Skip to Next Poll »
8
US passes health care bill
The democrats managed to saddle us with their socialized health care plan yesterday.  Dooming the US to certain banana republic status.


So how do you feel about it?
| Closed on 04/21/10 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | Locker Room, Current Events | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll
56 Fans 
27%a. Good?
43%b. Bad?
30%c. Indifferent?

 &nbp;
TOP COMMENT * * * * * * * * * * * *
#2 | 1590 days ago

Just a few quick thoughts:

  • 32 million more Americans gain access to health care
  • Premiums will go down by 14-20%
  • The federal deficit will be lowered by $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years due to this bill
  • No more pre-existing conditions
  • No more caps on the amount of health care you can receive
  • No public option, or any more added government health care insurance plans

There are flaws in this bill, no doubt. However, I have yet to see one good argument for why the status quo is better than this bill.
Good?  
  
276 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 | 1590 days ago
ssusiej46 (+)

SUCK'S  AND NOV. WILL SHOW IT.
Bad?  
#2 | 1590 days ago

Just a few quick thoughts:

  • 32 million more Americans gain access to health care
  • Premiums will go down by 14-20%
  • The federal deficit will be lowered by $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years due to this bill
  • No more pre-existing conditions
  • No more caps on the amount of health care you can receive
  • No public option, or any more added government health care insurance plans

There are flaws in this bill, no doubt. However, I have yet to see one good argument for why the status quo is better than this bill.
Good?  
#3 | 1590 days ago

 Just here to keep tabs.
Indifferent?   
#4 | 1590 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:

Just a few quick thoughts:

  • 32 million more Americans gain access to health care
  • Premiums will go down by 14-20%
  • The federal deficit will be lowered by $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years due to this bill
  • No more pre-existing conditions
  • No more caps on the amount of health care you can receive
  • No public option, or any more added government health care insurance plans

There are flaws in this bill, no doubt. However, I have yet to see one good argument for why the status quo is better than this bill.
this.

nothing is perfect, but it is definitely better.
Good?  
#5 | 1590 days ago

Does this mean Rush Limbaugh is leaving my town?  I'll drive.................oh wait, he can take his private jet and all his cronies with him.    I had to give up my Cobra insurance last August.  $437.00 a month.  More than 1/3 of my unemployment benefits.  Don't qualify for medicaid, foodstamps or any other benefit available.  I was in the hospital in October and have hosptial bills of over $8000.00   Still have the same health problem and can't afford treatment.  I am hoping this plan will be available to me this time and to all the other Americans out of work in the same situation.  Meanwhile, my next door neighbor (insurance broker) is in Hawaii for 1 month vacation while we keep his dog.   Socaialism, my ass.
 

Good?  
#6 | 1590 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

 Wow, being a waitress for 30 years and feeding my family as a single mother doing that job, well I wonder what it's going to feel like having insurance. 
Good?  
#7 | 1590 days ago
Dooney (+)

ohwell_ wrote:

Does this mean Rush Limbaugh is leaving my town?  I'll drive.................oh wait, he can take his private jet and all his cronies with him.    I had to give up my Cobra insurance last August.  $437.00 a month.  More than 1/3 of my unemployment benefits.  Don't qualify for medicaid, foodstamps or any other benefit available.  I was in the hospital in October and have hosptial bills of over $8000.00   Still have the same health problem and can't afford treatment.  I am hoping this plan will be available to me this time and to all the other Americans out of work in the same situation.  Meanwhile, my next door neighbor (insurance broker) is in Hawaii for 1 month vacation while we keep his dog.   Socaialism, my ass.
 

Wow,just wow...
#8 | 1590 days ago

(Edited by das3cr)
kantwistaye wrote:

Just a few quick thoughts:

  • 32 million more Americans gain access to health care
  • Premiums will go down by 14-20%
  • The federal deficit will be lowered by $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years due to this bill
  • No more pre-existing conditions
  • No more caps on the amount of health care you can receive
  • No public option, or any more added government health care insurance plans

There are flaws in this bill, no doubt. However, I have yet to see one good argument for why the status quo is better than this bill.
Show me exactly how spending more money, that we don't have to begin with, is going to lower the deficit.
Bad?  
#9 | 1590 days ago

Well...I hope all of you who are in favor of this are in favor of HIGHER TAXES and MUCH MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL.  Addins 32 million (or whatever it is) to the patient pool WITHOUT adding doctors/hospitals/etc will put a drain on the system.  Declining reimbursements to doctors will make people not want to enter the medical profession.  Doctors are paid too much?  Well....I've seen patients in their homes...mostly seniors who are unable to get out....but while they are very apprreciative of my coming to their home,  I GET REIMBURSED BY THE GOVERNMENT LESS THAN a plumber gets JUST FOR HIS INITIAL SERVICE CALL!  While I didn't get into the profession for the "money", it is nice to be "comfortable".  I've been awaken at 3 am to come to the ER for fractures and diabetic limb and life thrreatening infections.  If the reimbursements go down (which they will), the brighter people will go to other more lucrative endeavors.  I think that some reform was needed...such as buying insurance across state lines, TORT REFORM (but, many congressmen are lawyers).  Here in NJ, my premium jumped $450/month and I went shopping for a Major Medical-type plan...for catastrophic coverage....I CAN'T GET IT HERE...if I could buy insurance, say, from Montana and get a lower rate, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO!!  Sorry for ranting on a Monday morning....
Bad?  
#10 | 1590 days ago

(Edited by RichyMcWiggleSr)
In all honesty I HIGHLY doubt anyone praising it have made much of an effort to actually read the bill for themself.

[Any who know me know I'm doing just that ... here's a link:  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c111:./temp/~c111LYEzm5 ]

Subsequently, once this Bill passed another was passed simultaneously.  Same thing that was done when they passed the "Bail Out."
Bad?  
#11 | 1590 days ago

icfeet wrote:
Well...I hope all of you who are in favor of this are in favor of HIGHER TAXES and MUCH MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL.  Addins 32 million (or whatever it is) to the patient pool WITHOUT adding doctors/hospitals/etc will put a drain on the system.  Declining reimbursements to doctors will make people not want to enter the medical profession.  Doctors are paid too much?  Well....I've seen patients in their homes...mostly seniors who are unable to get out....but while they are very apprreciative of my coming to their home,  I GET REIMBURSED BY THE GOVERNMENT LESS THAN a plumber gets JUST FOR HIS INITIAL SERVICE CALL!  While I didn't get into the profession for the "money", it is nice to be "comfortable".  I've been awaken at 3 am to come to the ER for fractures and diabetic limb and life thrreatening infections.  If the reimbursements go down (which they will), the brighter people will go to other more lucrative endeavors.  I think that some reform was needed...such as buying insurance across state lines, TORT REFORM (but, many congressmen are lawyers).  Here in NJ, my premium jumped $450/month and I went shopping for a Major Medical-type plan...for catastrophic coverage....I CAN'T GET IT HERE...if I could buy insurance, say, from Montana and get a lower rate, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO!!  Sorry for ranting on a Monday morning....
Dr. Kurt, I don't think any of us are saying Dr.s are getting rich off of their practices.  I can only imagine what your overhead for your office is.   If you still are making house calls, I got a foot you can look at.  Take it out in trade?
Good?  
#12 | 1590 days ago
JRSFLAME88 (+)

kantwistaye wrote:

Just a few quick thoughts:

  • 32 million more Americans gain access to health care
  • Premiums will go down by 14-20%
  • The federal deficit will be lowered by $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years due to this bill
  • No more pre-existing conditions
  • No more caps on the amount of health care you can receive
  • No public option, or any more added government health care insurance plans

There are flaws in this bill, no doubt. However, I have yet to see one good argument for why the status quo is better than this bill.
  I'm like Glenda.........I wonder how it is going to feel to say "Yes, I do have insurance"!  It's bad that if I get sick and don't have the $150+ a Dr. visit costs that I wind up at the ER and wait for at least half of a day.  You covered everything very nicely!
Good?  
#13 | 1590 days ago

icfeet wrote:
Well...I hope all of you who are in favor of this are in favor of HIGHER TAXES and MUCH MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL.  Addins 32 million (or whatever it is) to the patient pool WITHOUT adding doctors/hospitals/etc will put a drain on the system.  Declining reimbursements to doctors will make people not want to enter the medical profession.  Doctors are paid too much?  Well....I've seen patients in their homes...mostly seniors who are unable to get out....but while they are very apprreciative of my coming to their home,  I GET REIMBURSED BY THE GOVERNMENT LESS THAN a plumber gets JUST FOR HIS INITIAL SERVICE CALL!  While I didn't get into the profession for the "money", it is nice to be "comfortable".  I've been awaken at 3 am to come to the ER for fractures and diabetic limb and life thrreatening infections.  If the reimbursements go down (which they will), the brighter people will go to other more lucrative endeavors.  I think that some reform was needed...such as buying insurance across state lines, TORT REFORM (but, many congressmen are lawyers).  Here in NJ, my premium jumped $450/month and I went shopping for a Major Medical-type plan...for catastrophic coverage....I CAN'T GET IT HERE...if I could buy insurance, say, from Montana and get a lower rate, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO!!  Sorry for ranting on a Monday morning....
"Declining reimbursements to doctors will make people not want to enter the medical profession. "


Well then .....much like teachers, they will get into the profession for the love and "godly" aspect.
Good?  
#14 | 1590 days ago

(Edited by Som6)
A Robin Hood style after all ...... 

 KEY HEALTHCARE REFORMS

Cost:
 $940bn over 10 years; would reduce deficit by $143bn

Coverage:
 Expanded to 32m currently uninsured Americans

Medicare:
 Prescription drug coverage gap closed; affected over-65s receive rebate and discount on brand name drugs

Medicaid:
 Expanded to include families under 65 with gross income of up to 133% of federal poverty level and childless adults

Insurance reforms:
 Insurers can no longer deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions

Insurance exchanges:
Uninsured and self-employed able to purchase insurance through state-based exchanges

Subsidies:
 Low-income individuals and families wanting to purchase own health insurance eligible for subsidies

Individual Mandate:
 Those not covered by Medicaid or Medicare must be insured or face fine

High-cost insurance:
 Employers offering workers pricier plans subject to tax on excess premium.
#15 | 1590 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:

Does this mean Rush Limbaugh is leaving my town?  I'll drive.................oh wait, he can take his private jet and all his cronies with him.    I had to give up my Cobra insurance last August.  $437.00 a month.  More than 1/3 of my unemployment benefits.  Don't qualify for medicaid, foodstamps or any other benefit available.  I was in the hospital in October and have hosptial bills of over $8000.00   Still have the same health problem and can't afford treatment.  I am hoping this plan will be available to me this time and to all the other Americans out of work in the same situation.  Meanwhile, my next door neighbor (insurance broker) is in Hawaii for 1 month vacation while we keep his dog.   Socaialism, my ass.
 

Agreed. My sister's in tHe same boat with tumors. Didn't get any help with the city, state, American Cancer society, Spector, Casey or any of te hospitals in my region. YOU HAVE TO BE OFF UNEMPLOYMENT, LOOSE YOUR HOME AND ON WELFARE to get help for a tumor removal!!! I am livid. I can't wait to see how this turns things around. i have put in months of research and talked to alot of people to no avail. WAITS.
Indifferent?   
#16 | 1590 days ago

das3cr wrote:
Show me exactly how spending more money, that we don't have to begin with, is going to lower the deficit.
 Simple. Cut government spending (Medicare made incredibly more efficient by not overpaying drug companies anymore) and bring in more taxes. Its the only way you can lower the deficit and this bill does it.
Good?  
#17 | 1590 days ago

#1 Argument against this:

All Americans 'mandated' to be covered.

Nevermind all of the key points I'll delve into more fully later, this one kills the legitimacy of it!
Bad?  
#18 | 1590 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

 I am not going to lie the whole thing confuses the hell out of me. All I know is something had to give, and maybe this is a start. I dont want to lose my home because of an illness. I dont want to keep living in fear of getting sick. This is the richest country in the world and people cannot get sick, thats wrong! And I'm sorry for the people that this plan adversely effects, but give it time they can change it but for right now it's a fuc!!!g start!  
Good?  
#19 | 1590 days ago

Let's pretend for a minute *giggle* that our Government actually finds a way to spend less than they get in taxes *chuckle* it really doesn't matter if the National Debt increases two or threefold!

If we're paying a 100 dollar debt at 50 cents a year and than find a way to pay 75 cents per year, but make the debt 1.5 times greater, the amount of time to pay the debt off will still increase!  Yes you can say "I made our deficit better," but who gives a FlyingF?  You increased the debt beyond the acceptable!
Bad?  
#20 | 1590 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 I am not going to lie the whole thing confuses the hell out of me. All I know is something had to give, and maybe this is a start. I dont want to lose my home because of an illness. I dont want to keep living in fear of getting sick. This is the richest country in the world and people cannot get sick, thats wrong! And I'm sorry for the people that this plan adversely effects, but give it time they can change it but for right now it's a fuc!!!g start!  
Considering that this is a new engine few are familiar with, making changes will be much more difficult, because nobody will truly understand the repercussions.  This wasn't a "start" this was a complete revamp of an engine.
Bad?  
#21 | 1590 days ago

RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
Let's pretend for a minute *giggle* that our Government actually finds a way to spend less than they get in taxes *chuckle* it really doesn't matter if the National Debt increases two or threefold!

If we're paying a 100 dollar debt at 50 cents a year and than find a way to pay 75 cents per year, but make the debt 1.5 times greater, the amount of time to pay the debt off will still increase!  Yes you can say "I made our deficit better," but who gives a FlyingF?  You increased the debt beyond the acceptable!
 Because you have to start somewhere.  If you don't start now, when do you? This is the start of deficit reduction.
Good?  
#22 | 1590 days ago

RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
Considering that this is a new engine few are familiar with, making changes will be much more difficult, because nobody will truly understand the repercussions.  This wasn't a "start" this was a complete revamp of an engine.
yes it is. the "start" of something different.
Good?  
#23 | 1590 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
Considering that this is a new engine few are familiar with, making changes will be much more difficult, because nobody will truly understand the repercussions.  This wasn't a "start" this was a complete revamp of an engine.
 Ok then my question to you,(you know I respect your opinion) is this, don't you sometimes have to just buy a new engine? When do you stop throwing money into an engine that is just broken?
Good?  
#24 | 1590 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 I am not going to lie the whole thing confuses the hell out of me. All I know is something had to give, and maybe this is a start. I dont want to lose my home because of an illness. I dont want to keep living in fear of getting sick. This is the richest country in the world and people cannot get sick, thats wrong! And I'm sorry for the people that this plan adversely effects, but give it time they can change it but for right now it's a fuc!!!g start!  
"WAS" THE RICHEST. The bankers are, thanks to the corrupt politicians that sold their souls and our homes to them. The Insurance agencies execs and sponsors should be charged and dragged off to jail with their "Habeas Corpus" suspended also! This thievry has trickled down to US! Where's our relief? Same sh*t, different shovel!
Indifferent?   
#25 | 1590 days ago

Not sure how this is a start at fixing the deficit when last year was the Record Holder for highest deficit and projections aren't getting better for the next decade (figures show it's likely to go up 9fold). 

?
Bad?  
#26 | 1590 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 Ok then my question to you,(you know I respect your opinion) is this, don't you sometimes have to just buy a new engine? When do you stop throwing money into an engine that is just broken?
Good question...depends on the person paying, I thought. Not the mechanic, because we all know they don't tell you everything.
Indifferent?   
#27 | 1590 days ago

(Edited by kantwistaye)
RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
Not sure how this is a start at fixing the deficit when last year was the Record Holder for highest deficit and projections aren't getting better for the next decade (figures show it's likely to go up 9fold). 

?
 A number of issues with that. Over the next decade, we're projected to add about $10 trillion to our $12 trillion debt (fun fact: Reagan and Bush are responsible for 3/4 of that!).  The problem for us right now, is that poor decisions by previous administrations don't end when their administration ends.  The Bush tax cuts, Iraq and Afghan wars, and the recession are nearly totally responsible for the projected debt over the next decade. Source.

