Harry Reid and the slave-loving Republicans

[rjdmmfl1]

So ... you and you're party believes they are smarter and should lead the ignorant... yet... you use the peoples known ignorances against them, to mislead them into an emotional decision, to further your own agenda?

Our own genda, as if we created this current problem with healthcare. yes, it is the agenda of liberals at this time to reform our health care system... and its a noble agenda. Even many republicans believe that reform is necessary, but many don't agree with the way the Dems are doing it. There are two types of people that are against the Dems health care plan..

1. Those that agree that reform is necessary, but do not agree with the current proposals for various reasons.

2. Those that do not think reform is necessary at all.

the former have every right to dissent with the current proposal, and present alternatives.. the latter are a bunch of ignorant buffons, period. Our health care system is broken and will be out of control in 15 years. You stop the bleeding in a critical patient BEFORE they bleed out! Anyone who thinks are health care system is just fine are just as misinformed as John McCain was when he stated that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." its easy to be removed from society and make a statement like that when you have more homes than you can remember!

And the personal attacks, blanket emotional arguments, blind party assumtions begin:

"there were a bunch of ignorant racist biggots in the south then that were against change, there are now a bunch of ignorant money hungry, insurance whore loving republicans that are against change today."

which statemenmt is not true. The first is not debatable, The second refers to some of the republicans that are in the pockets of insurance company lobbyists and are against the necessary reforms aimed at health Insurance companies. If you think its Ok for health insurance companies to engage in the horrible practices that have gone unchecked for far too long, then that's a shame!

" SOME (not all) republicans that just don't want to see a single Obama administration objective passed successfully"

don't hi-jack part of a statement to try and prove a point, your ignorance will be exposed if you do that! You apparently "accidentally" left off the first three words. When an elected official makes a statement like this "If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him," its clear that there is a political aspect to this that says some republicans will stop at nothing to see that this does not pass, regardless of how it affects Americans... Unfortunately, Republicans still haven't learned that ignorant statements like this HURT their cause more than it helps their cause.

As to the last quote, perhaps you shun the intelligent, but when a brilliant mathematician develops a formula (that wins himn a Nobel Prize in economics) that dispels the long held idea that economic group dynamics have the best outcome when folks act solely in their own interest... I'm gonna pay attention to it. You can shun the intelligent all you like...

Republicans have come out with plans on numerous occasions. Maybe you should broaden your horizons and look instead of swallowing the party line?

right, its the liberal minded media that have kept these wonderful solutions from coming to light... when Obama attempted to be non partisan, Republicans shut the door in his face... now that the Dems have basicaly said screw bi-partisan ship, republicans claim that they've been shut out, and that the Senate is more partisan now than ever before... hmm, I wonder why that is

Maybe you should go back and read this forum more? Wading into a discussion and making assumptions makes you uninformed.

I meant in this thread, not once did either of you make the statement that reform was necessary, in fact AZ made these two statements

I disagree.My health insurance never let me down.

I'm a lower-middle-class, generic government employee with an HMO. Despite nearly a MILLION dollars in medical bills racked up by me (several major surgeries) and my late wife (5-year battle with cancer), plus 3 kids with various kid-type medical stuff, I NEVER once was disappointed with my care.

and this

I take offense at your ill-informed and blanket assessment of those who disagree with the current administration's "sky is falling" treatment of healthcare in America.

Where did you read that?

Oh my bad, that was the implication I got from his argument that his health insurance never once let him down... I know I shouldn't make assumptions based off of people's statements and expound upon them as if they were facts, but hey, I learned that from you... you did that with Harry reid's statement and that's what brought me into this discussion

So, your solution based upon a preconceived conclusion is to take what people won't give on their own?

go back and read the part about elected officials.. elected officials make decisions for the people they represent... if you have a problem with the 60% rule currently in place, go write to your congressman! Nothing is being taken if its done according to the rules of the land... now if they passed this with only 58% of the vote, that would be "taking" something, and then you would have an argument... as of now, you don't!!! you and your party are just a bit butt hurt that you have absolutely NO power in the House, Congress, or the presidency right now, and that's a direct result of how bad the Republicans phucked tings up over the last 8 years...

