For many, like Chris Dodd, it's "Goodbye, and good riddance". Thanks for the 'legacy' of the collapse of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Too bad you couldn't take Barney Frank with you.

If you had only listened to Bush's dozens of attempts to reform these Government Sponsored Enterprises, starting only 3 months after being sworn in in 2001, we would not have had a collapsing economy. Instead, you used your filibuster powers to prevent any changes.

In 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. The Act amended the charter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reflect Congress' view that the GSEs "have an affirmative obligation to facilitate the financing of affordable housing for low-income and moderate-income families.

Why is it Roy that everything is blamed on Obama or Clinton when Bush Sr and Bush Jr are responsible? People like you keep posting that Clinton started NAFTA when it was actually W's daddy that did. Do you go to Church Roy? Does that make you feel better to sleep at night?

On September 10, 2003, the Bush Administration recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. Under the plan, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae. Since Bush had majority in House and Senate, how did he do? The immediate cause or trigger of the crisis was the bursting of the United States housing bubble which peaked in approximately 2005–2006.

Yes, I know, you will tell me it was Barney Frank's fault. Apparently he had more power than the president and the Congress -Once again - the Republicans had the majority in both.

bayllie

No, Barney Frank did not have more power than the President, but Chris Dodd, along with other Democrats in the Senate, did have (and threatened to use) filibuster powers to prevent any regulation of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac - remember it takes 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, and the Republicans only had marginal control (about 51 votes).

President Bush made his first attempts to regulate Fannie & Freddie in April 2001, and it was blocked by the Democrats. Bush made attempts EVERY YEAR after that to regulate them, but each time, Democrats, led by Dodd and Frank, blocked those efforts. And then they had the gall to try to blame Bush when the housing market collapsed, and the biased media has still never told the truth.

Just another lie, Roy. A filibuster can only delay, not prevent, legislation from passing. If Bush really had wanted to reform Fannie and Freddie he could and should have gotten it done. Did FRIST make the Democrats get up and filibuster? NO! If they threaten to filibuster, as speaker, you simply make them get up and do it. That is, if you really want to vote for any real change.

The RE-peat-the-lie-to-the-PUBLIC-ans had the power and ability to avert the crisis, they chose not to act in the best interest of the majority of Americans.

Paul-977599

The RE-peat-the-lie-to-the-PUBLIC-ans

I like that. Happy New Year!

Paul-977599 "Just another lie, Roy. A filibuster can only delay, not prevent, legislation from passing"

What planet do you live on? A filibuster will ABSOLUTELY keep legislation from coming to the floor for a vote.

No Roy. I Live on Earth. WHERE Only the FAKE Filibuster can stop legislation. The filibuster/cloture rule was changed in 1975 by majority rule change vote of 56-42. The Mansfield two track Rule 22 cloture exemption is not a filibuster. It created the PROCEDURAL filibuster, which fools you into believing that a filibuster is being employed. It is a play on words, used by the media and political con-men to fool the inobservant populace into thinking that congress is doing the work they were sent to do, when in reality it negates the work that they are sworn to do.

No real filibuster has ever stopped legislation from coming up for a vote.

The procedural fake filibuster has stopped 300 bills which have already passed the House from ever getting the chance to be voted upon.

Oh, and just so you know. If you think the Fake filibuster is the same, in its legitimacy, as the real filibuster, then don't b!tch when it is voted out of existence on January 5 2011, the same way that it was brought into existence back in 1975. By majority rules.

Perhaps JuvenBachan and many on the right could take some history and civics classes at their local community college. The classes aren’t that expensive and they could help open your eyes to the world around you.

As it stands now many on the right do show a lack of knowledge on a lot of subjects.

Job1,

it would not make a difference if they took civic classes. They would have to stop subscribing to the college of Beck, O'Reilly and Palin .Every weekday on Fox News, Glenn Beck—“the most highly regarded individual among Tea Party supporters,” takes to his schoolroom chalkboard to rail against anything "Obama."

Tea Partiers engage with the Constitution in such a selective manner, and for such nakedly political purposes, that they’re clearly relying on it more as an instrument of self-affirmation and cultural division than a source of policy inspiration.