That said, Democrats in Congress have re-instituted PAYGO which will not allow for any new programs to be passed without equal cuts in other programs or new taxes to pay off for those programs. Due to this, we will not be adding on to our debt from here on.  On top of that, this bill will begin our turnaround when it comes to debt. No matter how one chooses to spin it, we're lowering the deficit by $1.3 trillion than what it would be. That's a significant step, although only the beginning.
Good?  
#28 | 1590 days ago

Hey looky at the stock market this a.m.   UP-UP-UP
Good?  
#29 | 1590 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 A number of issues with that. Over the next decade, we're projected to add about $10 trillion to our $12 trillion debt (fun fact: Reagan and Bush are responsible for 3/4 of that!).  The problem for us right now, is that poor decisions by previous administrations don't end when their administration ends.  The Bush tax cuts, Iraq and Afghan wars, and the recession are nearly totally responsible for the projected debt over the next decade. Source.

That said, Democrats in Congress have re-instituted PAYGO which will not allow for any new programs to be passed without equal cuts in other programs or new taxes to pay off for those programs. Due to this, we will not be adding on to our debt from here on.  On top of that, this bill will begin our turnaround when it comes to debt. No matter how one chooses to spin it, we're lowering the deficit by $1.3 trillion than what it would be. That's a significant step, although only the beginning.
The domocrats raised the spending limits .... yet somehow you are telling me that they are spending less?  You have got to be kidding. This admin has already spent more than all other admins combined and it's just getting started. To point to it and say, it's the prior admins fault is folly. (BTW, your source : According to New York Times reporter Matt Bai, CBPP is one of three left wing think tanks funded by the Democracy Alliance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_on_Budget_and_Policy_Priorities )

You can't borrow money we can't pay back and and try to tell us it's will save us money in the long run. That's like using your credit card to pay on your car loan, that you took out to pay on your house loan .... ect ect...
Bad?  
#30 | 1590 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

 See I am so lost, so I'm going to go argue war in the other poll. For some insane reason war I understand and can give an educated opinion on. 

Peace out girl scouts
Good?  
#31 | 1590 days ago

das3cr wrote:
The domocrats raised the spending limits .... yet somehow you are telling me that they are spending less?  You have got to be kidding. This admin has already spent more than all other admins combined and it's just getting started. To point to it and say, it's the prior admins fault is folly. (BTW, your source : According to New York Times reporter Matt Bai, CBPP is one of three left wing think tanks funded by the Democracy Alliance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_on_Budget_and_Policy_Priorities )

You can't borrow money we can't pay back and and try to tell us it's will save us money in the long run. That's like using your credit card to pay on your car loan, that you took out to pay on your house loan .... ect ect...
what are domocrats?
Good?  
#32 | 1590 days ago

JRSFLAME88 wrote:
  I'm like Glenda.........I wonder how it is going to feel to say "Yes, I do have insurance"!  It's bad that if I get sick and don't have the $150+ a Dr. visit costs that I wind up at the ER and wait for at least half of a day.  You covered everything very nicely!
Yeah, I don't have insurance either. But this plan isn't going to cover me, so I still won't. But I will get to pay higher taxes and high insurance premiums for the kids. I just wonder where the office will end up. If their ordered to go to an office 250 miles  away and the wait list is 6 months then the 'insurance' isn't worth much. I guess everyone will get a taste of VA care ...
Bad?  
#33 | 1590 days ago

(Edited by icfeet)
kteacher wrote:
"Declining reimbursements to doctors will make people not want to enter the medical profession. "


Well then .....much like teachers, they will get into the profession for the love and "godly" aspect.
I LOVE what I do...I HATE the insurance aspect of the thing.  Because of "health insurance", things have gotten WAY out of control.  For instance...anytime someone ELSE pays the bill....you don't care about cost.  Take prescription drugs.  Say, for instance, I'm on blood pressure medication and it costs me $100/month..I pay out of pocket...get to know the pharmacist, staff, etc....then, next month, I take my $100 and go to get my refill....and the pharmacist says "That will be $250"....I will QUICKLY shop around to get a better deal.  Now, If I have a $10 COPAY, it will say at the bottom of the receipt that "This medicine would have cost you $100".  I'll not care the NEXT month when I still pay my $10 copay and it says on the bottom "This would have cost you $250".  I'M NOT GOING TO CARE, BECAUSE THE INSURANCE COMPANY IS PICKING UP THE REST.  It takes the consumer out of the equation.  An analogy is auto insurance...it's there for ACCIDENTS.  If my headlight goes out...I PAY TO REPLACE IT.  I don't call my auto insurance company.  As I said before, there is some reform needed...I think that if COMPETITION were introduced in medicine, there would be lowering of costs.  This bill did not do anything to adress the TORT REFORM and COMPETITION aspect...buying insurance across state lines...sorry this is so long winded....but it is something I'm passionate about.  Too many people expect things to be "free"...coming into my office and not paying their $5 or $10 copay, saying "Send me a bill"...or..."I forgot my checkbook".I'd like to see those SAME PEOPLE go out to dinner and tell the hostess/owner that "The food and service were good, send me a bill". 
Bad?  
#34 | 1590 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Too bad this didn't happen before my families health insurance tripled within a 6 week period. 

We were already on a budget.

FYI, this happened before health care legislation was an issue so the situations are not tied together.
#35 | 1590 days ago

(Edited by kantwistaye)
das3cr wrote:
The domocrats raised the spending limits .... yet somehow you are telling me that they are spending less?  You have got to be kidding. This admin has already spent more than all other admins combined and it's just getting started. To point to it and say, it's the prior admins fault is folly. (BTW, your source : According to New York Times reporter Matt Bai, CBPP is one of three left wing think tanks funded by the Democracy Alliance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_on_Budget_and_Policy_Priorities )

You can't borrow money we can't pay back and and try to tell us it's will save us money in the long run. That's like using your credit card to pay on your car loan, that you took out to pay on your house loan .... ect ect...
If we don't raise the debt ceiling we default on all of our loans and all hell breaks lose.  Its something necessary. And I didn't say we were spending less, I said we weren't adding onto the debt already inherited.

And its nothing like what you explained. Taxes are money that we do have. We're not loaning money from other countries to do this.

Also, just because a source is partially funded by liberals does not take away from the credibility of the report. It's based largely on information from the non-partisan CBO. They cited all of their information. If you want to, go ahead and prove that its false.
Good?  
#36 | 1590 days ago

icfeet wrote:
I LOVE what I do...I HATE the insurance aspect of the thing.  Because of "health insurance", things have gotten WAY out of control.  For instance...anytime someone ELSE pays the bill....you don't care about cost.  Take prescription drugs.  Say, for instance, I'm on blood pressure medication and it costs me $100/month..I pay out of pocket...get to know the pharmacist, staff, etc....then, next month, I take my $100 and go to get my refill....and the pharmacist says "That will be $250"....I will QUICKLY shop around to get a better deal.  Now, If I have a $10 COPAY, it will say at the bottom of the receipt that "This medicine would have cost you $100".  I'll not care the NEXT month when I still pay my $10 copay and it says on the bottom "This would have cost you $250".  I'M NOT GOING TO CARE, BECAUSE THE INSURANCE COMPANY IS PICKING UP THE REST.  It takes the consumer out of the equation.  An analogy is auto insurance...it's there for ACCIDENTS.  If my headlight goes out...I PAY TO REPLACE IT.  I don't call my auto insurance company.  As I said before, there is some reform needed...I think that if COMPETITION were introduced in medicine, there would be lowering of costs.  This bill did not do anything to adress the TORT REFORM and COMPETITION aspect...buying insurance across state lines...sorry this is so long winded....but it is something I'm passionate about.  Too many people expect things to be "free"...coming into my office and not paying their $5 or $10 copay, saying "Send me a bill"...or..."I forgot my checkbook".I'd like to see those SAME PEOPLE go out to dinner and tell the hostess/owner that "The food and service were good, send me a bill". 
basically my point. well said.
Indifferent?   
#37 | 1590 days ago

i still want a show of hands of the lawmakers who have actually READ THE ENTIRE BILL  before signing off on it. and i mean READ THE WHOLE THING, not just the headlines and paragraph headers.
Bad?  
#38 | 1590 days ago

 Another loss in the freedom column.   I feel sorry for those of you age 50 and under.   I would like to be able to talk with each of you when you  reach your 60s and see how this all worked out for you.  
Bad?  
#39 | 1590 days ago
ChristiSunshine (+)

(Edited by ChristiSunshine)
cuddles127017 wrote:
 Another loss in the freedom column.   I feel sorry for those of you age 50 and under.   I would like to be able to talk with each of you when you  reach your 60s and see how this all worked out for you.  
 I feel sorry for us too.  I still can't afford insurance b/c I'm already living check to check.  IDK how it is supposed to help me.  I feel like I'm kissing my freedom goodbye.
#40 | 1590 days ago

ChristiSunshine wrote:
 I feel sorry for us too.  I still can't afford insurance b/c I'm already living check to check.  IDK how it is supposed to help me.  I feel like I'm kissing my freedom goodbye.
just dont judge it too quickly like everyone else. Some of these people are only anti-this plan because of the owner of the idea and that's just ignorance i think. If this is your informed opinion, ignore me, but if not, not jumped on that bandwagon too quickly.
Good?  
#41 | 1590 days ago
ChristiSunshine (+)

 I'm not going to get it because i still can't afford it, and it is my understanding that i will be fined for not  getting it, so hell yes I feel like I'm losing my freedom.  i dont have ANY disposable income AT ALL, so even if healthcare is cheaper, it still doesn't help me.  And Ashlie, I don't care if barney the dinosaur owned this bill.  It's my personal opinion, and I am still allowed that in this country.
#42 | 1590 days ago

ChristiSunshine wrote:
 I'm not going to get it because i still can't afford it, and it is my understanding that i will be fined for not  getting it, so hell yes I feel like I'm losing my freedom.  i dont have ANY disposable income AT ALL, so even if healthcare is cheaper, it still doesn't help me.  And Ashlie, I don't care if barney the dinosaur owned this bill.  It's my personal opinion, and I am still allowed that in this country.
i wasnt saying that you cared. i was just saying that some of the disagreers would have loved this bill more if it were by Barney the Dinosaur.
Good?  
#43 | 1590 days ago
ChristiSunshine (+)

kobe_lova wrote:
i wasnt saying that you cared. i was just saying that some of the disagreers would have loved this bill more if it were by Barney the Dinosaur.
 I call a spade a spade.  If I felt like this were a good thing for  our country, I would've said so no matter WHO is behind it.  I don't hate people wholesale because of their ideologies, including Barack Obama.  I firmly believe less government is the best way to go and I don't like people telling me that I HAVE to be insured or else pay the consequences.  I hate smoking and am allergic to cigarette smoke, but I still believe even business owners should have the choice of whether to allow smoking in their own business, and the smoking ban here in Louisville brought an end to that.  So that's the basis of my argument here.  If my choice is made in ignorance, then so be it.  I'll gladly admit to being ignorant and base any future thoughts on the bill as it becomes available to me. 
#44 | 1590 days ago
NMboyzfan (+)

kobe_lova wrote:
i wasnt saying that you cared. i was just saying that some of the disagreers would have loved this bill more if it were by Barney the Dinosaur.
I would have.
#45 | 1590 days ago
NMboyzfan (+)

Big Bird was cool for a while, but Snuffleuppagus is the sh*t!  Not real hip on the Fraggles, and have no clue who the Wiggles are.  You know who would make a great Secretary of Defense though?...Animal, from the Muppets.
#46 | 1590 days ago
18packabs (+)

If this BILL is so DAMN GOOD, why aren't the Men and Women who are signing it, being covered by it????


The 3 Trillion Dollar Question?
Bad?  
#47 | 1590 days ago

ChristiSunshine wrote:
 I call a spade a spade.  If I felt like this were a good thing for  our country, I would've said so no matter WHO is behind it.  I don't hate people wholesale because of their ideologies, including Barack Obama.  I firmly believe less government is the best way to go and I don't like people telling me that I HAVE to be insured or else pay the consequences.  I hate smoking and am allergic to cigarette smoke, but I still believe even business owners should have the choice of whether to allow smoking in their own business, and the smoking ban here in Louisville brought an end to that.  So that's the basis of my argument here.  If my choice is made in ignorance, then so be it.  I'll gladly admit to being ignorant and base any future thoughts on the bill as it becomes available to me. 
seriously, i dont think i was questioning you, but okay. I was remembering a conversation a few days ago when you were unsure how you felt, and that's why i said If this is your informed opinion, ignore me.
Good?  
#48 | 1590 days ago

NMboyzfan wrote:
I would have.
I had you in mind when i said it!
Good?  
#49 | 1590 days ago
ChristiSunshine (+)

kobe_lova wrote:
seriously, i dont think i was questioning you, but okay. I was remembering a conversation a few days ago when you were unsure how you felt, and that's why i said If this is your informed opinion, ignore me.
 I've looked into it some since that conversation.
#50 | 1590 days ago

My deductible is $4500....AND monthly premium of $1350.
Bad?  
#51 | 1590 days ago

NMboyzfan wrote:
Big Bird was cool for a while, but Snuffleuppagus is the sh*t!  Not real hip on the Fraggles, and have no clue who the Wiggles are.  You know who would make a great Secretary of Defense though?...Animal, from the Muppets.
Don't let nobody fool you big dawg ... Me and my rabble rowzers are "The Wiggles" ... and we WILL be runnin s*** ... jus waitin on some peeps from "The Islands" to take care of some muscle for me!  ;)
Bad?  
#52 | 1590 days ago

[No time to answer comments above ... will be back in AM for an update here]
Bad?  
#53 | 1590 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

kteacher wrote:
"Declining reimbursements to doctors will make people not want to enter the medical profession. "


Well then .....much like teachers, they will get into the profession for the love and "godly" aspect.
 because we sooooooo do our job for the "reimbursement"! 
#54 | 1589 days ago

Just a waste of time putting any thought into this, USA is headed to H*LL, The just need to give us Bigger  Shovels so we can get there faster, Just Saying
Indifferent?   
#55 | 1589 days ago

icfeet wrote:
My deductible is $4500....AND monthly premium of $1350.
So you got the " physician heal thyself " plan
Bad?  
#56 | 1589 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:

Just a few quick thoughts:

  • 32 million more Americans gain access to health care
  • Premiums will go down by 14-20%
  • The federal deficit will be lowered by $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years due to this bill
  • No more pre-existing conditions
  • No more caps on the amount of health care you can receive
  • No public option, or any more added government health care insurance plans

There are flaws in this bill, no doubt. However, I have yet to see one good argument for why the status quo is better than this bill.
FLAWS?  The whole dam* bill is a FLAW.  Just a few quick comments

of the 32 million that will gain access to health care - how many of them will be illegal aliens?  Do you like paying for things to someone else -- please send me a check to cover my heating bill and electric

The day that premiums go down will be the day that health insurance ends

The federal deficit will NEVER be lowered by spending more -- wake up and do the math

No more pre-existing conditions?  Taking the lawyers out would accomplish the same thing -- also, there probably won't be any more doctors - so I guess that solves the pre-existing conditions

No more caps on the amount of health care .... surely you jest -- then again, I guess you may be right with this one, considering it will take 6 months or more to get into the emergency room -- we won't have to worry about caps then.

No public option -- this one is my favorite ---- NO MORE FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Bad?  
#57 | 1589 days ago

(Edited by MIKELIN8)
The President should have used the same phrasing as the previous President and said something like "You're either for the people who will receive health-care benefits, or you're against them". Keep things simple...don't confuse the masses.

Hey, it worked for "The War on Terror", didn't it? 
Indifferent?   
#58 | 1589 days ago

Why it gotta be like that mannnnnnnn? I ain't dun nuthin gay! lol
Bad?  
#59 | 1589 days ago

(Edited by kantwistaye)
SickPuppy wrote:
FLAWS?  The whole dam* bill is a FLAW.  Just a few quick comments

of the 32 million that will gain access to health care - how many of them will be illegal aliens?  Do you like paying for things to someone else -- please send me a check to cover my heating bill and electric

The day that premiums go down will be the day that health insurance ends

The federal deficit will NEVER be lowered by spending more -- wake up and do the math

No more pre-existing conditions?  Taking the lawyers out would accomplish the same thing -- also, there probably won't be any more doctors - so I guess that solves the pre-existing conditions

No more caps on the amount of health care .... surely you jest -- then again, I guess you may be right with this one, considering it will take 6 months or more to get into the emergency room -- we won't have to worry about caps then.

No public option -- this one is my favorite ---- NO MORE FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Quite frankly, its irrelevant how many illegal aliens get health care through this. We pay for it as is anyway.

