that a new mandate would drive other employers to cover millions more workers who are not currently covered.
But the estimate assumes many employers, particularly small businesses with low-wage workers, would opt to pay the fine and drop their insurance plans. The CBO estimated this would affect between 9 million and 10 million workers.
The estimate was provided after Republicans pressed the CBO for details on employer coverage, and it added fuel to the GOP argument that President Obama's claim that nobody will be forced to give up their private coverage is bunk. It comes in the middle of a heated debate in the Senate over whether and how the government should enter the market with its own insurance plan.
"If you like what you have you can't keep it," the Senate Republican office said in an e-mail highlighting the CBO report and keying off the president's refrain.
Though some of those who lose their coverage would be eligible for government subsidies to buy insurance, some would not, according to the CBO.
For instance, a family of four making more than $88,000 would not qualify for subsidies and could face even higher premiums in the private market.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/08/million-lose-employer-coverage-senate-health-cbo-says/

[nnuut]

Democratic Senators Agree to Drop Government-Run Insurance Option


AP

Democratic senators say they have a tentative deal to drop a government-run insurance option from health care legislation.


WASHINGTON -- Democratic senators say they have a tentative deal to drop a government-run insurance option from health care legislation.

No further details were immediately available.
But liberals and moderates have been discussing an alternative, including a private insurance arrangement to be supervised by the federal agency that oversees the system through which lawmakers purchase coverage. Additionally, talks centered on opening up Medicare to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, a significant expansion of the large government health care program that currently serves the over-65 population.
Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa told reporters he didn't like the agreement but would support it to the hilt in an attempt to pass health care legislation.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/08/democratic-senators-agree-drop-government-run-insurance-option/

[phil]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osBaxjFO33I

Yes. Faux News on healthcare issues.

It's not about rationing healthcare, but making healthcare rational.

[nnuut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osBaxjFO33I

Yes. Faux News on healthcare issues.

It's not about rationing healthcare, but making healthcare rational.
Yep good splicing there Phil!
As a matter of fact my youngest child, 25 is scheduled for surgery this month due to positive results of a PAP SMEAR. We got a second opinion and the other Republican Doctor agreed that it is necessary, probably because they watch FOX NEWS? :suspicious:

[phil]

Well, I'm sorry to hear that about your daughter. I hope she gets better.

[nnuut]

Thanks Phil, Our older daughter had the same thing when she was about the same age. Cervical Cancer is a slow grower but I think it's Better to catch it early.

[phil]

Let's hope all will be well. If it's any help for you, my ex-wife had it and got over it.

[nnuut]

My wife did too!!
It's everywhere, It's everywhere!!!

[James48843]

Senate compromise update- Now the compromise is to allow those between age 55 and age 64 to buy into Medicare, instead of having to wait until age 65.

Still awaiting full details for the CBO scoring to be completed.

[phil]

Let's hope it gets through relatively unscathed. I still prefer Dennis Kucinich's plan.

At least the guy has guts.

[James48843]

Fox News's Glenn Beck calls for the abolishment of Medicare.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/09/beck-abolish-medicare/

[James48843]

"Would you favor or oppose the government offering some people who are uninsured the choice of a government-administered health insurance plan -- also known as a 'public option' -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?"


_____________Favor___ Oppose____ Unsure % % %
12/4-8/09
ALL: 59______ 29______ 12



Republicans
33_____ 55______ 12


Democrats
80______ 12_______ 8



Independents
59______ 28_______ 13


http://www.pollingreport.com

[nnuut]

Who pays after the limits? No CATASTROPHIC COVERAGE?:nuts:SORRY WE"VE SPENT ENOUGH ON YOU, You just have to die!!
Updated December 11, 2009
Loophole Would Allow Health Coverage Limits!


AP

Senate Democratic health care bill would permit insurance companies to place annual limits on the dollar value of medical care, as long as those limits are not "unreasonable."


WASHINGTON -- A loophole in the Senate health care bill would let insurers place annual dollar limits on medical care for people struggling with costly illnesses such as cancer, prompting a rebuke from patient advocates.
The legislation that originally passed the Senate health committee last summer would have banned such limits, but a tweak to that provision weakened it in the bill now moving toward a Senate vote.
As currently written, the Senate Democratic health care bill would permit insurance companies to place annual limits on the dollar value of medical care, as long as those limits are not "unreasonable." The bill does not define what level of limits would be allowable, delegating that task to administration officials.
The provision is included in far-reaching legislation that would carry out President Barack Obama's plan to revamp the health care system, expanding coverage to millions now uninsured and trying to slow budget-busting cost increases. A tentative deal among Senate Democrats to back away from creating a new government program to compete with private insurers appears to have overcome a major obstacle to the bill's passage.
Officials of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network said they were taken by surprise when the earlier ban on annual coverage limits was undercut, adding that they have not been able to get a satisfactory explanation.
"We don't know who put it in, or why it was put in," said Stephen Finan, a policy expert with the cancer society's advocacy affiliate.
Democratic officials of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee would not comment publicly but said the bill contains numerous provisions that will benefit patients with cancer and other life-threatening illnesses, not to mention improvements in preventive care.
Advocates for patients say they're concerned the language will stay in the bill all the way to Obama's desk.
"The primary purpose of insurance is to protect people against catastrophic loss," Finan said. "If you put a limit on benefits, by definition it's going to affect people who are dealing with catastrophic loss." The cost of cancer treatment can exceed $100,000 a year. [more]
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/11/loophole-allow-health-coverage-limits/

[CountryBoy]

Ooops, the Dims don't seem to mind that little problem at all.

[coolhand]

What a debacle this piece of sh...uh legislation this is. :cheesy:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574587820416102550.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories

[grandma]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58419
Another on-line article about the Brilliance of the Americanophiles.
I wonder ..., well, that is evil, too, and considering the wealth & the health insurance allowed to them, it probably would make no difference - but still - - what would their mental, spiritual attitudes be like if on Christmas Day, Santa dumped all the cancers, the lungers, Neuro afflictions, etc, spread across the US, if he took it all & dumped all that down the chimneys, at the front doors of all these folks, in D.C. & elsewhere - all of the behind the scenes string-pullers & operators, including their fronts..?
Now, don't chastise me - I've admited it is an evil thought, I am just wondering......
Sometimes it is hard to wait for those people to get their Judgements when you see their deliberate denial to the folks that elected them (recognizing the Czars are not elected & are responsible only to the President of the United States of America) and not only that, but are making sure the cream of any and all care goes directly to them without cost.
I have absolutely no doubt that there are those among us who are rejoicing at this news, that will then tell us that exits & covers are available somewhere in this bill, that they are Not Hidden, it is just that they can't be located at this particular time. And that we have their Blood Oath, that the Supremist of the Supreme Court will make sure the guarantees being verbalized now will be upheld - regardless of all the bills that have been passed in the last 50 + years that turned out to be something else....
Rambling, yes, but I reckon there are enough reading that feel the same way, and will understand what I am trying to communicate.
Thank you, Tom, for the Ignore button !! :rolleyes: `they' won't be accosted by my point-of-view~~

[CountryBoy]

What a debacle this piece of sh...uh legislation this is. :cheesy:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574587820416102550.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories

“Opponents of ObamaCare will be aided by polls showing that it is even less popular than HillaryCare was a year into the Clinton presidency. Back in December 1993, Gallup found that 47% of voters backed HillaryCare, with 32% opposed. Today, an average of health-care surveys at Pollster.com shows support for ObamaCare at 38.8%, with 51.4% against.

The difference is that in 1993 and 1994, ads pointing out the weaknesses of HillaryCare were ubiquitous on TV. This time the White House has bullied the health-care industry into silence or sullen support.

But the falling poll numbers tell us anyone who tries to force a full health-care debate that pushes a vote past the holidays will not suffer politically. One reason the Democrats are frantic for a vote before Christmas is that they fear what will happen if senators have to go home and talk with constituents before voting.”

Mustn’t give the unwashed masses a chance to comment on something.. Elitist a-holes. :mad:


And Grandma, I understood exactly what you meant

[coolhand]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30473.html

[CountryBoy]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30473.html

“Senate moderates who are the linchpin to passing a health care reform bill raised fresh worries Thursday about a proposed Medicare expansion, complicating Majority Leader Harry Reid’s hopes of putting together a filibuster-proof majority for the legislation in the coming days.

Snowe said the Medicare expansion exacerbates an “already-serious problem,” with the low government reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals that serve Medicare patients.

And Nelson said allowing people ages 55 to 64 to purchase Medicare coverage could simply be an intermediate step on the way to an entirely government-run health care system.

Reid will not release details — even to senators — until he receives the CBO analysis, which isn’t expected until early next week.

Even the most ardent supporters of health care reform said they had too many questions and too few answers.

“I am increasingly troubled about the proposal,” Lieberman said. “I am worried about what impact it will have on the Medicare program’s fiscal viability and also what effect it will have on the premiums paid by people benefiting from Medicare now.”



What arrogance makes Reid think that he should be the only one to see the current proposal?

Why do so many hold us in contempt, because we disagree and worry about the massive debt that is being run up.

