Bev... True true... they didnt support it then and even though I don't believe they want to repeal this bill.. they just have to put it on the floor and claim that they did their job to their constituents... everyone know it's not going to pass in the senate, and even if it somehow wildly passes in the senate (filibuster-proof - good luck on that)... the president wont sign it. This is all just showing their constituents that they fought against the HCR, but have their hands tied around their backs.... as we say in Texas... Rebups are just politicking... fooling the sheeple minds. Hopefully, we've all learned our lessons and stop putting politics before America... or else they wont have to waste time debating a stupid bill that has no chance in hell of passing just to please their base.... what they actually dont realize is they can actually win by not repealing it, but making it better (from the republican perspective).... they can do that... but like they've done in the past... they dont care about any sort of HCR.

Tunde Akins

Bev... True true... they didnt support it then and even though I don't believe they want to repeal this bill

I do. If they can get away with it because they are bound by greed and the people they represent; the multi corporations, they'll try it.

I agree with you this is a stunt and waste of time to placate the tea baggers.

However, there has to be some tea baggers who are benefiting from pre-existing conditions or their college kids continuing on their plan. This will disseminate and it'll be too bad for the Republicans.

Tunde:

Let me explain to you why this repeal vote is not just for entertainment purposes.

1. It will pass the house and it may pass the Senate. It only takes 3 Dems to go along with the Republicans and we know Obama will not defeat his own law. That is only 3.

In 2012 there will be a very significant number of Dem Senators up for re-election and if this becomes a campaign issue to which I think it will; they will be in trouble. The public can go either way on this, depends on what side you're looking at it from.

The one thing that will happen for sure is most parts will not get funded. This will weaken the law to the point where it is basically null-n-void.

They have long memories and never give up. Consider that they are still trying to repeal the 14^th and 16^th amendments, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. So now they have added HCR to their to do list.

FR: Progress cannot be achieved in the absence of bipartisan support.

I certainly hope one side in particular, that'd be the Republicans, listens and decides to change course

Yep. The best way to open a dialogue with the other side is with:

"You're completely wrong and I'm completely right." That always gets the opposition wanting to work with you.

Good luck with that.

Just for fun Bev. riddle me this: are McDonalds and the 230 other business who obtainned waivers from the law "obtructionists" or "liars?"

How come, if the bill is so good and helpful that it does not work for McDonald's? And if it doesn't work there, where can it work?

So let's hear it old girl, give us your best shot. And let's see if you can do it without resort to words like "teabaggers" "Cheney" or "stupid white folk."

Beverly in Chicago

FR: Progress cannot be achieved in the absence of bipartisan support.

Funny - that wouldn't probably apply to the original legislation, would it?

Seems like the only thing bipartisan were the votes against it.

How'd the Dems partisan type of action "serve the people of this nation"?

Spanky,

That's cruel.

You know she can't respond without the "tea bagger", blah blah ad hominem stuff.

Bev - I feel qualified...

Thanks Bev, I needed a good laugh today.

IntheMiddle, TX-

It will not pass the Senate.... it won't even come up for a vote in the Senate. Harry Reid has discretion as to which bills the Senate will even consider, so this IS in fact pure politiking by the Repulbicans.

Classy move on Frist's part (highly partisan, Republican, DOCTOR who favors HCR)

Spanky - Glad, at least, that y'all finally realize that "Cheney" is a swear word! (even his friends call him 'Dick' !!!)

In the middle - no you're not; you just think "in the middle" and "in the middle - TX" are the same thing! ... and no, repeal has no chance ... ever ... (really, EVER) ...

This story is a real tale of bipartisanship, okay.

Two rejected (democratic) politicians join with one retired ( republican) politician in a scheme to grab as much money as they can from an over regulated country trying desperately to navigate a new minefield of regulations.

Nothing more bipartisan than politicians exploited the governed- in or out of office.

Spanky-

How come, if the bill is so good and helpful that it does not work for McDonald's? And if it doesn't work there, where can it work?

So let's hear it old girl, give us your best shot. And let's see if you can do it without resort to words like "teabaggers" "Cheney" or "stupid white folk."

It's because Tea baggers and Cheney lie and distort the truth kiddy.

Do you know what kind of insurance McDonald's and the others have?

Btw: I'm not your ole girl.

Well the ole girl couldn't do it...She just had to say "Tea baggers" and "Cheney"

You win the bet Spanky.

Yeah, I was totally holding my breath on that one. Love you Bev.

Hey, know what I LOVE. A dude like Daschle, who flat out got busted for not paying his taxes now implores us to support another taxfunded boondoogle. How about this Tom, pay your taxes and shut the F up.