Where has socialism worked? Surely, you must think it is normal for a democracy to turn into a socialistic society. Sorry, that's not what this nation was built from. Why don't you and your creed take all your spare change to help the poor? Seems you have some as you spend lots on your car and that could go to some family that has been in Section 8 housing for 3 generations. Reach deep brotha.

I stated that the idea of socialism has its merits, proven by a beautiful mathematical formula. I didn't say it was perfect, nor did I say that it was the norm for a democracy to turn into a socialst society. But there are current examples of socialism at work right now in america... Social Security and the public transportation system are two examples... again, there are times when it has its merits.. but then again, you could be one of those folks that say "screw the publics transportation system... it aint my fault that people are poor and can't afford cars... I don't want my tax dollars paying for them to go to work everyday on a bus... you do realize that that's an example of socialism don't you?????and lastly, I don't presume to know about your charitable givings, work with homeless shelters, etc, so don't presume to know anything about me and how I spend my free time and extra money other than what I post on NICO... I assure you, you don't know me ... brotha!

[themadscientist]

Money-grubbing is bi-partisan, you are not. Get your facts correct.

Breakdowns of their campaign committee contributors Quoted figures for "insurance" contributors.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/index.php

Harry Reid (D) $26,000http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...I&mem=

Mitch McConnell (R) $343,483http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...I&mem=

Nancy Pelosi (D) $40,500http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...I&mem=

Stenny Hoyer (D) $60,000http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...I&mem=

John Boener (R) $92,650http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...I&mem=

James Clyburn (D) $34,500http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...I&mem=

Eric Cantor (R) $111,450http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...I&mem=

The insurance companies have been busy spreading money around to everyone. 53% to Democrats. So, tell me again how the liberals walk on water. http://www.opensecrets.org/ind...d=F09

They don't. Both parties suck. It just so happens that the Republicans are for a status quo where Americans pay too much for health insurance or they get sick and die. Democrats are for "reform" where Americans pay too much for insurance or they go to jail, then get sick and die.

None of these jokers is about real reform because they are ALL on the dole. until there is serious talk about breaking down barriers to interstate commerce in insurance, pursuit of mega companies with antitrust law, and tort reform to curb the money-grubbing LAWYERS from driving up malpractice insurance, encouraging defensive medicine, and driving doctors from practice, it's just bulls***.

Yeah, why no talk of tort reform? Go back to those links and see how much lawyers donate to these scumbags.

Law firms total $43,024,652http://www.opensecrets.org/ind...d=K01Insurance total $12,647,367http://www.opensecrets.org/ind...d=F09

Tell me again how the insurance companies are the puppet masters. By the way, 80% of that ill-gotton lawyer money went to the democrats, $1,699,729 to Harry Reid alone. Insurance companies are the outrage of the month, like oil companies a while back. Merry f***in Christmas you partisan lemmings. It's not about blue or red, it's about green, always has been. WAKE UP!

[AZhitman]

Parsimony isn't your strong point, Doc.

Which is unfortunate, because if you could get your point across succinctly, I'd be more interested in reading it.

Frankly, it's blather and partisan rhetoric, which bores me.

Here's the deal - You're arguing from emotion, not facts. And as such, you're at a disadvantage. Plus, it takes you much longer to make your point.

The majority of Americans do NOT want this proposal to pass. FACT. You can't argue this, because polls show otherwise.

"Elected representatives" are doing some SHADY S*** to ram this through and you know it...

Explain to me how the deciding vote was gained? Can you? No? OK, here: The rep from Nebraska gets all new Medicaid applicants 100% funded by the other 49 states.

There's your "democracy".

That's a BOUGHT vote, and that's horse s***.

This entitlement mentality is completely absurd.

Who told you that you were OWED health insurance? Who told you that was a RIGHT? Thanks for stealing from my grandkids. If you hadn't noticed, we're operating in a deficit. This adds to it.