Republicans/Teabaggers = Constitutional hypocrites

Bayllie, You are 100% Correct. Thanks

Teabaggers brainwash their followers to believe in the “government takeover” of the health care system, and that this "take over" is specifically prohibited by the constitution. They seem to be unaware that there is no takeover, and even if there was, the federal government is specifically empowered to “regulate commerce” and see to the country’s “general welfare.”

But then again, an almost-to-be Senator does not belive that there is seperation od Church and State in the Constitution.

Happy New Year to you, and everyone.

job1 and bayllie - While juvens comments are rather too radical in verbage for myself as well, your comments sound just like the little girlie-girl HS drame queens that you seem to portray. Please tell us, do your eyes cross when you look down your long pointy noses at humanity?

Bayllie, apparently you and I have a difference of opinion on what constitutes the federal governments empowerment of...

“regulate commerce” and see to the country’s “general welfare.”

Never have believed that our framers of the US constitution believed that our government was meant to "control us from the cradle to the grave"

just remember that the framers of the US constitution also believed and supported our "Declaration of Independance" that was sent to king george lll and the british parliament. Or is this part of American history no longer taught in the school you attend?

You two might find it amusing, also, that the TEA party- so proud of their cute name- never mentioed or commemorated the aniversary of the Boston Tea Party this month as it came and went. Bunch of phony-assed nitwits. "oh, look at me. Isn't my period costume just too cool"? "Oh, look at me- I carry a gun to a public event, because I can". And my favorite: "Taxed enough already" when tax rates are the lowest since 1950.

Pretty sharp group, huh Bayllie and Job1?

american, a little advice. When you start off your posts insulting the person you are replying to, you do not do your credibility or your arguments any favors. Try debating your side without insults and you will get a whole lot further. In fact, no matter how much merit your points may have, because of your method, there is already doubt in everyone's mind that they do have merit and quite a few wouldn't even care if they did have merit. The fact of the matter is, I have rarely read any of your posted replies to me or anyone else just because of your manner.

I know that I have used insults in the past and have been making a concerted effort to be more civil. However, I do reserve the right to give back whatever is directed at me, if I so choose. Personally, I've found it much easier and more satisfying to totally undercut someone's arguments, as I have yours on several occasions, in a very polite manner.

matthew much like posts 2.1,2.2, 2.3 and 2.4?

Perhaps a little advice is in order for yourself as well as you appear to not heed your own advice on presentation as well. You would do well to not think of yourself as always being right, witty or on point. I, as well as you yourself have stated, reserve the right to reply in kind to comments directed to my opinion. As to undercutting my opinions, you flatter yourself only and I do wonder what you mean by "in a polite manner"??

BTW, other than FR posts (where moderators appear to be non-existant) I am quite civil to most posters. as for tyler and sally I have never seen them slap anyone down on FR posts but they do quite well on other newsvine threads to people much less insulting and disrespectfull of their fellow posters.

Really, american? Where have I directly insulted you? I have called you no names but simply pointed out , and proven, where you were wrong and backed up my statements with facts and empirical data. I never claimed to know everything. Just because I have proven you wrong, it does not mean I think I know everything, all it means is that I have proven you wrong.

As to what others post, I have no control over them but even there you have missed the mark, they were not addressing you directly but you directly insulted them. Can't have it both ways there, american, otherwise, someone might call you a hypocrite, not me, but someone might.

What I find even more interesting, DBO, is when they talk as if they know what the founding fathers would think. Most of them, and to be fair most Americans in general, have studied no more American History than what they got in High School. Some may have had one or two classes in college but from what they say about the founding fathers, it is obvious they don't really know history that well. I'm willing to bet that 99.99% of the Republican/TP Inc. people still think that Betsey Ross designed the Stars and Stripes.