With all due respect, Spanky, that is not the purpose of this enterprise.

Its purpose is to separate taxpayers of MORE of their money in the form of fees to their firm, which said firm will bill by the hour, ( after a hefty retainer), states who cannot untangle the bureaucratic disaster that is Obamacare.

There is nothing more bipartisan than failed politicians figuring out a way to screw taxpayers outnof more of their money.

What does Cheney have to do with the health care bill Bev, it is an Obama bill!

Safecracker you ever put something shiny in front of an infant or a cat? Like keys of a cell phone? What do they ALWAYS do? They go for it:must have the shiny object.

So when I "asked" Bev. to respond without resort to Teabags or Cheney, she went ahead and got her shiny on. And that's why she my girl, and always will be.

But hey I did try to actually engage the old girl. Sure, she is totally clueless about business, taxes or healthcare, but she does eat at McDonalds, so there was that for her.

Spanky, I think she was actually joking with you... by calling ur bluff though. Give her a break...

Cracker, y r u safe?

Bottom line, Health care should not be repealed! The smart thing would be to take out what does not work and replace it with what does. This alone let's me know that the Republican party does not give a darn about health care for anyone but themselves. They are the largest recipient's of government run health care in the country, Yet they don't want me to have it? Wake up people! Do we really want to go backwards?

Tunde Akins

Spanky, I think she was actually joking with you... by calling ur bluff though. Give her a break...

Yes, I was calling his bluff. Seems to me the Spanker is not aware that McDonald's has mostly part time employees with what's called mini-med plans that has very limited benifits.The new law requires that insurers spend no less than 80% -85% of premium dollars on actual patient care, as opposed to overhead, marketing, or profit.

That's kinda like what CEOs of insurance who benefit from the 80% profits from the premiums. They live in multimillion dollar homes and enjoy luxurious lifestyles by dropping the sick or making them pay higher costs for sickly conditions beyond their control.

If the Spanker thinks I'm dumb, so what. I think he's sick; Sick for Profit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4TsaHmtgfA&feature=BF&list=PLDE8F2C3612C34E17&index=61

The Spanker never takes the Smart roads unless it leads to a strip club; I'll bet.

Pat, Boston, MA

The GOP were free to offer their own policies. They were invited to engage the Democrats. All we heard was No. They didn't want health care reform. Period. They wanted no part of it. They didn't even read what was in it.

You just validated my point. Thank you

The Republican Party are great at saying that they would have done things differently. Well, why didn't they? Health care reform was too hard for them to battle. We're seeing the same thing with the deficit.

Passing the buck and then blaming everyone else. It's what they do.

That's my WHOLE argument with this 'Repeal & Replace' bullsh!t!!

Replace it with WHAT?

All we hear is they have a plan - wouldn't you think this would be a good time to share it?

Feisty, they've got nothing. Except to see everything that the Democrats do as unacceptable. Instead of trying to improve something, they do nothing.

When you are in the minority party you can suggest anything you want but more than likely it will not be seriously considered. That is just life in Congress. When the majority is huge then the party in power will usually push their will. In 2011 I guarantee there will be a lot of whining Democrats stating the Republicans are not playing fair......lol. This is going to be good.

First step is to repeal it, then worry about replacing it after that hurdle has been cleared.

I'm still debating on total repeal, I think 90% should be. They can leave the pre exist, doughnut hole, kids until finished with school, but the rest can be abolished.

My complaint isn't the medical insurance, WTF about these life insurance policies? Pre-existing conditions almost make it a non-starter to get life insurance. They are raking in money by the bundles. Look at all of the term life policies sold. When they expire and you happen to live that long, go try and get another policy at that age see what you are told.

When you are in the minority party you can suggest anything you want but more than likely it will not be seriously considered.

Except ITM, they are now the majority party in the House! They're the ones who are touting the 'Repeal & Replace' memo... I'm only asking replace it with WHAT?

I want to compliment you on writing a post that was well thought out! Even if I strongly disagree with it! ;0p

I've said it many times on here- and I'm sure it's getting old, but:

The Repups had all 3 branches of government for 6 yers to make any and all changes or improvements to health-care they wanted, on THEIR terms. They did NOTHING. What the hell makes any of us believe now would be any different?

They are full of Sh*t, plain and simple. Why can't the media ever point this out??

PSssssssst Drive By, who had control of the house for all the years prior to those 6 you so often refer to?

Repeal the bill and replace with a few simple fixes, like portability. Oh and can we stop refering to 26 year old men and women as "children?" They are adults. They need to man up and get their own damn insurance.

