E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
FILE-Rep. Phil Gingrey R-Ga. during a health care news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington in 2009.
From NBC's Luke Russert
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) on the House floor said the health-care overhaul law was the "worst bill that has ever been passed in the history of Congress."
It's quite a statement considering the nation's history.
Some historians may argue that the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 or the Sedition Act of 1918, which essentially made it a crime to criticize the U.S. government, may be worse -- as they were a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Another black eye in the nation's history, the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which allowed for slavery to exist beneath the 36-30 parallel was passed by Congress in an effort for America to continue as a half slave and half-free state.
Perhaps the worst bill passed by Congress is the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This legislation called for all runaway slaves to be returned to their masters. The only thing needed to track and apprehend a slave was a sworn affidavit from a master. Also, the slave had no right to jury trial or right to testify on their behalf.
So as this contentious debate on an amendment to defund health-care reform goes forward in 2011, it's important to remember that our nation has come a long way since 1776 and seen its fair share of egregious legislation that has had to do with human rights.
*** UPDATE *** Rep. Shelia Jackson-Lee (D-TX) just went on the House floor and Gingrey's claim.
Jackson-Lee said (paraphrase), "Worst bill ever passed? How dare they? What about the slave laws? The fugitive slave laws? This bill gives people rights, it does not take them away."
*** UPDATE 2 *** Here's what Jackson-Lee said: "We have to respond to someone who got up and actually said this is the worst bill that's ever been passed. What about the slave laws? What about the fugitive slave laws. How dare anyone suggest this is the worst bill when we give opportunity to all Americans. This amendment should be denied."
Leave a Comment:
Leave it to a guy from Georgia to get it wrong.
A new CBS poll has found that a majority of Americans disapprove of the GOP’s plan to cut off funding for health care reform. 55% do not want the funding eliminated, while just 35 percent said they approve of the Republican idea.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20032114-503544.html
And 4 out of 5 dentist recommend Dentine for their patients who chew gum.
$1.65 Trillion. Reality can be very harsh.
Unless of course you make like a Wisconsin democrat and RUN AWAY!
That's amazing approval ratings for a bill that has been swiftboated to the extent most people don't even know it actually REDUCES the federal deficit by $143 billion over its first ten years.
The Vice President thought ObamaCare was better than the Emancipation Proclamation.
The goofball Biden said it was a "BIG F'N DEAL" ....
Congressman Gingrey is more than welcome to introduce his alternative.
Since, none of the rest of them have shared their 'plan'!
My vote for worst is the 18th amendment.
Aww Amy, so cute.
Please dear, just tally up all the taxes and all the costs for 10 years each. It's not hard, just math.
You know kind of like Obama ignoring the cost of debt service in his new budget. Accounting games are nifty, but at the end of the day the cost is the cost.
And bye the way Amy, the Doctor Fix has been approved, correct? Now why do you suppose that was not factored into the bill itself?
"And 4 out of 5 dentist recommend Dentine for their patients who chew gum".
That was Trident, Spanky. And the ad never even actually said that, it was that they recommended "sugarless gum" for their patients who chew gum. If you can't get your political facts right, at least get the pop culture ones, okay?
Yeah. Liberals. They take what their government tells them on face value. We see it in Wisconsin, and Michigan, and Ohio, and, and, and, . . . . . ,yes, we see where that all gets you.
Here's the fact. Governments lie. They lie to the union members, telling them they'll have great pensions and great benefits, at no cost to them, just to get them to sign a contract. The government lies to the taxpayers, telling them they have peace with the unions, and the unions will be be happy and will provide them services, with no extra cost to the taxpayer. And the government lies to itself, saying they can defer contributions to the long term debt they'll have years from now to make their books look better today, and so they can have even more government programs that buy them even more votes.
But now the lies have all caught up with everyone.
Worst bill in history honors goes to the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.
Health Insurance Reform act is pretty bad and up there... but nowhere near as bad as the act that gave our economy over to the banks.
No the worst bill in history is the extension of the bush tax cuts,While the economy is in the toilet! No money coming in, Plenty going out! Genius!!!!!
Right JoAnnaSmith. Governments lie. But not ALL people in the government lie. Take John Boehner. He says the CBO found that the health care law will destroy 800,000 jobs. But what the CBO said was that the new law will result in a REDUCTION IN THE WORKFORCE of about 800,000. What that means is people who hold jobs just for the health insurance the job provides will be able to leave those jobs freeing up those jobs for people who need them. THE JOBS ARE NOT GOING AWAY but John Boehner has lied and convinced you & others that the health care law is bad and must be repealed based on lies. This is not the only lie the GOP is repeating, over and over and over again.
Actually, Obamacare is INDEED the worst bill passed in U.S. History. Whether you want to admit it or not, this bill puts the inefficient federal bureaucracy in charge of 1/6 of our country's economy....with fines and penalties on U.S. citizens "not purchasing a product".
Furthermore, its passage was brought about by bribes, kickbacks and "sweetheart deals" to squeeze this through our legislative branch, royally ABUSING "reconciliation" in the process. The people of our country were "disenfranchised" of Scott Brown's vote as President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi deliberately circumvented the legislative process.
Furthermore, nothing in this bill reduces the cost of providing health care to our citizens.....and yes, that means our LEGAL citizens.
Sorry Jim, but you really have your facts screwed up.
To begin with, there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the right of the minority to block voting through the filibuster. It is strictly a procedure that has been adopted by the Senate, has a long history of being abused, and which the GOP took to using against everything that came to the Senate. Despite that, the Health Care bill was passed by a clear majority of the House and by the 60 senators that were legally in office at the time of the vote. The people of Massachusetts, who you claim were disenfranchised have a state health care bill, signed by a Republican Governor who took the credit for it, that is very similar to the National Bill. Finally, talk to anyone who has been denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, or whose children were forced of their plan when they reached a certain age, or whose insurance company has arbitrarily jacked up their premiums, or who could not get coverage at all, before you state that the bill does nothing to reduce their medical costs.
Republican's only know how to do math during Democratic administrations.
Wars? They are free, right? They must be if you can cut taxes during wartime.
Tax relief for big agriculture? For big oil? Only when your in the presidential office.
When it's money for people out of work, for education, for infrastructure . . . cut, cut, cut.
Only fools are voting for the conservative lies. Deficits go away when people are back to work paying taxes. It's a perfect solution, but it undermines the conservative lies.
Healthcare is about people. Saving lives. Reworking a crashing health system.
The Republican liars place faith in their god, corporations. Worship USA, inc. Get on your knees America. Your God.inc pulls the strings.
hey ji m hows that GOP'er promise of no more pork? No comment about that right?
Yeah. Liberals. They take what their government tells them on face value. We see it in Wisconsin, and Michigan, and Ohio, and, and, and, . . . . . ,yes, we see where that all gets you.