ROTFLMAO!!! Still no answers for what I specifically asked, I see. Since you have not answered my questions directly you have neither made or even implied to have made a winning argument

As to what others post, I have no control over them but even there you have missed the mark, they were not addressing you directly but you directly insulted them. Can't have it both ways there, american, otherwise, someone might call you a hypocrite, not me, but someone might.

perhaps you need to reread the posts in question as well as your own. Bayllie and job1 stated their opinions quite clearly as I did mine. BTW, it appears that by your definition of "hypocrit" anyone disagreeing with your opinion would automatically be one. Go figure!

Well, american, I just reread the post and, son of a gun, I am still correct, they still do not directly insult you. Now, sometimes the truth is not flattering but everything they said was the truth as witnessed and borne out as factual by many who post here. Now, I personally do not call those of the Republican/TP inc. Party 'teabaggers' but since those now calling themselves TEA Partiers originally called themselves 'teabaggers', then that name is fair game, if that is the insult you believe has been directed at you. And I suggest you reread my post as I did not call you a hypocrite.

The questions you have asked are are based on fallacious reasoning, reading miscomprehension and faulty logic which renders them moot and unanswerable. It is not about winning or losing, it is about reasonable and logical debate. From your posts, you do not seem to understand how to engage in logical debate that utilizes reasoning and factual information. Therefore, until you present a factual proposition and then draw logical and reasonable conclusions from a factual and agreed to premise then you are not worth engaging in conversation. Until then, sir, good day.

nice try again matthew, but again you miss the point by a mile. Try using a little comprehension in your reading, perhaps you will notice the condescension, sarcasm and arrogance portrayed in their writing. Again you are confused as to what you narrowly define as an insult. Apparently you believe that only name calling is the only definition of an insult while ignoring the nuances of the written word.

Yes I have reread post 2.5 and see no evidence of any more of a direct insult to them than they in turn implied against conservative posters. Much like if I would walk into a bar and generally told everyone there that they were all illegal immigrants and they needed to vacate America pronto. I implied an insult to everyone and would be very much surprised if no one took offence.

You state...

The questions you have asked are are based on fallacious reasoning, reading miscomprehension and faulty logic which renders them moot and unanswerable.

Wow, what critical thinking and what logic you think you have.

Sorry but you don't. Applying both critical thinking and logic to our posts would clearly show your own lack of comprehension and reasoning abilities. It seems that your idea of reasonable and logical debate lies only in the area that supports your opinion and where only your opinion counts. Any variance advanced against your opinion is only answered by comments like you made in your post #2.12. Hardly a post to show your ability to debate.

Sorry that you can't answer direct questions or see the implications of those questions on specific subject matters. Your loss, not mine. Try watching the program "intelligence squared" or even "Charlie Rose" interviews you might learn something useful.

bayllie

There is plenty of disagreement among constitutional scholars about the limits of the Federal government's powers to 'regulate interstate commerce' and pass laws for the 'general welfare', and your assumptions about that power being relatively unlimited may be open to question. That does not make those people constitutionally ignorant, so your 'illusions of superiority' are just that - illusions.

If the Federal government has the power to force people to engage in economic activity that they mandate (for example, buying health insurance from their approved list of PRIVATE health insurance companies, as opposed to choosing to self-insure), then what's to prevent the Federal government from 'requiring' that all people purchase a new car from GM, or buy another product or service from a governmentb preferred vendor?

If no limitations apply, then the Federal government will effectively have unlimited power to require people to do EXACTLY as they wish, and the grand freedom from an all-powerful central government that we achieved in 1776 will all be for naught.

american-2051576 and roy wilson

I suggest you check the definition of the Federal Government.

The schools I went to, american, thought me that the Federal Government is made out of three parts:

Legislative, Jusdicial and Executive. I suggest you look up what all three are responsible for.

Roy, Since the Civil War, the powers of the Federal Government have generally expanded greatly. And the Founding Father's lived during the time when slavery was a social status and there was no internet.

Roy,

If no limitations apply, then the Federal government will effectively have unlimited power to require people to do EXACTLY as they wish, and the grand freedom from an all-powerful central government that we achieved in 1776 will all be for naught.

hate to break this to you but in 1776 you were not forced to have a driver's license, car registration, license to carry, builing permit, tolls, speed limits, seat belt laws, smoking in public ban, car seats for children, passports, federal labor laws, federal minimum wage, the list goes on, etc. Some are sttate, some are federal but I bet you follow most of them. All those are supposed to protect us - from the cradle to the grave. I suggest, as a principle, you burn your license and bring your unregistered gun to the post office.