And obviously Obama and the HHR secretary know the bill is turgid, hence the 230 plus waivers. Think about that, they draft this gianormous bill and before it is even started hundreds of the largest companies waive out and they let them. Perhaps they know it sucks? Of course they do, or else it'd be equally enforced. When the government starts to give some waivers you got big problems.

They were invited to engage the Democrats

Was this when it was done behind closed doors, with a "Only Democrats Allowed" posted on the door.

Pat - They didn't even read what was in it.

Oh and all the Democrats did read all 1000+ pages of it?

The Republicans had the Presidency and both houses of Congress during the Bush years and did nothing to reform health care except an unfunded Medicare drug bill which added to the deficit.

Did you read about the number of Democrats wanting to sit with the Republicans to negotiate the HC bill to drop some parts and improve other items? Where where they when the GOP thugs, as you refer to the GOP, wanted to accomplish this prior to having a vote on the bill? Do the Dems believe funding will stop unless they now compromise.

We have a number of people talking about the bill, but does anyone actually know what is in the bill? My neighbor the lawyer, who actually has the copy of the bill, has great difficulty reading and understanding it without much page flipping refering to previous sections, paragraphs and liberal interpretation.

The libbies chastize anyone for opposing this Obama document; do you actually know what is in it or are you listening to what your liberal low-ratings media outlets are telling you? Same goes for the conservative groups and their highly rated news media outlet.

My question: if this legislation is so complex, and most people can't understand it, how was it passed initially? All I hear from the liberl elements is: Oh, we can fix anything without major change to the legislation. Really?

@ Fiesty, what repeals does the Dems wish to make in the HC law?

@Beverly, do you ever have an original thought without cutting & pasting from other sites?

The HHS Secretary has unlimited powers under this bill that is frightening! And Ms. kathleen continues to go on about the grandure of it.....heck, they seem to be continually writing it......

Well, I guess nancy was right - it needed to be passed before it could be read and understood.

Wow. Everyone here seems to forget the the major underpinnings of the Health Care Law were basically Republican ideas... ideas they had suggested for years prior to this, and now all of a sudden they are the worst possible basis under which to reform Health Care, according to Republicans. Most liberals would have loved to have seen a public option included in this, but it was throw out to make the bill more moderate, and Republicans still cry as though Karl Marx himself as taken over the country.

And to those of you who are 'all for' the new law forcing insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions, closing the donut hole etc, how do you think those insurance companies will cover those added costs if the pool of insured citizens isn't deepened? Requiring people to have insurance is the only way to broaden the number of insured people in order to offset the high costs of covering those with pre-existing conditions. You can't simply keep the ideas you like and throw away the mechanisms in place that pay for them.

DBO

They created the doughnut hole.

Jeff.T: Wow. Everyone here seems to forget the the major underpinnings of the Health Care Law were basically Republican ideas

Really? Can you name the Republican that mandated that the government force people to buy health insurance from private companies whether they wanted to or not? Can you name the Republican who wanted to raise capital gains taxes from 15% to 23.8% and dividend taxes from 15% to 43.4%? Can you name the Republican that wanted to tax the so-called "Cadillac" health plans with an excise tax of 40%?

Lets face some facts, any relationship to the now codified ObamaCare and some Republican "idea" is purely coincidental.

So then JoAnna it would seem incumbent upon the new House Majority to fix those items. Do you really think that so long as they find a way to insure everyone and make sure you can't be dropped for getting sick that they are going to get disagreement? I don't. It is time for both sides (led by the right this time) to get to work and turn this into something better.

IntheMiddle, TX

When you are in the minority party you can suggest anything you want but more than likely it will not be seriously considered. That is just life in Congress. When the majority is huge then the party in power will usually push their will. In 2011 I guarantee there will be a lot of whining Democrats stating the Republicans are not playing fair......lol. This is going to be good.

First step is to repeal it, then worry about replacing it after that hurdle has been cleared.

I'm still debating on total repeal, I think 90% should be. They can leave the pre exist, doughnut hole, kids until finished with school, but the rest can be abolished.

My complaint isn't the medical insurance, WTF about these life insurance policies? Pre-existing conditions almost make it a non-starter to get life insurance. They are raking in money by the bundles. Look at all of the term life policies sold. When they expire and you happen to live that long, go try and get another policy at that age see what you are told.

You can't have the no exclusion of pre-existing condition parts of HCR without the mandate... or you can but it would basically be government funded HC and would have an astronomical price tag.