So who do you and your kind get your info, Glen beck? Fox maybe, hahahahahaha
There have been a lot of bad bills passed during our years as a country but no doubt this is the worst one that has been passed in the last decade. The bill is unconstitutional and the CBO is all over the board about whether it saves money or costs a trillion dollars. The liberals keep spouting the numbers the CBO first came out with that were gerrymandered numbers and the Repubs use the CBO numbers that have come out since then. This bill cost over 62 Dems's their House seats and is in the process of costing a bunch more Senators their jobs and fortunately will cost this POTUS (TOTUS) his chance at re-election. Thank God.
Dear black— belt3,
Let me guess. The bill is unconstitutional because of the mandate, right? Does that also applyy to the bill Bush pushed through his rubber stamp Congress that mandates all Medicare recipients to buy Part D, or pay a penalty? Also, check to see how many of the Democrats who lost the election supported the bill. You may be surprised to find that the majority who lost were actually "Blue Dogs", what you might call DINO's (Democrats in Name Only), to appropriate a term that Tea Baggesr seem so fond of.
hey ji m hows that GOP'er promise of no more pork? No comment about that right?
Yeah. Liberals. They take what their government tells them on face value. We see it in Wisconsin, and Michigan, and Ohio, and, and, and, . . . . . ,yes, we see where that all gets you.
So who do you and your kind get your info, Glen beck? Fox maybe, hahahahahaha
-----------------------------------
http://abcnews.go.com/US/protestors-state-capitol-wisconsin/story?id=12947666
Unconstitutional? Are you a constitutional lawyer? Oh wait, I know, you're going to tell me a couple of judges declared it unconstitutional. Well, a couple of more declared just the opposite. Funny how you fail to mention those facts.
Have you not read the latest national polls? The MAJORITY of the country is ready to see the Health Care Bill play out. The MAJORITY. It's interesting that some folks cry about our leaders not listening to the people. Well, how about listening to the MAJORITY who want to see the plan work itself out?
And if the MAJORITY want the plan then your argument has no legs, whatsoever.
There's not a chance in heck this president won't be re-elected. The opposition has no one. But hey, wish all you want.
MR Rogers: I agree with your EXCELLENT post 1.10. !!!
"Worst bill in history honors goes to the Federal Reserve Act in 1913."
What is SO PATHETIC and SO SAD is "how many CLUELESS posters have little to NO idea who, what, where, when, how and why THAT MONSTROUS BILL was passed, let alone what it means to every American and others across the globe.
Isn't it "interesting" how we NEVER, EVER hear anything on ANY major network about that bill; no special programs and and never ANY DISCUSSIONS ON any OF THE NEWS SHOWS?
peace :-)
Constitutional or not, the bill tells insurers that hey are welcome to charge whatever they like, and everybody who CAN AFFORD TO IS FORCED TO PAY IT. I say, it's time for the middle class to mass on DC and force this piece of sh t law off the books, and force the ouster of those who were bribed by the insurance industry, they should rot in prison.
The health care reform did NOT put the government in charge of health care. Another republican repeating the same old lie -- even after the nonpartisan fact-check website Politifact made this one the lie of the year:
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/
The only mistake he made was not saying "Worst bill passed in MODERN history"
a republican ignorant of history. shocking.
Before anyone decides that the Health Care Reform was the Worst Bill of All time, perhaps you should actually know something about what is in the act...
Fighting Fraud and Abuse:
More Affordable for our Seniors and Coverage for Young Americans
Eliminates Life Time and Annual caps (No more having an Ins. company say you cost too much we are going to stop paying). Provides coverage for Pre-existing Conditions.
Supports creating Tort Reform (I really thought we Republicans were supposed to like that)
Helps create more Doctors and helps bring more doctors to Primary Care and Rural Communities.
And of course the Personal Mandate:
It seems difficult for me to believe that requiring American Citizens to take personal responsibility for their own and their children's health care is not reasonable. Personal responsibility is a core American Value is it not? How is the provision of the Health Care Reform which requires most Americans to either carry insurance or pay slightly more income taxes, which would be used to cover the eventual medical costs that those without insurance will eventually encounter, not inline with taking Personal Resistibility and not covered under the powers of taxation?
And of course this is only part of it…
HCR bill is bad, bad, bad. does nothing to improve actual health care or reduce health care spending, only reforms insurer/reimbursement policies. even if costs are artificially reduced in the short term, that will lead to poor quality and/or poor access, while the true underlying costs will continue to rise (i.e. med tech).
but the worst imo was the 1937 marijuana stamp act. we've been loosing the war on drugs since then (at a cost of many, many billions over the years) when we could have been collecting revenue. stupid move feds, we wouldn't be in debt if you just taxed its sale and use. it is, afterall, one of the most popular recreational activities in the united states, and had been for decades.
HCR bill is bad, bad, bad. does nothing to improve actual health care
everyone can stop reading there as it's obviously a biased statement. it helps people with preexisting conditions get health care. try being informed instead of just opinionated.
you need to keep reading, because the law only addresses insurance and reimbursement. and thank you for supporting my rationale by stating that now people with preexisting conditions can be insured. you proved my point, this is health insurance reform not health care reform.
again, providing insurance to more people does little to improve actual health CARE of our population! the quality of care is not improving, access will actually go down as more people line up for services, and the health of the population will not improve without biomedical research funding and education initiatives. think about it this way...the reason people are labeled with a "preexisting condition" is because they are unhealthy. preventative treatments and personalized medicine may have stopped that from occurring. but instead of addressing the medicine, all the law does is give you insurance for a sickness you already have. the law does not address any underlying issues or causes, does not address what you are paying for or why it costs so much, only addresses who is paying. that is not health CARE reform, it is health INSURANCE reform. i'm lucky enough to be informed AND opinionated, you seem to be only the latter.
If the federal government is not effectively "IN CHARGE" of health care in this country, then why is our federal government still churning out over 5,000 pages of regulations to ENFORCE it ?? Also, tell us just how many bureaus will be created to administer this monstrosity ?? Why are there fines on people for not buying a federally-mandated product ??? Why will the IRS now be involved with enforcement ??
Until you can honestly and completely answer all these questions, then quoting a supposed "neutral" source means nothing.
Somewhat telling when the liberal First Read has to go back 200 years to find a law that is worse.
It was factored into this imaginary savings.
What color is the sky in your world? The bill increases everyone's benefit, vastly increases the benefits to all medicare recipients, and it's going to cost less??? So when you're at the car dealer, and you upgrade to leather seats, power everything, a state of the art sound system, and gps it should lower the cost of the vehicle right?