Um, no. Expand the pool of payers and cost per person goes down.

Again false. Bring in more than you spend and it goes down.

No more pre-existing conditions is the law.

No more caps on the amount of health care is the law.

No public option was to point out that this bill isn't adding any government health care, although the public option wasn't really that either.
Good?  
#60 | 1589 days ago

das3cr wrote:
The domocrats raised the spending limits .... yet somehow you are telling me that they are spending less?  You have got to be kidding. This admin has already spent more than all other admins combined and it's just getting started. To point to it and say, it's the prior admins fault is folly. (BTW, your source : According to New York Times reporter Matt Bai, CBPP is one of three left wing think tanks funded by the Democracy Alliance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_on_Budget_and_Policy_Priorities )

You can't borrow money we can't pay back and and try to tell us it's will save us money in the long run. That's like using your credit card to pay on your car loan, that you took out to pay on your house loan .... ect ect...
Are the retardicans any better? They've had control for ages and haven't accomplished anything.
Indifferent?   
#61 | 1589 days ago

WISAC1 wrote:
i still want a show of hands of the lawmakers who have actually READ THE ENTIRE BILL  before signing off on it. and i mean READ THE WHOLE THING, not just the headlines and paragraph headers.
No going to get that. Their secretaries have left them "footnotes".
Indifferent?   
#62 | 1589 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

murphyiv wrote:
"WAS" THE RICHEST. The bankers are, thanks to the corrupt politicians that sold their souls and our homes to them. The Insurance agencies execs and sponsors should be charged and dragged off to jail with their "Habeas Corpus" suspended also! This thievry has trickled down to US! Where's our relief? Same sh*t, different shovel!
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed in corporations."
— Thomas Jefferson

Compound that with the evolution of the banking industry into megacorporate entities (we are now putting all of our "eggs" in one basket, so to speak), and we are playing a more dangerous game.  It is why the establishment of the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional; taking our country off of the gold standard meant generating currency based upon calculations in lieu of valued collateral.
#63 | 1589 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

I like the fact that this issue has brought out the passions of so many people--in marches, rallies, debate, discussion, etc.



.........now if we could just get those same people to do their research, think on their own, and see the self-manifesting monster that's become the "engines" of society, the socio-political and economical viruses could be identified for what they truly represent and dealt with accordingly.
#64 | 1589 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed in corporations."
— Thomas Jefferson

Compound that with the evolution of the banking industry into megacorporate entities (we are now putting all of our "eggs" in one basket, so to speak), and we are playing a more dangerous game.  It is why the establishment of the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional; taking our country off of the gold standard meant generating currency based upon calculations in lieu of valued collateral.
Someone that researches, I see. That is absolutely TRUE! They played the game on US. There isn't anything Federal about the reserve. They failed us. Their sole purpose was to prevent what happened and they DIDN'T.
Indifferent?   
#65 | 1589 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
I like the fact that this issue has brought out the passions of so many people--in marches, rallies, debate, discussion, etc.



.........now if we could just get those same people to do their research, think on their own, and see the self-manifesting monster that's become the "engines" of society, the socio-political and economical viruses could be identified for what they truly represent and dealt with accordingly.

CLAPS. I am not alone anymore...

Indifferent?   
#66 | 1589 days ago

ChristiSunshine wrote:
 I'm not going to get it because i still can't afford it, and it is my understanding that i will be fined for not  getting it, so hell yes I feel like I'm losing my freedom.  i dont have ANY disposable income AT ALL, so even if healthcare is cheaper, it still doesn't help me.  And Ashlie, I don't care if barney the dinosaur owned this bill.  It's my personal opinion, and I am still allowed that in this country.
 Very Right ........someday you have to pay freedom tax to get access for it ...so its not that long .....
#67 | 1589 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
Quite frankly, its irrelevant how many illegal aliens get health care through this. We pay for it as is anyway.

Um, no. Expand the pool of payers and cost per person goes down.

Again false. Bring in more than you spend and it goes down.

No more pre-existing conditions is the law.

No more caps on the amount of health care is the law.

No public option was to point out that this bill isn't adding any government health care, although the public option wasn't really that either.
We don't bring in more than we spend.  And it's not going to get that way under Obama.  Average is we spend 180% of revenues.

Expand the pool, ONLY, and yes cost goes down.

Expand the pool, revamp the coverage plan(s), and change many of the governing policies regarding coverage and only TINY few would be hard-pressed to believe the cost 'will' go down.

Illegal Alien coverage is NEVER irrelevant.  The fact that this problem is never properly addressed keeps it from becoming 'irrelevant.  It's a thorn in our sides that needs to go away.
Bad?  
#68 | 1589 days ago

(Edited by kantwistaye)
RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
We don't bring in more than we spend.  And it's not going to get that way under Obama.  Average is we spend 180% of revenues.

Expand the pool, ONLY, and yes cost goes down.

Expand the pool, revamp the coverage plan(s), and change many of the governing policies regarding coverage and only TINY few would be hard-pressed to believe the cost 'will' go down.

Illegal Alien coverage is NEVER irrelevant.  The fact that this problem is never properly addressed keeps it from becoming 'irrelevant.  It's a thorn in our sides that needs to go away.
The non-partisan Congressional Budgeting Office completely disagrees with you. They say (not me, not Obama, not any other Democrat or liberal), that the cost of premiums will go down, that access will expand, and that the deficit will be reduced.  But, feel free to prove them wrong.

As for illegal aliens, when it comes to cost of health care it is irrelevant. You pay for it now already. That's not changing under any proposal.
Good?  
#69 | 1589 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
Quite frankly, its irrelevant how many illegal aliens get health care through this. We pay for it as is anyway.

Um, no. Expand the pool of payers and cost per person goes down.

Again false. Bring in more than you spend and it goes down.

No more pre-existing conditions is the law.

No more caps on the amount of health care is the law.

No public option was to point out that this bill isn't adding any government health care, although the public option wasn't really that either.
Do you always wear a blind fold?    It's irrelevant how many illegal aliens get health care because we're paying for it now --- Don't you think it would have been a good idea to exclude that from a new bill?  Of course not, you're a socialist liberal.

With FREE health care, do you really believe that the "pool of players" is really going to expand?  You need to visit NYS and see how many extra free loaders there are

Hooray for no more pre-existing conditions and no more caps --- WOW that was really worth giving away trillions of $'s in special deals.

NO FREEDOM OF CHOICE --- you can't see it can you -- no matter how large the print is ... you can't see that you are loosing your freedoms every time the government feels they know how you should live -- you lose another Freedom.

I surrender -- write what you want, remark on whatever -- I have a better chance of opening the eyes a corpse than I have with people like you.
Bad?  
#70 | 1589 days ago

(Edited by RichyMcWiggleSr)
kantwistaye wrote:
The non-partisan Congressional Budgeting Office completely disagrees with you. They say (not me, not Obama, not any other Democrat or liberal), that the cost of premiums will go down, that access will expand, and that the deficit will be reduced.  But, feel free to prove them wrong.

As for illegal aliens, when it comes to cost of health care it is irrelevant. You pay for it now already. That's not changing under any proposal.
I took a gander at their website ... these two statements taken directly from the section they've put up on H.R. 3590 and it's Reconciliation Bill:

"Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections."

"We estimate that the combined effect of enacting H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal would be to reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP)"

***That tells you right there, that they have not been able to conduct a full analysis to determine what the effect will be on premiums, yet, and the deficit changes by .5% over a decade.  ?????   [To expound a tiny bit ........... yes, the deficit will change by more than that ......... but not as a result of H.R. 3590 and/or it's Reconciliation Bill]
Bad?  
#71 | 1589 days ago

RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
I took a gander at their website ... these two statements taken directly from the section they've put up on H.R. 3590 and it's Reconciliation Bill:

"Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections."

"We estimate that the combined effect of enacting H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal would be to reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP)"

***That tells you right there, that they have not been able to conduct a full analysis to determine what the effect will be on premiums, yet, and the deficit changes by .5% over a decade.  ?????   [To expound a tiny bit ........... yes, the deficit will change by more than that ......... but not as a result of H.R. 3590 and/or it's Reconciliation Bill]
First of all, props for actually going to the source and finding facts which many people refuse to do.

And, you're right. However much of the deficit reduction occurs over the second decade ($1.2 trillion of it).  The first decade only sees the $143 billion reduction (hence the .5%).
Good?  
#72 | 1589 days ago

SO ...

Riddle me this Batmans:

IF these two Bills ...
(yes, in case you haven't noticed, this is two Bills ... one on the House floor currently, and if it's altered it could affect what's already transpired, and force everything to go back through the House, Senate, and Executive's desk ... same thing they did with the "Bail Out" ... the reconciliation bill for that debunked a bunch of s*** you heard about on tv)
...  raise the National Debt by a trillion dollars and don't alter the deficit by more than .5%, how is this not a drain on our society as a whole? 
(Economically speaking.  Ethical arguments are trite here)
Bad?  
#73 | 1589 days ago

(Edited by RichyMcWiggleSr)
kantwistaye wrote:
First of all, props for actually going to the source and finding facts which many people refuse to do.

And, you're right. However much of the deficit reduction occurs over the second decade ($1.2 trillion of it).  The first decade only sees the $143 billion reduction (hence the .5%).
Think I should've posted the entire paragraph, sorry ... this is the entire quote:

Although CBO does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget projection period, certain Congressional rules require some information about the budgetary impact of legislation in subsequent decades, and many Members have requested CBO’s analyses of the long-term budgetary impact of broad changes in the nation’s health care and health insurance systems. Therefore, CBO has developed a rough outlook for the decade following the 2010-2019 period. We estimate that the combined effect of enacting H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal would be to reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

Before they say that, they discuss the first decade and estimate somewhere in the neighborhood of 19billion dollars difference in the deficit ... considering that we're looking at a 1.3 trillion dollar 'increase', 19billion is a drop in the bucket.
Bad?  
#74 | 1589 days ago

RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
SO ...

Riddle me this Batmans:

IF these two Bills ...
(yes, in case you haven't noticed, this is two Bills ... one on the House floor currently, and if it's altered it could affect what's already transpired, and force everything to go back through the House, Senate, and Executive's desk ... same thing they did with the "Bail Out" ... the reconciliation bill for that debunked a bunch of s*** you heard about on tv)
...  raise the National Debt by a trillion dollars and don't alter the deficit by more than .5%, how is this not a drain on our society as a whole? 
(Economically speaking.  Ethical arguments are trite here)
Good point, reconcilation still needs to go through (and Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson could certainly kill it. Thankfully, neither will be a Senator for much longer.)

The bill costs roughly $940 billion over 10 years. Over those same years, we're bringing in the cost of the bill + another $143 billion in taxes which will go to deficit reduction.
Good?  
#75 | 1589 days ago
vindog (+)

And the stock market SOARS for the past two days fueled mainly from  a strong push by the Health Care Stocks...... HMMMMM    Socialized Medicine? LOL  We are now ADDING 30 million + more customers to the Health Care Providers- hardly a Government takeover!      Is it perfect? NO!!!  But it is well overdue and needed and this is a great start for this Country. Quite obviously parts of it will be changed over the next year or so to streamline it and make it a better Bill- but that is EXACTLY what happened with Social Security and Medicare.
Good?  
#76 | 1589 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
Good point, reconcilation still needs to go through (and Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson could certainly kill it. Thankfully, neither will be a Senator for much longer.)

The bill costs roughly $940 billion over 10 years. Over those same years, we're bringing in the cost of the bill + another $143 billion in taxes which will go to deficit reduction.
Yeah...but...

Do you REALLY trust the government to spend this money ONLY where it is supposed to??? Whether Democrat or Republican, NONE OF THESE POLITICIANS CAN BE TRUSTED!!!!  Late Senator Moynihan (D-NY) wanted a LOCKBOX put on Medicare...because he feared the money being used for "other things"...well...guess what...they have borrowed from Medicare, SS...and put "IOU's" there....also, (and I've said this before)....INCREASED TAXES DON'T ALWAYS MEAN INCREASED REVENUES!!
With the tax CUTS (Kennedy in early 60's, Reagan in 80's and even GW Bush in 2000's), REVENUES INCREASE TO THE TREASURY.  Now, people who don't subscribe to that "trickle-down" theory always leave out one thing....instead of paying debt....CONGRESS JUST SPENDS MORE!  I dont trust the politicians to collect massive taxes for 4 years before the program is fully implemented...and I don't trust the "cost estimates".  It will probably be 3 times more expensive....there were better ways to go about this...
Bad?  
#77 | 1589 days ago
JRSFLAME88 (+)

As Joe Binen said:  THIS IS A BIG F'ING DEAL! 
Good?  
#78 | 1589 days ago
vindog (+)

icfeet wrote:
Yeah...but...

Do you REALLY trust the government to spend this money ONLY where it is supposed to??? Whether Democrat or Republican, NONE OF THESE POLITICIANS CAN BE TRUSTED!!!!  Late Senator Moynihan (D-NY) wanted a LOCKBOX put on Medicare...because he feared the money being used for "other things"...well...guess what...they have borrowed from Medicare, SS...and put "IOU's" there....also, (and I've said this before)....INCREASED TAXES DON'T ALWAYS MEAN INCREASED REVENUES!!
With the tax CUTS (Kennedy in early 60's, Reagan in 80's and even GW Bush in 2000's), REVENUES INCREASE TO THE TREASURY.  Now, people who don't subscribe to that "trickle-down" theory always leave out one thing....instead of paying debt....CONGRESS JUST SPENDS MORE!  I dont trust the politicians to collect massive taxes for 4 years before the program is fully implemented...and I don't trust the "cost estimates".  It will probably be 3 times more expensive....there were better ways to go about this...
I agree to an extent- but who should we trust?  The Doctors? That's a f%^king joke- they have been overcharging customers and preforming UNNECESSARY testing for years now.... The Insurance Companies? LOL That's an even bigger joke!  Something needed to be done- and it WAS done!  Like I said, it's not a perfect Bill- but given time- it has the potential to be a perfect Bill after adjustments are made to it!
Good?  
#79 | 1588 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
If we don't raise the debt ceiling we default on all of our loans and all hell breaks lose.  Its something necessary. And I didn't say we were spending less, I said we weren't adding onto the debt already inherited.

And its nothing like what you explained. Taxes are money that we do have. We're not loaning money from other countries to do this.

Also, just because a source is partially funded by liberals does not take away from the credibility of the report. It's based largely on information from the non-partisan CBO. They cited all of their information. If you want to, go ahead and prove that its false.
They promote democrat financial agendas. You don't think that an organization that is an extension of the party isn't going to spin?

To me they don't have any credibility at all. But that's just me. YMMV
Bad?  
#80 | 1588 days ago

vindog wrote:
I agree to an extent- but who should we trust?  The Doctors? That's a f%^king joke- they have been overcharging customers and preforming UNNECESSARY testing for years now.... The Insurance Companies? LOL That's an even bigger joke!  Something needed to be done- and it WAS done!  Like I said, it's not a perfect Bill- but given time- it has the potential to be a perfect Bill after adjustments are made to it!
As I said in one of my earlier posts...one of the reasons there are runaway costs is because with health insurance, SOMEONE ELSE is paying the bill.  Also, there was noTORT REFORM in the bill.  As a physician, I have to think a little differently...such as if I DON'T order a test....am I going to get sued?  A friend of mine is an OB/GYN who has a group of 4 docs...they EACH pay $100K in malpractice.  I was talking with him last week and he told me a story about one of his patients.  A baby he delivered had some rare, off the wall genetic problem that is not normally tested in the prenatal period.  When the baby was born (or shortly thereafter), they discovered this rare genetic problem.  Guess who got sued?  That's right....guess who won?  NOT the doc.  So docs are inclined to order MORE tests just to CYA.  Many patients will sue the docs because they see a commercial on TV about "being injured by a doctor...no recovery means no fee"...
Bad?  
#81 | 1588 days ago

icfeet wrote:
As I said in one of my earlier posts...one of the reasons there are runaway costs is because with health insurance, SOMEONE ELSE is paying the bill.  Also, there was noTORT REFORM in the bill.  As a physician, I have to think a little differently...such as if I DON'T order a test....am I going to get sued?  A friend of mine is an OB/GYN who has a group of 4 docs...they EACH pay $100K in malpractice.  I was talking with him last week and he told me a story about one of his patients.  A baby he delivered had some rare, off the wall genetic problem that is not normally tested in the prenatal period.  When the baby was born (or shortly thereafter), they discovered this rare genetic problem.  Guess who got sued?  That's right....guess who won?  NOT the doc.  So docs are inclined to order MORE tests just to CYA.  Many patients will sue the docs because they see a commercial on TV about "being injured by a doctor...no recovery means no fee"...
Shame most of what you say falls on deaf ears! 
Bad?  
#82 | 1588 days ago
vindog (+)

das3cr wrote:
They promote democrat financial agendas. You don't think that an organization that is an extension of the party isn't going to spin?

