Please explain why you believe HCR is "socialist health care". In your answer, remember, the mandatory purchase was added by republicans; there is no public option, it is all administered by private insurance industry--which trades our health on the stock market.

Absolutely right on Jody: Do you think he will address your comments to explain the phrase "socialist health care". I don't.

Jody, Iowa..."...the mandatory purchase was added by republicans..."

Blasted republicans, insisting government health care be paid for now instead of the bill being passed on to future generations....

proud republican-1888838

A socialized health care system is based on universal coverage. The United State does have universal coverage neither is President Obama a socialist.

Until you can define socialism you shouldn't speak out.

Jody,

Looks like someone needs to look up the meaning of socialism. If you don't think that our mandated health insurance falls in that category, than once again you and I disagree.

Obamacare is designed to put the insurance companies out of business. Even the Man himself has said this - the bill is an interim step towards single payer system, which will decrease the benefits to the vast majority of Americans who now enjoy comparitively great coverage. 5 yrs after this abortion takes full effect (if we don't repeal it as we should) we'll be screaming about how long it takes to see a doc, or get an MRI. On top of that, we'll all b e paying more for less. Health care is not a right. Nothing that compells another (the health care worker) to provide a service is a right. We have created this vast segment of our population that beleives the government owes them a living, due to the fact they are breathing. This attitude gives rise to idiots like Nobama, and will render our county irelevant in the near future.

Got to give credit where credit is due...a couple of dems who couldnt be bought with a wad of cash or threats to them and their families...didnt think it was possible...

cele2000,

An MRI is often administered by a 3rd party outfit like EPIC Imaging here in Portland Oregon. To make a long story short, Docs thought I had ruptured spleen. MRI cost $400 out of pocket with Blue Cross Blue Shield Ins.

Of course there was no ruptured spleen. The problem no doubt was wiping my bunghole too much. $400 buks to learn I need to use baby wipes in conjunction with TP. Oh do I love Doctors! They order every test possible to cover their arse and pad their bottom line.

Just switched to Kaiser and they do the opposite. Reluctantly issuing specialist referrals and expensive tests to what? You guessed it, pad their bottom line.

cele2000---I'm on your side. You are exactly correct! Obama said this is the first step to single payer. God help us all if this is not repealed and replaced!!! Hurry November 2010 so we can get some adults in Congress!

Beverly, do you have a clue of what the definition of socialism is?

They add the extra tests in there so that people won't turn around and sue them for something that was, unfortunately, overlooked.

With the amount of lawsuits against doctors for malpractice can you blame them for wanted to cover their arse cause you weren't wiping yours correctly?

Health insurance premiums are already going up dramatically as a result of HCR because of increased costs imposed on insurance companies. What will happen when the rest of the "costs" kick in, and where is the $500 Billion in cuts to Medicare that Obama and the Democrats promised to help pay for HCR? More empty rhetoric.

Personally, I would prefer universal health care similar to the one in France, which covers EVERYONE, at a cost per capita about 60% of our system, and it is run by private insurance companies, not the government.

adidas 503

Well, maybe we shouldn't have to pay for your learning curve!

IF those very few dems that didnt vote for healthcare also didnt vote for the porkulous plan, cash for clunkers, and if they are also against cap and trade then they are POSSIBLY worthy of a second chance, and I stress the word POSSIBLY. However, if they fell off the wagon on even ONE of the issues mentioned above then they still need to go....

Rep.'s Sandlin, Arcuri and Space are all members of the Blue Dog Coalition (Moderate Democrats for Fiscal Responsibility, as per the Blue Dog Coalition website). The Blue Dogs are the Democrats which stopped the Progressives and the SEIU (ultra left wing Democrats) from turning America into a Socialist state. Now the Ultra Left is out for revenge because of their no votes.

This should be a strong message to the Blue Dogs, "It's time to leave the Democratic Party and form a new third-party of moderate Democrats". If the Ultra left doesn't want us.......we'll leave!

Proud (pride; one of the 7 deadly sins); it was Nixon, Alderman and the Insurance lobbyists/industry who took Dr. Marcus Welby away from patients - leaving us with health by conveyor belt. That was far more a socialist move than the new reforms. If anything our new care will be like what I got from the State of Arizona - they took care of everything that the factory health care I had through my employer, refused to fix. 10 operations in all - all questioned by myself and told the problems I described, didn't warrent attention - or told that wasn't the real problem.

This should be a strong message to the Blue Dogs, "It's time to leave the Democratic Party and form a new third-party of moderate Democrats". If the Ultra left doesn't want us.......we'll leave!

Which I hope will be joined by moderate Republicans as well. Both parties have WAY too many members that are near the far end of the spectrum. A third, moderate party would be a welcome change.

France, yeah. The devil is in the details. They have a 13.55% payroll tax to help pay for their system. Their population is 20% of ours (nearly all of our "national" systems are rife with fraud and abuse because they are simply too big to manage and monitor effectively - and we have 60 years of documentation to prove this systemic failure).

They also nearly all have private supplemental insurance, as co-pays run 10% - 40%, and unlike true single-payer, they allow market forces to help control costs. Oh, and they are running multi-billion dollar annual deficits.

I'm not saying their system is bad, I am saying it is way to easy to make a statement using some isolated statistic and make an entire case around that fact, that may well not accurately reflect reality.

Universal health care is inherent in the idea of civilisation. The financing and adminstration of it of course pose mighty problems, but if we work on it cooperatively, we can figure it out. The conveyor belt, liability driven, for profit system we have in place now is simply an anachronism. Health care should be a first tier public policy matter, along with education and a job for everyone who wants to contribute to our common betterment. Enough of subsidizing the Robber Barons and their cheesy "bonuses".

Ive never had a hemorrhoid dont know what they look like and am not about to google pics. mopman411 and JWLTude perhaps you could provide details?

Those who say the govt is Bureaucratic and inefficient you can apply those statements to any large corporation like EDS. Bureaucracies is inherently bureaucratic.

Read the following to learn about Progressivism:

I read all about "Progressives" over the summer. The Progressives of the early 20th century are about as far left as you can get. Let me put it this way:

• Progressives of the early 20th century believed the Constitution was a "horse and buggy system that was no longer needed" and many of them preached that the Constitution only stood in the way of "True Progress". Anybody out there on these comment boards willing to say they actually agree with this? If no, remember Hillary Clinton in a Presidential Campaign debate say that she liked to refer to herself as an early "20th century progressive".

• "The Progressive Era was the first major period in American Political development to feature, as a primary characteristic, the open and direct cristicism of the Constitution" -American Progressivism

• "Progressives had in mind a variety of legistlative programs aimed at regulating significant portions of the American economy and society and at redistributing private property in the name of social justice. -American Progressivism (Hmmmmmm, sounds a lot like what Obama is doing, oh wait, he already admitted he is a Progressive. Too bad very few Americans know who the Progressives really are)

• Read this from President Theodore Roosevelt himself: "We grudge no man a fortune in civil life it it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.........such an increase in government control is now necessary" -Theodore Roosevelt (WHAT!? It is like Theodore Roosevelt is saying exactly what Obama is saying today......interesting, throw property rights out the window!)

• Woodrow Wilson was interested in creating a science of administration that was seperate from the limits of the Constitutional Government. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they refer to that as a dictator!)

• Progressives believed that "Natural Rights" really did not exist.....or at least there was no proof of this. Therefore, the government issued all rights. Not God.

• Most Progressives of the early 1880's came from schools taught primarily by German profressors who taught none other than MARXISM. All of you who refer to yourselfs as "Progressives", are you willing to admit that Marxism is behind true "Progressivism".

• "Progressives" want the people to choose what should be done regardless of what the Constitution said. Hence the reason why you keep hearing Democrats and Progressives refer to our government as a Democratic Government rather than a Republic. This was one system set up by the Founders to protect the minority, otherwise the majority could do what they wanted with the minority....even to the point of turning them into working slaves. (There is danger in taking away the protections of the Constitution as taught by many Progressives in the early 20th Century)

• "The influence of German political philosophy is evident not only from looking at the ideas espoused by progressives, but also from the historical pedigree of the most influential progressive thinkers. Almost all of them were either educated in Germany in the 19th century or had as teachers those who were." (Remind me what happened to Germany in the 20th Century, oh yeah, they tried to create their utopian society by regulating everything, eugenics, and trying to create a super race. Wait a second.....why has Obama's Czar Cass Sunstein spoken of eugenics as something that will most likely be necessary!? Wait, this is getting weird, isn't Van Jones a Communist and very close to the President, wait, it gets even better, there are numerous former members of the SDS in this presidency as well. That would be the same SDS from the sixties that bombed the pentagon, police stations, public offices, and took college administrators hostage, etc. Wow, this is starting to make sense.

• Let me take this one step further. Social Security was started by FDR and Medicare and Medicaid were started by LBJ and his great society! Those three programs alone are supposed to consume 27% of every tax dollar collected by 2020. By 2050 it is supposed to consume closer to 50% of every tax dollar collected. Interesting how both FDR and LBJ were Progressives!