There are 3 million + people working in the health insurance industry (claims, membership, sales, etc) many of which will lose their jobs. It is an estimated loss of available jobs by 800,000. That's not how many positions are going to just change places...that will be lost jobs available to anyone. But hey, who cares, under Obama you shouldn't have to work to have healthcare, a house, a car, a cell phone, etc, etc. The rest of the country should pay for you.
Several provisions of ObamadoesntCare have taken affect already:
So in other words...the law has accomplished nothing but making things worse.
Worst law passed since NAFTA
"Constitutional or not, the bill tells insurers that hey are welcome to charge whatever they like,"
Not true. One of the provisions of the law (and it is a LAW not a bill) is that insurance companies must demonstrate that they spend 80% (85% for the largest like BCBS) of the premiums they take in on direct medical costs for their insured or refund the difference.
"There are 3 million + people working in the health insurance industry (claims, membership, sales, etc) many of which will lose their jobs."
I don't think so. There will still be private insurance companies, with more clients to service, so I doubt they will lose their jobs. You got any credible sources for that claim?
"Result...most carriers no longer offer any policies for people under 18"
Some insurers who offer ONLY children's policies have decided not to offer them. But most people who now can get insurance can include their children on their policies so there's much less need for "child-only" policies.
The selling of Obamacare has now dwindled to debating if it is the 4th or 5th worst bill in American history?
How many of the other bills were drafted and bulldozed onto the country through closed door meetings, pork, and promises while the country was desperately in need of jobs???? I would say HOW, and WHEN it was done, along with being unconstitutional easily makes it the worst ever.
How bout you read about how the Medicare Part D legislation was passed? And then come back and comment.
its always so funny how many people must have a direct line to Mrs. Cleo, as evidently they can forsee the future. The fact of the matter is, both sides can speculate as much as they want and they simply do not know what will happen. There are tons of examples of this, NAFTA, WMDs, etc. I say let's see how it plays out. Doing something is better than nothing. We already know that doing nothing was leading us in the wrong direction. Maybe its time for conservatives to have a little faith.
To mmmbeer and others.
Universal care means people will be more likely to get treatment when symptoms first show up, not when they are taken by ambulance to the emergency room.
Right now sick people who have no insurance either go to hospitals for conditions that could be treated much more quickly, and cheaply than via an O.R. visit, or wait until what was a minor issue has become double pneumonia, or a sever blood infection, or worse.
Are any of you dumb enough to think that these costs for the uninsured are not being factored into the costs for those who do have money or insurance?
I am lucky enough to have insurance thorugh my job, but I'll tell you my policy (like many others) has a $200 co-pay if I use an emergency room, and am not actually admitted to the hospital, do you think that a part of the policy for fun?
And if the newly insured use managed care, and through that one of the more centralized prescription providers, much more savings will be found.
Americans now pay the most money for health care of any 1st world country, and has the worst results. Think that a good thing?
P.S. mmmbeer, if your pseudonym suits you , wait until its your kidneys, and you max out on dialysis costs, or can't afford the transplant when your insurer tells you 'oops we're sorry'.
Basic human needs for survival must be met in every peaceful and civilized society. Shelter, food, water, clothing and health care are the most basic of those needs. Without them, the human body will die from exposure, starvation, dehydration, disease or even minor injury. It doesn't matter if you call them entitlements or human rights, the result is the same.
Those that attempt to hoard these basic needs literally kill those that are forced to do without. The oldest, strongest and most irresistible natural instinct in man is the fight for survival.The second strongest instinct is greed. The failure to maintain a balance between the two has destroyed many great civilizations since the beginning of time. Darwin's theory does not apply ONLY to individuals, but groups of any size and entire species.
Our young nation started with an excellent foundation for adapting, improving and maintaining that balance with results of tremendous growth and strength in a very short time. We have stumbled sometimes in the past, then recovered and made ourselves even stronger by our trials. This fall has been so steep and rapid that I fear for our recovery.
Have we forgotten the truth of the concept that all men are created equal with basic needs and rights? Have we forgotten that united we stand and divided we fall? Will we continue to allow unmitigated greed and foolish partisan politics to destroy everything that so many (in past generations) have sacrificed so much to preserve in our way of life?
If so, we deserve to fall flat on our faces. We deserve to all go down together instead of standing proud as one. If so, we deserve to be remembered in history as the greedy, cowardly and spineless generation that destroyed the most successful and proudest nation on Earth.
The main strategy from Republican leaders is to create uncertainty for the American people. They hope to bring us to our knees. Once there, they hope we'll have no choice but to relinquish a few more rights and protections.
We know that making angry, negative movies is easy to do and requires zero creativity. But it takes real creativity to convince folks that we don't need what we desperately need, ie, decent wages, health care and education.
Drdr...you said it yourself (although you didn't read the law and don't understand what you are typing).
80% of group health premiums have to go toward claims. 85% for individual health. So, ever run a business? How do you propose that the insurance carriers pay all their infrastructure, all their payroll, processing, paperwork, technology on 15%? How many people do you think would work for Walmart if their product cost was 85%? Oh, a lot of carriers that used to offer individual products, no longer do.
You're wrong about there not being a need or a future need for Children's only policies. Group health insurance is significantly more expensive than individual. To add a child to a group policy can be $400 per month out of the employees check. Child Only policies usually were in the $120-150/month range and really helped. The loss of that product has a large impact on a lot of people.
So what is your problem with Medicare D now? That seniors that couldn't afford medications prior to it's passage can stay alive? To say it's unfunded is incorrect. The seniors pay a premium for it. The taxpayer subsidizes a much smaller amount for Med D than any other program.
"(although you didn't read the law and don't understand what you are typing)".
Uh, no, I have read the law quite thoroughly and have been reading it for as long as it had been wending its way through Congress.
"80% of group health premiums have to go toward claims. 85% for individual health. So, ever run a business? How do you propose that the insurance carriers pay all their infrastructure, all their payroll, processing, paperwork, technology on 15%? "
Well, they certainly won't need all those folks they needed prior to deny claims automatically the first time through, will they? And you guys really need to get your stories straight. So many conservatives scream that HCR was only a give-away to the health insurance industry, and yet YOU say that they will never make it on the percentages they are required to hold to. And conservatives scream there is no mechanism to hold down the costs of health insurance. When I note that yes, there are, again, you say that they can't POSSIBLY make it financially. So which is it, as it can't logically be both.
"How many people do you think would work for Walmart if their product cost was 85%?"
And that's part of the problem, that you think of health insurance as a product like the items on the shelf at WalMart.
"Oh, a lot of carriers that used to offer individual products, no longer do."
Perhaps you could support that statement. How many is "a lot" and were those carriers already planning to get rid of their individual products?
"You're wrong about there not being a need or a future need for Children's only policies."
I said there would be less of a need, not no need.