Everything is a crisis (Climate, swine flu, health plan, Cap & Trade) these days, so that they can slam as much as their socialist agenda thru that they can. :mad: What has happened to common sense:confused:

The only crisis I see is our massive spending and the impending damage it’s going to cause to our future. The Social Security and Medicare money shortfall is going to eat our lunch, before any of the other “crises” supposedly impact us. :worried:

[grandma]

Marriage penalty buried in Health Bill:
http://tinyurl.com/y9nwj4q


A Republican candidate for Congress in Minnesota says "a huge marriage penalty for the American middle class" is hidden in both the House and Senate healthcare bills.


Former Minnesota state legislator Allen Quist points out that two single people each making $30,000 per year would pay $1,320 combined for private health insurance if the Pelosi House bill was in effect now. However, if the two individuals were to marry, they would pay a combined cost of $12,000 a year for the same level of insurance under the Pelosi bill.

Quist notes this "marriage penalty" extends all the way from a two-person combined income of $58,280 to $86,640. The GOP candidate notes that that $28,000 spread encompasses a large number of Americans.



Sheesh - what else is in there that the general public (me) won't notice...even if we are able to understand all the `go to' and the `see also' and `except for' etc., etc....

[alevin]

Holy shmoly (that's another synonym for the "list"). That is an attention-getter. Hope the word gets out, big time and that all our congressfolks get an earful. I plan on giving mine some if this is legit. where's the fine print where this shows up, inquiring minds want to know.

[WorkFE]

I know I told my wife "till death do us part" but I'm fairly certain she knows the difference between $1320 and $12,000. :nuts::nuts:

[grandma]

...I plan on giving mine some if this is legit. where's the fine print where this shows up, inquiring minds want to know.

alevin - the article doesn't give the section numbers, but if you go to MORE at the bottom of that first page, it goes on to give more details.
-for example:

“Health insurance premium costs for two adults with equal incomes if the Pelosi bill was in effect now:
...Combined yearly income Combined premium cost if singleCombined premium cost if marriedChange$60,000$1,320$12,000+$10,680$70,000$1 ,960$12,000+$10,040$80,000$2,880$12,000+$9,120$90, 000$12,000$12,0000
Sources: The numbers on the chart are based on (a) a chart provided by The Committees on Ways & Means, Energy & Commerce, and Education & Labor, October 29, 2009, see next chart; (b) the current Federal Poverty Levels; see final chart below; and (c) the estimate that two adults would pay $12,000 annually for individual health insurance with average benefits if their income exceeds 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.

“Once the income of Americans exceeds 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, there are ...

well, shoot - this information is in columns on the original page - you'll have to go there to make sense!!
page 2: http://tinyurl.com/y9ucr5e

[James48843]

Marriage penalty buried in Health Bill:
http://tinyurl.com/y9nwj4q



Sheesh - what else is in there that the general public (me) won't notice...even if we are able to understand all the `go to' and the `see also' and `except for' etc., etc....

First, the "Pelosi Bill" isn't being considered. It's easy to come up with some complaints about a bill that isn't even being considered, now isn't it? The "Pelosi Bill", or the House Version of the bill, will not be the vehicle considered to be passed. Only the Senate version, the REID bill, is going to be the one voted on.

Secondly, what health insurance plan do you know about, that costs only $1320? I'd like to see that one, please.

[James48843]

Reid will not release details — even to senators — until he receives the CBO analysis, which isn’t expected until early next week.

What arrogance makes Reid think that he should be the only one to see the current proposal?

Why do so many hold us in contempt, because we disagree and worry about the massive debt that is being run up.



That was the deal and the ground rules agreed to before all this started- No one can publish or release a proposal, until it has been cost scored by the CBO. That way no one can toss something on the table, say it is cheap, and try and get it passed before CBO scoring is done (Like what happened during the Bush years- the republican prescription drug program got pushed through before CBO's numbers could be looked at. This time, the Dems demanded that any plan get a full scoring before it could be publically released, and also the Dems said they would not vote on anything until people had a chance to read through the bills, and review the CBO numbers for themselves.)

Facts- no vote until all the numbers are out. THEN we can all see the proposal, and decide whether it's worthwhile, or not.

[mick504]

Yeah...where's all the Transparency Obama talked about...He is the most secretive president we have had...since I've been around. I'm a retired fed...I wonder how this new HC bill will change my insurance coverage and its costs. I really wonder.

[grandma]

Only the Senate version, the REID bill, is going to be the one voted on.
Secondly, what health insurance plan do you know about, that costs only $1320? I'd like to see that one, please.
Then what was published as being in `the Pelosi bill' is not in the Reid Bill?
As for costs, who knows what will end up - except we have all been warned Everything will Be Up... I guess that could even mean you pay something, but get nothing?
:)

[nnuut]

They don't seem to want to answer these questions:
I have a few questions about the Public Option.

1. How much are the premiums?
2. Are there different level of coverage, if so what are the premiums?
3. Are there deductibles or coinsurance etc. If so how much are they?
4. What are the catastrophic coverages?

I haven't heard anything about costs!:cool:
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showpost.php?p=239219&postcount=434

[nnuut]

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

[James48843]

THAT is good.

[James48843]

Yeah...where's all the Transparency Obama talked about...He is the most secretive president we have had...since I've been around.

Well, look at it this way---

When they tried to do Hillarycare in 94, Hillary and the gang went into a room, and NOBODY saw anything.

This time, they are doing exactly the opposite. This time there is a House version of the bill, which got lots and lots and lots of press, review, posting on the internet, CBO scoring, etc.

And then they did several different Senate versions through committees, each time with a posting, CBO scoring of stuff, a TON of publicity in the press, both sides picking out little pieces of various bills and acting shocked at this, or shocked at that.

Making laws is just like making sausage, you know.

So here we are, after MONTHS of hearings, debates, committee votes, versions of different bills all posted on the web.

And now we're waiting for CBO scoring of the last Senate compromise, because no one wants it public until the CBO has solid numbers to talk about. Patience. It will be here soon, of that I am sure.

And I am sure that the final Senate bill will be posted for at least 72 hours before there is any vote.

Will there be 60 votes in the Senate for this one? Who knows.

What no one has said yet- is that once the Senate "final" bill is done, we have to go BACK to the House, and hammer out a conference bill between the two houses. That could take another month. And THEN they BOTH have to pass the final version of the conference.

It COULD take months.

BUT......it won't be a "back room deal" hidden from public sight, as the Hillarycare opposition claimed.

You may be able to say a lot of things- but no one will be able to say they never saw any of the language, or scored the costs, before this one is finally put to bed. WHEN it finally gets there.

And we still have a long way to go.

[grandma]

THAT is good.
+1 :D

[CountryBoy]

Marriage penalty buried in Health Bill:
http://tinyurl.com/y9nwj4q



Sheesh - what else is in there that the general public (me) won't notice...even if we are able to understand all the `go to' and the `see also' and `except for' etc., etc....

I heard and read the same marriage penalty in a couple of places. Leave to the Dim's to add another death nail to the sanctimony of marriage and put another penalty on it. :mad:

And yeah, what the heck else is buried in that monstorsity. :worried:

Yeah and that same lame excuse that it won't be passed is really getting tired. If that's the case, then why did their evil little minds put it there to begin with. :laugh:

I guess grandma, Dims are like monkeys in this case, if ya throw enough crap against the wall, some of it will stick and that's what they are doing, seeing what they can slide by us, so hang on.

[CountryBoy]

THEN we can all see the proposal, and decide whether it's worthwhile, or not.

Yeah, this administration sure has been about transparency and allowing the public to get a chance to review the bills :rolleyes:, that's a load of BS I know ya'll think I fell off the turnip truck, but it sure the heck wasn't last night. :laugh:

[Silverbird]

You DO get the review the bills, for the first time you get to see the sausage making. Keeping up with it is the problem, it's there, though unfortunately it's bigger than a doorstop, no executive summary, and subject to change by the minute. We just never got to see it before.
:p

[CountryBoy]

You DO get the review the bills, for the first time you get to see the sausage making. Keeping up with it is the problem, it's there, though unfortunately it's bigger than a doorstop, no executive summary, and subject to change by the minute. We just never got to see it before.
:p

I guess I should've said the final bill and of course not agreed upon and passed at midnight. :p I guess I also should've said a realistic chance, but hell if our esteemed pols don't read them, I guess they figger we don't need to see the final bill. Transparency? It's not happening.

[grandma]

Is there anyone on MB that can give the details on what is/is not allowed, in the current health bill being studied, for the elected officials - our congressmen?

And the rationale why their coverage should be superior to the coverage provided for the folks paying for not only their personal coverage, but the Congress as well?
The businessman then not only pays for himself, but on his employees, and First & Foremost, on the Congressmen.

If I am wrong, and they are not exempted, or do not have additional choices, please clear up any misconceptions. Please don't quote what some journalist has printed, nor what some radio/tv newscaster has voiced, nor, what any of the Congressmen have stated. They have not proved themselves reliable.
Just show me the documentation.

And, just out of curiosity - what is the amount spent on coverage for all former congressmen - whether out by defeat or by retiring? Did their coverage drop with an increase in fee to them personally? ...as it does for the routine worker retiree? And if a congressman is out by defeat, is that the same as one of us being fired?
I think we could save a lot of money if all things were equal here. And until the government wants to address some of these `little budget' items, then there is no reason to believe they are sincere about `taking care of us' except to think of them as `taking us.'