If you're so goddam concerned about other people, do something about it. I don't see YOU paying for some destitute person's health insurance.

Why is that? WHY?

Because they're not your problem, are they?!?!

So, STFU with this nonsense about ME not caring about other people, because the fact is, NONE of us do. And that does NOTHING to bolster your position, it simply makes you look hypocritical.

Are you gonna work for free when you become a doctor? Even if the person can't afford your services?

(BTW, I promise not to call YOU an "ignorant buffoon". Not because it's not true, but because that would be childish and rude. )

[rjdmmfl1]

Money-grubbing is bi-partisan, you are not. Get your facts correct.

Breakdowns of their campaign committee contributors Quoted figures for "insurance" contributors.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/index.php

Harry Reid (D) $26,000http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...I&mem=

Mitch McConnell (R) $343,483http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...I&mem=

Nancy Pelosi (D) $40,500http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...I&mem=

Stenny Hoyer (D) $60,000http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...I&mem=

John Boener (R) $92,650http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...I&mem=

James Clyburn (D) $34,500http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...I&mem=

Eric Cantor (R) $111,450http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...I&mem=

The insurance companies have been busy spreading money around to everyone. 53% to Democrats. So, tell me again how the liberals walk on water. http://www.opensecrets.org/ind...d=F09

They don't. Both parties suck. It just so happens that the Republicans are for a status quo where Americans pay too much for health insurance or they get sick and die. Democrats are for "reform" where Americans pay too much for insurance or they go to jail, then get sick and die.

None of these jokers is about real reform because they are ALL on the dole. until there is serious talk about breaking down barriers to interstate commerce in insurance, pursuit of mega companies with antitrust law, and tort reform to curb the money-grubbing LAWYERS from driving up malpractice insurance, encouraging defensive medicine, and driving doctors from practice, it's just bulls***.

Yeah, why no talk of tort reform? Go back to those links and see how much lawyers donate to these scumbags.

Law firms total $43,024,652http://www.opensecrets.org/ind...d=K01Insurance total $12,647,367http://www.opensecrets.org/ind...d=F09

Tell me again how the insurance companies are the puppet masters. By the way, 80% of that ill-gotton lawyer money went to the democrats, $1,699,729 to Harry Reid alone. Insurance companies are the outrage of the month, like oil companies a while back. Merry f***in Christmas you partisan lemmings. It's not about blue or red, it's about green, always has been. WAKE UP!

madscientist,everything you stated is spot on, and I appreciate you backing up your statements with references...

but I would argue that if you take money from an insurance company, but still vote to limit the anal rapage that insurance companies are allowed to inflict to the American public, then you're PIMP... essentially you took their money and are still trying to limit that kind of power...

but if you take money, and have the goal of keeping the status quo, that's different. ..

also, its interesting thet one republican on your list took more money than ALL of the dems on your list combined!!!! And those dems are all supporting health care reform, and the Republican is against it...

and its not that the dems want to keep folks pying too much for insurance... there are a NUMBER of dems, most of them in fact, that wanted the public option so that the competition would drive down the cost of insurance at the private insurance companies, but a few key democrats kept that from happening...

no bill will EVER be perfect, and there will be some good ideas that are lost in the compromise shuffle, but to say that no one is out for true reform just because they don't follow YOUR exact guidlines of total reform, as if you're ever gonna get 60% of the Senate to agree on that kind of drastic reform is just not logical...

[themadscientist]

madscientist,everything you stated is spot on, and I appreciate you backing up your statements with references...

but I would argue that if you take money from an insurance company, but still vote to limit the anal rapage that insurance companies are allowed to inflict to the American public, then you're PIMP... essentially you took their money and are still trying to limit that kind of power...