"Group health insurance is significantly more expensive than individual. To add a child to a group policy can be $400 per month out of the employees check. Child Only policies usually were in the $120-150/month range and really helped. The loss of that product has a large impact on a lot of people."
It's not significantly more expensive for the insurance pools that are coming, or the expanded pool for Medicaid. And it can also be $100-125 or less for ALL the children in a family. I just re-added my own college students, both of them, for $125 a month. And child-only policies did not cover children with pre-existing conditions. And there are still child-only products.
As for Medicare Part D, I have a problem with the myopia most folks have about how Medicare D was passed, especially those who talk about HCR "passed in the middle of the night, with closed-door deals, and shoved down our throats." That's the very definition of how Medicare Part D was passed. Seniors do pay part of their costs, but not all, as the government picks up the balance. And you did know HCR closed the donut hole, right?
Well, I wouldn't say worst bill ever, but you would have to say that it's up there on list. I mean, if it is so wonderful, why has the Obama administration already issued over 900 waivers for this one bill?
A waiver is just a one-year extension. Not an exemption.
"This bill gives people rights, it does not take them away."
Does the right to not purchase insurance count?
Let's see -- Health Care Bill or Kansas-Nebraska Act. For people who complain about the lack of respect that liberals have for American History, comments like this show that conservatives are just as -- if not more -- lacking in an appreciation for the full scope of American History. History did not end in 1792 and then restart in 1976.
I have never been a fan of unions. They hurt themselves with their excesses.
However, that is far from the worship of corporations that Republicans pursue. Their false god, corporate america, needs to be restrained, not invited to recreate the robber-baron period.
Ya'gotta love conservatives. The biggest fight they have is with themselves. What decade or century should we go back to? The good old days . . . when people had no power. With their mutant Supreme Court, we may all be working for crumbs falling off of the plates of billionaires. You asked for it Republicans/Tea Partiers. USA.inc
Daryl, what the ---k exactly do you think this is? Your government is the company. The whole fu king country is a company town. What do you have left at the end of the month?
Robin
Do you even have any idea what a company town is? My father grew up in one in PA. His father worked in the coal mines. They lived in company housing, were paid in company script (not money) that was only good at the company store. They worked 12 hr shifts, 6 days a week - no holidays. So they formed a union and went on strike - several times.
You owe you 40 hr work week, benefits, vacations, safety assurances all to unions.
So comparing the country to a company town is just ridiculous. .
Jim (way before this in the replies), I feel compelled to call you on a knee-jerk assumption that you made in your reply. The idea that government is less efficient than private sector companies is not really supportable. Have you ever worked for a Fortune 500 or 100 company? I have, and I can tell you that they too are terribly inefficient. It turns out that (at least in our country) inefficiency is more a function of size than it is of private versus public. Large private companies have just as many problems with cronyism, apathetic workers, and bureaucracy as public sector organizations of equivalent size.
Second, in any complex organization there needs to be a certain amount of coordination ( resulting in both regulation and local inefficiencies) or the organization as a whole becomes nonviable. Health care is a good example. It would be difficult to find a better example of inefficiency than our CURRENT health care system. You know, the one brought to you by the private sector.
Third, our current private health care system is a handicap on our private corporations as they compete with companies in the rest of the industrialized world that don't have to worry about paying for their employees health (or the absenteeism caused by lack of preventive care) because their countries all have government health care. And, I might add, all of them have better health outcomes for their populations and are less expensive per person than our private system.
Once again, we know our outcomes are last in the industrialized world, but rather than do what private companies used to profess as best practice (go look at the best in class to learn from them), we stare at our navels and come up with theories about how we might do better. We certainly don't want to go look at what those countries that are ahead of us are doing because it might contradict our ideological beliefs.
True Steve, I work for one of those Fortune 500 companies, and the amount of waste and inefficiency is almost astounding, and too many of these people are so set in their ways that change for efficiency is hard to make happen. As I have been saying for years, if the decision makes sense, it wasn't a manager that made it. Corporations don't make sensible decisions, because it would actually make sense. For instance, how many times has someone working for a large corporation at the bottom end, seen someone from outside the company, with a college education come in as their supervisor, but has no idea of how things actually work from the bottom, because they have never had that work experience. They got their position, because their education says they are qualified for it, but they don't have a clue as to what they are doing. I have worked for many corporations and see this at each one of them. They could have promoted someone from within, that knew the ropes, but went with someone else, that is actually clueless. In fact, I have actually quit a job because this person was so clueless, that he would blame others for his incompetence. Pathetic really.
This is what I propose-- All of the Congressional representatives who OPPOSE the National Helathcare Bill should GIVE UP their Tax-payer paid for Healthcare Plans-- if they REALLY believe that our healthcare should be in the hands of corporations. Instead of just criticizing and opposing the plan-- they should PAY for themselves if they expect everyone else to. I am SICK to death of the phoney hypocrites in Congress.
If congress likes it so much why are they exempt? It seems to me the only way to get things fixed is to have them live with the same plan everyone else has.
Or maybe we should all just get free health care for life like they do.
They are not exempt. See here: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/congress-exempt-from-health-bill/
Right back at you,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34900.html
From your link: "requires members of Congress and their office staffs to buy insurance through the state-run exchanges it creates – but it may exempt staffers who work for congressional committees or for party leaders"
Not members of congress. Not even that some members of their staff ARE exempt, just that they MAY be because they aren't mentioned specifically. Quite different than your claim that Congress is exempt. Because they aren't. Even according to your link. And: http://mediamatters.org/research/201003250022
"most people don't even know it actually REDUCES the federal deficit by $143 billion over its first ten years."
Most people are physically unable to drink so many gallons of Obama koolaid, to reach a stage of dementia, and actually believe a brand new trillion dollar federal entitlement program will save money.
So, Bob. The CBO (non-partisan budget office that the GOP chooses to believe ONLY when it agrees with them) says that HCR will reduce the deficit by $143 billion and that repealing it will not only cost $230 billion but also raise the cost of insurance on the private market. So who is your authority that calls it a "trillion dollar federal entitlement program"? Or did you just pull this "fact" out of one of your orifices? It is one thing to disagree with a policy, but if you are going to challenge a claim made by the Congressional Budget Office, you really need some evidence or authority to back you up. Got any?
So funny, have you seen the videos of Sessions telling how great the T-publicans spending bill is and how bad the Democratic bill is that have the same exact numbers, Don't you think this will to have Democrat fail at everything/anything has gone a little far when the exact same bills can make a Teapub lie in front of all America with out even blushing, come on, how can you guys defend this poo?
The Constitution was written by Citizens for Citizens regardless of how much money Clarence Thomas took from the Cohn Bros,we will see fighting in the streets before we see Corporations have rights over Citizens and this is signed in Blood. Don't forget, more soldiers come from Democratic households then Republicans and the majority of American soldiers said they would NOT fire upon American Citizens...
