Socialism aka Obamacare has passed the House...

[JustinStrife]

220-215.

[themadscientist]

I wonder who the one republican was.

[audtatious]

And they will claim it was bipartisan due to the 1 vote.

Boys, it looks like The US Gov by the end of this year will own a huge portion of our economy. God help us.

[telcoman]

I wonder who the one republican was.

If you would read the New York Times you would have your answer.

But I'll assist you

"Only one Republican, Representative Anh Cao of Louisiana, voted for the bill, and 39 Democrats opposed it. The House also defeated the Republicans’ more modest plan, whose authors said it was a more common-sense and fiscally responsible approach."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11...=1&hp

And BTW this bill is NOT Socialism

Telcoman

[audtatious]

You think the bill is not socialism because you approve of socialistic strategies and want the Gov making your life easier regardless of who's expense it's at. The only reason there were 39 Dems opposed to it is because Pelosi knew she had the numbers and instructed key Dems to vote against it, thus ensuring they can plead "we didn't vote for it" the next election.

AARP and pharmaceutical companies made out quite well. AARP's medi-gap won't have to compete with Medicare-Advantage now so they should be rolling in the dough again. Pharmaceutical companies simply have to perform 80 million in cuts as their agreement with Obama in order to protect the 1-1.5 trillion they get each year and to ensure Canadian drugs are not allowed into the US.

I'm sure glad there are people like you who live in high-cost areas like NJ, NY, Washington, Cali, etc. who will be footing a large portion of the cost due to how high your cost of living is. Gives us fly-over staters something to laugh at.

[telcoman]

You think the bill is not socialism because you approve of socialistic strategies and want the Gov making your life easier regardless of who's expense it's at. The only reason there were 39 Dems opposed to it is because Pelosi knew she had the numbers and instructed key Dems to vote against it, thus ensuring they can plead "we didn't vote for it" the next election.

AARP and pharmaceutical companies made out quite well. AARP's medi-gap won't have to compete with Medicare-Advantage now so they should be rolling in the dough again. Pharmaceutical companies simply have to perform 80 million in cuts as their agreement with Obama in order to protect the 1-1.5 trillion they get each year and to ensure Canadian drugs are not allowed into the US.

I'm sure glad there are people like you who live in high-cost areas like NJ, NY, Washington, Cali, etc. who will be footing a large portion of the cost due to how high your cost of living is. Gives us fly-over staters something to laugh at.

The republicans had eight years to fix this problem and chose to ignore it.Obama was elected to fix the problem and he did the best he could.

Here is what I received from my congressman.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 07, 2009 UnsubscribeUpdate My Profile



Representative Rush Holt - The 12th District of New JerseyWebsite | About Rush | Contact | District | Issues | Newsroom | Services

Dear Howard,I just now voted for the Affordable Health Care for America Act. I want you to know about this development and what the bill means for you. This bill would provide secure and stable health coverage regardless of whether you change jobs or are between jobs, ensure Americans will never be denied care if they get sick, and extend coverage to those not well served by the current system. This is a historic vote and the furthest we have come toward providing affordable and quality health coverage to all Americans.Once this bill becomes law, it immediately would eliminate cases where insurance benefits run out because of an expensive illness, would allow young adults to remain on their parents’ insurance through age 26, and would shrink the Medicare prescription doughnut hole. The bill would strengthen and extend existing programs. For example, those who have health insurance through their employers would benefit from caps on yearly out of pocket costs. Under the legislation, Medicare would be intact, only better – recipients would benefit from free preventive care and better primary care. Click here to read more about what the bill would do for you.Reform would preserve the relationship between families and their doctors and shift to a focus on healthy outcomes and rewarding physicians for treating the whole patient.It would do all these things without adding to the deficit, while it would hold down costs for families in the future.This bill is the culmination of one of the most open and deliberative processes in recent memory. During the past few years, Congressional committees held more than 53 committee hearings, debated and voted on almost 240 amendments, and considered health reform for 167 hours. We have held thousands of town meetings, read hundreds of thousands of letters, and met with health care experts and patients. Many of the amendments addressed concerns raised by constituents, such as an amendment I championed to help small businesses pool together to purchase insurance at group rates, an idea brought to me by a Monmouth County small businessman.When I considered health reform, I talked with patients, seniors, doctors, nurses, small business owners, and others to learn their perspectives. I received and responded to thousands of letters from Central New Jersey residents. The stories I have heard highlight the fact that health care reform is about real people who are disserved by the broken insurance system.

For more information and resources about the Affordable Health Care for America Act, including the text of the full bill and a bill summary, please visit my website. There you can also see my remarks during the debate on the House floor.After carefully analyzing and reviewing this bill, I believe it will improve the quality of life and the economy of nearly all families and of the nation as a whole. I would not support it if I did not think so. I look forward to working toward completion of meaningful health care reform legislation and sending it to the President for his signature.Sincerely,RUSH HOLTMember of CongressP.S. Just a reminder: I always want to hear from you, but please don’t reply to this e-mail. Instead, please email me through my website at http://www.holt.house.gov, or call me at 1-87-RUSH-HOLT (1-877-874-4658) to let me know what's on your mind. Please also note that you may unsubscribe from this list by clicking on the "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of this email. If you found this email informative and would like to continue to receive updates about my work on your behalf, I encourage you to sign up to receive my periodic e-mail newsletter, the eGenda.