As the owner of a furry full length faux suede coat, I take umbrage at the pimp accusation. I treats my hos good.

but if you take money, and have the goal of keeping the status quo, that's different. ..

also, its interesting thet one republican on your list took more money than ALL of the dems on your list combined!!!! And those dems are all supporting health care reform, and the Republican is against it...

and its not that the dems want to keep folks pying too much for insurance... there are a NUMBER of dems, most of them in fact, that wanted the public option so that the competition would drive down the cost of insurance at the private insurance companies, but a few key democrats kept that from happening...

no bill will EVER be perfect, and there will be some good ideas that are lost in the compromise shuffle, but to say that no one is out for true reform just because they don't follow YOUR exact guidlines of total reform, as if you're ever gonna get 60% of the Senate to agree on that kind of drastic reform is just not logical...

They are all dirty to various degrees. I am for real reform, of the kind that I outlined. A public option would be just one more bloated government program we would have to fund. I do not want to trade greedy insulated private system for an inept public one. I hear a lot of people claiming to understand the difference but very few do. I live in a country with a public health system and it works, sort of, the care is there but the quality sucks. That is one example. What we currently have stateside is the other end. High quality care if you got the coin. That is not ideal either.

OPTION is an idea I am 100% behind, PUBLIC has no place in it. The insurance game is not operating in a free market. Until that changes there will be no change. We started off with the two loudest camps, no public option -vs- public option. one side was pissed, the other was elated. As of now we have both camps pissed. Is that the uniting big O was talking about?

Hell has frozen over. I was listening to the radio and I almost steered into a tree. Howard Dean said something, and for the first time in our relationship, I agreed with him. "scrap this bill and start over."

[rjdmmfl1]

Parsimony isn't your strong point, Doc.

Which is unfortunate, because if you could get your point across succinctly, I'd be more interested in reading it.

Frankly, it's blather and partisan rhetoric, which bores me.

Here's the deal - You're arguing from emotion, not facts. And as such, you're at a disadvantage. Plus, it takes you much longer to make your point.

The majority of Americans do NOT want this proposal to pass. FACT. You can't argue this, because polls show otherwise.

"Elected representatives" are doing some SHADY S*** to ram this through and you know it...

Explain to me how the deciding vote was gained? Can you? No? OK, here: The rep from Nebraska gets all new Medicaid applicants 100% funded by the other 49 states.

There's your "democracy".

That's a BOUGHT vote, and that's horse s***.

This entitlement mentality is completely absurd.

Who told you that you were OWED health insurance? Who told you that was a RIGHT? Thanks for stealing from my grandkids. If you hadn't noticed, we're operating in a deficit. This adds to it.

If you're so goddam concerned about other people, do something about it. I don't see YOU paying for some destitute person's health insurance.

Why is that? WHY?

Because they're not your problem, are they?!?!

So, STFU with this nonsense about ME not caring about other people, because the fact is, NONE of us do. And that does NOTHING to bolster your position, it simply makes you look hypocritical.

Are you gonna work for free when you become a doctor? Even if the person can't afford your services?

(BTW, I promise not to call YOU an "ignorant buffoon". Not because it's not true, but because that would be childish and rude. )

I have found that most of you respond with one liners that leave much to be desired regarding substance. Also, previous short posts in the past on my part d were picked apart as I left things to be assumed, but they never were. I wanted to get my point across this time. if you don't have the time to read it, then that's another story.

If you read above, I conceded that most don't want this proposal to pass 9and then asked why is that) but that doesn't mean that reform itself is not necessary... I'm not arguing with emotion. Its not necessary, reform is going to happen regardless. I'm happy, you all are the disgruntled group (we call you guys the grumpy old men ) it's funny reading your posts and seeing how worked up you guys get over things you have no control over... And I definately wouldn't get worked up over you guy's opinions... I don't try to change peole's opinion... its a waste of time... if you want to see emotion, simply read your posts at the beginning of this thread. Your posts are always filled with too much emotion and rhetoric... actually, you guys that frequent the politics forms are the kings of sarcasm and empty statements...