This country was born on majority, Roy. Not selected few who don't want health insurance as a principle.

american,

Oh no, I did not mistake what they wrote for any more than what it was, an unflattering statement about the truth. Can the truth be classified as an insult? Only if you are the subject of that truth and do not want to believe it despite incontrovertible evidence that confirms it as the truth. If you are insulted, too bad, as I said before, sometimes the truth hurts and evidently these truths hit home for you.

So, what you are saying is when you ask, ". . . do your eyes cross when you look down your long pointy noses at humanity?" that is not a direct insult? And you question my ability to discern an insult?

As I told you, your questions can not be answered as they are moot based on the underlying premises. It is not my fault that you can not comprehend that but from your writing, it is understandable that you cannot. Just because you watch certain intellectual programs (yes, I have seen Charlie Rose but never heard of Intelligence Squared US (you got the title wrong, btw)), that does not mean that you comprehend what is being presented or arrive at the correct conclusion. From your postings, you seem incapable of using valid logic and correct reasoning to come to the correct conclusions. It seems that you watching those programs is/has been a waste of your time.

You really, really, really are not good at this, are you?

matthew - congradulations you finally found the one direct insult I may have made assuming of course that they don't have long pointy noses. I admit that I don't really know or even care. Their attitude expressed as well as yours prompted the comparisons.

Yes matthew there is an intelligence squared as well as an intelligence squared US. Those that I have watched rarely used condescending, sarcastic or denigrating comments aimed at their fellow debaters. Isn't it nice to know that we don't have the same restraints they do here on FR. After all your posts #2.17 & 2.12 do so effectively describe yourself as one of being elitist in attitude, tending towards HS bullying tactics, erudite, incapable of providing an effective rebuttal and lacking commonsence. I was always taught that the only dumb question was the one not asked and that those who refused to answer were afraid that they would be proven wrong.

As one grow older, and hopefully wiser one will realize that daily life observations, occurances and interpersonasl actions are far more educational than just expressing someone elses opinion one may read about on the web or heard on the news. All input can be good, but only if one knows how to seperate the wheat from the chafe.

Bayllie - it appears that your educators short changed you. If you are an american you should realize that a rereading of the US constitution should be mandatory from time to time. I still find nothing in the constitution that wants the federal government to control us in all areas of life from the cradle to the grave.

Laws and regulations are put in place to protect our rights, liberties and our pursuit of happiness as originally defined in our "Declaration of Independance" and the Constitutions bill of rights.

Are all laws and regulations fairly applied or enforced? Of course not, that is why the Judicial branch exists. It is also why our local, state and federal laws should be periodically reveiwed for arcane and out of date regulations.

Bayllie - our nation was founded on the Declaration of Independence with our laws and liberties defined by the US Constitution.

The rights of an individual do not necessarily mean that those in a public atmosphere are governed by the same rights in the same way.

BTW - With regards to your post 2.16 I am surprised at your inability to comprehend what Roy meant in his post.

american

Bayllie - it appears that your educators short changed you. If you are an american you should realize that a rereading of the US constitution should be mandatory from time to time. I still find nothing in the constitution that wants the federal government to control us in all areas of life from the cradle to the grave.

Please, educate the rest of us what your version of the Constitution. And please point out where I wrote ALL ASPECT OF OUR LIVES ("all those" does not = to all aspects). You apparently are a subscriber to Christine O'Donnell's "philosophy: "Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?"

But please, educate me. You are apparently excellent at putting people down by calling them "juvens" or "little girlie-girl HS drame queens" but not give one example to support your stand. So please, give something of substance.

I will agree with you on one thing.

Bayllie - our nation was founded on the Declaration of Independence with our laws and liberties defined by the US Constitution.

I’ll bet that our Founding Fathers never intended on the government spying on it’s citizens without proper warrants. The Act authorizes of indefinite detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.