The CBO has issued numbers all of the board on 0bamacare. You give them garbage in and they will give you garbage out. The $143 billion saving number was early on before the Dr fix and before the doughnut hole was filled. You can find so many different quotes from Dr. Elmendorf from the CBO it will overflow your browser. Here is a quote from him yesterday saying that 0bamacare won't save money. Which quote are you going to believe - one that is 2 years old or the one from yesterday. www.goo.gl/mi1YX
Can somebody who is NOT a crackhead explain how spending a trillion and a half bucks to save 10% of that saves money.
^^^cause that's just the first ten years, it keeps saving after that too. if you don't get that then you're the crackhead. also, it fixes a broken system in the process.
Hatr, dude you need to stop...you sound dumber and dumber each post. First ten years saves 10% of the cost, saving after that would take another 90 years just to recoup the upfront cost. So after 100 years of supposedly "low costs" we've only been able to break even, great. And that assumes that nothing in health care industry changes in 100 years, which we know is false given the rate of technology adoption in medicine, which is very expensive! this fixes a broken system how?
The really funny (or sad) thing about it is if people would just manage their chronic diseases we would save about $130billion each YEAR! That's almost as much as this HCR law proposes to save in 10 years!
CBO = Congressional B*llsh*t Office
Do you not remember them "revising" their cost estimate after it was passed to admit that it would be over $1 trillion. The president wanted an estimate under $1 trillion for marketing purposes so that is what they provided. Not to mention that their savings estimates are based on ridiculously rosy predictions that many economists have stated are unrealistic.
I am interested in going through the Health Care Bill & the 2011 Budget & then write my Congressman Lou Barletta & give him my opinions on the Budget & Health Care Bill. Regarding the Budget, it is necessary to not only apply monetary values to each phase of the budget - line by line, but perhaps more importantly, to have an independent auditor/s, check on every item, department of government, to access the value in each part of the budget; the number of people within a department, the efficiency & the cost. I can personally attest to terrible inefficiencies within the Customs & Excise & Immigration Departments, where taxpayer money was seriously abused by inefficient systems & personnel. Sincerely, Ian Richardson, Shavertown, PA
Mr. Richardson,
There is an old saying; lions can't live off chipmunks.
While they are auditing programs, ask them to audit the ones that provided $100B for Reagan's missile defense, and another $100B for Bush when he brought it back. Ask them how many successful intercepts they've had after 30 years of trying. Ask them what they would do if the incoming missile split into multiple warheads or decoys. Ask them to justify spending billions to put defense systems in Europe to protect them from non-existent Iranian nuclear missiles. Ask them to justify keeping our troops in Europe 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. By all means, let's make government accountable, but let's start with the big bucks, not with the pennies.
Does not apply here. All the lion has to do is eat 300 million chipmunks.
Or just one or two larger carcasses!
Well Mr Gingrey give us your address. So when people choose to use the Emergency room at close to 3,ooo.oo a visit ..over having health care with a 68.00 doctors visit ! We can bill your state ! Did you even finish high school? I am serious !
a single payer system for all, like medicare would save us all a tremendous amount of out of pocket monies and take health care out of the for profit category.
It would also take health care out of the health category. Compensations under medicare and medicaid are so low that most doctors refuse clients with those insurances.
Repeated economic studies say that the only reliable way to bring down health care costs in the US is to promote preventative care.
Yes, C.Smith. That is what Medicare can do. Medicare provides for preventative care. If we had a single payer NON-PROFIT system, more people would get preventative care. And as you said, this will bring down the cost of health care. We simply HAVE to take the profit out of the insurance system. Health insurance companies pay big salaries and bonuses to their upper management. This money could be going to pay for actual health care.
C. Smith,
Please produce the evidence that most doctors refuse to treat Medicare patients. If that is true, we must have seniors dying by the thousands every day from lack of care and our Medicare and Social Security costs dropping accordingly. No proof? What a surprise, another conservative urban myth built into a stone tablet.
What we need is the Swiss Health Care system where every person pays for their own private insurance. Google if you care to be enlightened. There isn't room here to try to explain the entire thing. It gets the gov't out of healthcare and the poor people are taken care of.
ARe you really that uninformed? That is EXACTLY what the ACA does. That is why some far lefties didn't like it! This is a good bill that will do a lot for millions of pople, and already has started. Keep your blinders on. Keep listening to the corporate owned GOP. Hope you wake up someday.
Cal,
There is no urban myth as you would like to believe. Doctors lose money on seeing patients when the reimbursement rate is so low. Overhead in doctors' offices is very high these days. Many are continuing to take care of their "EXISTING" patients that have been coming to them for years, but are not taking NEW Medicare patients. Part of this I know since my brother is a doctor and he has been on the physician's advisory board for Blue Cross.
"Compensations under medicare and medicaid are so low that most doctors refuse clients with those insurances."
Not true. The compensation rate is lower but you make it up in increased (and guaranteed) volume.
"Doctors lose money on seeing patients when the reimbursement rate is so low. "
Not true. See above.
"Overhead in doctors' offices is very high these days."
It doesn't have to be. There are programs that allow student loan repayment (up to 25K per year) if you practice in an underserved area. And you can't have becoming a millionaire on your bucket list. But it is VERY doable.
Has any one noticed that Congress has borrowed (stole) from the Social Security, Medicare, Government employees Pension fund and every other trust fund they have in their control, and replaced the money with IOU's? Bond's that are backed by the faith and credit of a nation that is going bankrupt. Now why in the hell would you want to allow them to dip into more of your money? They have been masking the true size of our deficits since 1968 with our own money to buy their seats and votes from their constituents. Most of these programs we call entitlements, which I do not as they are taken out of every working man and woman's checks each week, would be solvent had they kept their damn hands out of them. The only way they even came close to balancing the budget during Clinton's reign in office was using these funds to mask the true size of the deficit. They no longer are allowed to mask the deficit with these trust funds as they are now paying out more then they are taking in. Government is not the solution we hope for, they are the new slave masters.
That is the most fictitious statement ever made. Those Republicans are out to destroy anything and everything for the middle class. God help us.
The extremist far right has the Tea bag brigade to try to convince other middle class'ers to go ahead and jump off that cliff,
Well, hopefully not me.
Funny,I have a friend who gets monthly govt disability checks and he is also the pseudo neighborhood captain of the tea baggers and now that he himself has heard many of the T-publicans say outright that medicare was on the chopping block as was Social Security he is now back peddling, I guess his hero Congressman has said the same thing the reality of this is hitting him in the face especially when you consider how much extra we borrowed to finance the tax cuts for the ultra wealthy who by the way are gaining in wealth by the minute while the middle class is going down the tubes...