BEFORE YOU EVER CONSIDER REFERRING TO YOURSELF AS A "PROGRESSIVE" MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND WHO THEY ARE FIRST!

Blasted republicans, insisting government health care be paid for now instead of the bill being passed on to future generations....

Exactly. Just like they did on the Iraq war, Medicare Part D, and the Bush tax cuts. We badly need that kind of fiscal responsibility back in Congress.

70% of the people polled don't want this turd. Even the dems see it as a fast way to lose an election. Not one dem running is campaigning on it or the worthless, stupid "stimulus". Hussein torpedoed his own party. They all full well know it, and are running from him, and his stupid "health care plan" that is nothing more than a plan for disaster. This November will prove that. The dems aren't getting slaughtered because they're doing a wonderful job the people approve of. Wake up!

Mass already has state run health care insurance. Why would they care abou this?

roy wilson - never did understand the value of robbing one health care plan to pay for another!

I think ever canidate running for reelection should have to make it well known if they voted yes for heathcare reform so that every voter will know who is going to cost them more money and possibly lose thier doctors,and I know first hand about that because I have spent the last 3 months getting another doctor and haveing to take new bloodwork ,another MRI plus new X-rays because my doctor that I had for years decided to retire and admitted to me he was getting out 10 years before he planned to and also admitted he would not take any new pat. And all of this at 80% of tax payers exp. because im on medicare. so obama was lyeing when he said you will not have to change doctors. now the cost is going higher than he said so how many other of his grand policies are lies. why do people stand up for this man,I did not vote for him not because i thought he was a bad man but it was not hard to know anybody could keep all the promises he made to get elected.plus any man that has admitted to smokeing crack and had any dealings with known terroist (ayers) american haters(wright)should have never been qualified to even run for most dignified job in america.I know a lot of people were taken by his magnitism and are now sorry they did;nt vote differently.

BillT - Not sure where you're getting your figures, but everything I can find shows opposition to HCR ranging from 35%-52% - NOT anywhere near the 72% you cite. Wonder if the folks whose sick kids can't be denied insurance coverage now would agree with you?

Brad- I guess Massachusetts understands that what affects other states affects them as well.

Government- I don't know where you got what you posted as you didn't cite the source, so it's impossible to evaluate its worth. However, the part about Sunstein and Van Jones is completely false and the result of Glenn Beck smears. Makes the rest pretty suspect.

thanks to the new health care bill my out of pocket per week for covorage went up 320% thank you dems and reps for sticking us yet again

Don't be fooled those democrats who voted no were given permission to do so by the queen progressive and nut job pelosi. The opposition from the democratic party could have stopped it before it started but they didn't many only opposed it to wheel and deal others were allowed to vote no do what liberals do, cover both sides of the fence.

Proud Republican

I understood the same - that it appears Dems are voting against Dems who voted for health care.

I read it again. Frankly, it is an incohesive article and I have ZERO clue what Tom Curry is trying to say other than the Democratic party is in-fighting.

I think Tom Curry needs remedial journalism courses.

And WHY IN THE WORLD are so many posts collapsed? This is the United States and we have freedom of speech. LET EVERYONE EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS. The collapsed posts are nothing to be collapsed.

Karen, that's one thing I've noticed A LOT as of late--non-inflammatory or non-offensive posts are being collapsed--clearly by someone who disagrees with the statement.

Really sneaky and abusive. I wonder if they can't just look to see who collapsed legit posts and then bar the username from posting again.

Healthcare, or I should say ObamaCare as stated by Nancy will be and unkown until the thousand of pages are printed, and reveiwed. But I will go out on the limb and say:

It will be worst than the Barney & Chrissy show we got from Frannie and Fredie. I won't be here to see the full impact but my grand, and greatgrand children have one heck of a mess in front of them. And I think their Hope and Change won't come from and empty suit.

Jody, Iowa Comment collapsed by the community

Please explain why you believe HCR is "socialist health care". In your answer, remember, the mandatory purchase was added by republicans

I'll need a source for that one. What part of supermajority do you guys not understand? There is NOTHING in this bill that Democrats didn't vote for. There is nothing REMOVED from this bill that Democrats didn't vote to remove. Republicans weren't even invited to the closed door meetings for the health care amendments. Now that the bill is a complete disaster, you guys keep trying to blame it on Republicans like the Democrats were just helpless watching them do horrible things & pass votes with their massive 40 seat minority facing a measley 60 vote majority. That's just pathetic.

What I thought was hilarious is the Koch brothers spend millions of dollars to oppose HCR but applied for the grant money offered from HCR that helps companies maintain healthcare coverage for early retirees.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/31/koch-earlyretiree/

would serve the dems right if these dems changed parties

First of the health care bill is not socialist..Second the tea party movement once again was sponsored by the two Koch brothers who were socialists and capitalist that got their money in part from stalin who was a Russian socialist.

http://exiledonline.com/a-peoples-history-of-koch-industries-how-stalin-funded-the-tea-party-movement/

Knowledge is power isn't it. So really its just a way for these people to throw diversions away from themselves when they are the real problem. And by the way the reason republicans are so against the bill is because the insurance companies do not want to be regulated and in return offer kick downs to the republican politicians. Its the same ole "Please dont regulate us" antics going on with returns as incentives. And i also find it interesting that some of these republicans have significant ties to the insurance industry. Here is one link for that as well.

http://www.campaignmoney.org/healthcare/nelson

So now it seems they want to play point the finger when the finger is being pointed at them. I would love to see a day when Republicans would get their you know what together and stop with the special interest sideline fund raising for themselves and do whats right for the American people. But for now it seems they are to busy trying to misguide the direction away from them (the real problem) just to get the seats back for their own personal gain rather than helping the American people out. One of my favorite presidents was a republican and that was Honest Abe. But it seems the honest part slipped out the back door with these guys along time ago. I'm sorry but I'm going to have to go with the Dems on this one and on many things...My point is the republican party needs to clean itself up and I don't see a big change what so ever on their part at all. And the tea party is just a fear mongering party pulling the same antics that is funded by big profit business like the Koch brothers.

Try telling your story to the countless people that have had their kids removed from cancer treatment by these multi-billion dollar companies because they did not want to pay for the medications or treatments. Go talk to the parents and see what they say. Maybe you will have a better view of this. Or you could just imagine what that would be like happening to you

For all of the confusion on what Socialism really is...here I go again (since the ones who use the term the most refuse to read/understand what it really means): In a socialist economic system, production is carried out by a free association of workers to directly maximize use-values (instead of indirectly producing use-value through maximizing exchange-values), through coordinated planning of investment decisions, distribution of surplus, and the means of production. Socialists advocate a method of compensation based on individual merit or the amount of labour one contributes to society. This is not what is in the US.

Here is what is in the US: Fascism is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.

With the corporations bribing Congress and doing everything to get everyone under their thumb...fascism is the type of government we have. With HCR...the system became outright fascism...not socialism.

For all of you who are throwing terms around...above are your definitions. Read...understand and make sure you know what YOU are talking about...since Beck/Limbaugh/Reagan/Bush/all teabaggers have no idea and can bearly handle more than one syllable...even with their own names.

Do a little research on Romney's healthcare in Massachussetts, the premiums there, and what it's costing the state. It is a complete failure and will be worse nationally.

Have you read the bill Jody? Do you understand why the premiums are so high currently and why they are going to go up significantly DUE to this bill?

Or are you just another one of the "take care of me and I shouldn't have to work for it or pay for it" democrats?

Yes, that's why we pay 4 times more on average than other industrialized nations for our health care. While being ranked 13th in the world by WHO.

Yes its easy to have socialized medicine in countries with a population of 3, like the countries ahead of us in that WHO ranking. By the way, only a progressive who believes in new world order would put as much stock into an organization such as WHO.

Yeh and Mass. is going broke because of their socialist actions. You can't spend more than you have and keep going sooner or later you will have to pay up. Jody you will pay dearly someday for your ignorance on the health care issue.

It's not that we liberals want some one to take care of us, it's that we can't win again big business. Universal Health Care (not this riduculous bill that got passed...only benifits big business) should be a nation's highest concern. What is the point of government if not to look out for the health and well being of it's people? For-proffit hospitals...that's just morally wrong. Making money off of people's illnesses?! That's just sick. (pun slightly intended) Universal Health Care can be paid for without bankrupting our country, it just takes better fiscal responsibility. I'm all for the GOP helping out with that, that's supposed to be their strong point, but we need Universal Health care. Watching my family members get struggle through illnesses and injuries and watching the insurance companies denying treatment because they know better than the doctors? That's pure B.S.

brian - perhaps your dream will come true when no one ever sues hospitals, clinics and healthcare professionals for malpractise (real or imagined). I imagine that you believe that hospital expansions, new technologies for healthcare treatment and the educational system doesn't need to happen. Not everyone has access to free clinics, which BTW has to have some type of financial support.

as you say about the current HCR bill it is ridiculas. I also believe that it will be costly and has way to much porkbarrel politics in it. I would imagine that if we required todays politicians to have the same healthcare they want us to have it wouldn't take them long to sit down and actually develop a viable plan for all.

joe, are you one of the " i make my money off other people's hard work and screw em if they get hurt" republicans?