My position is that if you somehow think reform of this healthcare system is not necessary, and that we can sustain things the way they are, you are wrong... period.. NO EDUCATED PERSON ON THE SUBJECT AGREES WITH YOU... if you agree that things are broken but hate the way things are happening, and hate the current proposals, then that's another subject, and that itself is up for a logical debate on better ways to have reform...

and regarding me working for free, who ever said anything about people needing to work for free. that's just a dumb comment and is asinine to the conversation. Agree to work for free, NO...agree to earn less money if it means that everyone can have access to health care.. absolutely!! Doctors entering healthcare right now are making much less than doctors 20+ years ago (inflation adjusted)... most of us know that but chose health care as a profession anyway...

and lastly, if you don't fee like everyone is entitled to healthcare, then that's your opinion.. it's a selfish one, but its still an opinion...

again, as I stated earlier, with your "millions of dollars" of health problems... if you didn't have that government run HMO, you would either be broke or DEAD right now if you were treated the way insurance companies are treating patients in the private sector... your tune would be very different... but you do have that good ole government run HMO, so you're ok... great for you!!!! good job!!! well hopefully this reform will allow many more people to be healthier also...

[rjdmmfl1]

If you're so goddam concerned about other people, do something about it. I don't see YOU paying for some destitute person's health insurance.

Why is that? WHY?

Because they're not your problem, are they?!?!

So, STFU with this nonsense about ME not caring about other people, because the fact is, NONE of us do.

Actually, we ALL pay for destitue people's health insurance ... when a person with no insurance goes to the emergency room with no insurance, we ALL end up paying for them, whether we want to or not... those costs are passed on to someone... YOU!!!!! so whether you know it or not, you're gonna contribute to the socialist idea of paying for someone's else's healthcare... you can either contonue to do it in a disorganized way like its done now.. or you can organize it... those are your ONLY two choices... oh that's right, your third choice is to give up everything, and become desitute yourself... then we'd pay for your health insurance when you walk into the emergency room for a cold !

Do you REALLY understand what goes on in ER's, and how uninsured people account for such a large percentage of ER visits, and how it affects evryone in the end?? Do you REALLY understand that?

[themadscientist]

I don't believe people are entitled to health care. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness works for me. "life" can be interpreted many ways, I see it as the government leaving me alone and letting me live it, not free cholesteral screenings and abortions. "Liberty" similarly is open to intepretation. i see it as my freedom to do what I choose and not have rights or fruits of my labor taken away. "Pursuit of happiness" is pretty cut an dry I think. If your life sucks and it's your fault, the system is fair. If it sucks and it was not your fault, it's not fair.

Good health is not guaranteed, it isn't a right. My support for true reform comes not from some holistic idea of utopia, but rather a beleif that it can be done reasonably if the system was made fair. Government involvement as a competitor is not their intended purpose to be, nor would it in any way introduce fairness. Government doing their job, however, in ensuring a fair competitive marketplace for private insurers and the elimination of ridiculous law suits would go a step in the right direction. Like so many political topics, the two main combatants are fighting over the wrong thing to the detriment of the people. Business as usual.

[AZhitman]

I DO believe reform is needed. You misinterpreted me.

See, you're SO upset that I don't support the moronic plan that's being rammed through, you blinded yourself to that possibility.

"Things we have no control over"? Seriously? Just watch. Those who are forcing this nonsense through will rue the day. They're ALL gonna be unemployed.

so whether you know it or not, you're gonna contribute to the socialist idea of paying for someone's else's healthcare... you can either contonue to do it in a disorganized way like its done now.. or you can organize it...

"Organize it"? Is THAT what you call it?

HAHAHAHAHAHA...Nice spin.

I prefer the way it is now, actually. And so does a MAJORITY of Americans.

See, I prefer that to a system that MANDATES someone to buy something they don't want. That's not socialism, it's dictatorial.

Reform to me would begin with strict triage in ER's. Billing higher amounts for avoidable ER visits for the insured, and kicking out the uninsured who aren't in imminent danger.

Yes, I said it. Stay the hell out of the ER unless you're in imminent danger, or can afford to piss away the extra money. Simple.

Got no health insurance? You broke your arm? Go to a community clinic in the morning. You're not gonna die, tough it out.