I hope the rest of them wake up before its too late!
Repeal it, put the money into training more doctors, and let competition into our health insurance market. Government is just in the way....................
Charles: You theory sucks. They used the same logic to deregulate the power companies and let them compete. Every state that has deregulated the power companies have much higher power bills than they did before they were deregulated. So much for competition.
Charles, competition is what is destroying our health care system. The private market has had control forever and it has not worked. Just like it would not work for police protection, fire protection, or the military. There are some things the government needs to be involved in. People say they don't want the government between them and their doctors. But right now the insurance companies are between us and our doctors and they are PROFIT-DRIVEN. They have an obligation to stockholders to make a profit.
The same thing happened here with the power Companies and right now people why have progress energy now are paying in advance to get a new plant built, what sort of "Representative" of "the people" would do this, None,not one single person working for US would do that, it seems our Representatives have gone Corporate on us. Just think about this, private citizens funding a private industry that will in return sell us electricity from a plant that should belong in part to US. Isn't that the way of Capitalism. Sounds much more like Corporate Socialism to me. Is this what you T-publicans signed up for?
My new Governor (rick scott) stole the most money ever stolen from Medicare $67 Billion, yeah that's right, His new company (solantic) that tried to get me to pay in addition to my medicare and then If I had over paid I could get my money back from medicare. I refused to pay and turned him in "again" and I stopped getting bills BUT my point being, we have buyers remorse without the propagada and i suspect the back lash will be great...
"put the money into training more doctors,"
It's in the law, particularly for underserved areas. Read it and see.
Lets settle down and stop that verbal attacks.
What if Rep. Phil Gingrey had said that Health Care reform was among the worst pieces of legislation ever passed. Let's take the absolute out of his statement.
If it ranks right up there with the other poorly conceived pieces of legislation, many which denied minorities their God-given rights, can we also expect it to be legislated away like those past outrageous laws.
As a Nation, we have made mistakes in the past (and I suspect we will make mistakes in the future). The greatness of America is that we eventually address the ill-conceived legislation and laws and correct (or eliminate) them. It is what striving for a more perfect union is all about.
It appears that the Health Care legislation has some major economic problems and perhaps even some constitutional problems. Lets look at these issues objectively and civilly and make the necessary correction, even if it means legislating this health care package into oblivion. Whether amended or replaced, the final legislation will be a better product. That is how it should work.
Unfortunately, there are those that are so fearful of giving ground, that it has become mired in the mudslinging of Washington politics. That is unfortunately for the American people they are suppose to be serving.
Tom, thank you for being the most reasoned person I have ever seen discuss this bill.
Your post is right on the money, Tom.
I apologize for the partial snip from what you wrote, please advise if this is taken out of context.
[qoute] "even if it means legislating this health care package into oblivion" un-quote]
Or legislating this back to a one payer system. You see that's what can happen while legislating, something you don't want.
*Force Clarence Thomas to answer for the money he and his wife received from the Cohn Bros that he also did NOT claim as income on his tax return! He is sitting in one of the highest seats in the Nation, the least he could do is answer Charges like you and me would have to do...
RcR-2828649
I am not sure what the question is other than a desire for clarification. Basically what I was trying to communicate is that it is sometime possible to amend legislation to improve it. But in other situations, the legislation is so flawed that it is more productive to repeal it in total and start over with a clean slate. Of course as in the examples given regarding past discriminatory legislation, the act of repealing it my be the final act and no new legislation needs to be enacted to replace it.
I have certainly heard the arguments regarding how to proceed on both sides of the Health Care debate. I have my view but recognize others are entitled to their view too. What I think everyone can expect is that their elected representatives need to acknowledge that much work remains in the area of health care reform and to attempt to move this effort forward. an all-incompassing piece of legislation or a step by step approach, single pay; free market based insurers; etc. are only some the issues that need to be addressed. Personally, I find it hard to believe that the current administration is not maneuvering for a single insurer (read that the Federal government) for its ideal solution. But that may not reflect the collective wisdom of the American people. So legislators, please listen to some very wise constituents.
Hope that provides clarification, rather than clouding the issue. Clouding is an interesting word isn't it? I think we have seen a lot of that recently in Washington, D.C. from both parties.
Worst??? Absolutely not.
But far from good.
FR ~ This is perhaps the worst topic I've ever seen here. How is it possible to quantify -- or qualify -- this, and what possible relevance does it have to anything, other than to demonstrate forcefully how far over-emphasized polling is and, sadly, how much of a role hyperbole plays in current political discourse.
To give this whole thing shrift as if it constitutes meaningful debate is beyond absurd. Even if you could resolve it, what then?
What ever side of health care you are on one thing Inow know. That Representative was either a Democrat or Republican because no one else would talk so much @!$%# just to make a political point.
Democrats + Republicans= fraud x 2
Oh Plz tell me you are not a tea bag republican?
While far from the worst result ever (and I would be more than happy to see it repealed), I think it's highly indicative of what is wrong with our Congressional process -- it's a Frankenstein creation of every person putting his/her pet project in and creating a system that could collapse on its own weight before it even got out of the gate. We need to keep the laws as simple as possible. Certain, definite, easy for non-lawyers to understand. That will make the bad laws stand out all the more and people can maybe actually learn what a law does and not just what a talking head, on either side, tells them it does.
Most politicians have a background as lawyers. lawyers go to school to learn how speak in terms that the average layman has difficulty translating into clear meaning. i.e they are tough to lie without moving their lips. Some politicians like Boehner are just trying to protect their wealth, and others are quite obviously, in my opinion are racists,who attack President Obama and anything he attempts to do because he is not white. In my opinion Mr Obama has done a good no a great job of guiding the USA through the worst crises,( created by the Republican administrations),since the great depression
omoore, one question. What happens if the politician turns out to be a ventriloquist also and can talk without moving his lips........Hmmmm..........Food for thought.
Omoore, people's opinions about President Obama are largely shaped by their race and by what they see the proper role of government to be. As a non-white, I would love to see him succeed. As a believer in small government, I think he is a colossal failure. His solution to everything is more government and more sweeping regulation. He has done a good job of crisis management (generally), but he's too overreaching for his own good. He should chip away at problems, acting moderately and in a way that would be all but impossible for reasonable people to disagree with. Then when he gets re-elected, he can continue to make progress. Instead he's acted from day one like he's only got a couple years to get everything the left ever wanted, which is why the country swung hard right in 2010. It's not that the majority are that opposed to his agenda (or at least many parts of it), it's that they don't want to end up at an extreme so immediately, and unfortunately, you can't move the pendulum directly to the middle easily. You can only swing it back and forth between the extremes until it loses momentum and finally stops in the midde. I know his left win allies don't see it that way, but the middle of the left and the center is not the middle, especially in the minds of the right.