Thank you - grandma

[grandma]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58533
This article speaks of Harry Reid's bill, it also mentions `the Senate health care bill." Are these two the same bill? The article states:

....basic facts......if the Senate health care bill were to become law were presented in letters that the CBO sent to Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) on November 18 and to Sen. Evan Bayh (D.-Ind.) on November 30. The letters are available on the CBO Web site


It gives some details using the facts listed as to what it would do. An example - mom & dad earning total of $88,200/year would be right at the 400% poverty level, & would qualify for assist with insurance. Now, that sounds like a very goodly amt & would they need assist if good stewards with their money. The kicker is, though, if they are at any - repeat-any amt over that 88,200, and their employer has opted not to take part in the insurance plan, this family's policy would be an estimated $15,200/year.
That is why some one of you needs to get into the CBO web site this article states this is all posted, & give your interpretation. The article lists 6 facts with the sources that explain the explaination of the CBO report's explaination !!! (you got that,, didn't you?)
If it turns out this is Not the Reid health bill James has spoken of, then the question is moot. My understanding is we are still waiting on the CBO report - this article says they not only have it, but it is on the web ??:confused:


Here are the facts about what the Reid health care bill would mean for the finances of families that earn more than 400 percent of the poverty level and the CBO sources for those facts ....

[James48843]

The CBO scoring for the version of the bill that they did last week as a "compromise bill" is not yet done.

In fact, I don't think it will ever be done. After they said they had an agreement on the compromise, Sen. Joe Liberman said he would not support a buy in to medicare for those over age 55, thereby derailing the compromise which had been reached. So there may be no deal now, unless there is some other compromise. If there is another compromise, they'll have to begin CBO scoring all over again.

Grandma- you can follow all of the financial analysis from CBO at this site: http://cbo.gov/

Note- today CBO has posted up there an analysis of the spending by pharmaceutical companies on the promotion and marking of their products. If you wonder why the cost of drugs keeps going up so high- a lot of that has to do with the spending of over 16 BILLION dollars on television commericals (Ask your Doctor is this drug is right for you...) and physician marketing. Marketing (TV ads, commercials, magazine ads, and other direct-to-consumer advertising), as well as direct marketing to doctors, has now grown from less than $2 billion in 1990, to over $16 billion today.

The pharma companies now spend more on marketing their drugs, than they spend on research and development. And when they DO do research and development, it's not for new drugs that do a better job of treating disease, it's usually for a new derivitive of the formula, that they can keep under patent, and thereby beat the generic companies. A drug company gets to keep their exclusive use under a patent only for 12 years, then others can make the same thing at a lower cost. If the drug company changes a molecule, they get another 12 years to convince everyone their drug is exactly what you need, even if it is not as effective as the previous, no longer under patent, generic drug.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_drug

[grandma]

Thanx for the clarification.
I knew that about the drug companies vs generic. When people got into hyper-vitamin/herbs, the Drug companies began to put them out under their names. I'm not sure buying a vit/herb from a drug company can make you feel any more secure about the ingredients & their percentages than any one of those other producers who got good marks from Consumer Reports. :)

p.s. can you help me out on the congress's insurance

[James48843]

p.s. can you help me out on the congress's insurance

Congressmen get their health care insurance from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program-

http://opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/index.asp

[nnuut]

Things Are Looking UP!!
Thanks Howard!!:D

Howard Dean: “Kill The Senate Bill” (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/howard-dean-kill-the-senate-bill/)

In a blow to the bill grinding through the Senate, Howard Dean (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/howard-dean-kill-the-senate-bill/www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Howard_Dean) bluntly called for the bill to be killed in a pre-recorded interview set to air later this afternoon, denouncing it as “the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate,” the reporter who conducted the interview tells me.
Dean said the removal of the Medicare buy-in made the bill not worth supporting, and urged Dem leaders to start over with the process of reconciliation in the interview, which is set to air at 5:50 PM today on Vermont Public Radio, political reporter Bob Kinzel confirms to me.
The gauntlet from Dean — whose voice on health care is well respsected among liberals — will energize those on the left who are mobilizing against the bill, and make it tougher for liberals to embrace the emerging proposal. In an excerpt Kinzel gave me, Dean says:
“This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.”
Kinzel added that Dean essentially said that if Democratic leaders cave into Joe Lieberman (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/howard-dean-kill-the-senate-bill/www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Joseph_I._Lieberman) right now they’ll be left with a bill that’s not worth supporting.
Dean had previously endorsed the Medicare buy-in compromise without a public option, saying that the key question should be whether the bill contains enough “real reform” to be worthy of progressives’ support. Dean has apparently concluded that the “real reform” has been removed at Lieberman’s behest — which won’t make it easier for liberals to swallow the emerging compromise.
Update: The full interview is now up (http://vpr.net/news_detail/86681/) at Vermont Public Radio.
This blog’s homepage is here (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/). RSS feed here (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/?feed=rss2). Twitter feed here (http://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS). Email me here (sargentg@washpost.com).
ShareThis (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0))
Posted by Greg Sargent | 12/15/2009, 02:52 PM EST | Categories: health care (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/category/health-care/)
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/howard-dean-kill-the-senate-bill/

[James48843]

Glee over the death of health care reform.

So.... the answer is to let millions of Americans continue to go without health care, go bankrupt, and disrupt lives of families across America.

Sad. Really sad.

[nnuut]

Glee over the death of health care reform.

So.... the answer is to let millions of Americans continue to go without health care, go bankrupt, and disrupt lives of families across America.

Sad. Really sad.
NO!
Maybe if they tried they could do it right the next time? Do you feel like paying $15,000 for your health care?:nuts: Bunch of idiots in Washington, sorry that's just the way I feel about it!!:cool:

[James48843]

Do you feel like paying $15,000 for your health care?:nuts:

Who do you expect to pay for it?

[nnuut]

Who do you expect to pay for it?
$1,250 a Month, that's a joke, right?:laugh::blink:

[James48843]

$1,250 a Month, that's a joke, right?:laugh::blink:

Who do you expect to pay for health care insurance?

[coolhand]

Glee over the death of health care reform.

So.... the answer is to let millions of Americans continue to go without health care, go bankrupt, and disrupt lives of families across America.

Sad. Really sad.

Yep. I'm okay with that.

[XL-entLady]

Glee over the death of health care reform.

So.... the answer is to let millions of Americans continue to go without health care, go bankrupt, and disrupt lives of families across America.

Sad. Really sad.

When I was doing my spreadsheets for the 2010 open season I was more than a little startled to find out that I spent 20% of my income this year on medical costs. I'm not eating cat food because I'm a fed who has no debt except a mortgage. What if I wasn't that lucky? There are plenty of people around here who aren't.

A good friend of mine in the Denver office just had her daughter, her husband and their two teenage children move in with them because they couldn't pay for her lupus medical bills and a mortgage too.

If some kind of health care reform isn't the answer, what is?

Lady

[James48843]

When I was doing my spreadsheets for the 2010 open season I was more than a little startled to find out that I spent 20% of my income this year on medical costs. I'm not eating cat food because I'm a fed who has no debt except a mortgage. What if I wasn't that lucky? There are plenty of people around here who aren't.

A good friend of mine in the Denver office just had her daughter, her husband and their two teenage children move in with them because they couldn't pay for her lupus medical bills and a mortgage too.

If some kind of health care reform isn't the answer, what is?

Lady

We're all moving in to Coolhand's house. He's ok with that.

[nnuut]

Well time for me to hit the sack, got to get up early tomorrow, but I should sleep well tonight thanks to HOWARD. If you Guys want to argue a little more talk to this fellow: 7651
:D:laugh:

[XL-entLady]

Okay, I'll behave. If I have to....

:laugh:

Lady

[nnuut]

Some things just don't make good sense?? 7653

[Handballer]

Well, look at it this way---

When they tried to do Hillarycare in 94, Hillary and the gang went into a room, and NOBODY saw anything.

This time, they are doing exactly the opposite. This time there is a House version of the bill, which got lots and lots and lots of press, review, posting on the internet, CBO scoring, etc.

And then they did several different Senate versions through committees, each time with a posting, CBO scoring of stuff, a TON of publicity in the press, both sides picking out little pieces of various bills and acting shocked at this, or shocked at that.

Making laws is just like making sausage, you know.

So here we are, after MONTHS of hearings, debates, committee votes, versions of different bills all posted on the web.

And now we're waiting for CBO scoring of the last Senate compromise, because no one wants it public until the CBO has solid numbers to talk about. Patience. It will be here soon, of that I am sure.

And I am sure that the final Senate bill will be posted for at least 72 hours before there is any vote.

Will there be 60 votes in the Senate for this one? Who knows.

What no one has said yet- is that once the Senate "final" bill is done, we have to go BACK to the House, and hammer out a conference bill between the two houses. That could take another month. And THEN they BOTH have to pass the final version of the conference.

It COULD take months.

BUT......it won't be a "back room deal" hidden from public sight, as the Hillarycare opposition claimed.