Pat - i believe that we SHOULD go after the Democrats that voted against the HCR bill. They are SUPPOSED to support their President and chose not to. I say that we choose not to support those that did NOT support our President.

Zack Space of OH should know better than to have voted NO against HCR. Given the state of the economy in Ohio, I think that this is poor representation, especially in Southern Ohio where the unemployment rate is between 14 and 19%. By voting NO, he would have forced those people (who typically vote Republican, by the way) to have to get their care from Emergency Rooms. Luckily for everyone involved, the bill passed and even though the President does not get the credit he deserves for the Health Care bill, the people in Space's district are DEFINITELY better off with their healthcare (I know because I have first hand accounts from those counties where the HCR law has helped).

I think it is time that we got RID of the 'spineless' Democrats. The SEIU is doing what it is supposed to do - supporting good Democratic candidates and Democrats in office. This crap about not supporting their President - the head of the party - needs to stop.

They probably feel the same way lots of shareholders do when the Corporate board takes their dividend money for the same purpose.

No?

Are you a bloomin idiot???

The people voted into the House and the Senate are NOT supposed to do what the President tells them to do. They are supposed to do what WE THE PEOPLE tell them to do. They were not elected to vote Party Lines..

Jeremy - thanks for your characterization of me. Right back atcha.

However, I stand by my post - the SEIU is doing EXACTLY what they should be doing. If they are supporting a particular candidate or congressmember, then that congressmember is doing exactly what THEY have been voted in to do.

It's call constituency. I am sure you have heard of that.

But Jeremy, I am going to throw you a bone here. You are CORRECT in stating that the congresspersons are supposed to vote as WE THE PEOPLE tell them to. I will concede that if there is a GOOD REASON for not voting as the party wants them to, then that is valid.

So can you state with the same verocity that you stated I am an idiot that the SEIU does NOT represent the wishes of THE PEOPLE - at least the people who are a part of that union?

The Union is supposed to work for the members in the WORKPLACE, not in the political landscape of this country.

Well, now, Jeremy - doesn't the union REPRESENT workers? Is this not a REPRESENTATIVE entity?

Could we say that the Chamber of Commerce is an entity that REPRESENTS business owners? Is that not a REPRESENTATIVE entity?

So what's the difference between the two?

Both influence political decisions.

Both are made up of dues paying members.

So, Jeremy, what's the difference?

The unions have EVERY RIGHT to influence political decisions just like the Chamber of Commerce does. It is funny that I don't see you denigrading the Chamber of Commerce in this post, do I? Maybe the members of the Chamber should 'get out of politics', as you so eloquently postulated that the SEIU members should.

But that would mean you were incorrect in your characterisation and focus of your argument, wouldn't it, Jeremy?

Nah.

Pietro I have been a AFL-CIO member for 40 years and we were never allowed to vote on which party our dues would go to. We did protest but we really had no say and don't to this day. Its closed shop you must pay dues. I will vote the party of my choice no matter.

JB - thanks for your clarification.

Pietro is nothing but a Democratic troll. He won't be critical of his god Obama nor his democratic masters no matter what. Try and get him to admit Obama lied and continues to about HCR and all he'll do is try and spin it like Obama is a puppet master pulling our strings because he is so much smarter than we are. I post rarely on FR anymore because the Liberal birdbrains that aren't really that bright perch here continually.

I wonder how that can be legal btw, the Union leader takes a leave of absense to run for an office, and the same union provides 260k to get him elected? I wonder where he'll be steering money to as soon as/if he is elected?

Why does the left keep wanting to represent the Chamber of Commerce as representing big corporations. This is definitely not true. Look at their charter and actions. They do now and always have represented small business. But the Democratic party and their supporters have a tough time demonizing the small businessman. So they try to characterize the Chamber as representing big corporations. That does not mean on some issues that a large company won't join in on support. But the mandate of the Chamber of Commerce has always been small business. The large corporations like BP, GE, and Chase don't need the Chamber. They can afford bigtime Washington lobbyists to represent them directly.

Pietro is nothing but a Democratic troll. He won't be critical of his god Obama nor his democratic masters no matter what. Try and get him to admit Obama lied and continues to about HCR and all he'll do is try and spin it like Obama is a puppet master pulling our strings because he is so much smarter than we are.

ckaster and I go waaay back, so ckaster, it is nice to see you STILL spew the swill that you do. You see, it is kinda hard to say that the President LIED when the law hasn't even been full enacted yet.

So, ckaster continues on his rampages. It is his right, and you know what? I support that. I support the fact that people like ckaster can make fools of themselves pubicly.

I post rarely on FR anymore because the Liberal birdbrains that aren't really that bright perch here continually.

Ckaster is actually a little shy because whenever he tried to post on here before, his posts were refuted with extreme prejiduce.

Like this one.

I think that hurts his feelings. However, I am sure we will see ckaster again, posting half-truths and innuendoes that will be refuted with prejudice - again.

Bring it, Ckaster. I'll be waiting.

Why does the left keep wanting to represent the Chamber of Commerce as representing big corporations. This is definitely not true. Look at their charter and actions. They do now and always have represented small business. But the Democratic party and their supporters have a tough time demonizing the small businessman. So they try to characterize the Chamber as representing big corporations.

Ray W,

The answer to your question is that I do not know why.

However, if this post was prompted by my post about the Chamber of Commerce, there is NO PLACE where I specified big business. I just wanted to make the point that the Chamber of Commerce and the SEIU Union were the same TYPES of organization - a REPRESENTATIVE organization - where dues are paid and where the organization influences political decisions by lobbying their Congressperson.

The poster (Jeremy) was arguing that the Unions should stay out of political situations. I argued that the Chamber of Commerce is NO DIFFERENT from the Union as a Representative Organization, so to say that the Unions are doing something nefarious in frespect to political influence is untrue in this particular instance.

My argument to Jeremy is that if Unions are to stay out of influencing political decisions, then it is fair to say that the Chamber of Commerce should as well, as there is no organizational difference between the two - except that the unions more often than not support Democratic Candidates, and the Chamber of Commerce more often than not support Republican Candidates.

Its good to see you again, Ray W.

Membership of the Chamber is voluntary, membership of the Union is not!

"Pat - i believe that we SHOULD go after the Democrats that voted against the HCR bill. They are SUPPOSED to support their President and chose not to."

This statement is almost as stupid as the people who say they vote for the democrats or Republicans because their daddy did and they always have so they ain't gonna change now with no thought to what the person stands for or their voting record. The Senators and Representatives are supposed to represent the people who elected them to the office not the party or the president.

We don't need no stinking checks and balances...

Pat - i believe that we SHOULD go after the Democrats that voted against the HCR bill. They are SUPPOSED to support their President and chose not to. I say that we choose not to support those that did NOT support our President.

This is why we have so many problems in this country - because people like you think that all members of a sitting President's party are SUPPOSED to support for him and rubber-stamp any legislation he approves of. Whatever happened to voting your conscience and doing what's best for your constituents? I want my congressional representatives to think for themselves and not just blindly say "yes" to whatever the party leaders say.

The SEIU, along with all the other damn Unions need to get out of politics all together.

Just like corporations, right?

I wonder how the Union memebers feel that their dues get thrown into politics instead of helping the Union Members?

The two are not mutually exclusive. I recommend that you read Logic for Dummies.

I'm sorry, Pietro, but I am NOT a union member so they do NOT represent me and my ilk, so how do you figure they represent the people when not all the people are not part of a union?!?

Actually, why should the SEIU care, weren't they one of the unions exempt from the Healthcare Cadillac Tax rules? Must be trying to pay back the Dem party for loosening up the organizing rules for unions. Quid Pro Quo

Citizen K

The Unions have billions to spend on candidates/politics. It's amazing they have so much money from dues to deal with member issues, training, BAs, halls, etc and still spend so much on politics. And this is all coming from 'dues' all part of what the union employees are getting as 'compensation' for their job. Makes you wonder why jobs are leaving this country, why automobile companies went bankrupt etc.

Don't get me wrong, I think spending on things like training is good, but remember where all the money as part of dues comes from.

Obama wants everyone to prove they have insurance, but NOT that they're legal citizens ! ! ! !

Pietro You want to know about his lies about Healthcare? Facts reported the CBO and The Dept. of HHS. These thing's he promised would not happen and did. The CBO reported in April that the cost of the bill would now be a $trillion plus, they also said in that report that it would not lower the deficit. HHR now states that it will raise the cost of healthcare. Will cut services and the quality of care to seniors. It will cause rationing. And cause longer waiting times to see a Dr.. It has also been proved that it will force many people to change plans. The insurance companies have already started raising their policy premiums and have stated that everyone will get a 1%-9% increase, to pay for the new costs to them. You and others seem to think this bill will not cost the public anything.He also said this was not a tax but yet that is how the White House is calling it in the Court cases against it.