And before you get all holier-than-thou over my "great" benefits, I did this when I was an uncovered person for almost 10 years. I toughed it out, because I'm responsible enough to not lay MY expenses on other people.

But you don't respect that kind of integrity...

p.s. You're NOT entitled to healthcare. Or home ownership. Or a car. Or an education. It's not in the Constitution, so quit making stuff up.

[audtatious]

If the Dem health care plan was fixing issues in the insurance industry why did their stocks soar starting Monday? Insurance companies will end up making more than the 6% profit margins than they do right now based upon the current legislation being pushed through.

Stupid mainstream media keeps tossing the Dems softballs in interviews where they all state they are getting 31 million people health insurance. That's an absolute lie. The CBO reports that 23 million will still not be covered under the current plan and that 54 million will be uninsured under the Senate plan in 2019. Sounds like an increase in uninsured?

Let's look at budgeting. They state it will cost 1.2 TRILLION for coverage over 10 years. In that 10 years, the majority of changes won't even be in effect until 2014 so we are paying 10 years of taxes for 5-6 years of coverage. Kinda shady? I agree.

500 billion of the 1.2 trillion will come from Medicare cuts. Where are they going to cut it? Medicare is already under budgeted and broke as it is. You can't take what is not there. More smoke and mirrors? I think so.

The US Gov is supposed to be in place to represent the people. They are supposed to work for US. Today, we seem to be working for THEM as we are the sheeple they can force to pay for their legislation. The Democratic party is in a position where they have until the 2010 elections to push forth the socialistic agenda's that the leaders and far-left supporters have dreamed about and they honestly don't give a rats a** if they get kicked out of office for it nor totally bankrupt the US in doing so. They squeezed by on the House votes and they just captured the Senate votes, with a whole lotta payoffs to do so. But, at a cost, at least in the House, as 3-4 Democrats have decided to retire and one jumped over to the Republican side now.

As far as Obama being bi-partisan...where? The Republicans have been shut out at every level. The closed door sessions have only been Democrats. Obama pledged bi-partisanship and has NOT acted on it. The only way he would be open to Republicans is if he were sure they supported his agenda for whatever legislation is being discussed. Otherwise there had been nothing. He stated he was going to fix issues with pork and has instead doubled down on our debt which nobody is going to buy anymore.

Republicans have offered nothing? The Republicans have presented the Patients Choice Act of 2009, Health Care Freedom Plan, and Empowering Patients First Act. There's the House GOP Solutions Group plan outline as well. Per the CBO the plan would initially reduce premiums and cut the deficit by 68 billion over 10 years. That's better than what is going to turn into a 2.5 trillion deficit after 10 years that the Senate and House plans will cost us.

There is nothing wrong with the current health care system that can't be fixed by limiting lawsuits and implementing caps (among other things). Insurance companies don't fight lawsuits today in court because it's too expensive so they just make out of court settlements and pass the cost to everyone else. Simply changing the law in which those who lose a court case will have to pay all court costs and fees would hugely lower the overall cost of doing business for insurance companies which would result in lower health care premiums. And that's simply one change to the current laws. Instead, the Senate bill protects the lawyers and gives them more loop holes. What a crock of crap.

[AZhitman]

"But... but...The Messiah said all the poor and destitute would get health care coverage... He PROMISED!"

Now, now.. Don't cry. You were lied to. It happens. Now, be quiet and eat your Organic Libby Flakes and pretend you're free.

[WDRacing]

I am just absolutely fuming over the ignorance and stupidity of the human race right now. This is f***ing pathetic.

Sums up my thoughts pretty much to a T.

[srellim234]

mad- your version of life, liberty and the pursuit is exactly what we should be debating to arrive at what will work as healthcare protecting life for the American people.

Your version of life fails for the millions of children under the age of 18 (or 21, or whatever we want to set as the age) who have no coverage because their parents are either unable or unwilling to provide health coverage for them. Your narrow view applies only to your place as a working adult. Currently that is not every American citizen, nor will it ever be. Not all are adults; not all are able to find work in today's economy. Not all jobs that can be found have affordable coverage attached or pay enough for the employee to afford coverage.