You may be able to say a lot of things- but no one will be able to say they never saw any of the language, or scored the costs, before this one is finally put to bed. WHEN it finally gets there.

And we still have a long way to go.

What if they don't git the 60 votes?

[Buster]

Glee over the death of health care reform.

So.... the answer is to let millions of Americans continue to go without health care, go bankrupt, and disrupt lives of families across America.

Sad. Really sad.

No, I wouldn't throw that kind of guilt trip on anybody with the common sense to recognize this health bill was a farce from the beginning...Even your Joe Lieberman saw it to be garbage and JUST ALL WRONG..

So yeah..I'm glad it's imploding too.

[CountryBoy]

I was always taught, you do it right or you don't do it at all and when you need to bribe a the senator for LA to get her vote, then something is definately wrong. So I'm glad it's dead and maybe this time they'll do it right. Let's start by fixing SS and Medicare. If I'm not mistaken, they are due to go broke in the 2010's, depending on who is jabbering at the time.

Maybe a little tort reform and being able to cross state lines, but keep the Gov't out of it. They can't run a 1 car parade.

[CountryBoy]

Intersting article

How to achieve affordable health care

The AMA limits the number of doctors
Lawyers are milking the system
Government spending will raise costs
We need accountability

"Congress and the medical community got us into high medical costs and a shortage of doctors by playing to special interests and using bad judgment, and now they're telling us they can control health care wisely. Don't bet on it. You may be betting your life."

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/silveira120.html

[coolhand]

I was always taught, you do it right or you don't do it at all and when you need to bribe a the senator for LA to get her vote, then something is definately wrong. So I'm glad it's dead and maybe this time they'll do it right. Let's start by fixing SS and Medicare. If I'm not mistaken, they are due to go broke in the 2010's, depending on who is jabbering at the time.

Maybe a little tort reform and being able to cross state lines, but keep the Gov't out of it. They can't run a 1 car parade.

You are absolutely right CB. It's no wonder most Americans do not trust the Dem party or their initiatives. They want to take over everyone's lives. I guess some people don't mind being led around on a leash, but I'm not one of them. :cool:

[James48843]

First, Joe Lieberman said he was against a public option, and said we needed to expand Medicare to more people instead.

Then, when expanding Medicare was proposed...Joe does a 180, and withdraws his support, saying Medicare isn't the way.

First he was for it, until he was against it.

What possibly could change Joe's opinion, over the course of a couple months? Hmmmm....

Joe Lieberman's campaign contributions:

Health Professionals $1,041,362
Insurance Industry $1,040,320
Misc Business $650,350
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products$617,540

No big corporation campaign donor left behind....

[CountryBoy]

Geez Louise,


Nancy Pelosi 2009-2010 in millions of dollars

Sector Totals
Sector Total PACs Indivs
Agribusiness $20,000 $20,000 $0
Communications/Electronics $71,500 $70,500 $1,000
Construction $7,000 $5,000 $2,000
Defense $27,000 $27,000 $0
Energy & Natural Resources $35,500 $35,500 $0
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $212,400 $118,000 $94,400
Health $231,500 $202,000 $29,500
Lawyers & Lobbyists $104,650 $24,000 $80,650
Transportation $39,000 $38,500 $500
Misc Business $99,700 $50,000 $49,700
Labor $199,500 $199,500 $0
Ideological/Single-Issue $14,050 $7,000 $7,050
Other $39,400 $1,000 $38,400

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pop_sector.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00007360

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00007360&type=I&mem=

2 Links for verification


No big corporation or UNION campaign donor left behind

Both sides take money from everyone, wake up and smell the coffee. :D

[James48843]

MATTHEW 25

34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,

36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?

38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?

39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,

43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44 "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Pslams 140:12
I know the LORD will maintain the cause of the afflicted and justice for the poor

Isaiah 10:1-3
"Woe to those who enact evil statutes and to those who continually record unjust decisions so as to deprive the needy of justice and rob the poor of thier rights".

Deuteronomy 15:7
"if there is a poor man among you, in any of the towns of the land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks. "

Matthew 5:42
"Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you."

Proverbs 29:7
"The righteous are concerned for the rights of the poor; the wicked do not understand such concern."

Isaiah 25:4
"You have been a defense for the helpless, a
defense for the needy in his distress."

Proverbs 31:8
"Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously and defend the rights of the affected and needy."


PASS HEALTH CARE REFORM NOW.

[James48843]

Matthew 10:8


Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.

[phil]

The answer may well be to lose the bill....and win the war. If the Congress abandons healthcare reform, then use that in the mid-terms, go after the vulnerable seats.

Then, move ahead with a larger agenda.

[James48843]

Single-Payer Health Care


December 16, 2009



The Senate on Wednesday planned to debate for the first time in American history a proposal to create a single-payer, Medicare-for-all health care system. The Sanders Amendment would provide health care and dental coverage for every American, save money, and improve health care results.



Instead, senators opposing health care reform used obstructionist tactics to avoid any progress in the Senate. Breaking with Senate tradition,

Republicans demanded the clerk of the Senate read every word of the 767 page proposal. Sanders decided to pull the amendment rather than let opponents further delay action on health reform legislation. Sanders laid out the case in an impassioned floor speech and reacted to the obstruction tactics. "The fact that 17 percent of our people are unemployed or underemployed, one out of four of our children are living on food stamps, we've got two wars, we've got global warming, we have a $12 trillion national debt, and the best the Republicans can do is try to bring the United States government to a halt by forcing a reading of a 700 page amendment. That is an outrage. People can have honest disagreements, but in this moment of crisis it is wrong to bring the United States government to a halt."


The 1,300 profit-making private insurance companies administer thousands of separate plans and waste about $400 billion a year on administrative costs, profiteering, high CEO compensation packages, and advertising. Health care providers spend another $210 billion on administrative costs, mostly to deal with insurance paperwork. As a result, the United States spends $7,129 per person on health care, almost double the amount spent by nearly any other industrialized country. Nevertheless, 46 million Americans lack health insurance, 100 million Americans cannot access dental care, and 60 million Americans do not have access to primary care.


To look at a fact sheet on the Sanders Amendment, click here (http://sanders.senate.gov/files/SinglePayer-factsheet.pdf).


To read the text of the senator's amendment, click here (http://sanders.senate.gov/files/KER09970%20-%20Single%20Payer.pdf).

[James48843]

0vLJ6xObc_o


TO see the entire Bernie Sanders speech,
go to :
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-27367

It takes 36 minutes

Some of the best information is seen after about 24 minutes into it.

[coolhand]

Kill the Bill

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588842779569168.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

[coolhand]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/17/liberals-dream-single-payer-health-dies/

And we're the ones accused of fear-mongering. :rolleyes:

"Obama repeated his demand for action, telling ABC News "the federal government will go bankrupt" if the health care bill fails. He said Medicare and Medicaid are on an "unsustainable" path if no action is taken."

[Show-me]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/17/liberals-dream-single-payer-health-dies/

And we're the ones accused of fear-mongering. :rolleyes:

"Obama repeated his demand for action, telling ABC News "the federal government will go bankrupt" if the health care bill fails. He said Medicare and Medicaid are on an "unsustainable" path if no action is taken."

So the same idiots that created and managed it want to make it bigger? Brilliant! :D

[CountryBoy]

The audacity. Now we're being preached to by the party that want's to remove any mention of God, that they can. :rolleyes: Now that's desparation and hypocrasy at it's worst.

To cherry pick verses of the Bible to further a political end is blasphemous, so much for separation of church and state, but then Socialialist have different rules.

I'm not even going to dignify that post by responding with verses that support by POV. And they are there, but I know you avoided them. :laugh:

Kill the Bill

[coolhand]

I'm not even going to dignify that post by responding with verses that support by POV. And they are there, but I know you avoided them. :laugh:

Kill the Bill

I'm not going there either. I'll let the post speak for its misguided self.

[Buster]

Funny when it's not okay for the Geese, but okay for the Gander..

[CountryBoy]

Dems Threaten Nelson In Pursuit of 60

While the Democrats appease Senator Lieberman, they still have to worry about other recalcitrant Democrats including Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson. Though Lieberman has been out front in the fight against the public option and the Medicare buy-in, Nelson was critical of both. Now that those provisions appear to have been stripped from the bill, Lieberman may get on board, but Nelson's demand that taxpayer money not be used to fund abortion has still not been met. According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base on the BRAC list if Nelson doesn't fall into line.

Offutt Air Force Base employs some 10,000 military and federal employees in Southeastern Nebraska. As our source put it, this is a "naked effort by Rahm Emanuel and the White House to extort Nelson's vote." They are "threatening to close a base vital to national security for what?" asked the Senate staffer.

Indeed, Offutt is the headquarters for US Strategic Command, the successor to Strategic Air Command, and not by accident. STRATCOM was located in the middle of the country for strategic reasons. Its closure would be a massive blow to the economy of the state of Nebraska, but it would also be another example of this administration playing politics with our national security."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/source_dems_threaten_nelson_in_1.asp

How obscene and scandalous is the WH going to get in coercing and bribing Senators to get this horrible health bill passed. Now he's threaten Federal Employees with thier jobs!!!!