You make a statement about comparing the unions and corporations giving to politicians. No comparison Unions use member money . Corporations use private money. Now if the unions want to have voting on who and what they support then that would be a different thing. They don't because then they would not be able to advance their private agenda's. The leaders of any Union are like career politicians they use the members/peoples money to get what they want, including rich. Ever see a poor career union boss/politician????

Nightmare:

"Pietro You want to know about his lies about Healthcare? Facts reported the CBO and The Dept. of HHS. These thing's he promised would not happen and did. The CBO reported in April that the cost of the bill would now be a $trillion plus, they also said in that report that it would not lower the deficit. HHR now states that it will raise the cost of healthcare. Will cut services and the quality of care to seniors. It will cause rationing. And cause longer waiting times to see a Dr.. It has also been proved that it will force many people to change plans. The insurance companies have already started raising their policy premiums and have stated that everyone will get a 1%-9% increase, to pay for the new costs to them."

You are absolutely correct. We have mandatory healthcare in Massachusetts, and this is exactly what happened in this state. Heathcare costs are up over 50%, a lot of doctors taking new patients have long waits (I had to wait 3 months to get an appointment to see my new doctor), our premiums are the highest in the country, but still health insurance companies (Tufts, Harvard Pilgrim, Blue Cross and Fallon) all posted major losses in Massachusetts because of this reform. Also, the projected cost to the state has gone up over $100 million per year, and the fees and penalties for not having health insurance have done nothing to decrease the state's deficit.

So of course they're predicting the same outcome nationally, since the policy that was passed mirrors what Massachusetts already has in place.

Here in the huge union stronghold called Deeeeeeeeeetroit, The SEIU and every other union are tossing bucket loads and I do mean BUCKETS loads of money on TV and Radio ads. Nothing about the facts just how bad the corp's and the mean mean big bad businessmen that stole all the money, That no one really had anyways.....its like monopoly money.

dang, peitro, you had to put that you're from columbus. ugh, I'm here too and it's troubling that people think congress and pols in general are supposed to follow party lines no matter what. they're in office to represent the good people who voted them into office in the first place, not party bosses, not the prez.

Since unions only represent about 13% of the entire working population nationwide, it is virtually impossible that any politician running based on a union-devised platform is in reality looking to represent the entirety of their constituency.

The wishes of the union bosses and those of the non-union vast majority are rarely in sync.

It's also worth noting in the context of the health care legislation that the union bosses, representing ONLY 13% of the population nationwide, were given an exclusive negotiating position at the table in meetings to which the elected representatives of about 45% of the country - Republicans - were not even allowed to attend.

So much for Obama's promises to end the special interest influence, hmm?

Proud Republican

I understood the same - that it appears Dems are voting against Dems who voted for health care.

I read it again. Frankly, it is an incohesive article and I have ZERO clue what Tom Curry is trying to say other than the Democratic party is in-fighting.

I think Tom Curry needs remedial journalism courses.

And WHY IN THE WORLD are so many posts collapsed? This is the United States and we have freedom of speech. LET EVERYONE EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS. The collapsed posts are nothing to be collapsed.

what is the matter w/u? this is the United States of America the land of the free & brave. everyone has the right to vote how they choose. [including you...that's too bad.] there is a muslin running this country, who believes in socialism.... what do you expect from a true American. "one who believes in freedom. Most bad government has grown out of too much government.-Thomas Jefferson" "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.-Thomas Jefferson"

Pietro:

Typical Union mentality for Union Entitlements! Follow the leader, do what the boss says, don't think for yourself. Rationalize your puppet mentality. Get what you can from the Union and the government.

I agree with Jeremy: Are you a bloomin idiot??? There are THREE branches of government: The Executive, Legistlative, and Judicial. They are supposed to be SEPERATE to ensure checks and balances. If the Democratic congress simply does what the Democratic President wants them to do, and the Judicial branch does the same, then there are not THREE branches, but one. And there are no checks and balances, which is precisely what the spineless Democrats in Congress have allowed. They are NOT voted to Congress to become puppets of the President, they are sent there to represent their constituency.

Out with these spineless politicians who have no mind of their own. Blind followers belong in Unions, not the U.S. Congress.

They are SUPPOSED to support their President and chose not to.

This is one of the many things that drive undecided voters towards the GOP. Democrats actually have their voters believing this and that their job isn't to represent their constituents. Even Obama was on TV this week saying he was trying to CREATE jobs and "isn't that what I'm supposed to be doing?". I was just in awe that he really thinks his job description is to create jobs rather than allow the private sector to create jobs.

After all the things Bush did, I have a hard time believing Democrats support politicians who openly admit they don't even read bills they vote on and just use childish comments like "party of no" and "they don't have any ideas" to cover that they are just voting on party lines and have no clue what they're voting on.

I love how people like nitmare and others are STILL flinging fear about the HC bill.....post some evidence that the premiums went up 50% and that your state's defeicit is not helped...blah blah blah. Most of the provisions, especially the controversal ones that the right would have you believe would be the costliest haven't even taken effect yet, so how could it effect any costs? If costs are going up its because the costs would have gone up anyways due to technology increases and professional training.

The rationing and long wait lines are such a fear driven myth. Again you have no evidence or data do you? Get your fear off this message board and take it back to fox where you and your friends can all foam at the mouth and then watch GB together.

The fake facts and fear spreading is getting old.

I'm from South Dakota and I wish that Herseth-Sandlin had a primary challenger. A doctor from Rapid City considered challenging her because of her no vote on the health care reform but decided against running. I'm a supporter of health care reform because the current system needs major changes. I disagreed with her vote against it. Despite the Blue Dogs' talk about fiscal responsibility, most of their no votes for health care reform showed that they care more about the big business lobbying groups that contribute to their campaign funds than their constituents.

I don't care for her, but I'll vote for her. Her GOP opponent, Kristi Noem, is your typical party machine Republican. From what I've read, her time in the SD state legislature consisted of rubber stamping the governor's agenda. One of the major state papers has been writing editorial pieces in support of her. One reason that they thought she was a better choice was because she chose to drop out of college and go back to the family farm after her father died. Also, she was a stay at home mom before running for the state legislature. I'm not voting for a candidate based on how they embody traditional gender roles. It's also come out that she has a history of repeated traffic violations and hasn't paid some recent traffic fines. I really have difficulty voting for someone who thinks that traffic laws are for mere mortals who aren't elected officials.

I actually went to one of the GOP primary debates just out of curiosity. It was an eye opening experience that showed that none of them have the world view to be serving the state of SD in Washington, DC. One of the questions was about the role religion, specifically Christianity, should play in politics. Last time I checked, the United States did not have an official religion.

As far as the Tea Party, only one GOP in both the gubernatorial and House races identified themselves as a member. It turns out that the guy had significant agricultural holdings that he owed over $50,000 in back taxes on. He lost to the lietentant governor in the GOP primary.

Arch:

You want proof of what's happening in Massachusetts that could happen nationally if this healthcare reform goes into effect? By all means:

http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2010/04/06/health_insurers_sue_to_raise_rates/

Health Insurance companies are filing suit against the state because regulation of premiums is causinig major losses to their companies, and now they're suing over the legality of the state putting regulations on how high their premiums can go. Our premiums are the highest in the country, yet they're still not high enough for health insurance companies to cover their costs.

Massachusetts healthcare costs have risen:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/23/skyrocketing-massachusetts-health-costs-could-foreshadow-high-price-of-obamacare/

Hospitals are bearing the brunt of those costs because the state doesn't reimburse them dollar for dollar on the increase patient load and non-essential procedures.

As for proof of longer lines, I waited three months before I could get in to see a new doctor that was accepting new patients. I called a different doctor at a different office, it was three and a half months. All of this just to get into the office, have a physical, and transfer my records from my then-current doctor. And I'm not the only one that's experienced that. Because it wasn't an emergency, I had to wait 3 months.

As for high costs to the state and high premiums:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/10/massachusetts-health-program-a-model-for-obamas-national-reform-strains-state-budget/

The original estimate was $725 million in 2006, and now it's projected to over $880 million for 2010.

This plan isn't working in Massachusetts. Why would it work nationally?

Arch, you're as bad as Pietro. You ask how we can know what the costs will be if they haven't taken effect yet? Have you ever heard of a projection? It's common in business. Hell, we have whole sections of the government dedicated to it. If you know how something will work, you can tell what effect it will have. At this point, everyone, even the White House, is admitting the HC bill will cost us, and that premiums will have to go up.

Kelly:

I'm a supporter of health care reform because the current system needs major changes.