I am alsoconvinced that the Founding Fathers never intended for the US to declare war on a sovereign nation with false information given by our president to the Congress and the American people.

I am also convinces that the Founding Fathers never intended even for foreigners to be tortured and held for years without Speedy trial. And that is why they guaranteed the right to a speedy trial. The Sixth Amendment is intended to ensure that defendants are not subjected to unreasonably lengthy incarceration prior to a fair trial. But yet, our administration decided to ignore the Constitution regardless of whether the pprisoners were guilty or not.

This is why I wrote that the teabaggers are Constitutional hypocrite. You pick and chose what applies to you in the Constitution. The teabaggers keep writing that the HCR is unconstitutional but have no shed of evidence to support that claim. Where are the Ken Starrs of 2011 to “impeach” the President?

You are wiling to justify something like torture and illegal searches in the name of “national security” but you will complain about the fact that you nedd to have health insurance? What about my right not to pay for your sorry a$$. Why am I forcd to pay for the uninsured in my health insurance premiums and my taxes?

Also, to answer your illegal immigration. Bush had every opportunity to close borders and take care of illegals after 9/11. We had serious worries about terrorists entering our country. Why did it bbecome an issue in 2010? How did Bush fix the problem?

bayllie - Where is it said that ones comments and actions can't be compared to another groups actions.

Are you trying to imply that I am the poster "juven"?

I bet that the founding fathers didn't plan for many of the things happening today or for the effect of technological advances in our daily life.. After all that is the beauty of the US Constitution, it was meant to be a living document.

As for O'donnel I'm not from her state, besides, no one is perfect. Are you? BTW, she lost.

I do acknowledge that the framers of the US constitution and the Declaration of independance were probably God fearing individuals who realized the potential disaster of having a state sponsered religion. After all, haven't many who have immigrated to America done so for the prospect of religious freedom or for the belief that "

Case in point "...which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,..." or the more recognized passage..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I am sure that many immigrants found these statements to be more of an incentive to immigrate to America. Our constitution and subsequent laws derived from it may also have provided a small minority of people to want to come to the US to create (for monetary, religious beliefs or whatever) and subjugate groups of people.

The 4th amendment provides your protection. However, since you have affirmed before that the federal government (actually our constitution via congress) also provides for the general welfare of the US it seems more than logical that certain circumstances may arise to necessitate a modification of these rights as they pertain to groups that wish to do do harm to the US general welfare.

Not particularly a proponent of physical torture.

With regards to the 6th amendment, again the argument can be made for modification in order to maintain "general welfare"

False information?? Much like many criminals are convicted by circumstantial evidence and inference based on declarations. Hard evidence is nice, but past actions also play a part in decision making. BTW, didn't congress also support these actions?

You have your interpretation of the Constitution as do they on the HCR act. It appears that our higher courts will decide on its constitutionality on a selective basis on its contents as questions arise. As for hypocrisy it appears that anyone opposing your views are hypocrites

I am willing... Really where did I say or even imply that in the above posts 2.5, 2.8, 2.11,2.13, 2.18 or 2.19? Are searches really illegal if they go towards protecting the general welfare of American citizens?

With regards to health insurance, I have it for economic reasons, not because of government mandate.

As for your unwillingness to pay for my "sorry a$$" tough! Health care providers and insurers take into account unrecoverable exspenses as part of their billings to the insurers and the insurers pool of risks for providing insurance. As i no longer have need for insurancecoverage for pregnancy or child health I realize that my premiums still allow coverage for others in my pool. Do you consider them also to be "sorry a$$' as well.

With regards to my question on illegals it was directed so that I could ascertain that you also didn't want to pay for their "sorry a$$" medical care.

As for the continueing illegal immigration into the US just why haven't our government enforced the current laws. I mean really when reagan provided amnesty during his term why didn't the government provide appropriate followup? It couldn't be that politicians (R or D) like to kick tough issues down the street rather than to resolve them could it? How about that politicians only look to the next election to decide what policies to pursue.