What low morals and principles this guy has and so many suppport and defend his actions. :mad: This is getting sickening and such a blatantl power grab by this obvious socialized admin. How dumbed down we have become to support such behavior.

EDIT: Our National Security means nothing to this nimrod! :mad:

[James48843]

I call "bunk" on your report there CB-

Reporters asked Nelson yesterday, and he said that was just some bloggers, and that the report was not ture.

"Answering Reporters questions Wednesday, the moderate Nebraska Democrat was asked about a blog that claimed the White House is threatening to close Offutt Air Force base in Bellevue if Nelson does not vote for the plan. Nelson called those reports false and says they're being spread by bloggers, talk show hosts and columnists with political agendas."

http://www.action3news.com/Global/story.asp?S=11690934

[alevin]

Now here's something interesting!

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/17/howard-dean-blasts-senate-health-bill-as-bigger-corporate-bailo/

It's all in the way you look at it. Corporate bailout as written with no public option? If written with Public option= death to private insurance companies? Pilate once asked what is truth? He was just walking away from a problem he didn't want to take responsibility for. Me, I genuinely am not sure where the truth lies in this mess.

[CountryBoy]

I call "bunk" on your report there CB-

Reporters asked Nelson yesterday, and he said that was just some bloggers, and that the report was not ture.

"Answering Reporters questions Wednesday, the moderate Nebraska Democrat was asked about a blog that claimed the White House is threatening to close Offutt Air Force base in Bellevue if Nelson does not vote for the plan. Nelson called those reports false and says they're being spread by bloggers, talk show hosts and columnists with political agendas."

http://www.action3news.com/Global/story.asp?S=11690934

Could very well be james,

But did you even think about the possibility that Nelson is lying, because he is being blackmailed and to admit to it would definately not be in his best interest. And what are the odds that a pol is actually telling the whole unvarnished truth w/o some sort of spin. :confused: Nah, you're right, they never lie or spin. ;)

[coolhand]

Are you ticked off yet? :mad:

http://mcconnell.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=320943&start=1

[CountryBoy]

It’s surprising how many aren’t, but I’m still waiting on a naivety check. :D

[Buster]

Got this from a Co-worker ..I didn't research it..but it looks valid..

Click on the link indicated in the third paragraph below

> HR 615
>
> On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment, courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn which would require all Members of Congress and their staff members to enroll in any new government-run health plan.
>
> Congressman John Fleming has proposed an amendment that would require Congressmen and Senators to take the same health care plan that they would force on us. (Under proposed legislation they are exempt.)
>
> Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go to his Website and sign his petition. The process is very simple. I have done just that at: http://fleming.house.gov/index.html
>
> Senator Coburn and Congressman Fleming are both physicians. Regardless of your political beliefs, it sure seems reasonable that Congress should have exactly the same medical coverage that they impose on the rest of us.
>
> Please urge as many people as you can to do the same!

[Steadygain]

MATTHEW 25

34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,

36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?

38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?

39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,

43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44 "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Pslams 140:12
I know the LORD will maintain the cause of the afflicted and justice for the poor

Isaiah 10:1-3
"Woe to those who enact evil statutes and to those who continually record unjust decisions so as to deprive the needy of justice and rob the poor of thier rights".

Deuteronomy 15:7
"if there is a poor man among you, in any of the towns of the land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks. "

Matthew 5:42
"Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you."

Proverbs 29:7
"The righteous are concerned for the rights of the poor; the wicked do not understand such concern."

Isaiah 25:4
"You have been a defense for the helpless, a
defense for the needy in his distress."

Proverbs 31:8
"Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously and defend the rights of the affected and needy."


PASS HEALTH CARE REFORM NOW.

James,
A couple from my area went to the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere (an Island) with nothing but Faith. They had nothing but went to Serve to the highest degree and believed GOD would provide. They started an Orphanage that has continued to grow over the years. The care they provide little babies is far beyond what any hospital there can provide.

A couple (The Bakers) - went to the poorest Nation on Earth with the exact same determination. My daughter in S. Korea will be joining their efforts in a few weeks. They now have over 5,000 churches.

When Jesus says the comments above - He will first of all be talking to the couples noted here. The more we totally live for GOD - the more we find His Potiential to serve the needs of others is far beyond our imaginations.

[nnuut]

If they pass this bill this under handed way they deserve what they get when the American people finally are faced with the reality of what has been done. This is NNUUTS and might be the straw that finally breaks the Back of our previously Wonderful Country, what happened to "Common Sense".:nuts:

[CountryBoy]

If they pass this bill this under handed way they deserve what they get when the American people finally are faced with the reality of what has been done. This is NNUUTS and might be the straw that finally breaks the Back of our previously Wonderful Country, what happened to "Common Sense".:nuts:

A big +1 nnuut. Commmon sense was replaced with naivety. :worried:

[James48843]

Got this from a Co-worker ..I didn't research it..but it looks valid..

Click on the link indicated in the third paragraph below

> HR 615
>
> On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment, courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn which would require all Members of Congress and their staff members to enroll in any new government-run health plan.
>
> Congressman John Fleming has proposed an amendment that would require Congressmen and Senators to take the same health care plan that they would force on us. (Under proposed legislation they are exempt.)
>
> Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go to his Website and sign his petition. The process is very simple. I have done just that at: http://fleming.house.gov/index.html
>
> Senator Coburn and Congressman Fleming are both physicians. Regardless of your political beliefs, it sure seems reasonable that Congress should have exactly the same medical coverage that they impose on the rest of us.
>
> Please urge as many people as you can to do the same!


Buster-

You are a bit out of date. That was back in July. Senator Kennedy voted by proxy on that one.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124786946165760369.html

We're in a different place now.

[tsptalk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dSO28UWzN4

[nnuut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dSO28UWzN4
I like GLENN BECK, but I'm the type that likes someone that tells the truth, I watch him every night, I guess I'm a TeaBagger? :laugh:

[coolhand]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dSO28UWzN4

I'm not a regular watcher of Glenn, but this goes way beyond power politics. This administration is made up of thugs. :mad:

[James48843]

Senator Ben Nelson denies any such thing.

Who do you believe?

An elected sitting United States Senator?

Or an entertainer?

Notice at no point does Beck say it's true. He says, over and over, "What if it's true?".

Innuendo. NOT FACTS.


Nelson: 'Nobody's Threatened Me' Over Offutts Air Force Base -- But I Know Who Started That Rumor

Jillian Rayfield | December 17, 2009, 1:31PM



Today, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) again denied (http://klin.com/) rumors that the White House threatened to close Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base if he did not play ball on the Democrats' health care bill. Nelson also claimed that he knows the original source of the rumor, and "eventually it will come out."

Yesterday, we reported (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/white-house-hits-back-against-right-wing-rumor-mongering-over-ne-air-force-base.php) that Nelson and the White House were pushing back against rumors of such a base closure threat, which were primarily being propagated by right-wing talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity.

Today, Nelson did a podcast (http://www.cyberears.com/index.php/Browse/playaudio/8132) for "Jack & John Thursday morning" at KLIN in Lincoln, Nebraska, and again shot down these claims.

"Nobody's threatened me," said Nelson. "As a matter of fact, any discussion with the White House, or leadership, or any of my colleagues, the question about the base, or even the name of the base, has never come up."

He continued: "We believe we know the source, we have emails. At least one of the sources." Nelson also said that "there will be a whole lotta folks on the other side of the aisle embarrassed if and when it comes out."
"If it's looked into, I welcome that," he said.


http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/nelson-nobodys-threatened-me-over-offutts-air-force-base----but-i-know-who-started-that-rumor.php

[coolhand]

Senator Ben Nelson denies any such thing.

Who do you believe?

An elected sitting United States Senator?

Or an entertainer?

Notice at no point does Beck say it's true. He says, over and over, "What if it's true?".

Inuendo. NOT FACTS.




Your bias is showing again. I'm not a fan of Beck, but he did try to verify the information before putting it out. That's what the news media does. They try to get ahead of everyone else. If it turns out to the wrong, they'll admit it. (Unlike all those Climategate scientists) :rolleyes:

The Senator may not be in a position to be as forthcoming as he might otherwise be. I'd take both sides with a grain of salt for now.

[James48843]

Glenn Beck is not "news media".

What REAL news media does is verify the facts before the broadcast. Not "try to verify".

At the very best that is poor entertainment.

It ought to be actionable under law as slander.

[Buster]

Glenn Beck is not news media.

What REAL news media does is verify the facts before the broadcast. Not "try to verify".



Really Jim?..And what is a handful of Joe Lieberman Muppets then?....:confused:

[coolhand]

Glenn Beck is not "news media".

What REAL news media does is verify the facts before the broadcast. Not "try to verify".

At the very best that is poor entertainment.

It ought to be actionable under law as slander.

Knowing the "Factual" history of Chicago politics, I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the "entertainer". As least he isn't selling us down the river. :suspicious:

[James48843]

Really Jim?..And what is a handful of Joe Lieberman Muppets then?....:confused:

Did you like the muppets?

[coolhand]

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/12/probe-called-for-in-sen-nelson-offutt-afb-blackmail-allegations/

"And of course, both the White House and Nelson are saying the threat never happened.