What we really need is a viable third party standing on center ground, but all they ever do is take votes away from the left or right depending in which side of center they're perceived to be holding (e.g., Ross Perot taking votes from the right).
Most politicians don't know much about American history.
Give freedom? What about the freedom this bill takes away? What about the people who choose not to own insurance, or own an insurance that is of a different standard than the federal government is demanding. Are we so quick to forget that these freedom's and rights have disappeared? Plenty of slave owners in the 1800's could also have argued that those bills were about giving them rights. It depends on what focus group you're looking at. But people are so quick to ignore those whose rights to choose have been eliminated from them within this health-insurance overhaul.
I want freedom from the people who have no insurance making me pay higher costs and premiums when they get sick and get health care. Every time I pay a premium or get care, those who have no insurance and/or do not pay have stolen from me. I also want freedom from paying into a system for a service that is denied because I had the audacity to get sick and collect on those benefits I've been paying for.
Right to choose? I'll bet your one of those anti-choice, force your moral views on others through government regulations people, right?
Are you talking about the freedom an HMO or PPO gives you? That was Nixon who took your seventh Amendment from you and gave all the power not to dr's but to large insurance Companies to do your choosing for you, They choose you Dr, they decide if you need to see a specialist, they decide what drugs you will take So tell me again what freedoms you now have that will be different?
I've been reading posts on here for months that claim that HCR had already made their insurance premiums increase by hundreds or even thousands of dollars or even that their employer was going to stop offering health insurance completely because of the skyrocketing costs.
So last week, the small company I work for held our annual benefits meeting. We were told in advance that the plan we had the last two years was no longer being offered and that we'd be switched to a new but "comparable" plan. Uh-ohh, this can't be good, right? Well, as it turns out, the new plan WILL cost more - all of $2.00 a pay period. Since I'm a salaried employee and get paid every two weeks, that's an increase of $52 a year, right? Not exactly the end of the world.
But wait.....while some of my co-pays have increased as well (emergency room, CAT scans, other stuff I rarely use), the co-pay for seeing my Primary Care physician has decreased for the first time ever, from $40 to $30. Since I see him about four times a year on average, there's a $40 savings right there. The co-pay for the four generic drugs I get every month also went down, from $20 to $15. Let's see.....$5.00 less for each..... times four drugs is $20 a month.....times 12 months and it looks like I just saved another $240 a year. And maybe most important - at least to me - is that an annual mammogram is now completely covered - as in FREE - instead of the $50 that it used to cost. So now I'm up to $290 a year I'm saving in costs vs. $52 more I'm paying in premiums. I'm still ahead, right? And I'll save even more if I actually get sick and need other prescriptions, or if I decide to take advantage of the 100% covered screenings for colorectal or cervical cancer, or for osteoporosis when I turn 60, all of which I've previously had to pay for.
And that's just the actual dollar costs. As a cancer survivor, I can never be denied coverage for my "pre-existing condition", even though it's been over 13 years now since that condition actually existed in any discernible form.
So here's my question. I never win anything (if I bought the only lottery ticket ever sold, it would probably be disqualified for some reason!) So how did I apparently become the only person in the entire country who's going to come out ahead this year on healthcare costs?
And @wildchild - which of my "freedoms" have I therefore lost?
How great, JoAnne!
JoAnne in PA I am sorry to say you will never make it as a lawyer, because you tell it as it is there are many people out there who should figure the health care bill like you and stop listening to the crazies in the Republican tea bag party.
DrDr and omoore -
Thanks! Look, I'm the first to admit this bill isn't perfect - but then, there's probably never been a bill passed in this country that EVERYONE was going to like, or even benefit from. But every once in a while we all catch a much-needed break, and as I said, I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one out there with this one.
And you're right, omoore - though at one time my guidance counselor in high school tried to steer me in that direction, and though I find the law endlessly fascinating, I'd never have made it through even the first year of law school. Too shy, too slow, and I always hated homework. Maybe in my next life!
To You Know That Guy
Unfortunately I am a lawyer and I have to wholeheartedly agree with your point. The KISS standard needs to be chiseled into the limestone walls of the legislative chambers in Washington D.C.
Keep speaking up.
How about this? The GOP'ers ran against the health care bill due to an ever so slim margin so why would they ignore this data? Come on, the majority want A/The health care bill and do NOT forget the promise of NO pet projects. How long did that last anyway, we keep track of anything that can be made negative of the Democratic party where is all the Negative Stank from those who some call the lefty wing media and if there is such a thing why don't mainstream journalists talk about "right wing" media. This is a valid question, almost without fail every time I listen or watch extreme far right media I hear about the evil lefties and there Media, someone tell me when thats on and what channel so I can hear for myself, again this is a valid question I would like answered...
A CBS News poll suggests more Americans are against the GOP's plan to cut funding for Obamacare? What a surprise that a shill for the Democrats would make such a finding. If it were up to Katie Couric and her ilk we'd all be paying income tax rates of 90+%. That's OK though, that would still leave her and her elitist pals with millions each year. Stop Obamacare! Stop entitlements! Cut spending! Support the People's House of Representatives!
Rasmussen polling shows that between 55 - 60% of the people want 0bamacare repealed - I trust their polling methodology a lot more than CBS polling. Rasmussen has been right a higher % of the time than any other polling organization.
I am sure you trust their mythology more then any other,they tell what you want to hear right up until the end of a project but tell me why is rasmussen always seen at ultra conservative events?
Is that the mythology to which you refer to?
Can you tell me why Rassmussen is so for off when compared with those who don't actually have interests in one of the political parties they work for.
I would say this does indeed show hypocrisy, what say you?
Of course you trust Rasmussen more than CBS. Fox News relies on Rasmussen.
"Rasmussen has been right a higher % of the time than any other polling organization."
Well, really, you need to back that statement up with facts, studies, data. If not, then you're kinda just making it up. Don't you think?
Well, it fits right in with Faux Noise's practice of making things up: http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/16/fox-tp-watters/
Somehow I do not think black_belt3 will even try to back up that claim. The righties like to throw out statements but never seem to back them up when challenged. The only conclusions that can be reached are either:
A) They can not back them up.
or
B) They are a paid troll and once they post, they never return to back up what they say.
You are joking, right Mathew. I am no right wing supporter, but Think Progress and Jesse Watters as a "credible" source of anything other left wing extremism. I don't think so.
Now with regards to polling, a quick internet search has uncovered a couple of sources that say Gallup, Harris and Rasmussen are regarded as "highly credible" political polling organizations. Answers.com - wikipedia - Even the text response web site chacha.com list all three.