BTW, if you choose to continue to want to post condescending, holier than thou, snide or denigrating posts against others, I do reserve the right to do the same to you.

madoss,

Isn't it interesting that no Reps/Tea Baggers ever mention that small fact. It's like they forgot that thanks to Romney the Commonwealth of Massachusetss requires health insurance for all.

Do they fine the people of Massachusetts if they don't have insurance, like our federal government plans to do?

And if they do, then is should be taken to the courts, it is unconstitutional to mandate that people HAVE TO purchase something against their will, and if they don't they are fined by the government. If that is not a communist/socialist way to do things, I don't know what is? Government enforcement of purchasing by the people.

If you keep allowing the government to tell you what to do, it won't be long before you are just a robot. Can't you think for yourselves and decide whether or not you want or need something? Maybe people should be thought values instead of being taught how not to provide for ourselves.

BigBear62

unless they qualify for a religious or hardship exemption, or a waiver, they pay a fine. There is also MassHealth for those with qualifying incomes. If you work at McDonald's making $8/hr, Massachusetts will pay for your cheap or free health insurance.

The state’s rate of uninsured is approaching zero, the lowest in the country by a wide margin. No more could the uninsured show up at a hospital emergency room for routine care and expect that the taxpayers would write the check.

Bear, but you also have no right to drive with no license, uninsured or unregistered car in Mass. You have the right not to get a license but you do not have the right to use the services associated with having one.

And yes, you have the right to chose not to have health insurance but please, don't show up at the ER because I should have the right not to pay for it with my tax money. If you chose not to have health insurance (different from not being able to afford it), please stay home and wait your sickness out. I am sick of paying for the likes of you and I definitely want the right not to.

And by the way, in Mass, a health insurance company cannot drop me if my sickness becomes too inconvenient for them and they also cannot deny me coverage due to a pre-existing condition...like pregnancy (among others).

It is not only covered under the commerce and general welfare clauses, it is also a matter of law enforcement. Everytime an uninsured person goes to the hospital, they steal from me by making my medical bills, insurance premiums and taxes higher to cover their irresponsible acts.

so bayllie and matthew, do you support the illegal immigrants in America?

How is it that i hear the words "affordable healthcare" but not what the government considers to be affordable. Is it a flat rate? A % of ones net income? Gross incoime?

Guys- the ONLY reason health care reform is such a big F*** deal, to quote Biden, is because OBAMA got it through. If Bush and done it, all would be well with the world, and you know it.

Remember how all the repubs had such 'great ideas' for HCR, but that "Obama wouldn't let them contribute" any? ALL those GREAT ideas that they could have put into bills and passed with their majorities, BUT DIDN'T?? How come the righties NEVER bring THAT up????

It's all based on Hate Obama- nothing more, nothing less.

drive by - how wrong you are!

WOW, american! What an incisive and informative analysis, full of empirical data and relevant facts, of DBO's post! My God! Why didn't I think of that?

Thank you, thank you!

ALL those GREAT ideas that they could have put into bills and passed with their majorities, BUT DIDN'T?? How come the righties NEVER bring THAT up????

They are still, to this day, trying to decipher John Kerry's "I voted against the war before I voted for it" line.

It seems that only you on the right did not understand that statement that you have managed to take completely out of context.

I'm dumbfounded over the ignorance of people like JuvenBachan. Instead of regurgitating talking points try actually looking up facts.

Why waste the time when he can have someone do the "thinking" for him?

BigBear62

unless they qualify for a religious or hardship exemption, or a waiver, they pay a fine.

Damn that commie bastard, Mitt Rommney!!!

american-2051576

How did this become a discussion about illegal imigrants? Is it that you had no argument to rebut what I wrote?

You guys are so good at this propaganda stuff....

Actually bayllie it became part of the healthcare discussion if the illegal immigrants went to the ER for treatment and not pay their bill. Remember your comment in 5.3?

american-2051576

actually, the discussion was about the 1 in 6 Americans that do not have health insurance. You keep forcing the illegal immigration issue that the Republicans failed to address bewteen Jan of 2001 and Jan of 2007.