This is certainly understandable; the White House doesn’t want people openly realizing the kind of Chicago politics they play, and Nelson doesn’t want people thinking he’s vulnerable. And if he gives in and votes for this assault on the American way of life, he doesn’t want people thinking he did it because of the threat.

But Goldfarb isn’t buying it, and neither am I. He said at the Weekly Standard late yesterday

They protest a little too much. I do not know this story is “absolutely false.” To the contrary, I’m confident it’s true. Twenty senators are now calling for an investigation, and each is presumably pretty well sourced in the Senate. If the charges are “absolutely false,” maybe the White House will encourage Senate Democrats to call this Republican bluff. I won’t hold my breath."

[coolhand]

http://www.examiner.com/x-16805-Jackson-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m12d17-White-House-threatens-to-close-of-US-Strategic-Command-air-base--some-dare-call-it-treason

[coolhand]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/72797-bennett-obama-outdoes-lbj-in-strong-arming-tactics

[coolhand]

And this from Howie...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2009/1217/White-House-hits-back-at-Howard-Dean-attack-on-healthcare-reform-bill

[coolhand]

I can't stand this guy, but you have to hear this. :nuts:

http://www.theadmonition.com/?p=2409

[Buster]

I'm not a regular watcher of Glenn, but this goes way beyond power politics. This administration is made up of thugs. :mad:
Wild!...Isn't that as underhanded as like a $100,000,000 bribe to Louisiana?

I don't know, it just seems it is..:rolleyes:

[nnuut]

I can't stand this guy, but you have to hear this. :nuts:

http://www.theadmonition.com/?p=2409
What the HELL, is Keith Olbermann on drugs or something?:worried: If it looks like it, and it smells like it, be careful not to step in it!! 7659

[grandma]

There are very few Medical Schools that require, or even use the Hippocratic Oath at graduation....for quite some time. I remember hearing years ago that the `do no harm' part was being eliminated from the oath, but what I read currently is they just don't even say it ....
It is pretty obvious why.....

[Buster]

Today, after more than 700 hours of hearings, after adopting more than 190 Republican amendments to the original House bill, and after months of hearings, the final House version of the Health Care bill has been posted on internet, and introduced today.

Some complained they wanted 72 hours before the House took a vote. Ok.- here is the 72 hours. The bill is now posted on the internet, and the Speaker of the House says it will be next week before a floor vote is taken- allowing everyone plenty of time to review the bill, and let their Congressmen/women know what they think. Democrats held open markup this week to merge elements from three different committee bills. Anyone could walk in an listen, and see, as amendments from both sides of the aisle, from all three versions of committee bills were aired, some ideas being adopted- others not- but all being considered seriously. It protects senior citizens- closes the Medicare prescription doughnut hole, eliminates disenrollment for "preexisting conditions", and provides for improved health care for the future.

Here is the link to H.R. 3962- introduced today by Michigan Congressman John Dingle as prime sponsor.

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

Read it for yourself.


4Ccy1qMGiz8

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b47/Atwater/shitty.jpg

[tsptalk]

Who do you believe?

An elected sitting United States Senator?

Or an entertainer?
Is that a serious question? :laugh:

Nobody believes Beck at first, then mysteriously people start resigning.

[nnuut]

[X] 1. None of the above.

[PessOptimist]

Since all of you "know so much" what is the truth? Politicians threaten stuff like this all the time, so I do not doubt it. Where are the facts?

Speaking of facts, where is this copy of the text of this senate "thing" (I don't know if it is a bill, a discussion on the house bill, something they made up or what) that Reid has threatened to make all those poor Senators work on Christmas day to vote on?

You all post so authoritively on these issues, let us non experts in on your "known facts".

[CountryBoy]

Senator Ben Nelson denies any such thing.

Who do you believe?

An elected sitting United States Senator?

Or an entertainer?

Notice at no point does Beck say it's true. He says, over and over, "What if it's true?".

Innuendo. NOT FACTS.


Nelson: 'Nobody's Threatened Me' Over Offutts Air Force Base -- But I Know Who Started That Rumor

Jillian Rayfield | December 17, 2009, 1:31PM



Today, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) again denied (http://klin.com/) rumors that the White House threatened to close Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base if he did not play ball on the Democrats' health care bill. Nelson also claimed that he knows the original source of the rumor, and "eventually it will come out."

Yesterday, we reported (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/white-house-hits-back-against-right-wing-rumor-mongering-over-ne-air-force-base.php) that Nelson and the White House were pushing back against rumors of such a base closure threat, which were primarily being propagated by right-wing talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity.

Today, Nelson did a podcast (http://www.cyberears.com/index.php/Browse/playaudio/8132) for "Jack & John Thursday morning" at KLIN in Lincoln, Nebraska, and again shot down these claims.

"Nobody's threatened me," said Nelson. "As a matter of fact, any discussion with the White House, or leadership, or any of my colleagues, the question about the base, or even the name of the base, has never come up."

He continued: "We believe we know the source, we have emails. At least one of the sources." Nelson also said that "there will be a whole lotta folks on the other side of the aisle embarrassed if and when it comes out."
"If it's looked into, I welcome that," he said.


http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/nelson-nobodys-threatened-me-over-offutts-air-force-base----but-i-know-who-started-that-rumor.php

James,

Again, did you even think about the possibility that Nelson is lying, because he is being blackmailed and to admit to it would definately not be in his best interest. And what are the odds that a pol is actually telling the whole unvarnished truth w/o some sort of spin. Nah, you folks never lie or spin.

This naivety check could explain alot.

EDIT: BTW, what the heck is your boy Reid hiding from the public on the health care package? Do you actually approve of this type of politics? And oh yeah, where's the transparency? __________________

[CountryBoy]

Since all of you "know so much" what is the truth? Politicians threaten stuff like this all the time, so I do not doubt it. Where are the facts?

Speaking of facts, where is this copy of the text of this senate "thing" (I don't know if it is a bill, a discussion on the house bill, something they made up or what) that Reid has threatened to make all those poor Senators work on Christmas day to vote on?

You all post so authoritively on these issues, let us non experts in on your "known facts".

PessOp,

That's what we are clamouring for. We were promised transparency, but everything is behind closed doors and something this big that will affect future generations, should be brought out into the light, for all to see.

Our freedom of speech is all we have to fight this with until Nov 2010. We know nothing, but we are asking for answers. SOme of us will not just lower our heads and accept what the Gov't feeds us as the truth. We do have that right, to question.... Don't we:confused:

[coolhand]

Since all of you "know so much" what is the truth? Politicians threaten stuff like this all the time, so I do not doubt it. Where are the facts?

Speaking of facts, where is this copy of the text of this senate "thing" (I don't know if it is a bill, a discussion on the house bill, something they made up or what) that Reid has threatened to make all those poor Senators work on Christmas day to vote on?

You all post so authoritively on these issues, let us non experts in on your "known facts".

Don't be so dramatic. As for me, I'm just posting news and opinion items as I find them. This is just a MB, not a Black Belt project.

[coolhand]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580527,00.html

[CountryBoy]

Wild!...Isn't that as underhanded as like a $100,000,000 bribe to Louisiana?

I don't know, it just seems it is..:rolleyes:

I thought it was $300,000,000, but whats a few hundred million amongst thugs and bribees. :nuts:

[Show-me]

A threat does not have to be said or recorded to be real. It can be implied or sent through unofficial channels. This is how business is done in DC and many other places.

[Show-me]

And, the Senator that received it would not talk or reveal it as to not make things worse or not have definitive evidence.

To believe otherwise would be naive.

[coolhand]

To believe otherwise would be naive.

na·ive or na·ïve (n-v, nä-) also na·if or na·ïf (n-f, nä-)
adj.
1. Lacking worldly experience and understanding, especially:
a. Simple and guileless; artless: a child with a naive charm.
b. Unsuspecting or credulous 2. Showing or characterized by a lack of sophistication and critical judgment

:D:laugh:

[Buster]

Health Care Battle: Democrats vs. Democrats


http://news.yahoo.com/video/business-15749628/17170409

[nnuut]

I like that, Howard told the Dems where to go this time::D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS4FGStiMB0&feature=related

[CountryBoy]

And, the Senator that received it would not talk or reveal it as to not make things worse or not have definitive evidence.

To believe otherwise would be naive.

Plus the naivety that these Stimulus packages, re-inventing health care for a small portion of the population and the Global Warming Scam (actually it's just a payoff to his new dictator friends) will not have a negative impact on our economy is incomprehensible. :worried:

We're looking for anywhere from 8 to 14 inches of snow tonight or tomorrow. Firewood brought closer to house, food in the larder and birdfeeders/suet cages full. Now let the snow fly. :D

CB

[CountryBoy]

Union pulls back on supporting bill

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/72537-union-pulls-back-on-supporting-senate-bill

"The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) backed out of an event with other organizations promoting the Senate healthcare reform bill Wednesday over concerns about changes made to the legislation to accommodate centrist Democrats.