This is just disappointing. You supported the change, not because you thought it would improve anything, but just because you thought we needed some kind of change? I think a lot of people did that, both for HC and our president. Now, the HC bill will make the biggest problem with health care in the US, it's cost, worse! It has also hurt businesses, big and especially small, in the middle of a recession (through fear now of it coming into effect later). Yeah, wonderful change, really.

One of the questions was about the role religion, specifically Christianity, should play in politics. Last time I checked, the United States did not have an official religion.

That doesn't mean religion can't play a role. Any truly religious person should consider their religion in every decision they make. Should I cut this guy off, if it makes my trip faster? What does the Bible say about how I should treat my fellow man? Should I do what my boss says, even if it means cutting a few corners? What does the Koran say I should do? Should I cheat on my wife with the hot intern? What does Buddha teach? Should I vote for a military offensive to prevent Iran from obtaining more advanced nuclear technology? What does my religion have to say on the topic?

The US has no state religion, and there is even a 'separation of Church and State' (much more complicated than it sounds), but religious beliefs inform the decisions of those who hold office, those running for office, and those voting for people running for office. To ask what role religion should play in politics is a very serious, complex question, and a politician's answer to it can be quite telling about their character and beliefs.

I don't think a elected persons religion should influence their votes. They are voting for all the people they represent, not their personal feelings.

The problem with allowing religion to influnce you, religions often have rules that should not be law.

1. Protect the Constitution
2. Reject Cap & Trade
3. Demand a Balanced Budget
4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
6. End Runaway Government Spending
7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy
9. Stop the Pork
10. Stop the Tax Hikes

It's coming!!!!

why would they collapse your post? there is no reason..

The yellow stain on your nose is showing Jomama.

Sadly, this comment was collapsed because the conservatives are terrified that this moderate ideology is going to interfere with their big business agenda and the steal the precious few votes they get. The idea of passing energy reform and reducing pork makes the righty's gag reflex go crazy.

And the liberals can't fathom the idea of curbing spending with no pork. Wait - you tea-baggers want to take away my credit card? How dare you! My name is Joe E. Democrat and I represent the fine folks at the SEIU - pay no mind to my bulging pockets.

Sadly, this comment was collapsed because the conservatives are terrified that this moderate ideology is going to interfere with their big business agenda and the steal the precious few votes they get.

Too much liberal media for you rots your brain. "Teabagger" is a derogatory term. They get voted down every time right along with the false claims of racism. Besides, you yourself are stating you're against "big business". Who do you think is going to hire the unemployed? I thought you guys were arguing that small business doesn't hire enough to make a difference just last week.

The tea baggers gave themselves the name first until they realized what it meant...lol shows the ignorance of this movement.

Racism false claims? Ha I have seen first hand at a tea bagger rally they HATE non whites, maybe not all of them but they stand against anything that benefits minorities. Act like a racist, support racist activities and you are a racist. Call it like it is but don't run for the hills and get all defensive when someone calls you out.

Win, the problem is that the "town" can't do it for 50, not without severely limiting our care. Read, rationing. Now, we can debate whether or not it's "just" to ration care for everyone so that those who won't take responsibility for themselves can have some care, at the great cost to those who do go to work everyday, but to maintain that we will be able to provide good - not great, but good - care to everyone for less than we pay today is pure head in the sand. Nobama himself on Friday admitted that Nobamacare isn't really going to bend the cost curve downward, but upward. The health insurance industy is not the problem. The amount of profit they realize is a drop in the bucket of the total cost of health care. I guarantee there is no way Gov can run it cheaper than private industry, even with the profit taken into effect. I know. I work in public health care sector and the waste is astounding. Gov can't run anything less expensive than private sector, excpet military. So the question is - where's the money come from? Remeber, socialism is a great system until you run out of other people's money.

You throw a lot of people under the bus with those who don't take responsibility for themselves. By the way - Medicaid already takes care of those people. We are talking about the people who believe in a basic tenet of the progressive social contract. It something called working for a job that provides for yourself and your family, and doesn't expose you to the unreasonable inequities or injustices of private industry. Just like you shouldn't lose you life savings when a bank makes imprudent decisions, so to you shouldn't have to go bankrupt if your child has a rare disease.

All that is another way a saying I'm not responsible for what happens in my life. You are responsibile for what happens in our life. The constitution does not guarantee you will be sucessful, only that you have opportunity. If you don't want to work for a big business, don't = find another way. Too many people want to think of themselves as victums, or as not being able to write the script of their own lives, and want a nanny gov to take care of them. At some point the gov runs out of other people's money. Sorry you don't seem to understand what I'm trying to say... that we shouldn't have to count on gov to take care of us... it's the least efficient way to do anything.

I would be curious to hear what you would say if you found out tomorrow you had operatable cancer but the surgery, hospital care, and on going costs would be equal to your annual salary on a monthly basis. There are somethings that are what millions of people have discovered to be what we call society because there are certain things we cannot handle ourselves. I realize that I am responsible for the things that happen in my life but can you afford a waste disposal plant....or what do you do with your household waste? Perhaps everyone throwing in to build some of these things is what, in a small way, "pursuit of happiness" starts to mean. I think that catastrophic illness is one of those things that we cannot completely control ourselves and having the means to help when it is completely beyond our own control is the way mature and rational human beings act towards each other.

Nice theory Kirk, but lets expand it a little.

What happens when even forcing people to buy Health Insurance starts to backfire and cost even more? When is it going to be enough that you take from someone else to pay for everyone else? Obama the idiot already lied about the costs associated with HCR...plenty of independent studies have come out saying costs will go up, and we will have to ration care. Obama even placed a new head of Medicare that advocates rationing. whats next, they arbitrarily decide to raise taxes to pay for more HCR fees, then again the next year....you can't just tax the rich into oblivion...they don't have enough , now the Dems come for more of your money. when is enough for you to get off your high horse and say enough? Maybe when we live in Communist America where we all make 50 dollars a week and the government takes care of us birth to grave.

I see you threw in the "spread the risk" clause of the argument...but why am I being forced to share your "risk"? Do we do that for financial reasons? If I decide to play the stock market and lose should you have to help balance my "risk"? Why not? Your playing with my money for the one thing, but I can't play with yours for my want?

ckaster, do you have health insurance through your employer? Or any kind of life insurance? If you do, your premiums are ALREADY based on "spreading the risk". Health insurance companies base their group premiums on the costs incurred by a particular group during each year. And life insurance companies base their premiums on actuarial research - which basically means that all people of a particular gender and age pay pretty much the same amount for insurance.

Modern healthcare is nothing like it was even 40 years ago. In those golden old days, people died when they got sick from all kinds of things. I'm not sure how much our survivability numbers have changed, but we spend a pile of money on the last few months of life for many sick people.

I am not saying it's right to let people die, but I will tell you this - I'd rather die when it comes time (I think, which is easy to do not being in that position currently) than saddle my children with a burden that is unreasonable.

If France needs 13.55%+ a 10-40% co-pay, and they still run multi-billion dollar annual deficits, and this is the model many want to duplicate, that becomes an astronomical figure.

In the old days, we paid the doctor when we visited him / her. When we went to the hospital for something, health insurance helped, but we paid a decent amount of money out of pocket. Of course taxes as a whole were much lower, as almost no one in the "middle class" paid much - the progressive system only became burdensome when wages continued to grow and tax rates were not adjusted for this change.

90 years ago the nation survived with zero income tax to the treasury. The first income tax exempted the first $20,000 (1920 dollars) of income - do you know how much money that was in 1920?

From $20k - $50k, the tax rate was 1% - it topped out at 6% for anyone earning more than $500,000.

Here we are a short 90 years later, we are $13 trillion in debt, growing by more than $1.5 trillion annually, our top tax rate is 34%, about to go to 39% (I think), plus state taxes as high as nearly 11%, and some cities with taxes that add another nearly 9%, plus sales tax in some states approaching 10%.

Doesn't this provide ample evidence that we are a society completely out of control, and it has to stop or it will be stopped for us?

I don't believe private insurance, or insurance at all is the answer. I believe health care should be a non-profit activity. I also believe that we must take the ambulance chasers out of the mix. I am not an expert in all of this, but what we have now is not reasonable, pricing and delivery are out of control, and we must change it.

Tht's his choice, not a government requirement.

You wantb insurance pay for it, you prit your hand in my pocket, you draw back a wrist.

The insurance farce will be repeal.

It's a non starter as soon as we throw out the accomplices of Obama in Nov. we'll withold funding for it.

He can whine all he wants too, till Nov of 2012, then we run the inept quasi socialist out of office and repeal it.

Ahhh!!!! I get it now, people are sick and dying but we should not bother because of the costs. Wow i guess some people really don't care about the sick and dying or the poor.. Great way to live your life. I posted earlier but you guys have brought this to an all time low. And by the way for the millionth time Bush signed a b.s prescription plan that did jack to the sum of 800 billion dollars and it was projected to cost well over 1 trillion and up. You need to do more than fact check you need to soul check. I wonder how you people sleep at night.