Healthcare reform is desperately needed in this country, but the current proposals from both sides do not provide for a coverage opportunity that will work for all Americans.

[AZhitman]

Healthcare reform is desperately needed in this country, but the current proposals from both sides do not provide for a coverage opportunity that will work for all Americans.

Correct.

Now, follow me here - and those of you who view my position with disdain, open your minds here and consider this:

Why the rush to pass something that will add another 800+ BILLION to the deficit?

Effectively, as it stands, we all share the burden of the uninsured... it's fairly well-distributed (although far from perfect).

However, they're TELLING us that we're going to TRADE that negligible and nebulous burden for a lack of liberty (buy it or go to jail) and increased deficit spending.

To anyone who supports this proposal: Do you HONESTLY expect your premiums to go DOWN once this is passed? And if not, WHY NOT? It stands to reason that if everyone is forced to carry coverage, those of us who have been shouldering the load will see relief, right? RIGHT?

Let me know when you see a reduction in YOUR premiums... I'll be waiting.

See, this has NOTHING to do with covering Americans who lack coverage and EVERYTHING to do with control.

The hand-wringers who are pressing forth this flawed proposal are RELYING on uninformed Americans who see it as "healthCARE for all Americans", not "healthCOVERAGE for all Americans".

How could you mean GOP'ers deny people healthCARE?

Last I checked, there's not an opponent of this plan that proposes denial of healthCARE.

They're arguing from the standpoint of emotion - Of COURSE everyone should have healthCARE. But that's NOT what this proposal provides!!!! Hell, everyone should have FOOD, too... Yet we're seeing statistics that 1 in 5 American kids go without regular meals?!?! You think those kids are gonna see a doctor any more frequently than they do now?

And BO points to this as the #1 domestic issue facing the administration right now? REALLY, Barry? Are you STONED? It's the ECONOMY, STUPID!!!!

Bottom line, and mark my words: History will NOT be kind to this decision, and somehow, these morons will find a way to blame the failure on the Right.

[audtatious]

Your version of life fails for the millions of children under the age of 18 (or 21, or whatever we want to set as the age) who have no coverage because their parents are either unable or unwilling to provide health coverage for them. Your narrow view applies only to your place as a working adult. Currently that is not every American citizen, nor will it ever be. Not all are adults; not all are able to find work in today's economy. Not all jobs that can be found have affordable coverage attached or pay enough for the employee to afford coverage.

At what point is a child denied care? Today, people without coverage can take their children to free clinics or the ER if they are sick or have an injury. There is also Medicaid and SCHIP that will cover the children themselves. At no point are kids denied health care when needed. It's a non-issue which we all pay for.

And BO points to this as the #1 domestic issue facing the administration right now? REALLY, Barry? Are you STONED? It's the ECONOMY, STUPID!!!!

The extensive amount of time that has been put forth for this pet project has taken our Congress away from working on fixing our increasing unemployment problem and the economy as a whole for something that fully won't be in effect until 2014. The Obama Administration has primarily focused the last 4+ months on 2 pet projects with Global Warming/C&T being the other and ignored pretty much everything else. All this on a bill that may not even pass the next leg in which the bills must be combined, approved and voted upon again.

[srellim234]

aud- mad prefaced his referral to life, liberty and the pursuit by stating that no one should be entitled t health care. My belef is that some people, mainly those who are minors and those who are unable to get affordable coverage should be entitled to it in some form.

I don't believe that they are entitled to the same quality of care and services the private sector provides. There should be a "price" for being dependent on public support through a taxpayer funded system. We should just make sure the basics are provided for all.

[audtatious]

For kids, I'd be more lenient as they have not contributed to their situation. Adults? Not so much. Constantly providing to people makes them more lazy and more apt to want more. Proof is with multiple generations of families dependent on welfare and other social services. I, as a tax payer, did not make the decisions in which you live thus why should I have to take money away from my own family and kids to support you? There's a limit to personal generosity and yet the Gov does not put limits on perpetual support.