"We will not have an absolute decision coming," largely because Reid has not released the final language of the healthcare bill, she said."

bHo's union thugs are having second thoughts. Decisions, decisions oh who to follow and believe. ;) And old Harry Reid just hasn't gotten the knack of that transparency thingy, that we were promised by the emperor and the wicked witch of the west.:rolleyes:

[CountryBoy]

Pelosi, Rahm do not scare Rep. DeFazio

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/72889-pelosi-rahm-do-not-scare-rep-defazio

"The White House chief of staff last month expressed frustration with DeFazio’s resignation calls for President Barack Obama’s top two economic aides — Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and White House chief economist Larry Summers — and appealed for cooperation, according to DeFazio.

Others are learning that DeFazio, who has served in the House since 1987 and describes himself as a “progressive populist,” is not easily intimidated. He has emerged in recent months as one of the most vocal liberal critics of the Obama administration, blasting the president’s team for not getting tough enough with Wall Street. He’s also taken on his own party for failing to move left-leaning legislation through the Congress.

“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother,” Obama told DeFazio during a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, according to members afterward."


Well they are starting to eat their own. Nothing like Chicago thuggery in action, and bHo wouldn't threaten Nelson????

Suuuurrreee. :laugh: No naivety from this corner, that's nothing more than an out and out threat, from out thug prez.

[phil]

I wonder what the American public would think if the democrats threatened to have a read-a-thon to block funding for national secuity issues?

It's going to be a long winter.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091218/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

[James48843]

Republicans say they will delay Health Care by voting "NO" on the Military Defense bill today, filibuster, and cut off funding for the military (their money expires at midnight tonight), including the 3.5% military pay raise, and MRAP vehicle funding for Afghanistan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703585.html?hpid=topnews

GOP senators to block defense bill in bid to delay health-care vote
By Paul Kane and Lori Montgomery (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/paul+kane+and+lori+montgomery/)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 18, 2009

Senate Republicans said Thursday that they would try to filibuster (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/politicsglossary/legislative/filibuster/) a massive Pentagon bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an unusual move that several acknowledged was an effort to delay President Obama's health-care legislation.

Late into the night, Democrats emerged from a huddle confident that they would muster the 60 votes needed to thwart the GOP (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/politicsglossary/party-affiliated/Republican-Party/) effort at blocking the military spending bill as an antiwar liberal said he would set aside his reservations and support choking off the filibuster in order to keep the chamber on a timeline of holding a final health-care vote before Christmas. The vote on the defense spending bill was to occur after 1 a.m. Friday

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703585.html?hpid=topnews

[nnuut]

I wonder what the American public would think if the democrats threatened to have a read-a-thon to block funding for national secuity issues?

It's going to be a long winter.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091218/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul
You're damn right it will Phil!

[phil]

So, a liberal democrat put aside his/her reservations, yet the other side is still wanting to play hardball on healthcare reform.

I guess I can see where this is going.

[James48843]

Well, you guys were asking "Where is the bill?"

Here it is-

The latest revision - the "Reid Amendment":
http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/managers-amendment.pdf

So now you can "READ THE BILL".

[nnuut]

I wonder why this is even in the HEALTH CARE Bill? Was it amended to correct an attempt to track gun owners, or something????:worried:
‘‘(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN
12 RIGHTS.—
13 ‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PRO14
GRAMS.—A wellness and health promotion activity
15 implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not re16
quire the disclosure or collection of any information
17 relating to—
18 ‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully19
possessed firearm or ammunition in the resi20
dence or on the property of an individual; or
21 ‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage
22 of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.
23 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None
24 of the authorities provided to the Secretary under
25 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or
6
BAI09R08 S.L.C.
1 an amendment made by that Act shall be construed
2 to authorize or may be used for the collection of any
3 information relating to—
4 ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of
5 a firearm or ammunition;
6 ‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammu7
nition; or
8 ‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or am9
munition.
10 ‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA
11 BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the
12 Secretary under the Patient Protection and Afford13
able Care Act or an amendment made by that Act
14 shall be construed to authorize or may be used to
15 maintain records of individual ownership or posses16
sion of a firearm or ammunition.

If this only applies to LAWFULLY possessed firearms or ammunition, define that for me? I have unregistered guns, does this section not apply to me and my firearms, so they can keep and act on data acquired in the database? No I DON'T trust them!!:suspicious:

[Show-me]

NNuut,

That part really struck a cord with me also. Why? What does it really mean and why is it in there?

And, it is in the first pages of the legislation.

[James48843]

That's in there, because a Virginia Gun Rights organization blasted out an e-mail in November, that told it's members to oppose the health care bill, because they said the democrats were going to slip the Blair Holt bill into this one.

Was that true? Not in the slightest. But the lying and fear mongering spread by those who oppose health care reform is typical of the anti-health care forces. They'll lie to anyone to stop it.

Here is a story about that from back in November:
Notice again the fear-mongering INNUENDO- It doesn't say it DOES contain anything at all about guns, it says "IS IT..???"

SO that those who are part of the massive herds will suddenly think "Oh- so it must be true.." and fan the anti-health care reform flames.
This folks, by the way, is just one more example of what big money will do to try and derail Health care reform. They'll blantently lie, make up stories, and try anything to stop it.

This is why that pro-Second amendment language, is in this bill:

=====================================
Is the Senate health plan anti-gun?

By: Susan Ferrechio (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bios/susan-ferrechio.html)
Chief Congressional Correspondent
http://gunowners.org/

November 24, 2009
7673
The Senate's 2,074-page health care bill doesn't mention guns, but some gun owners are worried certain provisions could eventually be used to discourage or even restrict gun ownership as part of a government effort to influence behavior as it broadens its control over the health care system.

The day before the Senate passed the $848 billion health bill on a party-line vote, the Virginia-based Gun Owners of America sent out a mass alert to its 300,000 members, warning them that the legislation "will most likely dump your gun-related health data into a government database. ... This includes any firearms-related information your doctor has gleaned or any determination of post traumatic stress disorder or something similar, that can preclude you from owning firearms."
[View Complete Article at WashingtonExaminer.com] (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Senate-health-plan-stokes-Big-Brother-fears-8577647-71875287.html)

[nnuut]

It's really impossible to understand intention and rulings if the referenced documents aren't available. For instance, what is a:
5
BAI09R08 S.L.C.
1 ‘‘(2) HIGHLY COMPENSATED INDIVIDUAL.—The
2 term ‘highly compensated individual’ has the mean3
ing given such term by section 105(h)(5) of such
4 Code.’’.
5 (e) Section 2717 of the Public Health Service Act,
The referenced Document evidentially set's limits or possibly Taxes higher earners or members with "Cadillac Plans", but there is no definition in the bill.:suspicious:

[James48843]

Here is another link which describes the fear-mongering engaged in to derail the bill- stiring up un-truths about guns, from back in November:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/23/guns-health-care/

By the way- Good morning everyone.

Overnight developments-

1. Defense Bill was debated this morning, and voted on in the early morning hours. It passed, 88-10. Two Senators did not vote.

[Show-me]

I scanned thought the rest and here are some points I do not like.

Non for profits get a big break. Why? The benefits of all citizens should be taxed for the greater good. How many non for profits have upper level employees that are raking in some serious coin. Red cross is one. Seem like a little gaming of the system again.

I have always had a issue with non for profits. Get the status and you get a free ride on taxes and at the Post Office where I work. We get so much non for profit crap it isn't funny and it drives up the cost for the people that DO have to pay.

Why is a adoption credit folded in with this amendment? It is not related and should be a separate issue. Who is getting paid off on that one?

Almost doubling the tax on high income wage earners. Unfair.

A 10% tax on indoor tanning. lol Unfair.

[CountryBoy]

The socialist are jumping for joy because they got the first step into disarming us.:mad: And our head socialist on the MBis leading the jumping. I'm not sure what it has to do with a health bill though.

[nnuut]

That's in there, because a Virginia Gun Rights organization blasted out an e-mail in November, that told it's members to oppose the health care bill, because they said the democrats were going to slip the Blair Holt bill into this one.

Was that true? Not in the slightest. But the lying and fear mongering spread by those who oppose health care reform is typical of the anti-health care forces. They'll lie to anyone to stop it.

Here is a story about that from back in November:
Notice again the fear-mongering INNUENDO- It doesn't say it DOES contain anything at all about guns, it says "IS IT..???"

SO that those who are part of the massive herds will suddenly think "Oh- so it must be true.." and fan the anti-health care reform flames.
This folks, by the way, is just one more example of what big money will do to try and derail Health care reform. They'll blantently lie, make up stories, and try anything to stop it.

This is why that pro-Second amendment language, is in this bill:

=====================================
Is the Senate health plan anti-gun?

By: Susan Ferrechio (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bios/susan-ferrechio.html)
Chief Congressional Correspondent
http://gunowners.org/

November 24, 2009
7673
The Senate's 2,074-page health care bill doesn't mention guns, but some gun owners are worried certain provisions could eventually be used to discourage or even restrict gun ownership as part of a government effort to influence behavior as it broadens its control over the health care system.

The day before the Senate passed the $848 billion health bill on a party-line vote, the Virginia-based Gun Owners of America sent out a mass alert to its 300,000 members, warning them that the legislation "will most likely dump your gun-related health data into a government database. ... This includes any firearms-related information your doctor has gleaned or any determination of post traumatic stress disorder or something similar, that can preclude you from owning firearms."
[View Complete Article at WashingtonExaminer.com] (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Senate-health-plan-stokes-Big-Brother-fears-8577647-71875287.html)
Thanks James makes sense to me! Shouldn't even be mentioned in a Health Bill!!:suspicious:

[Show-me]

I want to know who the two slackers are and why.