Click here to sign up

*Please note that your e-mail address will not be shared with anyone.



Washington, DC:1214 Longworth House Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20515Phone: 202-225-5801Fax: 202-225-6025 Website:http://holt.house.gov/

Send an Electronic MessageDistrict Office:50 Washington Rd.West Windsor, NJ 08550Phone: 609-750-9365Fax: 609-750-0618

Update My Profile - Unsubscribe - Privacy Policy

[JustinStrife]

Healthcare is NOT THE GOVERNMENT's BUSINESS.

Socialism in and of itself requires the Government's involvement. You are requiring all citizens to have Health Care. If they don't have it, they can be fined or jailed.

How in the flying feck is this not Socialism?

Kiss America goodbye. Our days of Freedom and Liberty are over.

[ILOVESILVIA(S13)]

Here Here! This sh** sucks.

[audtatious]

Here is what I received from my congressman.

Looks like your Congressman don't know WTF he is talking about. The only thing that will start immediately because of this bill is higher taxes.

[JustinStrife]

Looks like your Congressman don't know WTF he is talking about. The only thing that will start immediately because of this bill is higher taxes.

Have to pay for this multi-trillon dollar bill somehow. Not to mention all the bureaucracies that will be created, and the kickbacks. What a nightmare for us all.

[themadscientist]

The republicans had eight years to fix this problem and chose to ignore it.

The first sane thing I think I have seen you post. The one thing both parties seem to demonstrate is they work best towards their goals when they are in the minority.

[GrilledCheese33]

We still have a chance in the senate, but its not looking good for us

[ddtmoto]

It's not about Health care, it's about the BIG government taking control of every aspect of our lives, tax us to death, tell what we can drive, where we can live, who can be rich, who will die, welcome to the Russia of new world order. If this bill, with all of it's hidden issues, goes into law, we can kiss our free America good by.

[smockers83]

I'm 23 and I'm honestly very scared about my and my nation's future with the passing of this House bill. I can only wish that the Senate will not get it through.

[JustinStrife]

I'm 23 and I'm honestly very scared about my and my nation's future with the passing of this House bill. I can only wish that the Senate will not get it through.

As you should be. I'm 29 and I'm scared as hell of the ramifications this bill will entail if it is signed into law.

Once a bill is put into law, it is EXTREMELY difficult to get rid of it. Government never lets go of a program it starts. Ever.

And if you think the Government does a nice job of things as it is, may I suggest you visit your local DMV or ask our Military about their healthcare...

[smockers83]

Here are snippets of the letter I just sent to my House representative.

Mr. Dingell:

I think we can agree that health care should be affordable to most Americans (the bill passed is set to cover 96% of Americans from what I've heard reported), however, the nation's resources on Capitol Hill have just been drastically wasted in developing such a solution. The solution the House voted for and passed does nothing to truly make health care more affordable to Americans. The bill does absolutely nothing to cut costs and as noted by the OBM, will further put this nation into debt. In doing so, you do so at the expense of this nation's seniors, which is alarming when we are at coming to the time of the Baby Boomer generation beginning to retire. More and more people will have their coverage cut drastically as we continue in time.

You may have made health care more affordable to those who can't afford it, but you have now just made it more expensive to those who currently can afford it. The best, financially responsible, long-term solution would have been to attack the very problem instead of putting on the band aid you just applied. What is that problem? Health care costs too much. Ask yourself, why is that. Why is that? The insurance industry? Quite frankly, no. The insurance industry makes some of the smallest profit margins in the whole US economy. The insurance costs keep going up because health care costs keep going up. So, your solution still hasn't solved the problem. What happens when this bill makes health care more affordable by undercutting the price and prices keep rising as they have been?

The true solution would have been to implement a true cost cutting measure to price people into the market, making it affordable for them to enter it. This could have been done with a much smaller price tag, have much greater impact going into the future, and not jeopardize this nation financially. Had you found a solution that cuts costs at the real problem, where health care is administered (in the independent practices, clinics, hospitals, etc.), you could have had the very same effect.

The passing of this bill quite honestly scares me for numerous reasons. I am 23 years old, an alum of the University of Michigan in economics, and I am very worrisome of this nation's future, and my own, with the passing of this bill because it tells me a couple of things about our leaders' attitudes on the Hill. They don't look at the big picture and don't want to tackle the true problems. It also scares me because the economic advice from the administration's economic team has been wrong nearly every time and I look at their analyses and just wonder how they can call themselves economists. I look at this bill and other advice coming from that team of economists and just see a shotgun approach to fixing this country's problems. This is truly the wrong approach to take when, in the case of health care, you still haven't fixed the true problem of high cost. What you have done in voting for this bill, put very simply, is just change who pays the doctors.