Your complaintabout Life Insurance gets right to the heart of the point I just made. Lets say you were a Life Insurance company or a shareholder. If you know for a fact that out of a group of 10,000 people with a certain pre-existing condition, that 1,000 (10%) are certain to die in the next year, you have to charge 10% of the payout amount per year to your customers just to cover your claims. Add another 5% for you expenses and profit. Is anyone going to pay $15,000 a year for $100,000 pay-out Life Insurance. Probably not. So you have to exclude these people from being able to buy your Life Insurance product.

The GOP were free to offer their own policies. They were invited to engage the Democrats. All we heard was No. They didn't want health care reform. Period. They wanted no part of it. They didn't even read what was in it.

Neither did the Dems.They are still finding out what is contained in the monstrosity!!! That's why Pelosi said we have to pass it to find out what's in it!!! Plus the GOP was locked out of the debates and amendment process back when the Dems were ramming this thing through Congress. Talk about revisionist history. You and Feisty ought to go to work for Kim in NK. He could use a couple of fresh proppaganda artists!!!

"PSssssssst Drive By, who had control of the house for all the years prior to those 6 you so often refer to?"

What diference does it make. IF you have such GREAT ideas, you should be able to get 'em through in 6 years. The prior years' congress sucked? maybe yes, maybe no. Again- what difference should that make?

Kowrie1: So then JoAnna it would seem incumbent upon the new House Majority to fix those items. Do you really think that so long as they find a way to insure everyone and make sure you can't be dropped for getting sick that they are going to get disagreement? I don't. It is time for both sides (led by the right this time) to get to work and turn this into something better.

Fix? This ObamaCare, it's unfixable. Expensive, forces people to buy insurance they don't want, increases cap gains and dividend taxes nearly 300%. And that's just the funding side of it.

Isn't it amazing what a piece of excrement was passed by the heavily Democratic Congress and signed into law by Obama?The ink wasn't even dry, and everyone was looking to fix this un-implemental mess. Somethings don't get fixed though, not with ObamaCare as the starting point.

And now we've got Daschle, Frist, and Strickland offering their services. A lobbyist, a doctor, and a lawyer, all looking for federal funding so they can go to the states and try to tell them how to implement ObamaCare. I guess these three figured out how to make a buck off ObamaCare.

safecracker

@Beverly, do you ever have an original thought without cutting & pasting from other sites?

Yes I do; one is you're not very bright.

Wait Drive By, I want to make sure I understand your point. Earlier you asserted that the republicans were bad because they had control for 6 years and did nothing about healthcare. Then I called you on the fact that the Dems were in control forEVER before that. And your brilliant response? "what difference does it make." Well gosh Drive By, it seemed that it made a HUGE difference when you were trying to make a point about the prior 6 years. I guess now, not so much?

Dude, if you are not even gonna try, if all you got when you get called out is "nany-nany -boo boo" then I'll back off. Christ, after yesterday I was trying to go easy on you. But you makeit so hard Drive By.

I would suggest that you simply don't respond if you can't provide a legitimate answer. Take a que from Bev., Fiesty and some of the other former debate team captains around here.

Now come on buddy, I know you can do better - take another shot at a legitimate answer. Or not, your choice.

Bev - Yes, I do one is you're not very bright.

English please.

Oh Bev, such an original comment........and those who may disagree with you are those who throw out the negative comments, huh.

Wise choice Drive, although you are no doubt disappointing Cathy M.

John, Tucson, AZ

Bev - Yes, I do one is you're not very bright.

English please.

That is English. This site is not working well. This how I edited it before I hit the saved button--Yes I do; one is you're not very bright.

See folks Bev. is really smart and insightful, so long as you let her see your reply before hand, then give her at least 30 minutes to come up with "something good."

Obviously she is very crafty and smart on the fly. Again, I think we have a former "captain of the debate team" in our midsts.

Oh, my!

Steve:

The shooting is in a California High School. Probably not politically motivated. Perhaps you are over-reacting.

But maybe it is time to talk more about not allowing guns in high schools and colleges.

Apparently, Steve, you missed the long list of right wing media personalities shown on MSNBC last night making their best effort in the early hours after the shooting to prove Loughner was a liberal. It included a guy who works for Andrew Breitbart who actually created a fake Loughner Facebook page which claimed the shooter was a fan of President Obama among other falsehoods. Problem is the Breitbart employee was not very smart because he misspelled the name Loughner. It seems you are the one beginning the conservative Hatefest today.

Ron..

They are not allowed Now. Tell me what was this persons point of Bringing a Gun to school What were his Intentions. The Report as of now is that it was An Accident. that the kid dropped his Backpack and the Gun went off.

The Question i have is. Was it an Accident that the Gun was in the Backpack in the First place.

It is being reported as an accident. What are guns doing in our schools?!

Jody..