[themadscientist]

aud- mad prefaced his referral to life, liberty and the pursuit by stating that no one should be entitled t health care. My belef is that some people, mainly those who are minors and those who are unable to get affordable coverage should be entitled to it in some form.

I don't believe that they are entitled to the same quality of care and services the private sector provides. There should be a "price" for being dependent on public support through a taxpayer funded system. We should just make sure the basics are provided for all.

You first.

I think you mistake me for a man with a sentimental side, I'm not.

I didn't bang that lady and get her preggers and I didn't steal her man's job. I'm not the one denying her brat treatment, the government is. Through their backdoor dealings with insurance companies. I didn't get a check from that, I wasn't in the room so get off my crank, it isn't my fault. I am NOT my brother's keeper. I will fight for what is FAIR, simply because it's fair. Pictures of fly covered kids and crap just give me the urge to pick up the phone and call, for pizza.

The system is jacked up, I agree. This bill WILL NOT help, I am against it. Show me a bill that does the things that I said, I'm on board. Show me an initiative that puts Americans back to work, I'm all in. nothing on the radar at the moment, crickets man, crickets.

[Loki]

I'd love healthcare for myself. I have Blue Cross insurance right now, and it's pretty cheap since I'm in the bottom of the barrel low-income bracket, but it's still hard to afford sometimes, especially when a lot of my problems get labeled as a pre-existing condition from my wreck two years ago. After this year Blue Cross is raising premiums across the board too I've really lost faith in nearly everything. I've looked at out country's history the past hundred years and it really feels like everything has been going downhill since the 70's. Every generation seems like it's becoming more and more saturated with lazy, ignorant people who are bringing us down further. I'm so jaded.

[AZhitman]

Interestingly, the House Rules Committee Chairperson, a Democrat, opposes the "weak" bill.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINIO....html

[PoorManQ45]

I'm a lower-middle-class

Slight detour in this thread. From everything you post, and pictures, you appear to be in the upper-middle-class. How do you come to this classification?

/backontrack

Since when can our government MAKE a free citizen purchase anything? This is the first time in history that the government has proposed FORCING a private individual to buy something they may not want (and threaten them with fines or criminal charges for non-compliance.

Reid and his lefty thugs are IGNORING the will of the American people and I expect ALL good Americans to take careful note of who is GAMING the system to get this passed. Obama continues to pooh-pooh the assessments of experts AND the MAJORITY of Americans in this matter.

This has occurred many times throughout history. It will not end well
Modified by PoorManQ45 at 7:37 PM 12/26/2009

[AZhitman]

I make well under 6 figures annually, with a household of 6, if you really must know.

I've just been very frugal all my life, a lesson learned from my parents, and growing up poor in the rural southeastern US.

If being debt-free, happy, healthy, and having tons of friends is any measure, I'm wealthy beyond belief.

[PoorManQ45]

I edited, added to, my post above you.

I never understood how you can make that "much" relatively and be lower-middle class still.

Our current household income is under$50k. This is like poor by most standards. But we have no debt, other then a car and bike payment.

It seems that average debt is taken into consideration for the class ranking.

[AZhitman]

As it should be.

There's people ON MY STREET who paid $400K for their house, which now values at $250K. They've got 2 car payments on new $40K vehicles, credit card debt, and maybe a second mortgage, as well as other expenses typical for suburban families.

Even if they DO make $80K a year, they're "poor" when you consider their debt-to-income ratio.

I consider myself very fortunate to have never really fallen into the debt trap. My late wife and I hard-scrabbled our way out of $30K in debt (student loans, credit cards, etc) early in our marriage, while watching others take the "easy way out" with BK... and I swore I'd never be there again.

[PoorManQ45]

That definitely makes sense.

I guess I was fortunate then. We live in a $400k house that we built by hand. That's how we ended up debt free.

So then, relatively, we would be dead center to upper middle class then given our debt to income ratio!

Oh, hope you guys don't mind the threadjack, this thread seems to have turned into a left vs right pissing match since the later half of page one...