Please explain why you believe HCR is "socialist health care". In your answer, remember, the mandatory purchase was added by republicans; there is no public option, it is all administered by private insurance industry--which trades our health on the stock market.

Good question. It is not "socialist" health care but a form of "corporatist" health care by requiring people to purchase a product from a private business, but after all it, the idea originated from Romney and the republikans.

and then twisted by liberals.

And by the way for the millionth time Bush signed a b.s prescription plan that did jack to the sum of 800 billion dollars and it was projected to cost well over 1 trillion and up.

And for the millionth time, it was $678 billion (over 30% less than your claim) and wasn't supported by the conservatives. Bush doesn't represent me or my ideals. His poll numbers after 2006 support this statement. The Democrats had supermajority and didn't do anything about the "b.s prescription plan" either so apparently they like it.

I would be curious to hear what you would say if you found out tomorrow you had operatable cancer but the surgery, hospital care, and on going costs would be equal to your annual salary on a monthly basis.

This has been answered for you literally thousands of times on newsvine. Insurance is a choice. If I choose not to buy it and get cancer, it's my own fault. If you decide to climb Mount Everest it's your choice and you could die too.

Insurance companies set the rules. They can tell me what I can eat, what I can do that may be deemed physically dangerous, if I can smoke, whatever. Not abiding by their rules results in higher rates or cancellation of the policy. Do you want the government to have that kind of power? What if a party takes supermajority that doesn't have your ideals in mind and uses that power?

Minan:

The level of regulation the Federal Government has placed on the insurance companies in Obamacare quickly approach socialism. Socialism is when the government owns and controls these systems. Well, the government doesn't own them under the new HC bill, but it sure does control them. You may have noticed Obama has threatened to cut the insurance companies that are raising their rates out of the state Exchanges? That would effectively forbid them from doing business in the US. It's not actually socialism, but it's darn close.

Well, true, if you believe that Creation should be taught in school. Churches really suck at that. Better the public system do what churches are incapable of.

larry, creation is not taught in schools because it is a religion based philosophy. if you want your kids to be taught it, send them to a private religous school. evolution is a non religous based idea.

Actually HATR_HURTER that is not an entirely true statement. Evelution is a theory that has not just one, but thousands of "missing links" These missing pieces cannot be explained by using the scientific method or by the evidence of the fossil record. In fact, the fossil record supports what is known as micr-evolution, or the evolution within a species (ie. people getting taller, giraffs neck getting longer,...), but does not support macro-evolution, or the evolution of one species into another. Many scientist have pointed this fact out and been wrongly attacked for the crime of speaking the truth.

In fact the scientific method has prooven that the three tenents of evolution cannot happen. Those being:

1) Life can come from non-life.

2) Compexity can come from simplicity.

3) Intelligence can come from non-intelligence.

This is why so many scientists have turned to the creative design theory.

Now if the fossil record and scientific method cannot prove the theory of cross species evolution, then it must be taken of faith that it took place. Having faith that something unproovably is true is making a religion out of it.

I am not saying that these theories should not be taught, but since they are all unproovable, then they should be taught in a philosophy class where one point of view is not forced down the throat of the studen, but the student can take all of the available information and come to their own conclusion.

Isn't teaching kids to think for themselves one of the points of education?

Well said ark2009!

"

they should be taught in a philosophy class where one point of view is not forced down the throat of the student, but the student can take all of the available information and come to their own conclusion.

Isn't teaching kids to think for themselves one of the points of education?"

No, Evolution is a scientific theory, and it should be taught in science class. It should be taught in science class, along with various studies supporting it, showing flaws in it, and a serious, in-depth discussion of it's strengths and weaknesses. We should discuss the new ideas presented to explain the evidence of punctuated evolution (i.e. species remaining mostly unchanged for millions of years, only to be completely replaced by a very different creature in tens of thousands of years). We should present it as it is: a theory with problems which is constantly being revised in an attempt to solve those problems. ID should be presented as an alternative concept, but it hasn't yet reached sufficient level of development to be a scientific theory (and I doubt it ever will, as a scientific definition of the product of design is likely impossible).

There is no doubt insurance reform was not needed. However, the Big Lie is that we can cover everything, for everybody, for less money. Can't happen . Mandate new coverages, everyone must pay more. The only way to cover everyone for less is to ration care. That should be read as reducing the care for those who actually pay their own way. Is that fair? Should those who take responsibilty for their own lives be forced to take responsibilty for those who won't? The Great Society has F'ed this country by creating entitlements for people who won't take responsibility for themselves. We'll keep providing for them until we are bankrupt, and then... who knows. I've the idea that the riots od the 60s will look like the good old days.

The "Big Lie" you speak of is itself a Big Lie... or perhaps untrue would be a nicer term. I am 34 years old and have never had a cavity. Never go the doctor except for the occasional strep throat.

If all healthy americans acquired health insurance then the cost of health care MUST go down. It is only LOGICAL.

Grow up jr. If I know everyone HAS to have my product...then no the cost doesn't HAVE TO come down, why? You MUST buy. Leave the logic to Spock, he does it so much better.

BUT - no one says you have to buy the product from a particular vendor, do they? So those who have to buy insurance will do their best to buy it from companies that offer the best services for the best price - hence, costs WILL come down.

No they waon't they are already going up and according to all governmnet actuaries except the ones that work for Obama, will continue to rise faster, that if he had left it alone, at least till. 2019.

Doesn't matter, it's a non starter after Nov, ther will be no funding to do what Obama wants to do he will not be able to hire people or spend money on it , you libs still don't get it, Obama crammed one item too many down our throat, now the dems pay.

ckaster,

Please see the below link for info on "spreading the risk"

• http://open.salon.com/blog/kanuk/2009/05/21/lets_spread_the_risk_i_mean_health_care_not_flu

Thx, adidas

I watched C-SPAN during the health care debate and came away astonished and appalled at the outrageous lies the Dems told and the bullying they did in order to get their bill passed. The interesting thing is that what everyone complained about during the debate has been shown to be correct.

I came away from the debate thinking that the gigantic numbers of regulations were absolutely not necessary.

Why lie and bully everyone if they really thought the bill was a good one?

@johnny, i believe you all said the same thing about the last elections, which the dems took the majority of. the funniest part about you all saying wait till november 2 is that you don't really know what will happen. you MIGHT be right, but you could also be wrong. i was on the 2004 presidential election where i just knew there was no way that the people of this country were dumb enough to re-elect bush.

Actually, Adidas, the cost of insurance will go up if everyone is insured. Because there will be more people with coverage, there will be more use of the health systems. This will cause more claims and the need to raise the rates on everyone.

Additionally, there is something in the PPACA that requires community rating of premium. This would mean that a healthy, 34-year-old such as yourself will now pay more in premium to cover someone who is 55 and unhealthy. Although the person who is ill may not pay more, the young, healthy person will be paying much, much more.

Danno- The rules of supply and demand would suggest that more people with coverage would mean less cost per person. There will be more people accessing the health care system, but also more people paying into the system to cover the cost. And that doesn't take into account all the lost productivity of people who in the past have been too sick or unhealthy to be productive members of society, or the 45,000 folks who have died each year from lack of access to proper health care. Those are costs that often are not taken into account.

Unfortunately, the healthy 34-year old is already paying for those older and sicker, especially the uninsured, through the cost of medical care and services provided through hospitals, etc. in increased costs to all the rest of us. God forbid in our present system, either he or she gets cancer or is hit by a bus because suddenly he or she could find themselves unable to work, with health problems, and deemed "uninsurable." That is one type of situation the health care law has tried to prevent.

And they should also look at the people like my wife that WAS paying for supplemental insurance that as of now will be discontinued as of Dec 31st. Leaving us with a 20k hole to fill somewhere. I am so hoping this HRC plan gets dismantled.

DrDr, where the supply and demand curve causes higher costs is where the demand increases more than the supply. When you have more subsidized insurance, there will be more demand on the services of the existing supply. There will also be less incentive to only use the doctor when necessary - meaning people will go to the doctor for the sniffles - which will further decrease the supply.

There are barriers to entry into the health care market such as the time to obtain a medical degree, the time to build additional facilities, etc. that will mean the supply side cannot catch up to the demand side fast enough to equalize the market.

look in the faces of the thousands now being covered who couldn't get covered before because of pre-existing conditions

Who's being covered "now" that wasn't before? Was this another Obama lie about that not kicking in til 2014? The latest estimate is that 23 million STILL won't have coverage in 2019. If insurance coverage costs more than 8 percent of household income, people won't face a penalty for going without it. How is this going to help someone who has cancer and faces high premiums? http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0323/Obama-signs-health-care-bill-Who-won-t-be-covered

As a matter of fact, snopes recently verified that many religious groups (like Muslim) are exempt if they choose not to participate, but it does not include Christians. http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp

What we NEED is health care REFORM and TORT reform to address the root cause of high cost. Mandated purchase without price regulation isn't the answer.