You really aren't making a whole lot of sense here, american. Try to stick to one subject (and no, I do not support illegal aliens in America but what does that have to do with it?) when posting and try to make that subject pertinent.

Affordable health care is when a person doesn't lose everything they have just because they got sick. Affordable is when a person can get preventative services without having to decide between that and putting food on the table or a roof over their head. Trying to get someone to put a specific dollar amount or percentage is a red herring and indicative that the person asking for that can't refute the other person's argument.

FDD

oooohh! Do not illegal immigrants and the uninsured get emergency healthcare at the ER? Don't the insured pay for this healthcare by higher hospital charges and in turn by higher insurance premiums? rather seems that my question went right to the point as regards to healthccare costs. Just where was my question off point?

Trying to claim that quantifying a set cost to "affordable" as a red herring is ridiculous, how else can the insurers and health practitioners determine the cost of medical care if not by quantifying costs? You seem to imply that we are at the mercy of the healthcare providers and government regulatory agencies as to what one can afford to receive in healthcare. I am sure that many today do have to decide on medication or food and shelter.

BTW, why does the government quantify guidelines for who receives aid and those who don't?

From your posts, reading comprehension, logic and reasoning skills really don't seem to be your forte.

american-2051576,

Unless you are a Native-American, you've had someone in your family here illegally at some point. Don't forget that.

the insured pay for this healthcare by higher hospital charges and in turn by higher insurance premiums?

yes, that is the whole point of the Health Care Reform. We already pay for those who do not have the insurance whether with taxes or health insurance premiums. What is your point?

From 2000 to 2004, the health insurance premiums went up 59% on average. They have been climbing steadily every year. On top of that, the copays, deductibles and out-of-pockets have been increasing as well.

Every year, fewer and fewer people have health insurance. Why? Because they cannot afford it. So our premiums will go up to cover those uninsured until more people drop out. Where do you want this to end?

sorry bayllie - my dad and grandfather both came through ellis island and abided by the laws and statutes of the US to become lawfull citizens of the US.

My question (and point) went to what the government considers to be affordable health care. Matthew doesn't have a clue, how about you? Because I don't.

Every year, fewer and fewer people have health insurance. Why? Because they cannot afford it. So our premiums will go up to cover those uninsured until more people drop out. Where do you want this to end?

Ideally I would like it to end when the government either provides all tax payers the same medical benefits they provide their workers and politicians with or vice versa. As it stands now costs will always be going up untill someone quantifies what "affordable" means as well as what will constitute "quality of care"

At what point you ask? This "magical point" is determined by control freaks in Washington, that's where. You see American this is the mind set of liberals. As with the BS progressive tax code we have they think that the government has the right to determine who wins and loses.

I find it amazing they talk about "affordable" healthcare, but they insist on government controlling the price instead of the market setting the price. Instead of SENSIBLE regulation which includes removing competition barriers, something the insurance companies put in place BTW, they insist subsidizing those who they deem eligible for those subsidies. Again picking winners and losers.

There are many good parts of this new healthcare bill but there are just as many if not more bad parts. Not being able to drop someone with a pre-existing condition is a good part, but telling people they must carry insurance or be fined (it isn't a tax BTW no matter what the LIARS say) is down right un-American. Also the "we must have auto insurance coverage" is a BS argument, but that is whole other debate.

This bill should have been put on the chopping block and voted on in small pieces instead of this TYPICAL big bill that those in Washington use to tell the American people to F-off we know better.

BTW don't bother asking these people simple questions. They will just dance a gig and then not know why it wasn't good enough.

tracy - thanks for the info, I agree that both health care acts have the good and bad with them and that they should have been broken into smaller parts for progressive passage or denial.

Obama is talking about tax reform now which will never happen if taken as a whole. As you say if it is broken down into parts it can be managed.

Have a safe and prosperous new years!

BTW, I like watching them dance around and reading their condescending posts. Fortunately for FR there are still a couple of liberal posters that still do care about rational discourse.

Obamacare is easily the worst piece of legislation ever written. If was passed with 51% of the house vote, after 18 months of arm twisting.