I will copy your statement. . for in the next few hours we will see what happens.. I will paste it when neccessary..

Again Ron . Was it an Accident that the gun was in his Backpack?

Michael Moore, a long-time NRA member, was on Rachel last night to discuss the problem of guns and ammunition. He posed some questions which I think each of us should think about. Why are Americans so much more violent, kill so many with guns compared to other countries? What is it we fear that makes us believe we need guns to protect ourselves in our homes? The facts about home invasions and guns are contrary to what we perceive. Only about 500 home invasions result in shootings and a third of those are the homeowner/s are shot with the gun they bought to protect themselves. Canada has more guns that we do yet only about 200 shootings a year but they have some simple, common sense gun ownership requirements. Food for thought.

Go right ahead, Steve, and add this to it. Please note that I did not state that liberals would not make comments about who/what to blame, my point was that conservatives were eager participants in pointing the finger of blame at liberals in the early hours after the Tucson shooting.

Jody:

I saw that Olbermann rant this morning on the net. He didn't name not one Liberal when we all know it was Liberals who jumped right out of the box with accusations INCLUDING HIS BOX HEAD AZZ. He could have started with ole' Fat, Tight suit wearing Shultze.

I'm quite sure his 3 viewers will back him up though.

And the guy who got a 5150 hold in Tuscon? Liberal idiocy, pure and simple.

Bev, Fiesty what say you. To facilitate you can just go and cut and paste all the crap you two posted on 1/8. 'Cept that was all about EVVIILL conservatives and teabaggers.

What's that, cat got your tongues?

Do not feed the troll...Steve is just using another shooting to score political points against us "Typical Liberals".

This explains, of course, why we're talking about this in the middle of a blog post about health care.

Oh, there I go again trying to control what you say. Silly me.

You know Noid, a normal person, seeing things discussed that they believe are off topic would simply move on. But not you. You, seeing something you don't like resort to calling Steve a name then extolling all to ignore him.

Seems some one might have control issues. Plus we all know Fiesty is the master of this board. Do you have her permission to act as hall monitor?

This explains, of course, why we're talking about this in the middle of a blog post about health care

Hey it makes as much sense as Beverly in Chicago and Feisty Redhead talking about Sarah Palin in the middle of a story about the Obama administration ordering a regulatory review.

You can't complain about someone you disagree with getting off topic while ignoring everyone you do agree with doing the same thing incessantly.

Well, you can but it makes you look pretty silly. Or at least as someone so partisan they're not to be taken seriously.

Steve-505729

"Breaking News.. Another Shooting .. This in California.. Let the Hatefest from the Left Begin"

Looks like we have a genuine ME Firster here.....

All I know is- a LOT of people are trying to tone it down from a LOT of soapboxes since the Tucson shootings took place. Last night on Hannity (the radio program, at least), what do you suppose the subject was? Yep- the same subject it has been for over a week! The nasites on the LEFT that can't be civil. A whole week!!

" Plus we all know Fiesty is the master of this board. Do you have her permission to act as hall monitor?"

SO, then, the Noid was talking about Feisty? I'm lost, here....and need to move on.

Ok Drive By, that's THREE in a row. Really, you just can't think it through in one shot?

And by the way it sure is cute of you to stick up for Noid. In the club is he?

Drive by was the guy who made the death threat a liberal nut or not? Are you aware of any "nasties on the " right acting similiar to the extent they were involutarily commited to a mental institution?

You know Noid, a normal person, seeing things discussed that they believe are off topic would simply move on. But not you. You, seeing something you don't like resort to calling Steve a name then extolling all to ignore him.

Yeah, see, here's the thing...I can't remember the last time anyone accused me of being a "normal person".

Beverly in Chicago

newday

I'm trying to be as objective and hopful as possible. This will hopefully send a message to the militants in the Tea Party and Fox Noise to stop the hate, bigotry, fear, and threats. By, the way Sarah just took the Cross hair target map down from her Sarah pac That's a good sign.

Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, father Spencer Gifford, 75, was rushing to the hospital when asked if his 40-year-old daughter had any enemies.

"Yeah," he told The Post. "The whole tea party."

He added that politicians constantly faced danger.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/ariz_congresswoman_shot_in_head_YFTvsurRHy5OWGSRKnuK8J#ixzz1ATqVmHG3

• 6

• !

#4.6 - Sat Jan 8, 2011 1:14 PM PST

Yes of course Bev. We all Believed you Reserved your Comment. Liar

Bev. when did you reserve your comments on Loughner?

Are we supposed to pretend you were not all over this board with your misplace and wrong headed hate on 1/8 and 1/9?