To me they don't have any credibility at all. But that's just me. YMMV
Ummm, the CBO also supported the Bush Tax Cuts- were they an extension of the Democratic Party then?  Did you say those things then?  Were they "credible" then?  As MOST Republicans, you appear to ONLY support certain "non-partisan" groups ONLY if they agree with what YOU think- if they disagree with you- then they have a "Liberal Agenda"!   TYPICAL
Good?  
#83 | 1588 days ago
vindog (+)

icfeet wrote:
As I said in one of my earlier posts...one of the reasons there are runaway costs is because with health insurance, SOMEONE ELSE is paying the bill.  Also, there was noTORT REFORM in the bill.  As a physician, I have to think a little differently...such as if I DON'T order a test....am I going to get sued?  A friend of mine is an OB/GYN who has a group of 4 docs...they EACH pay $100K in malpractice.  I was talking with him last week and he told me a story about one of his patients.  A baby he delivered had some rare, off the wall genetic problem that is not normally tested in the prenatal period.  When the baby was born (or shortly thereafter), they discovered this rare genetic problem.  Guess who got sued?  That's right....guess who won?  NOT the doc.  So docs are inclined to order MORE tests just to CYA.  Many patients will sue the docs because they see a commercial on TV about "being injured by a doctor...no recovery means no fee"...
I completely DISAGREE with you on Tort Reform. Why should safeguards be put in place to protect Doctors from being sued? If a Doctor f%^ks up- HE SHOULD BE SUED. We aren't talking about a car accident here- we are talking about a HUMAN BEING! Now if you are talking about Tort Reform in the sense to cover a Doctor over "unfounded lawsuits"- then fine- I agree with that! But this is NOT the Tort Reform that YOU or your PEERS want. You guys want a CAP on the amount you can be sued for- in other words Doctors want to put a PRICE on a human life of what THEY think it is worth! I say, "F%^K THAT"- what gives you guys the right to place a "price tag" on my life? Is $250,000 enough money for my family and I IF a Doctor "slips up" during a routine back surgery and I end up in a wheelchair for the rest of my life- in your opinion?
Good?  
#84 | 1588 days ago

vindog wrote:
I completely DISAGREE with you on Tort Reform. Why should safeguards be put in place to protect Doctors from being sued? If a Doctor f%^ks up- HE SHOULD BE SUED. We aren't talking about a car accident here- we are talking about a HUMAN BEING! Now if you are talking about Tort Reform in the sense to cover a Doctor over "unfounded lawsuits"- then fine- I agree with that! But this is NOT the Tort Reform that YOU or your PEERS want. You guys want a CAP on the amount you can be sued for- in other words Doctors want to put a PRICE on a human life of what THEY think it is worth! I say, "F%^K THAT"- what gives you guys the right to place a "price tag" on my life? Is $250,000 enough money for my family and I IF a Doctor "slips up" during a routine back surgery and I end up in a wheelchair for the rest of my life- in your opinion?
Yes, the tort reform IS needed....medicine is not an EXACT science.  Before any procedure I perform, I explain to the patient I could do a procedure 1000 times, and the SAME WAY every time...and 999 times it could turn out one way...and one time it could be a less than optimum result...and they could be that one time... I agree that if a doc screws up, they should be sued.  When you have commercials on TV saying..."If you've been injured by a doctor, call me...the INJURY lawyer...if we don't win...you don't pay".  If I'm a patient who didn't follow post operative instructions...walked when I wasn't supposed to...or other "contributory negligence" things....and am not "happy" with the result...well....I can call the law firm of Dewey Cheatem & Howe to file a lawsuit....and if I lose...so what...it doesn't cost me anything.  THAT's the kind of reform needed, because if a suit is brought...it costs money to defend it, even if the suit has no merit...which causes malpractice insurance costs to go up...which causes healthcare costs to go up.
Bad?  
#85 | 1588 days ago
vindog (+)

icfeet wrote:
Yes, the tort reform IS needed....medicine is not an EXACT science.  Before any procedure I perform, I explain to the patient I could do a procedure 1000 times, and the SAME WAY every time...and 999 times it could turn out one way...and one time it could be a less than optimum result...and they could be that one time... I agree that if a doc screws up, they should be sued.  When you have commercials on TV saying..."If you've been injured by a doctor, call me...the INJURY lawyer...if we don't win...you don't pay".  If I'm a patient who didn't follow post operative instructions...walked when I wasn't supposed to...or other "contributory negligence" things....and am not "happy" with the result...well....I can call the law firm of Dewey Cheatem & Howe to file a lawsuit....and if I lose...so what...it doesn't cost me anything.  THAT's the kind of reform needed, because if a suit is brought...it costs money to defend it, even if the suit has no merit...which causes malpractice insurance costs to go up...which causes healthcare costs to go up.
I agree with you on frivolous lawsuits, but I can't agree on "capping" lawsuits at a dollar figure in REAL malpractice cases!  I also don't agree with unnecessary testing that is preformed hundreds of thousands of times every year in this Country by Doctors- just so they make more money! There have been way too many documented cases of a Doctor preforming testing and/or ordering tests for things that aren't even associated with the symptoms of the patients, because they can squeeze a few extra bucks out the Insurance Companies. These are also things that cause Health Care costs to skyrocket!
Good?  
#86 | 1588 days ago

vindog wrote:
I agree with you on frivolous lawsuits, but I can't agree on "capping" lawsuits at a dollar figure in REAL malpractice cases!  I also don't agree with unnecessary testing that is preformed hundreds of thousands of times every year in this Country by Doctors- just so they make more money! There have been way too many documented cases of a Doctor preforming testing and/or ordering tests for things that aren't even associated with the symptoms of the patients, because they can squeeze a few extra bucks out the Insurance Companies. These are also things that cause Health Care costs to skyrocket!
...but this legislation CONTINUES TO ALLOW the frivolous lawsuits to be brought...and again....when someone ELSE pays the bill (insurance company)...patients don't think about costs.  They just want to know "does insurance cover it"...so they won't question docs who are ordering "unnecessary" tests.  IF the patients had to PAY for tests ordered by the doctors out of pocket....they would QUESTION why they're being ordered.  Here's a solution for spiraling health care costs....(though it will never be implemented)...Make patients PAY at the time of service, then get REIMBURSED from the insurance company...it would do two things...1. it would make people think twice about running to the doctor for every little complaint...2. It would make doctors less likely to "pad the bill".  If a regularly scheduled office visit normally goes for $50, and the doctor all of a sudden raises the price to $150, the patient is going to balk at the increase...and look elsewhere....and there will be competition...ultimately lowering costs...
Bad?  
#87 | 1588 days ago

icfeet wrote:
...but this legislation CONTINUES TO ALLOW the frivolous lawsuits to be brought...and again....when someone ELSE pays the bill (insurance company)...patients don't think about costs.  They just want to know "does insurance cover it"...so they won't question docs who are ordering "unnecessary" tests.  IF the patients had to PAY for tests ordered by the doctors out of pocket....they would QUESTION why they're being ordered.  Here's a solution for spiraling health care costs....(though it will never be implemented)...Make patients PAY at the time of service, then get REIMBURSED from the insurance company...it would do two things...1. it would make people think twice about running to the doctor for every little complaint...2. It would make doctors less likely to "pad the bill".  If a regularly scheduled office visit normally goes for $50, and the doctor all of a sudden raises the price to $150, the patient is going to balk at the increase...and look elsewhere....and there will be competition...ultimately lowering costs...
 Agree with your overall idea. Not sure on the implementation of it.  Obviously we do far more tests than we need and thats inefficient in terms of money and resources.  The independent studies and boards that are part of this bill have the potential to curb this.  We'll see if they work.
Good?  
#88 | 1588 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 Agree with your overall idea. Not sure on the implementation of it.  Obviously we do far more tests than we need and thats inefficient in terms of money and resources.  The independent studies and boards that are part of this bill have the potential to curb this.  We'll see if they work.
...that also goes to tort reform.  If I'm not worried about every rare, little thing that I could be sued for...then I'll be less likely to order these unnecessary tests.  When I work with residents, I try to get them to think....and one of my sayings is "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses and not zebras".  Yes, there ARE some rare things that pop up....but think of the more common things.  I think that with the threats of the lawsuits, there will be too many tests ordered.
Bad?  
#89 | 1588 days ago

icfeet wrote:
...that also goes to tort reform.  If I'm not worried about every rare, little thing that I could be sued for...then I'll be less likely to order these unnecessary tests.  When I work with residents, I try to get them to think....and one of my sayings is "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses and not zebras".  Yes, there ARE some rare things that pop up....but think of the more common things.  I think that with the threats of the lawsuits, there will be too many tests ordered.
 Agreed. The difficult part is limiting frivolous/eliminating lawsuits but not eliminating penalties for doctors who do mess up.  Putting a cap on the pay out of a lawsuit isn't the fix.
Good?  
#90 | 1588 days ago
vindog (+)

icfeet wrote:
...but this legislation CONTINUES TO ALLOW the frivolous lawsuits to be brought...and again....when someone ELSE pays the bill (insurance company)...patients don't think about costs.  They just want to know "does insurance cover it"...so they won't question docs who are ordering "unnecessary" tests.  IF the patients had to PAY for tests ordered by the doctors out of pocket....they would QUESTION why they're being ordered.  Here's a solution for spiraling health care costs....(though it will never be implemented)...Make patients PAY at the time of service, then get REIMBURSED from the insurance company...it would do two things...1. it would make people think twice about running to the doctor for every little complaint...2. It would make doctors less likely to "pad the bill".  If a regularly scheduled office visit normally goes for $50, and the doctor all of a sudden raises the price to $150, the patient is going to balk at the increase...and look elsewhere....and there will be competition...ultimately lowering costs...
Spoken like a TRUE Doctor- LOL! Most intelligent people KNOW that Doctors are not paid by the Insurance Company what they are billing them at- so YOU want the patient to pay YOU the full amount and let the PATIENT deal with the Insurance Companies and not get reimbursed the SAME amount that the patient paid YOU? LOL People aren't that stupid- HENCE WHY they have Insurance. It's funny to hear a Doctor complain about the new Health Bill though considering that you guys are about to get 30 million + more patients who now HAVE Insurance- this just blows my mind......
Good?  
#91 | 1588 days ago
vindog (+)

icfeet wrote:
...but this legislation CONTINUES TO ALLOW the frivolous lawsuits to be brought...and again....when someone ELSE pays the bill (insurance company)...patients don't think about costs.  They just want to know "does insurance cover it"...so they won't question docs who are ordering "unnecessary" tests.  IF the patients had to PAY for tests ordered by the doctors out of pocket....they would QUESTION why they're being ordered.  Here's a solution for spiraling health care costs....(though it will never be implemented)...Make patients PAY at the time of service, then get REIMBURSED from the insurance company...it would do two things...1. it would make people think twice about running to the doctor for every little complaint...2. It would make doctors less likely to "pad the bill".  If a regularly scheduled office visit normally goes for $50, and the doctor all of a sudden raises the price to $150, the patient is going to balk at the increase...and look elsewhere....and there will be competition...ultimately lowering costs...
Also, I am quite certain that some sort of Tort Reform WILL be added to this Bill in the future. This Bill is just a "rough start" to things to come and ultimately will change over time just as Social Security and Medicare has changed. Tort Reform is something that can be argued and fought for on the floor of the House and Senate- all you have to do is convince the Republicans to quit SAYING NO to every damn thing that is brought forth and actually work on this thing with the Democrats! I know that's a noble idea- but it might just work....
Good?  
#92 | 1588 days ago

vindog wrote:
Spoken like a TRUE Doctor- LOL! Most intelligent people KNOW that Doctors are not paid by the Insurance Company what they are billing them at- so YOU want the patient to pay YOU the full amount and let the PATIENT deal with the Insurance Companies and not get reimbursed the SAME amount that the patient paid YOU? LOL People aren't that stupid- HENCE WHY they have Insurance. It's funny to hear a Doctor complain about the new Health Bill though considering that you guys are about to get 30 million + more patients who now HAVE Insurance- this just blows my mind......
Like I said..it won't be put through...but it WOULD help to bring COMPETITION into medicine.  I know that you've owned a business in the past...I am SURE that you got paid when people used your services at the time of service...NOT 4-6 weeks later.  All I'm saying about the payment up front is that there would be less padding of the bill...BECAUSE PATIENTS WOULD COMPLAIN ABOUT THE HIGH COST...and go to the less-expensive alternative.  RARELY does anyone call and ask "How much do you chrge for XYZ?"....they ask "What insurance do you take?"...and even with copayments listed on the card, there are STILL people who "forget their checkbook"...try forgetting your checkbook at Wal MArt and telling them to send you a bill...
Bad?  
#93 | 1588 days ago

vindog wrote:
Also, I am quite certain that some sort of Tort Reform WILL be added to this Bill in the future. This Bill is just a "rough start" to things to come and ultimately will change over time just as Social Security and Medicare has changed. Tort Reform is something that can be argued and fought for on the floor of the House and Senate- all you have to do is convince the Republicans to quit SAYING NO to every damn thing that is brought forth and actually work on this thing with the Democrats! I know that's a noble idea- but it might just work....
I have my doubts about the tort reform....BECAUSE MOST OF THE POLITICIANS AREW LAWYERS...they have to protect their own...
Bad?  
#94 | 1588 days ago

vindog wrote:
Spoken like a TRUE Doctor- LOL! Most intelligent people KNOW that Doctors are not paid by the Insurance Company what they are billing them at- so YOU want the patient to pay YOU the full amount and let the PATIENT deal with the Insurance Companies and not get reimbursed the SAME amount that the patient paid YOU? LOL People aren't that stupid- HENCE WHY they have Insurance. It's funny to hear a Doctor complain about the new Health Bill though considering that you guys are about to get 30 million + more patients who now HAVE Insurance- this just blows my mind......
...well...30 million+ new patients.....$500 billion in Medicare cuts (large MEDICARE population here...so will probably have to decrease number of medicare patients seen...or instead of working from 8-6 every day, go from 7am to 8pm)...and since most insurance companies base rates on Medicare rates...lower reimbursements.....going to mean longer waits for appointments...
Bad?  
#95 | 1587 days ago