I think that is why I am mad with the President. He didn't realize that just giving one of the keystones of his campaign to the likes of Pelosi and Reid would result in something that do little except make the insurance companies more money. Don't forget however, but the republicans can see the same numbers, i.e. that healthcare in the country is no longer #1 in the world, is too expensive and is bankrupting the country and that reform is needed and they have no plan. A smart group would have an alternative and beat the president mercilessly with it....so you see, simply throwing the bums out is not a totally the right way to go either

How is health care cost "bankrupting the country" if up to now, individuals have paid for their own health care costs? Individuals might go bankrupt, but not the country. If the country is indeed going bankrupt because of health care costs, it would only be due to the ineptness of those managing the two government run health care payers, medicare and medicaid.

The government run heath care coverage, medicare and medicaid, up to now have not worked well. Seniors who are not ready to retire, for what ever reason, are still forced to use medicare as first payer in insurance. But to not bankrupt themselves, they have to keep their work insurance as second payer. The problem is two things for them; because medicare is the first payer, they are limited to what doctors they can see, since many choose the right to not accept medicare because of payment problems. Two, they are still having to pay full insurance costs to receive only back up coverage. The only ones gaining here are the insurance companies.

The argument that having a one payersystem would cut costs is flawed. A one payer system will only work if the ones managing the payments are not incompetent. Sadly, incompetent is what many government workers are. They do not have the same work-place controls as workers in the private sector. Medicare and Medicaid abuse by health care professionals /facilities is already rampant, it will not be less when everyone is required to use a one payer program. The government is notorious for waste, they do not care about cost because the money is not coming out of their pockets .

If the government wants to go to a one payer system they should first prove that they can control the government subsidized coverage that now exists in a cost effective way. A couple of suggestions to that end are, do not require seniors who want their own coverage to use Medicare as first payer until they have to. Do not require seniors who have the means to use medicare as first payer if they do not want it. Pay legitimate claims by health care professionals and facilities in a timely fashion so that more professionals will accept medicare/medicaid. Legally punish any and all health care professionals that abuse the medicare/medicaid system instead of allowing the abuse to continue.

Look at what the government did to a once healthy social security system. They "borrowed" from it greedily for other pet projects. Now the security of seniors that paid into the system their whole lives is in jeopardy. Do you really think they would do better managing the care of the whole country?

Giving our government control of the health care payments of the entire country is like having a fox guard the hen house.

I watched C-SPAN during the health care debates. Dems outrageous lies and disgusting bullying made me so mad I wanted to slap their arrogant faces to get their attention so I could remind them that they were voted to represent the people! not the party or special interests.

I hope they're humbled every election for the next ten years so the message sinks in.

Texana Deb, actually seniors who work are not always covered by Medicare first. It depends on the size of the employer and whether or not there are any other reasons for having Medicare such as End Stage Renal Disease.

You are wrong. I have two friends who recently (in the past couple of years) reached 65. Neither one chose to retire. They were both requiredto accept Medicare as their first coverage. One works for a privately owned company that spans 15 states (not small, but definitely not large), the other works for a large corporation. Both work full time. Both are in excellent health. Neither WANTS Medicare as their first coverage. It is a waste of taxpayers money to require older workers to accept an insurance coverage that they do not want and is bent at best.

Sorry, it timed out on me. Both had been working the jobs that they had at retirement for a number of years. Neither was a "post retirement" job. Neither accepts social security payments yet. I could understand if they worked for a small private company with limited coverage, or did have existing life threatening disease. In those cases the private insurance would not pay. That is not the case. Their private insurance has changed in no way, except the government told them they HAVE to use Medicare as first pay because they are retirement eligible age.

Texana Deb they must only have Medicare part which only covers in hospital needs. Their private coverage still covers any non hospital stay needs.In other words if they get admitted to the hospital for longer then 1 day the Medicare covers 1st and then the private becomes Gap insurance. Your Govt. put this into law not the Insurance companies.

No, I don't remember what they said the"part" was, but their Medicare covers first on all of the medical. My friend was griping about it. She still has her work covered insurance, which is a major insurance company, but they have to pay second. Her insurance costs did not change at work. Doctor visits, which they use, and I assume hospital, which neither one has used since reaching 65. Yes, it is the government that is making them take the Medicare now, not their private insurance.

Then your friend chose Medicare part B, You are only REQUIRED to get Part A which only covers Hospital. They have a choice.

You are not required to sign up for medicare. Everone chooses to do so because it is a very good deal for the individual. Be honest.

Nitemare, you're missing the bigger point and getting lost in the weeds.

Why should the government REQUIRE them to use a government program, no matter which part or parcel, AT ALL, when they don't need to just because they're 65? They've already been paying into the program their entire working lives, they're still paying in if they're working, AND they're willing to pay for or have as part of their employment (probably a combination) private insurance that does NOT put the burden on the government at all.

Why are they forced to?

The situation is the same with my in-laws. He is retired, and has a pension including comprehensive health care coverage. He is working as a consultant. He is STILL forced to buy Medicare insurance, while still paying into Medicare.

How much sense does that even make, to do double bookkeeping for what he says is about the same amount annually? He pays in via his job, and pays out the same amount. Now multiply this by probably a few million and what do you have? A few thousand unnecessary government jobs processing his payments in and payments out - all with lifetime, taxpayer funded benefits and distorted salaries.

It's a prime example of why so many people - TENS OF MILLIONS - oppose the government getting any more involved in health care than they already are. They just cannot handle it.

No, she did not, she was very upset about being forced to accept it.

My point is that existing Medicare Secondary Payer laws dictate when an employer is primary over Medicare. If the employee is actively working and the employer has over 20 employees, then the employer plan is primary.

This link is to Medicare's web site. On page 6 of the document, it spells out whether Medicare or other insurance is primary and when. http://www.medicare.gov/Publications/Pubs/pdf/02179.pdf

1. Protect the Constitution
2. Reject Cap & Trade
3. Demand a Balanced Budget
4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
6. End Runaway Government Spending
7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy
9. Stop the Pork
10. Stop the Tax Hikes

It's coming!!!

What's coming? The government of slogans?

The government of slogans is what we have now. "Change we can believe in", "Yes we can", "they're the Party of No", etc.

I'd really like to see Obama and the Dems come up with some real ideas honestly. Passing bills that line the pockets of their corporate buddies down in the health insurance offices and CEOs/execs of companies "too big to fail" so they can still have their multi-million dollar bonuses don't count as "ideas" to me. The party of "vote yes! Don't bother reading it!" is just a sign of how they've been allowed to run rampant and destroy this country from within and be arrogant enough to think it's what we want.

So you don't want cheaper health care and worry about getting tax out the ying yang? I wonder how many people you know that lost their health care coverage because they're getting sicker and the insurance company is trying to make their shareholder happy by dropping the sick.

You complain about getting tax? If you're making over $200k or $250k as married and crying about paying a little extra in taxes then you can cry me a river to fish on. Otherwise there's no reason why you're paying more in taxes when the taxes hasn't changed because the Bush's tax cut hasn't expire yet. And when it does you won't see any changes in your taxes if you're making less than $200.

You talk about the freedom to pursue a career, if you hadn't notice because you're been stuck at home listening to Rush and Glen about wanting to see Obama failed, or how thing is being shovel down our thoat or how we the people don't want this or want that. I know I didn't make my opinion known to Rush nor Glen so they can't be speaking to me or the other millions out there.

It's interesting to say they least that Rush and Glen have over 32 millions listeners, I'm sure 30 millions of them are die hard believers of those two idiots while the other 2 millions are just listening to verified just how truly idiotic they really are.

56% of the country told Obama they didn't want it. he gave them the finger and passed it.

Nov. we give the finger back, talk all the "you want bad things to happen to America" crap you like, we are not going to pay for your insurnce, pay for it, or do without.

Not true Tony, If they let the Bush tax cuts expire ALL families will suffer read this http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/110005/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you?mod=taxes-advice_strategy

So you don't want cheaper health care and worry about getting tax out the ying yang?

Cheaper? Even Obama had to step back and admit he "mispoke" regarding that claim and quickly started talking about Republicans to change the subject. He's doing alot of backpeddling these days. The funniest was claiming "summer of recovery" was in reference to the passing of the "recovery act", not an actual recovery.

The president stated last week that the costs were going to go up - and he actually had a straight face when he said it. He stated that since so many more people were going to be covered, of course costs would go up. How this man, who for months and months swore that costs would go down, can now look at people and state the exact opposite - a point his opponents were making at the time - and expect people to think he is worthy of the office to which he was elected.

http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2010/09/health_care_costs_to_rise_unde.html

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/09/obama-admits-he-1.html

http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=16&a=469166

It's no different than car insurance. You pay for decades without a problem, then some bozo whacks your car and you are covered. Wow, what a concept eh? Is health insurance any different? No it is not.

Anything the Feds say is better or free, is neither. If an extra 32 billion in costs for this white elephant floats your boat, then you need to look again because you don't get it sir...

what you don't realise Adidas 503, is that starting next year, that $14000 your employer pays for your BCBS, will be added to YOUR W2 and YOU will be required to now pay taxes on it!