For god's sake at least man up and admit you screwed that pooch.

Spanky

I know you mean Woman up.. but she will try to say her post above was not pointing fingers.

Steve, as we all saw on 1/8 and 1/9 Bev., NewDay, and Fiesty flat out psycho-ed up.

That was some really insightful stuff from those three those days. Now a normal person would likely feel more than a little sheepish, if not downright ashamed. They were so far off base and so wrong it was something to behold, even for those three.

Yet here they are today and every day since spouting off their insightful pearls of wisdom. It is precisley why I come to MSNBC-land.

And make no mistake, even they can see the tide has turned and this is no longer the the exclusive domain of their Liberal crap.

In fact, I would not be surprised if old Bev. does not pick up her ball and go home real soon.

Spanky,

As you can see i was Trolled by Da noid about where i should post. but here we have Bev posting about the Arizona Shootings. Trying to convince us that she bit her Tongue she never Said anything about the Shootings in Arizona till she got all the Facts..

As I pointed out from her post of 1/8 at 1:14 PM PST. just a couple hours after the Shootings in Arizona she was Freely spouting her hatred. This is Clearly Proof that Bev is a LIAR and will Say things she knows is a LIE then try and Convince Everyone she never Said anything.

But you will never See her Admit that she Lied.. as you can See she has Not Responded to this Post after it was PROVED she was a LIAR..

So. Infact. You Sir are Correct. She already Picked her Ball up and Went home...

The only Reason i have not posted what the Angry Redhead Or Newsday have posted is because they havn'et yet Sounded in. but Trust me i have their posts ready..

The only Reason i have not posted what the Angry Redhead Or Newsday have posted is because they havn'et yet Sounded in. but Trust me i have their posts ready..

Well.. isn't that special?

So, you're threatening to post another poorly punctuated, grammatically incorrect, misspelled rant of a moron?

Is that all you GOT?

Hey Spanks... You & your new found buddy Stevie should get a room! Steve's got 'bagee' written all over him!

He fits right into your 'cup of tea' or 'Slurpee!' ;o)

Angry much?.

Of course you are..

Is that all you Got Angry Redhead..

I notice you didnt come to the Defence of your Beloved Bev.. is there a Reason.. Oh maybe you know she is a Liar....

So, you're threatening to post another poorly punctuated, grammatically incorrect, misspelled rant of a moron?

I guess you finally Admit that bev is a Moron. Welcome to the Club

I notice you didnt come to the Defence of your Beloved Bev.. is there a Reason..

Why would I need to come to Bev's defense?

Did I miss something? What did she need defending from? lol

Now run along... you don't want to leave Spanky dangling...

You are right there is no need to Defend her, I mean after all. You did call her a Moron...

and I think maybe yourself and newsday too.. j

Careful there Fiesty. As I have posted many times I am a tea-bagger in the literal sense. So when you string together teabagging and slurpee you are conjuring up something you know nothing about, which I know for you is par for the course.

Rock on Fiesty. I know it's getting harder round these parts, but I totally appreciate that you keep on keeping on!

So Fiesty, why did the SEIU apply for and get a waiver to the health care bill? That seems, odd, no?

Notice they are all FORMER.......wonder why?????????

Odd you claim that the bill cost you $ this year as if any previous price increases did not exist. I can state positively that my insurance costs have increased yearly anywhere from 20-40% for the past twelve years long before HCR was enacted. My insurance went up last year, the year before, the year before that and so on all before HCR was passed.

If health care is repealed here's what you lose: insurance companies cannot cancel your insurance for getting sick; insurance companies cannot place a yearly or lifetime cap on expenditures for your health care; they cannot deny you or your family coverage because of pre-existing conditions; they cannot cancel your insurance for omitting some medical detail; they must cover children up to age 26; they must provide for annual physicals at no cost. The list is longer than this but you get the idea.

As for your last statement, reminds me of "I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down".

So Jody, you are obviously not familiar with risk management and the effect those wonderful shiny things you cite will have on all of our policies.

But do help with with "must cover children up to the age of 26." My understanding was that 18 was the age of majority. You do get that 26 > 18?

Spanky-

'Risk Management' as you put it, is why so many people in this country COULDN'T GET insurance. Already sick? You're not getting coverage because Insurance companies know they will spend more money on you than they take in- i.e. Risk Management. Its the same reason people who have had a lot of auto accidents either can't get auto insurance or can't pay for it, because the insurance companies don't want to take the risk. Now while that may be fair and good for auto insurance, tell me how you can justify that with someone who has pancreatic cancer, or leukemia? The solution that was presented (and passed into law) was to force insurance companies to cover these people that they know are high-risk, and in return the government will mandate that everyone (even the young and healthy) have insurance in order to offset the higher costs that come with covering those who are sick.