ChristiSunshine wrote:
 I'm not going to get it because i still can't afford it, and it is my understanding that i will be fined for not  getting it, so hell yes I feel like I'm losing my freedom.  i dont have ANY disposable income AT ALL, so even if healthcare is cheaper, it still doesn't help me.  And Ashlie, I don't care if barney the dinosaur owned this bill.  It's my personal opinion, and I am still allowed that in this country.
Iv'e heard it's not going to be easy for them(IRS) to collect P.S. You can hide at my house. lol
#96 | 1587 days ago
vindog (+)

icfeet wrote:
Like I said..it won't be put through...but it WOULD help to bring COMPETITION into medicine.  I know that you've owned a business in the past...I am SURE that you got paid when people used your services at the time of service...NOT 4-6 weeks later.  All I'm saying about the payment up front is that there would be less padding of the bill...BECAUSE PATIENTS WOULD COMPLAIN ABOUT THE HIGH COST...and go to the less-expensive alternative.  RARELY does anyone call and ask "How much do you chrge for XYZ?"....they ask "What insurance do you take?"...and even with copayments listed on the card, there are STILL people who "forget their checkbook"...try forgetting your checkbook at Wal MArt and telling them to send you a bill...
If people can't even afford Insurance NOW- how would you actually EXPECT them to pay "up front" costs to Doctors? Health Insurance is the reason WHY they can actually go to see a Doctor and walk out with only having to make a Co-Pay payment. How in the World would they be able to pay for a $1000 MRI that you just sent them in for?   That is just rediculous to say the very least.  YOUR "idea" would truly turn this Country on it's ear and ONLY the SUPER RICH would be able to actually see a Doctor. How would a single mother with two kids, working two jobs just to put food on the table be able to even take her kid into the Doctor if SHE had to pay upfront- out of pocket costs to a Doctor?  I'm not saying that YOU don't care about people, but as a Doctor, your "ideas" sure seem to be more for YOU and whats in it for YOU than it is for your patients. 
Good?  
#97 | 1587 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
icfeet wrote:
Like I said..it won't be put through...but it WOULD help to bring COMPETITION into medicine.  I know that you've owned a business in the past...I am SURE that you got paid when people used your services at the time of service...NOT 4-6 weeks later.  All I'm saying about the payment up front is that there would be less padding of the bill...BECAUSE PATIENTS WOULD COMPLAIN ABOUT THE HIGH COST...and go to the less-expensive alternative.  RARELY does anyone call and ask "How much do you chrge for XYZ?"....they ask "What insurance do you take?"...and even with copayments listed on the card, there are STILL people who "forget their checkbook"...try forgetting your checkbook at Wal MArt and telling them to send you a bill...
Here is a perfect example of what I am trying to say in opposition to your proposal of having the patient pay up-front:  Roughly 4 months ago, I was working an enormous amount of hours as a Foreman for my Union Electrical Company (we were in the completion phase of the new Planet Hollywood Tower here in Vegas). I was under quite a bit of stress at the time and was working 12-16 hour days- 6-7 days a week and really wasn't eating right or taking care of myself. Low and behold, I started to experience extreme chest pains, arm pains, and shortness of breath- so I went to the Doctor. When I arrived, they took my blood pressure and it was 194/ 102!!!! They freaking freaked out and immediately hooked me up to an EKG machine. My "functions" of my heart showed no signs of cardiac arrest, but they sent me (in an ambulance) to the Heart Specialist at the hospital. Still no signs of cardiac arrest so I was released the next morning and sent to another Heart Specialist. To make a long story short- I was given a stress test, and Eco -cardiogram, and an ultrasound of both my abdomen and my neck. Conclusion: High Blood Pressure and medication prescribed.   After all of this- my Insurance Company was billed over $16,000!!!!!  Now what if I would have had to pay all of those expenses "up-front" BEFORE those tests could have been run? Fortuneatly I have a great paying job and have some cash in lockdown, but not everyone has 16 grand just laying around the house- so chances are, if i didn't have that money-  I may have DIED from High Blood Pressure (or at least went into Cardiac Arrest) because I couldn't pay the Doctor up front for all of those tests like you are suggesting!
Good?  
#98 | 1587 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:

Just a few quick thoughts:

  • 32 million more Americans gain access to health care
  • Premiums will go down by 14-20%
  • The federal deficit will be lowered by $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years due to this bill
  • No more pre-existing conditions
  • No more caps on the amount of health care you can receive
  • No public option, or any more added government health care insurance plans

There are flaws in this bill, no doubt. However, I have yet to see one good argument for why the status quo is better than this bill.
This is something that needed started yrs/decades ago.There is a lot of things that could have made it better.Persons right to buy insurance from any where they wanted for one thing.One major thing that needs changed is the way insurnace companies are just out to keep robbing people for everything they can and before you know it you owe thousands or hundreads of thousands of dollars before you know it.The people who need care a lot of times are the people who can least afford it.The whole insurance company business has to change before this mess can really get better.
Heres one real good question why not let everyone have the insurance that congress has?
#99 | 1587 days ago
vindog (+)

icfeet wrote:
...well...30 million+ new patients.....$500 billion in Medicare cuts (large MEDICARE population here...so will probably have to decrease number of medicare patients seen...or instead of working from 8-6 every day, go from 7am to 8pm)...and since most insurance companies base rates on Medicare rates...lower reimbursements.....going to mean longer waits for appointments...
$500 billion in Medicare cuts (large MEDICARE population here)- this claim is utterly false about the New Bill and is just another calculated falsehood put out there by opponents of the new Bill.   Here is the TRUTH about this and this WAS investigated by the non-partisan Organization FactCheck.org!          

The bill cuts Medicare by $500 billion.

Whether these are "cuts" or much-needed "savings" depends on the political expedience of the moment, it seems. When Republican Sen. John McCain, then a presidential candidate, proposed similar reductions to pay for his health care plan, it was the Obama camp that attacked the Republican for cutting benefits. Whatever you want to call them, it’s a $500 billion reduction in the growth of future spending over 10 years, not a slashing of the current Medicare budget or benefits. It’s true that those who get their coverage through Medicare Advantage’s private plans (about 22 percent of Medicare enrollees) would see fewer add-on benefits; the bill aims to reduce the heftier payments made by the government to Medicare Advantage plans, compared with regular fee-for-service Medicare. The Democrats’ bill also boosts certain benefits: It makes preventive care free and closes the "doughnut hole," a current gap in prescription drug coverage for seniors.         http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/a-final-weekend-of-whoppers/     

Good?  
#100 | 1587 days ago
vindog (+)

icfeet wrote:
I have my doubts about the tort reform....BECAUSE MOST OF THE POLITICIANS AREW LAWYERS...they have to protect their own...

Medical malpractice is the biggest driver of health care spending.

Economic studies simply do not support this claim. Many Republicans strongly back limiting liability awards in medical malpractice cases, and it’s true that doing so would save money. The CBO said measures that conservatives have proposed would save $54 billion over 10 years and "reduce total U.S. health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009)."

That’s real money, but it’s a tiny part of the more than $2 trillion spent on health care annually in the U.S. There’s disagreement over what exactly the biggest drivers of spending are, but medical malpractice doesn’t top the list. About 75 percent of spending, for instance, goes to taking care of chronic disease.       http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/a-final-weekend-of-whoppers/  

Good?  
#101 | 1587 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 Wow, being a waitress for 30 years and feeding my family as a single mother doing that job, well I wonder what it's going to feel like having insurance. 
I work at the hospital and and my rates went up after every pay raise it is called recouping ,  20.000 a year for 14 years is Charity work.
      I could go on and on
Good?  
#102 | 1587 days ago

 The fear of malpractice is driving up medical costs.  In late October, I was bitten by a spider in my kitchen (we were having windows installed and the openings were
exposed at various times for days).   I experienced extreme pain in my foot, followed by numbness and swelling.
I took high doses of Benadryl and Advil.  Fast forward, 3 days,  still with a numb foot.  I went to my Dr. who sent me to their satelite office.   (WITH THE SPIDER IN A BAGGIE)   Dr. asked " does it itch"   No, I  have been taking Benadryl,  Dr.  It doesn't seem swollen  Me:  I have been taking high doses of Advil"     Dr.  Not a spider bite (even though puncture wounds were still visable;   GO TO THE E.R.    Me:  I have no inusrance,   Dr.  They will see you anyway.

ER:  Catscan, Chest Xray,  Blood gasses,    Who's the president?  me huh?  Dr.  Can you touch your nosee?  me "huh"  I got bitten by a spider, here it is.  DR:  I am  Sure you hadve had a stroke.    Dr. threw the spider out in the trash.   No pain, swelling, you MUST have had a stroke.  Me"  I have been treating it with BENADRYL AND ADVIL      7 hours later, I pulled the IV out left AMA
and have an $8000.00 bill.               Foot still numb for 3 weeks.  All I needed was an anti-venom of some sort      My File 13 is filling up fast with bills.  BTW, didn't qualify for medicaid or county aid either.  I make too much money on my unemployment. benefits of 300.00 a week.            
Good?  
#103 | 1587 days ago

If this Bill were as grandiose, important, vital, and as VALID as many here are purporting, I wonder why "DEMOCRATIC REPS" still had to be bribed and threatened into voting for it.

???
Bad?  
#104 | 1587 days ago

RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
If this Bill were as grandiose, important, vital, and as VALID as many here are purporting, I wonder why "DEMOCRATIC REPS" still had to be bribed and threatened into voting for it.

???
....AND the Congress would have to USE THIS PLAN!!!  It it is so good, they wouldn't have EXEMPTED THEMSELVES from it!!
Bad?  
#105 | 1587 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Because it's politics and that's the way it's been going on for a long, long, time now....

I believe the term is "quid pro quo".
#106 | 1587 days ago
vindog (+)

icfeet wrote:
....AND the Congress would have to USE THIS PLAN!!!  It it is so good, they wouldn't have EXEMPTED THEMSELVES from it!!
I would like to hear your input on posts #106 and #107.  Both of those "claims" about this Bill have been completely debunked- so I'm wondering what your thoughts on these perpetrated LIES (by the Right) are?
Good?  
#107 | 1587 days ago

I dont like the idea of kissing Obamaa ass
Bad?  
#108 | 1587 days ago
vindog (+)

iceage1957 wrote:
I dont like the idea of kissing Obamaa ass
Please explain how passing a Health Care Reform Bill is "kissing Obamas ass".......... So helping AMERICANS who can't afford Health Care or aren't offered Health Care by their Employers is "kissing the ass of the President"?  People like you just amaze the s%^t out of me to say the least!  What's really funny is when I read comments like yours- I can nearly 100% guess what part of the Country you are from (or live currently) without even looking at your profile- LOL! And right now I'm guessing that you live somewhere in the South Eastern part of this Country- am I right?
Good?  
#109 | 1587 days ago

I'd like to see even one person prove that Americans aren't losing yet again, one more right.

One of several arguments nobody in Obama's camp wants to address.
Bad?  
#110 | 1587 days ago
vindog (+)

RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
I'd like to see even one person prove that Americans aren't losing yet again, one more right.

One of several arguments nobody in Obama's camp wants to address.
And exactly what Right is that?  In actuality- they are GAINING a right- a RIGHT to Health Care which EVERY Industrialized Nation in the WORLD has- but us!  The SAME RIGHT you and I BOTH had while serving in the Marine Corps!  I honestly think you are viewing this from a very limited perspective..... 
Good?  
#111 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

I've had medicaid for my kids before, it's crazy. You don't get any choice. You get what you get and you better be glad you got it. They tell you who your Dr is, what meds you take because it has to be on the list, they see you when they get around to you and don't beg....they don't care. If you get a bad dr you're stuck with them. I ended up taking my children to my dr. I didn't have insurance so he charged me $25.00 and gave me samples of meds IF he had them. Medicaid for me was totally worthless. I can tell you horror stories. Now I have insurance for me and my girls. Half my pay goes to insurance and I'm glad to pay for it. Anything is better than medicaid. I understand we need reform all the way around. I'm having a problem with the way this is being handled. If this is such a good thing why did it have to be passed so quickly, before we had a chance to know what was in it? Why did the President have to resort to bribery? If you think Government health care is going to be all that you might want to look at medicaid a little more closely. AND, congress needs to use the same health care they are forcing on us. Remember people with Cadillac policies need to pay more so everyone can have insurance. How about we just make all those Democrats AND Republicans pay for the Cadillac policies they get for free.
#112 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

vindog wrote:
Please explain how passing a Health Care Reform Bill is "kissing Obamas ass".......... So helping AMERICANS who can't afford Health Care or aren't offered Health Care by their Employers is "kissing the ass of the President"?  People like you just amaze the s%^t out of me to say the least!  What's really funny is when I read comments like yours- I can nearly 100% guess what part of the Country you are from (or live currently) without even looking at your profile- LOL! And right now I'm guessing that you live somewhere in the South Eastern part of this Country- am I right?
Sometimes I think your perspective is limited as well.
#113 | 1587 days ago
ssusiej46 (+)

confederate_rose98 wrote:
I've had medicaid for my kids before, it's crazy. You don't get any choice. You get what you get and you better be glad you got it. They tell you who your Dr is, what meds you take because it has to be on the list, they see you when they get around to you and don't beg....they don't care. If you get a bad dr you're stuck with them. I ended up taking my children to my dr. I didn't have insurance so he charged me $25.00 and gave me samples of meds IF he had them. Medicaid for me was totally worthless. I can tell you horror stories. Now I have insurance for me and my girls. Half my pay goes to insurance and I'm glad to pay for it. Anything is better than medicaid. I understand we need reform all the way around. I'm having a problem with the way this is being handled. If this is such a good thing why did it have to be passed so quickly, before we had a chance to know what was in it? Why did the President have to resort to bribery? If you think Government health care is going to be all that you might want to look at medicaid a little more closely. AND, congress needs to use the same health care they are forcing on us. Remember people with Cadillac policies need to pay more so everyone can have insurance. How about we just make all those Democrats AND Republicans pay for the Cadillac policies they get for free.
 You said my feeling's well said, be back  to give my respect, all out
Bad?  
#114 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

vindog wrote:
Please explain how passing a Health Care Reform Bill is "kissing Obamas ass".......... So helping AMERICANS who can't afford Health Care or aren't offered Health Care by their Employers is "kissing the ass of the President"?  People like you just amaze the s%^t out of me to say the least!  What's really funny is when I read comments like yours- I can nearly 100% guess what part of the Country you are from (or live currently) without even looking at your profile- LOL! And right now I'm guessing that you live somewhere in the South Eastern part of this Country- am I right?
I can not believe you said that! That's an insult! Every time I get on here I read your comments and you are the biggest pig head I've ever seen. If you don't like what some one says you sling insults. Oh yes, yes, everyone has a right to say what ever they want but you are insulting people in the South Eastern part of the country?? YOU ARE AN INSUFFERABLE ASS!

AN INSUFFERABLE LIBERAL ASS!

And don't fling back anything about Republicans, I'm an Independent!
#115 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

Kissing Obama's ass

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid

Any questions?
#116 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

Hey Dooney hug me quick! I might get kicked off the q
#117 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
In all honesty I HIGHLY doubt anyone praising it have made much of an effort to actually read the bill for themself.

[Any who know me know I'm doing just that ... here's a link:  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c111:./temp/~c111LYEzm5 ]

Subsequently, once this Bill passed another was passed simultaneously.  Same thing that was done when they passed the "Bail Out."
Bingo!
#118 | 1587 days ago
vindog (+)

confederate_rose98 wrote:
I can not believe you said that! That's an insult! Every time I get on here I read your comments and you are the biggest pig head I've ever seen. If you don't like what some one says you sling insults. Oh yes, yes, everyone has a right to say what ever they want but you are insulting people in the South Eastern part of the country?? YOU ARE AN INSUFFERABLE ASS!

AN INSUFFERABLE LIBERAL ASS!

And don't fling back anything about Republicans, I'm an Independent!
Please explain how my comment was an insult? Becuase I made an EDUCATED GUESS about where this person was from? Was I RIGHT? I threw out NO INSULTS at all and ONLY asked a simple question. I think you need to Re-Read what I said. Because I made an assumption about that person being from the South Eastern part of the Country means nothing. Did I say ANYTHING BAD about that person OR anything bad about the South East? I think not! BTW- I'm not a Liberal at all and you know absolutely NOTHING about me!
Good?  
#119 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

ok, soon as i finish my pork rinds
#120 | 1587 days ago
vindog (+)

confederate_rose98 wrote:
Bingo!
Funny you commented this way.... Did YOU read the Bill? Personally I read THE ENTIRE BILL and have even posted the TRUTH about what is says instead of spouting out falsehoods about it like most people on this site has. But hey, I'm nothing but an " Insufferable Liberal Ass" right? Really mature Lady- really mature!  How about you debate me in a Civil manner instead of hurling insults with no basis to back you up.   Or are you afraid to actually debate someone who has educated themself about the TRUTH of this Bill before actually speaking on it. I PROMISE you I will debate YOU point for point on this Bill.
Good?  
#121 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

vindog wrote:
Funny you commented this way.... Did YOU read the Bill? Personally I read THE ENTIRE BILL and have even posted the TRUTH about what is says instead of spouting out falsehoods about it like most people on this site has. But hey, I'm nothing but an " Insufferable Liberal Ass" right? Really mature Lady- really mature!  How about you debate me in a Civil manner instead of hurling insults with no basis to back you up.   Or are you afraid to actually debate someone who has educated themself about the TRUTH of this Bill before actually speaking on it. I PROMISE you I will debate YOU point for point on this Bill.
what vin? are you after my blood now?
#122 | 1587 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
confederate_rose98 wrote:
I've had medicaid for my kids before, it's crazy. You don't get any choice. You get what you get and you better be glad you got it. They tell you who your Dr is, what meds you take because it has to be on the list, they see you when they get around to you and don't beg....they don't care. If you get a bad dr you're stuck with them. I ended up taking my children to my dr. I didn't have insurance so he charged me $25.00 and gave me samples of meds IF he had them. Medicaid for me was totally worthless. I can tell you horror stories. Now I have insurance for me and my girls. Half my pay goes to insurance and I'm glad to pay for it. Anything is better than medicaid. I understand we need reform all the way around. I'm having a problem with the way this is being handled. If this is such a good thing why did it have to be passed so quickly, before we had a chance to know what was in it? Why did the President have to resort to bribery? If you think Government health care is going to be all that you might want to look at medicaid a little more closely. AND, congress needs to use the same health care they are forcing on us. Remember people with Cadillac policies need to pay more so everyone can have insurance. How about we just make all those Democrats AND Republicans pay for the Cadillac policies they get for free.
The reason you "didn't get a choice" as you say about your Kids Medicaid is probably BECAUSE of the STATE RULES on Medicaid in whatever State you may have been living in. EVERY STATE makes their own Medicaid rules- but MOST States DO allow you to choose you own Doctors.  You could have also gone on Managed Medicaid ( if your State offered that choice) and then you may have been able to choose your Doctors as well.  The NEW Health Care Bill is NOTHING like Medicaid at all...  Read it sometime, you may be surprised about what it actually says. Also if you have your own insurance now (as you stated) you won't even be affected by the Health Reform Bill as you WILL be able to keep your own insurance.
Good?  
#123 | 1587 days ago

vindog wrote:
And exactly what Right is that?  In actuality- they are GAINING a right- a RIGHT to Health Care which EVERY Industrialized Nation in the WORLD has- but us!  The SAME RIGHT you and I BOTH had while serving in the Marine Corps!  I honestly think you are viewing this from a very limited perspective..... 
We've had that right for years actually. It just happened to be "free" while we were in the service ... but I doubt anyone argues that it ought to be.