Your fellow representative and your Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, likens this bill in importance to this country's future to Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare. Currently, we as a country, are trying to grapple with the idea of how to keep these very programs from going bankrupt. What does that say about this bill? Are we, 70 years from now, going to be trying to save this bill and nation from bankruptcy?

Again, I am 23 years old and can recognize the problem and the solution you and your fellow Democrats approved does not, in nearly any way, solve the problem. It is a band aid application, much like the way GM was ran for the past few decades. I can also recognize the terrible economic advice of the administration's economic team. For example, the stimulus package analysis, as reported by that team, said unemployment would begin to peak almost as soon as the stimulus package was enacted. An educated economist knows that employment is a lagging indicator and would not react that quickly in any case. The contrary to what the team advised would occur actually occurred, where unemployment was not curbed and continued to rise nearly at the same rate it had since at least Q3 of 2008. Again, any educated economist would know that would happen because quite frankly, that is basic economics.

My point of talking about the administration's economic team is do not take their advice to heart because it has hardly ever made true economic sense. It appears each analysis is done and fabricated to serve and advertise an agenda. If you want good economic advice, run it by your constituent here and I will give you fair and realistic advice. I say this to you not as someone against the administration, but as someone who wants the best for his country and can't bare to see the mindless, shotgun approach decisions being made in our nation's capitol. I can only hope the Senate does not pass this "historic"-ly stupid bill.

Sincerely,

Eric Smock

[audtatious]

You are against it so you must be racist

[smockers83]

I must be so in the subconscious.

[audtatious]

I'm told we all are.....

[audtatious]

Interesting Op-Ed on CNN by David Frum, CNN Contributor

(CNN) -- You've heard the saying: "In war, amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics."

The political equivalent: "Amateurs talk ideology -- professionals talk interest groups."

Small but sophisticated interest groups use big political battles to gain special advantages. Health care reform is, of course, the biggest battle of them all, with trillions of dollars at stake.

On Saturday night with the House vote in favor of the health reform bill, the trial lawyers sliced themselves a nice little piece of that bonanza.

It's Section 2531 of the bill -- to be precise Section 2531(4)b -- and it provides as follows:

The new health bill will empower the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to states that reform their medical malpractice systems. There are just two conditions: Those reforms must not "limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages."

Which is like saying that we're going to encourage you to develop a personal weight loss plan that includes neither exercise nor changes in diet.

Here's how Section 2531 works. Over the past decade and a half, states have reacted to abusive lawsuits by imposing various restrictions on personal injury awards.

In California, pain and suffering damages cannot exceed $250,000. Attorneys may collect no more than 15 percent of malpractice awards over $600,000.

The impact of these kinds of reforms can be dramatic. After Texas capped pain and suffering damages at $750,000 in 2003, the number of malpractice lawsuits dropped abruptly. Lawsuits in Harris County (Houston and environs) plunged by 50 percent.

Fewer lawsuits meant lower malpractice premiums. Texas' largest malpractice insurance carrier cut costs to doctors by 17 percent. Lower insurance premiums attracted more medical professionals to the state. In the 1990s, Texas ranked low in the nation in the number of doctors per person. In the four years after 2003, the number of doctors in the state jumped by 18 percent.

"It was hard to believe at first, we thought it was a spike," the executive director of the states' medical board told the New York Times.

Texas' experience is dramatic, but consistent, with other reforming states. States with damage caps gain more doctors than uncapped states -- and the difference is greatest in the most underserved counties within capped states. Capped states have 5.5 percent more OB-GYNs per person in their rural counties than do states without caps.

But the money saved by insurers, doctors and their customers is money subtracted from the pockets of trial lawyers -- and those lawyers carry real clout in the Democratic Congress.

The trial lawyers' national PAC, the American Association for Justice, was the second-biggest source of PAC dollars for Democratic candidates in the 2006 election year: almost $2.6 million. That same year, Iowa's trial lawyers elected a former president of their association to Congress. Had the National Enquirer been less inquiring, a former trial lawyer named John Edwards might well be serving as attorney general right now.

Huey Long once summed up the professional politicians' credo:

"Those who support me early will have my close attention when I win office. Those who support me late will have my attention when I win office. And those who oppose me --" and here he'd wink -- "they'll get good government."

We all know what Long meant by "close attention," and his old party apparently still lives by his rules. On Saturday, House Democrats have delivered some very "close attention" to their friends in the trial bar. The question is: who will stand up for good government for the rest of us?

[audtatious]

In other news....While supposedly the Dems stripped Fed Funded abortions from the bill (put in an amendment against it) in order to gain the needed number of votes to pass it through the house. Two representatives, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) and Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) are saying there is no guarantee that it won't be added back (or that it will be added back) into the bill when it goes through a House-Senate conference committee.

"Look at my left hand and ignore my right"

[AZhitman]

Pelosi's cavalier, arrogant attitude towards this thing makes me sick.

She is, quite simply, one pompous a$$ appointed by another pompous a$$.