The solution that was presented (and passed into law) was to force insurance companies to cover these people that they know are high-risk, and in return the government will mandate that everyone (even the young and healthy) have insurance in order to offset the higher costs that come with covering those who are sick.

All the while proposing NO regulations to place a cap on the amount of the premiums, thereby essentially having no effect on the COST of insurance which was the main objective (so we were told) of the legislation in the first place. i.e. to "make health insurance affordable to all Americans."

So I guess they will "offset" the cost by the goodness of their hearts.

Thank you Jeff for making my point. Risk management allows an entity (or a person) to minimize futre costs. Jody's shiny new law makes that impossible. So if the insurance companies cannot mitigate risk they will pass the extra costs on to those of us who can pay. And those extra will be huge, so get ready. Then when yhour employer decides that it's just too much - see you last marginal employee.

Kinda like that great credit card protection scheme Obama and Co. cooked up. Now that they can'tcharge the dead beats and losers higher rates and increased costs they pass it on to everyone else. Now me, I almost never used credit - it's a suckers bet. But I'm guessing you and Jody do, so I guess it's your problem.

But seeing as Jody chose not to respond I guess we all now know she does not understand that 26 year old adults are not children, and in fact need to be out on their own. Or maybe Jody is only 25?

Off Topic.

Jeff. .. Congrats to your Bears on beating my Seahawks.. Good luck in Future Games..

Anative Texan

I spent years preparing for early retirement only to see this administration flush any extra I had coming with my private sector pension down the toilet. It is not mine or the government's responsibility to pay for someone elses health care.

I choose not to support this administration and will do everything in my power to elect people to office that want to return this country back to the prosperous country it once was. TYhjat means al who support the law should be voted out of office.

Anative Texan

I feel your pain. But, you are making a big mistake.

It was the Bush administration that did the flushing.

The economic meltdown happened during the 2008 campaign. Remember Silly Sarah was disappointed that taxpayers are called upon to bailout another one," she said. "Certainly AIG though with the construction bonds that they're holding and with the insurance that they are holding very, very impactful to Americans so you know the shot that has been called by the Feds its understandable but very, very disappointing that taxpayers are called upon for another one."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502443_162-4454940-502443.html

Hmmm, democrats can make that same claim for the years 2001 through 2006; they could also claim it for the years 1995-2000 when Gingrich literally locked democrats out of the room (he admitted it publically and later said that was a mistake). Republicans were invited to participate, invited to discuss, included in the amendment process, added over 100 amendments to HCR, worked on the committees right along side democrats--the fact that they chose not to participate at time is not the fault of democrats or of President Obama. In order to participate, one must show up.

Jody, I am a democrat.

i remember the footage of the meeting, and how the conservatives were treated by your President (Ryan in particular). i heard his words clearly when he called me his enemy, and will never forgive or forget it.

The repeal vote is symbolic and will force a few Senators into some discomfort. That is about all. The proper thing to do at this moment in time, is to fix the bad things in the bill. There are plenty. If the Dem's that support the bill would come around and agree to adding meaningful tort reform and interstate sales of insurance policies, competition in the private sector would improve. The biggest issue remaining is how to cover those without. All will agree that it is the uninsured that abuse emergency services where less expensive alternatives could be employed. There has to be a solution or level of basic care that can be extended without breaking the budget.

Please give a few examples of where the bill is poorly written. Have you read it or did you hear that said on TV?

When the republicans were in charge of the white house, senate, and the house, they didn't even attempt to reform healthcare. They don't have anything to replace this bill, so what you would get in return for repealing the healthcare reform act is NOTHING. Healthcare prices would continue to go up and up and up, people with pre-existing conditions would not be able to get healthcare, kids in college would have to buy their own healthcare, the cost of medicare drugs would go up.

I guess tea-baggers getting one over the democrats would be worth the expense to them. I don't know about the other 70% of the country... but at least the tea-baggers would be happy. But wait, aren't these the same old farts who go around with their "Hands off my Medicare" signs. Hmmm!!!!

Of course you can. We split an Atom and built an Atom bomb in 19 months in the 40s (Iran is just getting around to that now btw), put people on the moon in the 60s, invented just about every important technological advance for the last 100 years but finding a way to insure the citizens of our country without bankrupting our nation is beyond us? You have a dim view of your fellow American "Go USA!".

Don't dismiss this incredibly important law because your side didn't author it. They have the chance to fix it and accept all the political goodwill that is going to bring them. People don't like the mandate and they don't like a new, huge entitlement -- so find a better way.