Obama's HC law stinks, the republicans plan stinks and those Congressman that have represented us over the past 3 decades should all be ashamed of their performances. They play the blame games rather than work together to solve issues. They become career politicians vis their corrupt ways with lobbyists and desired interests. Have we ever heard of them having the same HC as all americans? I'll answer for us - NOPE - what they do is exempt themselves and their benefits. This maybe the only thing they can always agree on. Then we have Obama proposing a horrible budget plan without entitlements or even any provisions suggested by the deficit committee involved and expecting republicans to step out. Long standing republicans won't listen to the tea party electorates who want to cut as we need to be cut. Heck, they won't even listen to Paul Ryan yet the Republican leadership claims a while back they introduced Mr Ryan's plan at the meeting of the minds and the Dems declined - They are all bums out for their own interests
Not even the worst recent bill, Porkulus anyone?
superlogi,
Care to provide some proof of that statement?
Oh?? Superlogi, you do not seem to be able to read very well, the CBO SPECIFICALLY says that it will REDUCE the deficit by $1.4 TRILLION over the next 10 years, NOT increase it by $3 T...comeone, you can SURELY do better than that, your lies are TOO transparent!
B.Honest - what orifice did you pull those numbers out of. Look at what the CBO director said yesterday. www.goo.gl/mi1YX Yeah - you are going to add 30 - 40 million people to the HC rolls and save money. I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
Black Belt, I enjoy your posts, really, but on the one hand you say the CBO can't be trusted. And then on the other hand you quote the CBO to make your point.
Sorry, bud, you can't have it both ways. I'll tell you what we know for sure: We don't know how this baby is gonna turn out.
I can recall not long ago when conservatives lambasted Obama for bailing out GM. That one looks like it's going to work out just fine.
Quit crying wolf so much.
I would have liked socialized medicine, but instead we're still saddled with the horrific insurance companies.
All those people railing about Government death panels... I'm just amazed that they think Corporate death panels are any more merciful, when they're just looking to make a quick buck. Dead men don't sue.
So I don't like the health care bill because it didn't go far enough. There was too much compromise and pandering to conservatives and Big Pharma. And then the conservatives, after all their demands were inserted into the bill, still pretended that it was shoved down their throats.
But in a way, maybe it's a tiny baby step in the right direction. I hope it gets a chance to actually be implemented so people can see the world doesn't end, and we have a happier healthier workforce.
And maybe we'll get a few more baby steps away from for-profit healthcare after that.
-----
http://poorrichlife.blogspot.com/
and superlogi, you want to continue a system that kills its electorate by denying care. You cannot say that is not true when we had 2 people die in Arizona because Arizona refused to help them when they needed the help.
"there's nothing particularly notable about socialists admiring socialism."
And you wouldn't know a socialist if one bit you on the @sss....
MSpeilman
I am with you, it doesn't go far enough. It is really too bad that the Repubs hate anything Obama so much that they would not try to work on this for the good of the country. I know they are looking out for the special interests but it is such an important issue, their input is important too. We need less special interest influence and less politics. We could use some common sense and practical thinking for a change. I am sure there are things that can be done to improve the program as it is now but as long as it is the goal of the Repubs to just kill it, there is not going to be anything but grief for those us out here trying to survive. I guess people do not always go into politics for the good of the country.
I think the redneck Congressman from Georgia has been smoking way too much "KUDZU" and drinking way too much of the "Right Wing Kool-Aide".
The worst legislation in this country's history was the vote to "Invade Iraq", or was it "The Tax Breaks For The Rich" or "Allowing 9/11 To Occur On His Watch" or "Wrecking The Economy and Government", etc. Regardless, it occurred from Jan. 2001 - Jan. 2008. All under the watchful eye of your hero, "W".
Guess what's worse than the 120,000 dead Iraqis and 4,500 US troops?
George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleza Rice, and Donald Rumsfield have government health care until the day they die! Which, for me, cannot come too soon. They should at least all be jailed.
I don't see any of them rejecting their health care.
Beau,
If they were part of any other government than ours they would all be up on charges of "Crimes against Humanity" as well as "War Crimes". I don't think any of them will be traveling outside the United States anytime soon. There are several countries that would like to lay their hands on them and see that charges are filed.
Luke Russert -
Regarding the initial article as well as the updates posted - I'm confused. You initially referred to " this contentious debate on an amendment to defend health-care reform" - but then in one of the updates you quote the Democratic congresswoman as saying "This amendment should be denied". Could you please clarify exactly what amendment this debate is in reference to and who's defending or denying what? Thanks.
If anybody thinks that health care reform will cut the budget deficit I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that is for sale.... Puh-Lease....... Maybe the easter bunny can help pay for health care also....
Your 'bridge' and your argument are both false. Your Easter bunny may be the only real thing you have left after losing your senses.
I believe 99% of all Americans do not want the country to go bankrupt in order to provide health insurance to 50 million americans. It is simply a solve all problems by dumping money approach. It is not going to solve healthcare problem. Our problem is the shortage of physicians not the distribution of healthcare. We need to produce more doctors and stop stealing doctors from developing nations like India without compensating these countries.
Shyam, I believe that 99% of Americans do not want the country to go bankrupt in order to provide healthinsurance for themselves. That's where healthcare costs are going. Have your healthcare costs ever down? Are you covered for everything? Are you willing to continue to pay for the 50,000,000+ who cannot or will not pay for healthcare? Do you think this figure will go away? Would you prefer healthcare to be a social service or a commodity? Once we arrive at the final defnition, then we decide what is the best direction to travel. Germany for instance has a public/private system. The UK also has both NHS and Private Care which are usually combined in some way shape or form. Its a two tiered system but that's better than being a customer. Surely, its better to be a patient.
"Our problem is the shortage of physicians not the distribution of healthcare."
Tell that to the folks who do without healthcare because a) they can't get insurance, and b) they can't afford to pay out of pocket.
"We need to produce more doctors"
Luckily, the law addresses that. Read it and find out.
Dr,
Well I certainly hope it replaces all the doctors that are going to quit their practices over this...or just refuse medicare/medicaid patients...as many already are.
I have met several students myself that are rethinking their prospective carreers. Why spend all that time for a profession that loses money.
Oh, and by the way...since we are only getting six years of coverage and ten years of taxes,,,and it still costs us more money...what are we going to pay for the next ten years? billions upon billions
and a lot of the costs are passed on to the states....nice job Obama...and goes whos taxes are going to go up?
None of us are quitting the practice, at least no more than were threatening to do so before.
And if students rethink a medical career simply because they won't make quite as much money, well, that may not be the doctor you want treating you anyway.
The 6-years-of-coverage-10-years-of-taxes thing makes a good soundbite, but it's not true. For a good explanation, see: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/the_affordable_care_act_does_n.html
Excellent.