On page 25 of 29: TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec. 9001,
as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002 "requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross income."

How much more in taxes, at the old rates once the cuts expire, will THAT add to what you pay, I wonder?...

Now, I don't have much sympathy for those making over $200K to have an additional 3% in tax( rates to go from 36 to 39.6) , but what expires is ALL TAX CUTS,. That means you and me also, yes, ALL of our taxes will go up, unless congress does suddenly decide to extend cuts for the rest of us. Which you never hear anyone talking about, only the smoke screen about the richer ppls taxes doing so. That doesn't include what deductions will also revert to previous lvls. IE- child credits dropping from $1000 back to 500, marriage penalties back to what they were previous too, for example. ANd this doesn't include the NEW taxes the HCL will be adding to us starting next year too!, let alone the ones certain business' have already started paying.

And Pietro-columbus, you talk about what the HCL has already done.. Its not until 2014 that it goes into effect!! So anything changed/better you see so far, is teh result of insurers doing it themselves ahead of the game! Congress, they're just trying to get a few years of taxes ahead of the game.. how many believe that that will be saved and used on the HCL only, and not just spent however they see fit?

Why can't the ones who cannot afford or obtain insurance use pre-existing coverage through Medicaid? If it is an issue of not being able to afford medical, then it should fall under medicaid. If it were not being mismanaged by the government and abused by illegal immigrants, coverage through medicaid could be offered to all non-insurable people without punishing the ones who have coverage that they like or make the middle class workers pay a quarter of their earnings to cover the medical cost of others?

Adidas, does your employer offer any other plans than the one you are under? Also, you have not only health insurance, but also dental insurance - two different things. I'm not sure how large the company is that you work for, but there are probably two reasons for your costs: 1) the population of the employer (including all dependents) is rather sick and 2) your plan covers virtually everything at 100%.

Between you and your employer, according to your figures, the premium is $1,500 per month. Your employer should shop around for better premiums.

Maybe you should consider getting out of your employer plan and purchase individual coverage. Do some searching to see if you can find a plan that will pay preventive care and then have a large deductible for other coverage.

Taxana Debwho do you think will pay for those put on Medicaid? It comes from your tax dollars. If the States have to pay for more Medicaid then you will have to pay higher taxes. Even if you don't make over $250k a year. See how that works out, you have to pay higher rates for your own and then pay higher taxes for all the others.

Lobotomy-

You will NOT be taxed on what your employer pays for health insurance coverage. Stop spreading false information. http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/health-care-law-and-w-2-forms/

The box on your W2 where your employer enters what they pay for your coverage is for informational purposes ONLY.

Lobotomy - Actually, the insurance premium is noted on the W2 but excludable from gross wages for 2010. However, to your point, the IRS will use this information to project possible revenues from including it in future taxation. I believe this, also, helps them "peek" into the manipulating crafting of what constitutes a "Cadillac" plan for purposes of this HUGE tax increase in 2014.

It's not a right. It is a product. The liberals in this country think that they know so much more than the rest of us, so they want to be able to make our decisions for us. But be careful, who knows some one in government may decide that a family of 3 only really needs 1000 square feet in which to live. They will tax you more if you live in a larger house. Of course, they may also add additional taxes to food that they deem to be unhealthy. Oh, wait, if you consider taxes on beer, wine, and liquor and soft drinks (in DC), then they already do.

Right you and Norm903 are...

We have already lost a portion of our control over the Government...and more each day. If the HCR mandate is allowed to stand, then sooner or later they will come for the rest.

Pretty chilling when you think about it, now H&HS secretary can make up regulations/rules that affect us without Congressional approval. FCC coming up with new fairness rules that will affect the internet to control what we see and when. Dept of Energy is putting rules and regs into place that could force us to buy or not buy items, also without approval from anyone else.

Oh, wait, if you consider taxes on beer, wine, and liquor and soft drinks (in DC), then they already do.

Don't forget cigarettes. The tax rate on those is above 100% and the revenue from it isn't going where they said it would. When Obama said he hadn't raised taxes "one single dime", he wasn't lying. It was about 200 dimes per carton.

I trust that is sarcasm, George!

George-388802 #22,

How about a much smaller and more efficient government?

How about term limits for Congressional Representatives & Senators?

How about eliminating all the perks & exemptions that our elected officials have granted to themselves?

Anyone else have concerns about all those who are on the public dole & capable to work, get to vote? There is a growing number in this category, to the extent that a growing number of our representatives are giving them, most of what they want & making the rest of us pay for it.

husky- you are correct, especially Democrats that voted no, they are truly loyal reprentatives of the people. They voted their hearts not just their party line.

Down with all progressive Democrats in November. Vote for conservatives in either party and throw out the Socialists - Communists.

Unfortunately your more right than wrong. Politicians are like diapers they both need to be changed regulary for the same reason.

To RAY T: Beautiful COMMENT !!!!

The people who want something free refuse to hear the truth.

There is no such thing as free health care you will pay fees for everything.

There is no such thing as rich corporations giving you a free ride. You will pay more for the products they provide for this country.

If you put all of your weekly groceries on your table and put a trash can next to it the trash can would be full and your table almost empty after all of the democratic taxes hit you at the store.

This is what taxing the so called rich will do to the average person.

Free who said anything about free? It is my oppinion that all americans SHOULD be entitled

to health care. Even the people that by no fault of their own have a pre existing condition. that wouldn't have happened without the health care bill---- Socialism Poppy-cock so its mandatory the Dems that

didn't vote for it Should be left alone they voted for what they believed was right they probably voted their district. and for that they should not be punished.

If you put all of your weekly groceries on your table and put a trash can next to it the trash can would be full and your table almost empty after all of the democratic taxes hit you at the store.

You are saying you would rather do the republican thing and borrow the money from China and let future generations worry about paying the debt at a later date? I think the Reagan tax cuts should be rescinded and the deficit paid off, that makes far more sense to me.

Minan, and now we have 5 TRILLION more to pay off thanks to the tax and spends Democrats. Thank you so much for the LARGEST ever deficit spending by any president in the history of this Country. Where do you think the money will come from....start writing checks out now made payable to US Government.

How much of your 5 trillion was for two wars the Bush administration did not put on the books? How much of it was for the bailouts from the same administration? The Smart thing to do would be to end corporate welfare, revamp the nation's trade policies, and end all tax cuts until the deficit is paid off.

Minan, bailouts are passed by Congress, not the president. Democrats had control of congress & Senate when that passed. Boiling down retaliation for 9/11 attacks to "two wars the Bush administration" started is completely disrespectful for all of the friends and family of 9/11 victims. You'll not win over any undecided votes with comments like that. What were the Democrat "ideas" to resolve the issue with Taliban? Hmm? They didn't have any? The other war in Iraq was called for by Democrats since the Bush Sr years because of WMDs. Just search 'democrat wmd' on youtube to see Al Gore, Pelosi, Reid, etc screaming that Bush Sr didn't go in and take out Hussein after they liberated Kuwait.

True for sure. I will vote against EVERY person who voted FOR Obamcare in my disctict.

I will vote for ever person in my district that voted against the Obama socialist health care bill. We think alike.

ray4 I will vote for any person that voted against the Obama health care bill. Checkmate.

Why anyone would vote to keep someone in office who votes yes on bills they didn't even read is beyond comprehension to me.

It's like "OMG H.R. 1234123412344 was submitted by a Democrat! Pass it quick!!! What do you mean there was a provision in there calling for *insert horrible thing here*??? One of those party of NO people must have put that in there with their massive 40% vote majorities! We all know Democrat politican lawyers are completely trustworthy and, therefore, must be right in their osmosis interpretation of the bill! Shame on them for voting against it and putting bad stuff in it! They just want to get the keys back after wrecking the car! They're treating me like a dog!".

Right on Bri.

Don't know about those folks wm, Because I can't afford the plans offered at work, I pay for mine, 100% of the premiums. I prefer it that way. I SUPPLY MY NEEDS, I don't need the government tell me what I can or can't do. If I don't want it I shouldn't be requred to pay for it, if I want it, it should be my choice. BTW the HCB had declared my plan substandard, even though i don't have co-pays (exept a $22 a day hospitalization charge for food), drug costs or any other out of pocket charges. Now with a plan that does this for me, why should I have to pay a tax (or fine) because the government says so?

So tell me, how is this bill better for me?

The reason we have health insurance as we do today is because of wage controls implemented in WWII. Employers, as a way to attract employees who they could not pay more were offered other benefits such as health insurance rather than increased wages. This became the norm and we now have a third party payer system - health insurance.

Me, in many ways it will hurt you. You will not be able purchase a high deductible health plan if you are over a certain age. You will not be able to utilize FSA plans to cover many things you can now cover. There are many changes that will not allow you to have the plan you have today, if you like it...as promised.