Outside of the military I've only had a shoddy HMO while growing up (before the military), and I've only been covered for 1 year out of the years since. Yet I still don't support this. As much as I am disgruntled by the complexities of it all, and the lying and cheating that plagues the system, I have yet to hear anything, and I've yet to read anything in the bill (which I've spent a good deal of time doing) that convinces me this is a worthwhile endeavor from a "Federal Government's Perspective."

Yes Health Care needs to be more readily available, but shoving it down the throats of the an entire society and making a blanket statement that, "It's for the good of all" is purely socialist.

Not to say that Obama and the Demo-junkies are "socialist" ... just that this bill is a socialist policy. I can't, therefore, support it.
Bad?  
#124 | 1587 days ago
vindog (+)

confederate_rose98 wrote:
what vin? are you after my blood now?
Nope, I'm not after anyone's blood- never have been. I just want people in this Country to understand that this Bill may not be perfect YET- but it is going to help 30 million + people in this Country who CAN'T afford proper Health Care. Is that a bad thing? You yourself (as you confessed) used a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM to take care of your kids at one time, and even though it might not have been perfect for you- it STILL provided your children Health Care that obviously you could not afford at the time. So what is so wrong with others in this Country being afforded the SAME opprotunity that you got for your kids?  
Good?  
#125 | 1587 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:

Does this mean Rush Limbaugh is leaving my town?  I'll drive.................oh wait, he can take his private jet and all his cronies with him.    I had to give up my Cobra insurance last August.  $437.00 a month.  More than 1/3 of my unemployment benefits.  Don't qualify for medicaid, foodstamps or any other benefit available.  I was in the hospital in October and have hosptial bills of over $8000.00   Still have the same health problem and can't afford treatment.  I am hoping this plan will be available to me this time and to all the other Americans out of work in the same situation.  Meanwhile, my next door neighbor (insurance broker) is in Hawaii for 1 month vacation while we keep his dog.   Socaialism, my ass.
 

Been there lost my job because plant closed where I worked for 33 years. Ran out of Cobra thus no insurance. Medical problems and told I had Multiple Sclerosis, no insurance and now a risk so no insurance would take me because of pre existing illness. Unemployment ran out. I'm too young for Socisl Security but have now started to receive it and out of s.s.i. pay for part B+D medicare to help pay for my medications. They put me on generic drugs to keep cost down and even at that I fall into the donut hole. (3Tier meds will do that in a hurry to you). I am taking shots for M.S. once a week and right at this time I am getting a durg company to help me with that. God forbid they stop that help.
Good?  
#126 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

People like you (iceage1957) just amaze the s%^t out of me to say the least! What's really funny is when I read comments like yours- I can nearly guess what part of the country you are from (or live currently) without even looking at your profile.

What exactly did the South East have to do with that? That's not an educated guess, that's a prejudice comment and an insult to everyone in the South East. I don't think everyone in Las Vegas is an insufferable ass. You just insulted the whole region and yes, that's bad.

I'm sorry I assumed you were liberal. Like you I was making an educated guess. Guess that means educated people can make mistakes assuming things.
#127 | 1587 days ago
vindog (+)

RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
We've had that right for years actually. It just happened to be "free" while we were in the service ... but I doubt anyone argues that it ought to be.

Outside of the military I've only had a shoddy HMO while growing up (before the military), and I've only been covered for 1 year out of the years since. Yet I still don't support this. As much as I am disgruntled by the complexities of it all, and the lying and cheating that plagues the system, I have yet to hear anything, and I've yet to read anything in the bill (which I've spent a good deal of time doing) that convinces me this is a worthwhile endeavor from a "Federal Government's Perspective."

Yes Health Care needs to be more readily available, but shoving it down the throats of the an entire society and making a blanket statement that, "It's for the good of all" is purely socialist.

Not to say that Obama and the Demo-junkies are "socialist" ... just that this bill is a socialist policy. I can't, therefore, support it.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Public Education, Police Department, Fire Department, Public Transportation, etc, etc are "Socialist Policies" as well- do you support those policies?  I am forced (with my tax dollars) to pay for others peoples kids education and I have no children- should I PROTEST over that?  Do you see my point?
Good?  
#128 | 1587 days ago
vindog (+)

confederate_rose98 wrote:
People like you (iceage1957) just amaze the s%^t out of me to say the least! What's really funny is when I read comments like yours- I can nearly guess what part of the country you are from (or live currently) without even looking at your profile.

What exactly did the South East have to do with that? That's not an educated guess, that's a prejudice comment and an insult to everyone in the South East. I don't think everyone in Las Vegas is an insufferable ass. You just insulted the whole region and yes, that's bad.

I'm sorry I assumed you were liberal. Like you I was making an educated guess. Guess that means educated people can make mistakes assuming things.
Once again I DID NOT insult anyone! Because I took " a guess" about where that person was from from the text of their comment WAS NOT an insult. Unless of course YOU feel THAT persons comment was ignorant and my response to it was a prejudice comment to others of that persons geography BECAUSE I lumped that person in with "others" from that region.  IF you don't think that persons comment was ignorant- then quite obviously if WAS NOT an insult at all to ANYONE from the South East!  If I personally insulted YOU with my comment then I whole-heartily apologize to you- as it was not my intention.
Good?  
#129 | 1587 days ago

RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
We've had that right for years actually. It just happened to be "free" while we were in the service ... but I doubt anyone argues that it ought to be.

Outside of the military I've only had a shoddy HMO while growing up (before the military), and I've only been covered for 1 year out of the years since. Yet I still don't support this. As much as I am disgruntled by the complexities of it all, and the lying and cheating that plagues the system, I have yet to hear anything, and I've yet to read anything in the bill (which I've spent a good deal of time doing) that convinces me this is a worthwhile endeavor from a "Federal Government's Perspective."

Yes Health Care needs to be more readily available, but shoving it down the throats of the an entire society and making a blanket statement that, "It's for the good of all" is purely socialist.

Not to say that Obama and the Demo-junkies are "socialist" ... just that this bill is a socialist policy. I can't, therefore, support it.
Well said Mc Wiggly...my biggest problem with this was the way it was pushed....yes, some reform and improvement was needed.  I DON'T trust the way it was done...depending on the polls....60-70% of people were NOT in favor of it...we have the BEST HEALTHCARE in the WORLD...could it be improved? Yes....but if I want to add a room to my house, I don't tear the WHOLE HOUSE down, then rebuild it to improve it...I just think that it may sound good...but what sounds too good to be true usually is not true...
Bad?  
#130 | 1587 days ago
vindog (+)

bearcub1 wrote:
Been there lost my job because plant closed where I worked for 33 years. Ran out of Cobra thus no insurance. Medical problems and told I had Multiple Sclerosis, no insurance and now a risk so no insurance would take me because of pre existing illness. Unemployment ran out. I'm too young for Socisl Security but have now started to receive it and out of s.s.i. pay for part B+D medicare to help pay for my medications. They put me on generic drugs to keep cost down and even at that I fall into the donut hole. (3Tier meds will do that in a hurry to you). I am taking shots for M.S. once a week and right at this time I am getting a durg company to help me with that. God forbid they stop that help.
Sorry to hear your story- very sad to say the least. This is the kind of "story" that is going on with millions of Americans and it truly shocks me that the RICHEST COUNTRY in the WORLD can't even take care of it's own people! Thankfully, that is about to change for you. Of course, it is a HUGE fight, and their are A LOT of people that could give a S$%T LESS about your situation, because to them, you would be considered a free loader, but "hopefully" that fight won't last too much longer and you will be able to get proper care!         Good luck to you
Good?  
#131 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

vindog wrote:
Nope, I'm not after anyone's blood- never have been. I just want people in this Country to understand that this Bill may not be perfect YET- but it is going to help 30 million + people in this Country who CAN'T afford proper Health Care. Is that a bad thing? You yourself (as you confessed) used a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM to take care of your kids at one time, and even though it might not have been perfect for you- it STILL provided your children Health Care that obviously you could not afford at the time. So what is so wrong with others in this Country being afforded the SAME opprotunity that you got for your kids?  
My problem was Medicare was so awful I ended up dropping it and went without any. My medicaid Dr tried to force me to sign a form saying I wouldn't sue him for more than X amount of $ if he accidentally caused the death of my child. He said I would be refused treatment if I didn't sign the form. Honestly, if he made that kind of mistake I want to make sure he doesn't get the chance to do that to someone else. I didn't sign the form and he did treat the kids but, health care reform has been put on the table quickly assembled with no one having read it. There are problems that need to be addressed like how will we make this work? How will we pay for it? Who will pay for it. I'm one of those people who can't buy insurance because of a pre existing illness. Now because of this bill I may not be able to buy my own insurance through my employer because my premiums are going up. My hours were cut back and my insurance premiums when up even more. I work less hours so my employer makes me pay more for insurance. So now I'm barely making it and the taxes are going up to pay for this thing but guess what, thanks to this law I will lose the ability to pay for my own insurance and it will be 30 million plus one you'll be paying for. I'm sure I'm not the only one facing this issue. There will be many more.
Medicaid is riddled with fraud, if they could stop that they'd have plenty of money to make government insurance profitable. But they don't even try.
#132 | 1587 days ago
18packabs (+)

Anybody know a GOOD Doctor???
Bad?  
#133 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

vindog wrote:
Nope, I'm not after anyone's blood- never have been. I just want people in this Country to understand that this Bill may not be perfect YET- but it is going to help 30 million + people in this Country who CAN'T afford proper Health Care. Is that a bad thing? You yourself (as you confessed) used a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM to take care of your kids at one time, and even though it might not have been perfect for you- it STILL provided your children Health Care that obviously you could not afford at the time. So what is so wrong with others in this Country being afforded the SAME opprotunity that you got for your kids?  
Like I said vin, the insurance was useless. The veterans hospital here is one of the best and I drove by there almost every day for a year looking at a vet in a tent camped out with a sign leaning against his tent trying to get surgery he needed. When he went in for surgery they'd cancel and he'd be put back in line. I'm afraid after my experience and his as well we are looking at a bigger problem on the horizon.
#134 | 1587 days ago
vindog (+)

confederate_rose98 wrote:
My problem was Medicare was so awful I ended up dropping it and went without any. My medicaid Dr tried to force me to sign a form saying I wouldn't sue him for more than X amount of $ if he accidentally caused the death of my child. He said I would be refused treatment if I didn't sign the form. Honestly, if he made that kind of mistake I want to make sure he doesn't get the chance to do that to someone else. I didn't sign the form and he did treat the kids but, health care reform has been put on the table quickly assembled with no one having read it. There are problems that need to be addressed like how will we make this work? How will we pay for it? Who will pay for it. I'm one of those people who can't buy insurance because of a pre existing illness. Now because of this bill I may not be able to buy my own insurance through my employer because my premiums are going up. My hours were cut back and my insurance premiums when up even more. I work less hours so my employer makes me pay more for insurance. So now I'm barely making it and the taxes are going up to pay for this thing but guess what, thanks to this law I will lose the ability to pay for my own insurance and it will be 30 million plus one you'll be paying for. I'm sure I'm not the only one facing this issue. There will be many more.
Medicaid is riddled with fraud, if they could stop that they'd have plenty of money to make government insurance profitable. But they don't even try.
"My medicaid Dr tried to force me to sign a form saying I wouldn't sue him for more than X amount of $ if he accidentally caused the death of my child."           Funny you made this comment considering that MOST Medical Professionals that are AGAINST the New Bill are against it BECAUSE of what you are saying your medicaid Dr. tried to do!  These Medical Professionals WANT Tort Reform which includes CAPPING you for what you can sue them for if they commit malpractice.... HMMMMMMM    Now why exactly are they against this Bill?  Think about it!               The other questions you asked about how this will be paid for are ALL answered for you if you actually read the Bill or go to non-partisan websites such as FactCheck.org.  OR I could even answer them for you if you like and provide you with links to the answers if you don't trust what I say.  Fair enough?
Good?  
#135 | 1587 days ago

I work with life flight and the Dr's and nursing dept: they all hate what is coming down the pike, Looking down the road an M.R.I. if you need it will take 6 months before it took 2 days after you made an appt: With myself life flight will be no where to be found, If this keep's up I can see a civil war here, God bless America !!
Bad?  
#136 | 1587 days ago

vindog wrote:
Sorry to hear your story- very sad to say the least. This is the kind of "story" that is going on with millions of Americans and it truly shocks me that the RICHEST COUNTRY in the WORLD can't even take care of it's own people! Thankfully, that is about to change for you. Of course, it is a HUGE fight, and their are A LOT of people that could give a S$%T LESS about your situation, because to them, you would be considered a free loader, but "hopefully" that fight won't last too much longer and you will be able to get proper care!         Good luck to you
Thank you for the respect of your open mindness on this subject.
Good?  
#137 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

vindog wrote:
Once again I DID NOT insult anyone! Because I took " a guess" about where that person was from from the text of their comment WAS NOT an insult. Unless of course YOU feel THAT persons comment was ignorant and my response to it was a prejudice comment to others of that persons geography BECAUSE I lumped that person in with "others" from that region.  IF you don't think that persons comment was ignorant- then quite obviously if WAS NOT an insult at all to ANYONE from the South East!  If I personally insulted YOU with my comment then I whole-heartily apologize to you- as it was not my intention.
You don't take a "guess" like that without insulting someone. You hurled an insult and you meant for it to be an insult. Play it any way you want it. You were very naughty.
#138 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

18packabs wrote:
Anybody know a GOOD Doctor???
I know a good psychiatrist
#139 | 1587 days ago
vindog (+)

confederate_rose98 wrote:
You don't take a "guess" like that without insulting someone. You hurled an insult and you meant for it to be an insult. Play it any way you want it. You were very naughty.
Was my "guess" right?   Truthfully, I still haven't looked at that persons profile yet.  Sorry if I was naughty!
Good?  
#140 | 1587 days ago
18packabs (+)

confederate_rose98 wrote:
I know a good psychiatrist
Awesome, can you find out if I get a Group Rate if I have multiple personalities?
Bad?  
#141 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

vindog wrote:
"My medicaid Dr tried to force me to sign a form saying I wouldn't sue him for more than X amount of $ if he accidentally caused the death of my child."           Funny you made this comment considering that MOST Medical Professionals that are AGAINST the New Bill are against it BECAUSE of what you are saying your medicaid Dr. tried to do!  These Medical Professionals WANT Tort Reform which includes CAPPING you for what you can sue them for if they commit malpractice.... HMMMMMMM    Now why exactly are they against this Bill?  Think about it!               The other questions you asked about how this will be paid for are ALL answered for you if you actually read the Bill or go to non-partisan websites such as FactCheck.org.  OR I could even answer them for you if you like and provide you with links to the answers if you don't trust what I say.  Fair enough?
Honestly Vin I haven't read the whole thing. I tried reading it but I couldn't make heads or tails out of it. I promise just for you I will go read it. But please vin, stop with your all knowing sarcasm.
I'm trying to get you to understand what can happen. How come they asked me to sign the form when there was already a state law stating I could only sue for so much? Something sounded fishy so I refused just to see what would happen. They treated the kids anyway. HMMM
I can't get on the tort reform thing yet. I still gotta read the health care reform. Even reading it like you say you have you are still refusing to acknowledge WHAT can happen. Sometimes you need to listen to yourself. I enjoy crossing swords with you but you shouldn't be calling others narrow minded be cause they don't like your point of view. And don't make me explain how I got to the narrow minded part.
#142 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

18packabs wrote:
Awesome, can you find out if I get a Group Rate if I have multiple personalities?
Lol, OMG, that is too funny. My favorite comment of the day! I'd smack you with a couple of respects but they only let me have 10 and I used em all on this poll.
#143 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

vindog wrote:
Was my "guess" right?   Truthfully, I still haven't looked at that persons profile yet.  Sorry if I was naughty!
Lol, I don't know, youve worn me out! Let me go ck. You're starting to grow on me....
#144 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

vindog wrote:
Was my "guess" right?   Truthfully, I still haven't looked at that persons profile yet.  Sorry if I was naughty!
She's from Kentucky
#145 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

(Edited by confederate_rose98)
18packabs wrote:
Awesome, can you find out if I get a Group Rate if I have multiple personalities?
I take that comment back. You'll just have to guess what it was.
#146 | 1587 days ago
18packabs (+)

confederate_rose98 wrote:
I take that comment back. You'll just have to guess what it was.
LMAO....always good to have a couple of conversations with you.......
Bad?  
#147 | 1587 days ago



The government today announced that it's changing its emblem from an Eagle to a CONDOM because it more accurately reflects the government's political stance....A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of d*cks, & gives you a sense of security while you’re actually being scr*wed!