Here is another link which describes the fear-mongering engaged in to derail the bill- stiring up un-truths about guns, from back in November:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/23/guns-health-care/

By the way- Good morning everyone.

Overnight developments-

1. Defense Bill was debated this morning, and voted on in the early morning hours. It passed, 88-10. Two Senators did not vote.

[James48843]

The two Senators who did not vote this morning- because they were not in the Senate this morning- are....

Joe Liberman(I) Conneticut, (He doesn't work on Saturdays), and Senator Gregg (R)- New Hampshire.

[Show-me]

The so-called “gun-related health data” is actually anonymous statistical information to help researchers develop health programs and initiatives that serve specific population groups or further the study of various conditions and medical needs


So why the veil of vagueness. Anonymous statistical information would have read better to me.

[nnuut]

Breaking News: On CNN TV at this moment, Senator Nelson has decided to vote YES for the Health Care Bill.:mad:

[Show-me]

Thanks James makes sense to me! Shouldn't even be mentioned in a Health Bill!!:suspicious:

Exactly. How about only collecting data on only the criminals that do the damage instead of the lawful citizens.

[CountryBoy]

I think they need car health related data also. An awful lot of people are killed and maimed by cars. :confused:

[James48843]

Breaking News: On CNN TV at this moment, Senator Nelson has decided to vote YES for the Health Care Bill.:mad:

Of course. They would not introduce the Amendment until they already had the 6o votes needed all lined up.

[Show-me]

If we are going to punish tanning salons what about the rest of things that are bad for us. McDonald's, Pizza Hut, etc. Where does it end?

[phil]

The opposition has done everything under the sun to stop this bill. My own opinion is to let them do it, then run the whole thing during the mid-terms, showing each and every dirty trick used to the voting public, and show where the money has been going. Howard Dean is right on this.

On the non-profits: they get special breaks because they are what they are: non-profit organizations. They DO have a bottom line, but it doesn't lie with investors. In short, there's no return on the dollar. Religious institutions also run hospitals. There are several Catholic and Protestant hospitals that do good work in the US and around the world. I think offering them a tax incentive is just fine.

[nnuut]

Their talking about US here folks, what does it mean when they don't consider these funds as Federal Funds?
‘‘(5) ASSURANCE OF SEPARATE PROGRAM.—In
24 carrying out this section, the Director shall ensure
25 that the program under this section is separate from
63
BAI09R08 S.L.C.
1 the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program
2 under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.
3 Premiums paid for coverage under a multi-State
4 qualified health plan under this section shall not be
5 considered to be Federal funds for any purposes.
6 ‘‘(6) FEHBP PLANS NOT REQUIRED TO PAR7
TICIPATE.—Nothing in this section shall require that
8 a carrier offering coverage under the Federal Em9
ployees Health Benefit Program under chapter 89 of
10 title 5, United States Code, also offer a multi-State
11 qualified health plan under this section.

Do you think that they may drop paying the Government's Part of our Health Care Premiums?:confused:

[James48843]

Show-me-

Senator Gregg (R) New Hampshire didn't vote, because he is not in Washington DC. He went skiing instead.

Grab the parkas, snow boots: Senate's in session
By ANDREW TAYLOR (AP) – 23 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — Ski bums would have called it a "powder day" and blown off work.

Not so senators, who strapped on their snow boots, grabbed their parkas and headed off to a Capitol engulfed in a blizzard.

Only two out of 100 weren't there: Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent and Orthodox Jew who caucuses with Democrats, was in his home state for Hanukkah with his family. Republican Judd Gregg, who actually is a skier, was in New Hampshire for a family commitment.
In the ornate Senate, heavy brown boots were as common as wing tips, particularly for the many senators with homes on Capitol Hill, including Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

"It looks like Vermont out there," said Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt. He walked to the Capitol from his nearby home, as did a host of others.

Voting started at 7:20 a.m., as daylight broke.
Senators were offered chauffeured rides in Chevrolet Suburbans if their homes were too socked in. Some are driven every day, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and 92-year-old Robert Byrd, D-W.Va (http://d-w.va/). As president pro tempore of the Senate, Byrd, requires special security because he is third in the presidential line of succession.

Byrd entered the chamber to applause from his fellow Democrats.

Hawaii's Daniel Inouye, the second most senior member of the Senate, was taking no chances as the Senate passed his cherished defense appropriations bill, which is loaded with pet projects for his state.

"I stayed in a hotel," Inouye said. "It cost me a few bucks."

Others weathered the storm.

"Thirty miles an hour down I-95," said Baltimore native Barbara Mikulski, D-Md. "It was as slippery a slope as passing health care legislation."

[James48843]

Their talking about US here folks, what does it mean when they don't consider these funds as Federal Funds?
‘‘(5) ASSURANCE OF SEPARATE PROGRAM.—In

24
carrying out this section, the Director shall ensure

25
that the program under this section is separate from
63

BAI09R08 S.L.C.
1
the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program

2
under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.

3
Premiums paid for coverage under a multi-State

4
qualified health plan under this section shall not be

5
considered to be Federal funds for any purposes.

6
‘‘(6) FEHBP PLANS NOT REQUIRED TO PAR7

TICIPATE
.—Nothing in this section shall require that

8
a carrier offering coverage under the Federal Em9

ployees Health Benefit Program under chapter 89 of
10
title 5, United States Code, also offer a multi-State

11 qualified health plan under this section.

Do you think that they may drop paying the Government's Part of our Health Care Premiums?:confused:


No. They are saying that when the "Exchanges" start up, they are seperate and apart from anything in the FEHB. YOUR FEHB rates will not be affected by the exchanges- nor will those obtaining their insurance in the Exchanges be in the same risk pool as FEHB. They are using the FEHB model, that's what an exchange means. Several insurance plans available for purchase, just like FEHB has. However, they are saying here, that the rates for the exchange, and the rates for FEHB, will always be seperate, and separately calculated. Just because you have AETNA in New York under FEHB, doesn't mean that your AETNA FEHB rate will be affected if AETNA also sets up an exchange plan.

[James48843]

Democrats have been in a Caucus meeting for the last hour and half. They will be coming out and holding a press conference shortly.

Meanwhile, the Health Care bill continues to be slowed- they are now reading every word of the Amendment, a delay tactic thrown up again this morning by the republicans. I won't change the outcome at all, but it makes it appear that republicans want to hear every word.

And least you won't hear any of them saying "READ THE BILL" today- as they are making the poor clerk read every word. luckily, when this happens, the clerks read until they can't go any more, and then pass it off to another clerk to keep going. They've been through three clerks already in the last hour and a half.

[Show-me]

That ******* should be censured for not doing his job even if he doesn't agree he should be there.

Show-me-

Senator Gregg (R) New Hampshire didn't vote, because he is not in Washington DC. He went skiing instead.

[CountryBoy]

That is the clerk's job and every bill is supposed to be read in it's entirety. The pols just got lazy and voted not to have them read. So it's perfectily legal to have them read. No one should be whining.

[phil]

Why didn't they also read every word of the defense bill before they passed it a few years ago. I'm sure that would have been more appropriate.


Democrats have been in a Caucus meeting for the last hour and half. They will be coming out and holding a press conference shortly.

Meanwhile, the Health Care bill continues to be slowed- they are now reading every word of the Amendment, a delay tactic thrown up again this morning by the republicans. I won't change the outcome at all, but it makes it appear that republicans want to hear every word.

And least you won't hear any of them saying "READ THE BILL" today- as they are making the poor clerk read every word. luckily, when this happens, the clerks read until they can't go any more, and then pass it off to another clerk to keep going. They've been through three clerks already in the last hour and a half.

[James48843]

That is the clerk's job and every bill is supposed to be read in it's entirety. The pols just got lazy and voted not to have them read. So it's perfectily legal to have them read. No one should be whining.


yes- it's within the rules.

Fine. if that's what they want- so be it.

See you around 4 pm, when they finish reading it.

[James48843]

Here ya go CB-

My friends and I wanted to say Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas-
http://holiday.barackobama.com/?fname=CB

[nnuut]

I believe that the FEHBP premiums will raise so high that FEDS will be forced out because of costs. That is the plan and how they will get rid of the costs of the government's part of the Premiums. We have "Cadillac Plans" and you know what that means. When I get 65 I am forced into Medicare as my PRIMARY Insurer, they are cutting Medicare, what 400 billion dollars a year?
WAIT AND SEE! 7674

[CountryBoy]

yes- it's within the rules.

Fine. if that's what they want- so be it.

See you around 4 pm, when they finish reading it.

Oh James, don't be such a poor winner and quit pouting that they have to follow the rules. :laugh: Some of us believe in following rules, though weren't not so naive that they are always followed and that alot of folks would love to short circuit them. ;)

[nnuut]

Like I always like to say:
IT'S NOT OVER UNTIL IT'S OVER!! :cool: (Casey Stingel)

[James48843]

Oh man....they have a clerk up now who has trouble reading.

He is stumbling over the word "psychiatric".


We're in big trouble if there are any more big words...