GO USA,

you can start all over and have PURPLE MAN SPEAKER sign it into law ...... we love the health care bill the way it is. if they can improve on it better. That's what you get when you say NO.

The problem is there is nothing in it to control costs and nobody in their right mind would believe that it will. Supply (Dr.) and demand (patient) has just been made worse by this bill - adding 32 million patients and how many more Dr's? More demand same supply, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where costs will be going.

My wife has a permanent illness, it costs $ for prescriptions and treatments. I also have kids, how did limiting the amount we can put into a flexible spending account to $2,500/year help me or anyone else in a similar situation? It didn't. The new law also removed some over the counter items from the list of approved items for a flexible spending account. Now you have to go to the Dr. (pay for your office visit) and to get a prescription for that item. How does that help you, me or others? It didn't.

Items that should have been fixed: We need to get away from employer sponsored health insurance & an insurance company should not be able to drop you once you sign a contract with them (the one thing I like about the new law, although it will eventually lead to increased premiums). Do you realize, according to a recent study, that if you have health insurance you only pay approximately 14% of the costs? When there is no incentive to look at medical costs by the insured, how can we expect them to go down (again supply and demand - we want our good health (the demand) and have little concern for the supply (the insurance costs determined by Dr.s' charges) when we're only paying 14% out of our own pockets. Insurance companies are also at fault for keeping deductibles too low for too long and not giving us an incentive to purchase higher deductible plans (at one time there was very little difference in premiums) with the results of higher demand of medical services and therefore higher costs.

Finally, the new law adds 100+ agencies to our federal government. How many workers inside each agency is unknown and the cost of employing these people was not included in the CBO's cost estimates.

Epic Fail is calling it a nice name instead of what it really is.

Kowrie1:Don't dismiss this incredibly important law because your side didn't author it. They have the chance to fix it

If it's so wonderful, why is the first thing that is needed is to fix it?

It is a wonderful thing to make sure that every citizen in our country has health insurance. My parents lost theirs when I was growing up, but between the cancer that killed my mother and heart disease that killed my father, we went bankrupt. I'm certain that stress was a contributing factor to my father's illness but I digress. The point is, not losing your life's savings, house, dignity, because you get sick should be a value in this country.

I agree that the funding of this thing is a mess. I also believe that it was not properly vetted. I would imagine that it would take more than a year to properly write and debate a piece of legislation this massive but the Dems with their super majority knew it was the only time that our government was ever going to be able to pass a law that ensured every citizen had health insurance and that it could not be taken away from them. So they passed a huge law way too fast, so it stands to reason that there is a lot of fixing that needs to be done.

The only way the Republicans could screw this up politically is if they actually successfully repealed it. The only part of the law I believe will continue untouched is; coverage for all, and pre-existing conditions can't be used to refuse coverage. The GOP has a golden opportunity to dig through this thing and "save us" from the liberal mess this law is. At least they have some time before the real meat of this kicks in a few years from now.

GO USA! -- I am sorry that the early implementation of this law has created a hardship for people in your situation. All the more reason to amend the hell out of it. Hell, repeal it, but not before there is something else already in place that guarantees everyone gets covered and no one gets kicked out for getting sick.

I don't agree with your supply and demand arguments either. Seems to me that the 30M being added to the roles are the demand regardless of whether or not they are covered. There aren't going to be any more sick people or any less doctors. The 30M will just be paying premiums now so we don't have to cover all of their costs every time they go to the ER with something that either should have been prevented, or should have been treated in an office visit. I have kids and have made multiple trips to the hospital with emergencies. Waiting in the ER takes long enough without people using it as their PCP because they can't afford a real one and aren't going to pay the hospital for its services.

Also, I don't understand your point you are making here:

Do you realize, according to a recent study, that if you have health insurance you only pay approximately 14% of the costs? When there is no incentive to look at medical costs by the insured, how can we expect them to go down (again supply and demand - we want our good health (the demand) and have little concern for the supply (the insurance costs determined by Dr.s' charges) when we're only paying 14% out of our own pockets. Insurance companies are also at fault for keeping deductibles too low for too long and not giving us an incentive to purchase higher deductible plans (at one time there was very little difference in premiums) with the results of higher demand of medical services and therefore higher costs.

Of course I hope that I when I get sick I am only actually paying a small portion of the real costs with my premiums and deductibles. That is the point of insurance. When I'm not sick I am paying 100% of my premiums into the system to offset some sick person's costs -- all while the insurance companies rack up billions in profit every quarter by taking a cut out of my and lots of other people's premiums. Deductibles too LOW? Again, billions in profits!