Bad?  
#148 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

vindog wrote:
The reason you "didn't get a choice" as you say about your Kids Medicaid is probably BECAUSE of the STATE RULES on Medicaid in whatever State you may have been living in. EVERY STATE makes their own Medicaid rules- but MOST States DO allow you to choose you own Doctors.  You could have also gone on Managed Medicaid ( if your State offered that choice) and then you may have been able to choose your Doctors as well.  The NEW Health Care Bill is NOTHING like Medicaid at all...  Read it sometime, you may be surprised about what it actually says. Also if you have your own insurance now (as you stated) you won't even be affected by the Health Reform Bill as you WILL be able to keep your own insurance.
I tried everything to change my Dr but they wouldn't allow that. When I received my paperwork they assigned me a Dr  800 miles away. I should have known I was in trouble then. I did promise you I'd read the bill and I will. I just wanted you to understand the scope of things here. Not every one is going to benefit and the cost of providing insurance to everyone can ruin so many things you haven't thought about yet.
#149 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

SickPuppy wrote:



The government today announced that it's changing its emblem from an Eagle to a CONDOM because it more accurately reflects the government's political stance....A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of d*cks, & gives you a sense of security while you’re actually being scr*wed!

LOL, now you're running a close race with 18pacabs.......ok, I think this one takes the cake! I want to put one of those laughing faces on here but they don't have one rolling back and forth on the floor.
#150 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

18packabs wrote:
LMAO....always good to have a couple of conversations with you.......
and you as well. You're usually quiet and then all of the sudden you come out and say something that cracks me up! I love it.
#151 | 1587 days ago
vindog (+)

confederate_rose98 wrote:
Honestly Vin I haven't read the whole thing. I tried reading it but I couldn't make heads or tails out of it. I promise just for you I will go read it. But please vin, stop with your all knowing sarcasm.
I'm trying to get you to understand what can happen. How come they asked me to sign the form when there was already a state law stating I could only sue for so much? Something sounded fishy so I refused just to see what would happen. They treated the kids anyway. HMMM
I can't get on the tort reform thing yet. I still gotta read the health care reform. Even reading it like you say you have you are still refusing to acknowledge WHAT can happen. Sometimes you need to listen to yourself. I enjoy crossing swords with you but you shouldn't be calling others narrow minded be cause they don't like your point of view. And don't make me explain how I got to the narrow minded part.
All I can say to you about your statement here is that ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN with ANYTHING in this Country, but how can we DENY our own Citizens at chance to better their lives?  There are risks in everyday life- everyday- but we still take those risks- don't we?   I never called anyone narrow minded- I did however state that some people are viewing this Bill from a limited perspective. Honestly, I was AGAINST this Bill when it was first proposed until I actually dug into it and read it for myself and eliminated all the lies about it that are floating around. And when all was said and done (though it's not perfected) it WILL (IMHO-and after some amendments) be one of the greatest pieces of Legislation that this Country has ever seen.  I'm also not trying to be an "all knowing sarcastic"- I am however challenging people to actually read the thing BEFORE they just spout off another lie about it that they "heard" on the news or from a friend- that's all.
Good?  
#152 | 1587 days ago
18packabs (+)

confederate_rose98 wrote:
and you as well. You're usually quiet and then all of the sudden you come out and say something that cracks me up! I love it.
The quiet confidence and humor were included with the Charm and the Good Looks.....
Bad?  
#153 | 1587 days ago
vindog (+)

confederate_rose98 wrote:
She's from Kentucky
OOPS, sorry.... : )
Good?  
#154 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

vindog wrote:
Sorry to hear your story- very sad to say the least. This is the kind of "story" that is going on with millions of Americans and it truly shocks me that the RICHEST COUNTRY in the WORLD can't even take care of it's own people! Thankfully, that is about to change for you. Of course, it is a HUGE fight, and their are A LOT of people that could give a S$%T LESS about your situation, because to them, you would be considered a free loader, but "hopefully" that fight won't last too much longer and you will be able to get proper care!         Good luck to you
I don't want my government to take care of me I want to take care of my self. I want to make my own choices not have the government make them for me. At the time I needed help. I worked hard and got what I needed. My insurance is very expensive and I live like a low income person because it's more important for me to see my kids get the best medical care I can give them. I could pocket the money and have a good time and let someone else foot the bill for my emergency room visit. But I choose to pay for what I see as important. I eat less but live with peace of mind knowing I have a choice as to who sees my kids and what medication they need. I may have to pay more but It is still my choice.
#155 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

18packabs wrote:
The quiet confidence and humor were included with the Charm and the Good Looks.....
lol
#156 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

vindog wrote:
OOPS, sorry.... : )
Lol, now I gotta come on here and say you've got my respect!
#157 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

vindog wrote:
All I can say to you about your statement here is that ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN with ANYTHING in this Country, but how can we DENY our own Citizens at chance to better their lives?  There are risks in everyday life- everyday- but we still take those risks- don't we?   I never called anyone narrow minded- I did however state that some people are viewing this Bill from a limited perspective. Honestly, I was AGAINST this Bill when it was first proposed until I actually dug into it and read it for myself and eliminated all the lies about it that are floating around. And when all was said and done (though it's not perfected) it WILL (IMHO-and after some amendments) be one of the greatest pieces of Legislation that this Country has ever seen.  I'm also not trying to be an "all knowing sarcastic"- I am however challenging people to actually read the thing BEFORE they just spout off another lie about it that they "heard" on the news or from a friend- that's all.
 I will read it. That makes good sense. You just have a knack for making me run rampant through the house screaming and banging my head on the walls. My boyfriend gets a kick out of it.
I think we just disagree about what should be earned and given. All Americans have big hearts. Everyone should have access to medical care but we have to find a better way. You can't lay that burden at the feet of those who are already carrying a heavy load. No more tax some more! It has to stop. I don't appreciate Obama's tactics at getting this bill passed. I trust him less everyday and with good reason.
#158 | 1587 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

Nite Vin, I think we made pretty good entertainment! Believe it or not I think I may respect you a teeny bit more too. Don't let that go to your head now!
#159 | 1586 days ago
vindog (+)

confederate_rose98 wrote:
Nite Vin, I think we made pretty good entertainment! Believe it or not I think I may respect you a teeny bit more too. Don't let that go to your head now!
Goodnight to you too.   Yes there may be a better way, and there probably are a lot more changes to come. But, we do and did need some type of starting point and now we have it!
Good?  
#160 | 1586 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Dang.....looks like I missed an exciting day....
#161 | 1586 days ago

vindog wrote:
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Public Education, Police Department, Fire Department, Public Transportation, etc, etc are "Socialist Policies" as well- do you support those policies?  I am forced (with my tax dollars) to pay for others peoples kids education and I have no children- should I PROTEST over that?  Do you see my point?
I don't support Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.  I believe each of those "Would be" better run and more beneficial to our society if they were not Government Regulated/Funded entities.  Especially IF the private sector is more capable of handling problems, because they actually have competitors.  The Government F's up everything it touches, because they tell competition to F off ... and get away with it (hello AIG) ... and than funnel our tax dollars to their lobbyists.

Public Transport, Fire, and Police are ones I support, because the ability to dial 9-1-1, I see as a need, and transportation through the country HAS to be up-to-date, technologically, as it pertains to commerce (car, truck, train, or air transport, our goods must be able to get anywhere!).

Public Education is a whole different monkey.  The way it is now I don't support it!  In the least bit!  We're con'd into believing it's doing something.  Lottery donations are full of s***, as they actually don't pay out as much as they act like ... and doling out funds to schools on the basis of "Property Tax" is a F'd up system in it's entirety!  It's low income areas that need the most assistance, but get the least, because the Feds add "Perk" programs and incentives to award schools "doing good" ............ based on B.S. testing ................ guess what ............ rich schools are "doing good!"  The entire public education system seeks to keep stupid or poor kids stupid and poor and to advance the abilities of rich and/or educated!  And the whole system is Gerrymandered so bad it's almost impossible to fix!  Add to that that they keep cutting the funds for the teachers, the ones who actually make a difference, and .................. well ................. yet another system that would actually do "SOMETHING" if it weren't regulated by the Feds!!!  -------------- All that without mentioning the fact that K-12 is a waste of time since College 101 teaches every students one thing, "Forget what you learned in high school!"  ............... "Public Education" created and purpetuates the term "Inner City Schools"!!

So to answer your question, Yes, you should be protesting.  Because not only are funding other people's educations, but you're not advancing the education of our society as a whole, which is what the system is purporting to do!

And it's not going to be a very long time before we all look at the looming National Debt and realize .... it's NOT going to be fixed until we do one thing ...

Reduce the size and powers of the Federal Government.

"A" Federal entity is what our founders wanted.  Not "A Federal Ruler."  The states are supposed to be able to sustain themselves!  Now EVERY state drains the Federal Government and begs for money, because they have no desire to be any more fiscally responsible than their "superiors."
Bad?  
#162 | 1586 days ago

While I'm ranting about Public Education ..........

States that implemented a lottery (I know Texas did ... not sure how popular that is nationwide) .... most people don't stop to realize that it's merely a "Paper Tax."  One of the most devious ideas of a government entity.  The whole thing entices the poor to buy a piece of paper with the hope that they'll move up to a "noble" status.

What does it actually do?  Fund the richer schools by taking from the poor people who aren't afraid to spend a buck or two on a piece of paper, because "F it .... it's not like [they] can truly afford to even buy a gallon of milk."
Bad?  
#163 | 1586 days ago

(Edited by kteacher)
RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
While I'm ranting about Public Education ..........

States that implemented a lottery (I know Texas did ... not sure how popular that is nationwide) .... most people don't stop to realize that it's merely a "Paper Tax."  One of the most devious ideas of a government entity.  The whole thing entices the poor to buy a piece of paper with the hope that they'll move up to a "noble" status.

What does it actually do?  Fund the richer schools by taking from the poor people who aren't afraid to spend a buck or two on a piece of paper, because "F it .... it's not like [they] can truly afford to even buy a gallon of milk."
":All that without mentioning the fact that K-12 is a waste of time..."


I was all set to give you a thumbs up...then I see the above quote.


Oh crust monkeys, here . I totally agreed with most of what you typed (in regards to education....but that tiny little quote....which I don't get. )
Good?  
#164 | 1586 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
While I'm ranting about Public Education ..........

States that implemented a lottery (I know Texas did ... not sure how popular that is nationwide) .... most people don't stop to realize that it's merely a "Paper Tax."  One of the most devious ideas of a government entity.  The whole thing entices the poor to buy a piece of paper with the hope that they'll move up to a "noble" status.

What does it actually do?  Fund the richer schools by taking from the poor people who aren't afraid to spend a buck or two on a piece of paper, because "F it .... it's not like [they] can truly afford to even buy a gallon of milk."
Fair enough on all of your points- at least you are consistent in your beliefs- which is much, much more than I can't say about MOST who oppose this bill!  MOST people who oppose this Bill, oppose it for ONE REASON and ONE REASON ONLY- that reason? Because their Party didn't create it and because the President is a Democrat- nothing more! The thing that really gets me is that this Bill is nearly IDENTICAL to what Mitt Romney passed and implemented in Massachusetts- yet HE is also brain-washing (and lying) to people to be opposed to it.   This is a short breakdown of HIS Bill- which BTW was fully supported by the Republican Party

The Massachusetts health care reform law was enacted in 2006. It requires nearly every resident of Massachusetts to obtain health insurance coverage. Through the law, Massachusetts provides free health care for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL)[1], and partially-subsidized health care for those earning up to 300% of the FPL, depending on an income-based sliding scale. The law is credited with covering an additional 439,000 Massachusetts residents as of April 1, 2008.[2]

The law established an independent public authority, the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, also known as the Health Connector, which offers the subsidized coverage and facilitates the selection and purchase of private insurance plans by individuals and small businesses.[3][4] Incentives for residents to obtain health insurance coverage include tax penalties for failing to obtain an insurance plan. In 2007, Massachusetts tax filers who failed to enroll in a health insurance plan that was deemed affordable for them lost the $219 personal exemption on their income tax. Beginning in 2008, penalties (based on half of the cost of a health insurance plan) increased by monthly increments.[5][6]

The reform law was enacted as Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006 of the Massachusetts General Court, entitled An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care. In October 2006, January 2007, and November 2007, bills were enacted that amended and made technical corrections to the statute (Chapters 324 and 450 of the Acts of 2006, and chapter 205 of the Acts of 2007).[7]:       So I guess my thoughts are, if this Bill is good enough for Mitt Romney's "State"- then why is he opposed to this SAME TEXT OF A BILL being implemented throughout ALL States?  Reason? POLITICAL PURPOSES ONLY!!!   This action by Romney (and MOST of the "Politicians" opposed to this Bill) shows a clear reason WHY these people are fighting so hard against this Bill and WHY they refuse to be part of the process- it's ALL political!

Good?  
#165 | 1586 days ago

If I'm not mistaken -- I didn't hear one thing about the Health Care bill today.  With all the uproar that was going on -- it seems very odd that it all of a sudden not a newsworthy item for the media.  And I still think the bill sucks keno-eke water. 
Bad?  
#166 | 1585 days ago

vindog wrote:
Fair enough on all of your points- at least you are consistent in your beliefs- which is much, much more than I can't say about MOST who oppose this bill!  MOST people who oppose this Bill, oppose it for ONE REASON and ONE REASON ONLY- that reason? Because their Party didn't create it and because the President is a Democrat- nothing more! The thing that really gets me is that this Bill is nearly IDENTICAL to what Mitt Romney passed and implemented in Massachusetts- yet HE is also brain-washing (and lying) to people to be opposed to it.   This is a short breakdown of HIS Bill- which BTW was fully supported by the Republican Party

The Massachusetts health care reform law was enacted in 2006. It requires nearly every resident of Massachusetts to obtain health insurance coverage. Through the law, Massachusetts provides free health care for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL)[1], and partially-subsidized health care for those earning up to 300% of the FPL, depending on an income-based sliding scale. The law is credited with covering an additional 439,000 Massachusetts residents as of April 1, 2008.[2]

The law established an independent public authority, the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, also known as the Health Connector, which offers the subsidized coverage and facilitates the selection and purchase of private insurance plans by individuals and small businesses.[3][4] Incentives for residents to obtain health insurance coverage include tax penalties for failing to obtain an insurance plan. In 2007, Massachusetts tax filers who failed to enroll in a health insurance plan that was deemed affordable for them lost the $219 personal exemption on their income tax. Beginning in 2008, penalties (based on half of the cost of a health insurance plan) increased by monthly increments.[5][6]

The reform law was enacted as Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006 of the Massachusetts General Court, entitled An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care. In October 2006, January 2007, and November 2007, bills were enacted that amended and made technical corrections to the statute (Chapters 324 and 450 of the Acts of 2006, and chapter 205 of the Acts of 2007).[7]:       So I guess my thoughts are, if this Bill is good enough for Mitt Romney's "State"- then why is he opposed to this SAME TEXT OF A BILL being implemented throughout ALL States?  Reason? POLITICAL PURPOSES ONLY!!!   This action by Romney (and MOST of the "Politicians" opposed to this Bill) shows a clear reason WHY these people are fighting so hard against this Bill and WHY they refuse to be part of the process- it's ALL political!

As you pointed out, I still oppose it all, but I do agree with you ... almost everyone who opposes it opposes it for reasons they don't even understand .... likewise, many who support it simply regurgitate blanket statements they heard or read in some news article.

What really baffles me though, is that we still have this habit of "Federalizing to Fix" even though we almost all collectively agree the Federal Gov't is more corrupt and inept than most every other entity in the nation.

Good points all around, however! (This is a thumb ... not sure why I hit Fn respond on my dorky a** Wall.)
Bad?  
#167 | 1585 days ago

I'm registered as NONE   I don't vote because of a Party -- I vote on a persons record and/or what I believe they stand for.  If they consistently vote on bills in a way that I don't like, then I voice my opinion and I don't vote for them the next time.  As far as this bill goes, there are some "good" things with it -- but to me, it still comes back to NO CHOICE and RECKLESS SPENDING.  Paying for something 3-4 years in advance is something I would never do for anything.  It also continues down a road where everything is dependent on the government.  It also allows choice for those that can afford it.   The effects of this bill can be catastrophic to a point where it deters people from entering the medical profession -- why do people from all over the world come to the US for medical treatment?  Because we a world wide leader in that profession.  Yes, in my opinion they charge too much but - does this bill offer any incentives for doctors to want to continue -- I don't think so.  Given the track record of Medicare - a government run medical plan would only serve as a disaster to most people.  I also despise the fact that it will cover illegal aliens - I'm tired of paying for illegal aliens and dead beat welfare recipients.  That's my story and I'm sticking with it.
Bad?  
#168 | 1585 days ago

SickPuppy wrote:
I'm registered as NONE   I don't vote because of a Party -- I vote on a persons record and/or what I believe they stand for.  If they consistently vote on bills in a way that I don't like, then I voice my opinion and I don't vote for them the next time.  As far as this bill goes, there are some "good" things with it -- but to me, it still comes back to NO CHOICE and RECKLESS SPENDING.  Paying for something 3-4 years in advance is something I would never do for anything.  It also continues down a road where everything is dependent on the government.  It also allows choice for those that can afford it.   The effects of this bill can be catastrophic to a point where it deters people from entering the medical profession -- why do people from all over the world come to the US for medical treatment?  Because we a world wide leader in that profession.  Yes, in my opinion they charge too much but - does this bill offer any incentives for doctors to want to continue -- I don't think so.  Given the track record of Medicare - a government run medical plan would only serve as a disaster to most people.  I also despise the fact that it will cover illegal aliens - I'm tired of paying for illegal aliens and dead beat welfare recipients.  That's my story and I'm sticking with it.
Well said!!
Bad?  
#169 | 1585 days ago
vindog (+)

SickPuppy wrote:
I'm registered as NONE   I don't vote because of a Party -- I vote on a persons record and/or what I believe they stand for.  If they consistently vote on bills in a way that I don't like, then I voice my opinion and I don't vote for them the next time.  As far as this bill goes, there are some "good" things with it -- but to me, it still comes back to NO CHOICE and RECKLESS SPENDING.  Paying for something 3-4 years in advance is something I would never do for anything.  It also continues down a road where everything is dependent on the government.  It also allows choice for those that can afford it.   The effects of this bill can be catastrophic to a point where it deters people from entering the medical profession -- why do people from all over the world come to the US for medical treatment?  Because we a world wide leader in that profession.  Yes, in my opinion they charge too much but - does this bill offer any incentives for doctors to want to continue -- I don't think so.  Given the track record of Medicare - a government run medical plan would only serve as a disaster to most people.  I also despise the fact that it will cover illegal aliens - I'm tired of paying for illegal aliens and dead beat welfare recipients.  That's my story and I'm sticking with it.
I respect your position, and your thought about what COULD happen- as everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I would also agree with you on this point IF was a factual statement, however your assessment of " illegal aliens being covered" is WRONG and it is NOT in the Bill. Here is the TRUTH about that point: 

Claim: Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

False. That’s simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes "SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE," which says that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." However, the bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can’t get any government money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." And as we’ve said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs.  http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/                            



Now obviously you are against "dead beat welfare recipients" just as I am, BUT this Bill has nothing to do with them anyway. Welfare recipients ALREADY RECEIVE Heath Care without this Bill and "these recipients" were NOT the reason that this Bill was created.   

Good?  
#170 | 1585 days ago
vindog (+)

SickPuppy wrote:
I'm registered as NONE   I don't vote because of a Party -- I vote on a persons record and/or what I believe they stand for.  If they consistently vote on bills in a way that I don't like, then I voice my opinion and I don't vote for them the next time.  As far as this bill goes, there are some "good" things with it -- but to me, it still comes back to NO CHOICE and RECKLESS SPENDING.  Paying for something 3-4 years in advance is something I would never do for anything.  It also continues down a road where everything is dependent on the government.  It also allows choice for those that can afford it.   The effects of this bill can be catastrophic to a point where it deters people from entering the medical profession -- why do people from all over the world come to the US for medical treatment?  Because we a world wide leader in that profession.  Yes, in my opinion they charge too much but - does this bill offer any incentives for doctors to want to continue -- I don't think so.  Given the track record of Medicare - a government run medical plan would only serve as a disaster to most people.  I also despise the fact that it will cover illegal aliens - I'm tired of paying for illegal aliens and dead beat welfare recipients.  That's my story and I'm sticking with it.
I would also like to address this point that you made, you said "  The effects of this bill can be catastrophic to a point where it deters people from entering the medical profession -- why do people from all over the world come to the US for medical treatment?  Because we a world wide leader in that profession. "            


In 2000, World Heath Organization (WHO) ranked the Unites States 37th overall IN THE WORLD for Health Care http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html, using whatever "system" they use. Now alot of people may argue this ranking (and that is their right)- but it is what it is and it's kind of hard to dispute their findings. So my question is: " Even with the New Health Care system, WHERE ARE OUR "DOCTORS" going to go? The U.S. is the ONLY industrialized Nation in the World WITHOUT a "Universal Health Care System" and Doctors make alot more money here- hence WHY the Doctors are here now (BECAUSE of the enormous amounts of cash that they make) , but if/when this new system is put in place, are the Doctors going to leave? NOT A CHANCE!  They are STILL going to make an a$$load of money here in the U.S. and NOW they will have 30+ million MORE CUSTOMERS to do it with.  Once again, this is another statement passed off by heath care opponents who are telling falsehoods.
Good?  
#171 | 1585 days ago

(Edited by SickPuppy)
vindog wrote:
I respect your position, and your thought about what COULD happen- as everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I would also agree with you on this point IF was a factual statement, however your assessment of " illegal aliens being covered" is WRONG and it is NOT in the Bill. Here is the TRUTH about that point: 

Claim: Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

False. That’s simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes "SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE," which says that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." However, the bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can’t get any government money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." And as we’ve said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs.  http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/                            



Now obviously you are against "dead beat welfare recipients" just as I am, BUT this Bill has nothing to do with them anyway. Welfare recipients ALREADY RECEIVE Heath Care without this Bill and "these recipients" were NOT the reason that this Bill was created.   

That is part of my point -- this bill does not correct ANYTHING that is currently wrong with the current setup -- it just adds more problems.  Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of an overhaul of the current medical system - I don't like the way it is ... but this bill is not the solution, it only causes more problems.  Whew ... I've got to go back to sports stuff -- this can be debated until he!! freezes over -- it's been passed and my future votes will be greatly affected by it.  Wow - I've actually stayed calm about this subject today -- but this is a sports site and I'm going back that stuff (and post some jokes and maybe find a sex poll).  Hope your day, as well as everyone else, is very good.    
Bad?  
#172 | 1585 days ago
vindog (+)

SickPuppy wrote:
That is part of my point -- this bill does not correct ANYTHING that is currently wrong with the current setup -- it just adds more problems.  Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of an overhaul of the current medical system - I don't like the way it is ... but this bill is not the solution, it only causes more problems.  Whew ... I've got to go back to sports stuff -- this can be debated until he!! freezes over -- it's been passed and my future votes will be greatly affected by it.  Wow - I've actually stayed calm about this subject today -- but this is a sports site and I'm going back that stuff (and post some jokes and maybe find a sex poll).  Hope your day, as well as everyone else, is very good.    
My answer to that is "You are right" (to an extent)! The Bill can't change a Federal Law- only the Supreme Court can- whom, BTW,  were the one who passed it and allowed it to be a law.  It's a "discrimination law" more than it is a "Health Care Law"- hence the reason WHY it was passed. It states (paraphrasing) that ANYONE (whether they are a U.S. Citizen or not) can not be denied treatment for an illness in an Emergency room...... Though I am against this "law" personally- you have to blame the Supreme Court for it- not the current Administration.....    And in actuality, this Bill "cleans up" that law quite a bit because NOW a lot of people(American Citizens without Insurance)  WON'T be using an Emergency room as their General Practitioners Office anymore as they WILL have health care- and won't be forced to use the law against the Hospitals. As far as the "illegal aliens" though, it is STILL a "discrimination issue" within the Supreme Court and NO BILL will ever change that law.
Good?  
#173 | 1585 days ago

vindog wrote:
I would also like to address this point that you made, you said "  The effects of this bill can be catastrophic to a point where it deters people from entering the medical profession -- why do people from all over the world come to the US for medical treatment?  Because we a world wide leader in that profession. "            


In 2000, World Heath Organization (WHO) ranked the Unites States 37th overall IN THE WORLD for Health Care http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html, using whatever "system" they use. Now alot of people may argue this ranking (and that is their right)- but it is what it is and it's kind of hard to dispute their findings. So my question is: " Even with the New Health Care system, WHERE ARE OUR "DOCTORS" going to go? The U.S. is the ONLY industrialized Nation in the World WITHOUT a "Universal Health Care System" and Doctors make alot more money here- hence WHY the Doctors are here now (BECAUSE of the enormous amounts of cash that they make) , but if/when this new system is put in place, are the Doctors going to leave? NOT A CHANCE!  They are STILL going to make an a$$load of money here in the U.S. and NOW they will have 30+ million MORE CUSTOMERS to do it with.  Once again, this is another statement passed off by heath care opponents who are telling falsehoods.
Ok -- you dragged me in for one more.  Personally I don't care about the World Health Organization -- especially a 2000 ranking - we're 10 years past that.  I don't care what the rest of world does, if they are doing something it doesn't make it right for the US.  And I have to disagree with you on doctors making an a$$load of money with 30+ million more ... I firmly believe that the number of people that enter the medical field will dwindle because they won't want to be subjected to government regulations and controls - especially when they will be coming from politicians who don't know their a$$ from a hole in the ground.  And as far as I have read, people do come from all over the world to be treated here.  Doctors have to make a lot more here because of the law suits and insurance premiums -- again this is another problem that the bill did not create a rational solution for.  Government can't fix itself -- how can you possibly believe that it can fix something that it doesn't know anything about.  Anything that needs to be paid for 3 - 4 years in advance is ill planned and/or is going to create a tax burden so large that it will have a catastrophic effect.  Can we get off this now?
Bad?  
#174 | 1585 days ago

(Edited by SickPuppy)
vindog wrote:
My answer to that is "You are right" (to an extent)! The Bill can't change a Federal Law- only the Supreme Court can- whom, BTW,  were the one who passed it and allowed it to be a law.  It's a "discrimination law" more than it is a "Health Care Law"- hence the reason WHY it was passed. It states (paraphrasing) that ANYONE (whether they are a U.S. Citizen or not) can not be denied treatment for an illness in an Emergency room...... Though I am against this "law" personally- you have to blame the Supreme Court for it- not the current Administration.....    And in actuality, this Bill "cleans up" that law quite a bit because NOW a lot of people(American Citizens without Insurance)  WON'T be using an Emergency room as their General Practitioners Office anymore as they WILL have health care- and won't be forced to use the law against the Hospitals. As far as the "illegal aliens" though, it is STILL a "discrimination issue" within the Supreme Court and NO BILL will ever change that law.
Oh -- by the way --- this is for gtowndogg -----     GO PHILLIES       GO FLYERS        this is for me    GO YANKEES   GO SABRES    GO BILLS (someplace where you can win)   GO  GO   darn I ran out of GO's  for the day.     ewwww  that could cause some internal plumbing problems       PEACE!!!!
Bad?  
#175 | 1585 days ago
vindog (+)

SickPuppy wrote:
Ok -- you dragged me in for one more.  Personally I don't care about the World Health Organization -- especially a 2000 ranking - we're 10 years past that.  I don't care what the rest of world does, if they are doing something it doesn't make it right for the US.  And I have to disagree with you on doctors making an a$$load of money with 30+ million more ... I firmly believe that the number of people that enter the medical field will dwindle because they won't want to be subjected to government regulations and controls - especially when they will be coming from politicians who don't know their a$$ from a hole in the ground.  And as far as I have read, people do come from all over the world to be treated here.  Doctors have to make a lot more here because of the law suits and insurance premiums -- again this is another problem that the bill did not create a rational solution for.  Government can't fix itself -- how can you possibly believe that it can fix something that it doesn't know anything about.  Anything that needs to be paid for 3 - 4 years in advance is ill planned and/or is going to create a tax burden so large that it will have a catastrophic effect.  Can we get off this now?
Sure we can go to a different thread and get off this subject. But THIS THREAD is about Health Care- hence why we are on this subject on this thread!
Good?  
#176 | 1585 days ago

(Edited by SickPuppy)
vindog wrote:
Sure we can go to a different thread and get off this subject. But THIS THREAD is about Health Care- hence why we are on this subject on this thread!
ok fine --- let's look a this bill from this perspective .. forget the words that are printed on the 23,000,000 page document and just try to examine what happened to get it passed in congress.

How many back door bribes had to be made to gain necessary votes?
Would you start paying for anything that took 3-4 years before you received any benefits from it?
Why is 10 years used to show that it supposed to actually start being cost effective?
Why would you want the government to control another aspect of your life?

Doesn't any of that bother you?

Like I said - it's not that I don't want health care changes, but I firmly believe that this is not only a band aid for the problem, but an infected band aid that will create more  problems in areas that aren't even related to health care.

PS  -- I like your dog

you got rid of the puppy dog      why for you do that?
Bad?  
#177 | 1585 days ago
vindog (+)

SickPuppy wrote:
ok fine --- let's look a this bill from this perspective .. forget the words that are printed on the 23,000,000 page document and just try to examine what happened to get it passed in congress.

How many back door bribes had to be made to gain necessary votes?
Would you start paying for anything that took 3-4 years before you received any benefits from it?
Why is 10 years used to show that it supposed to actually start being cost effective?
Why would you want the government to control another aspect of your life?

Doesn't any of that bother you?

Like I said - it's not that I don't want health care changes, but I firmly believe that this is not only a band aid for the problem, but an infected band aid that will create more  problems in areas that aren't even related to health care.

PS  -- I like your dog

you got rid of the puppy dog      why for you do that?
Let me try to answer your questions one by one for you with a truthful (unsegregated answer):    How many back door bribes had to be made to gain necessary votes?    I really don't know- do you? Maybe a lot of them, maybe none of them. I guess it comes down to whomever (or WHICH PARTY and LIE you believe)!  There is NO EVIDENCE that anything like that was done at all, just a lot of political banter from the Right!
Would you start paying for anything that took 3-4 years before you received any benefits from it?   You mean like your retirement, savings accounts, Cd's, investments, pensions, Social Security, etc....  We do it ALL THE TIME and besides, a lot of things in this Bill START IMMEDIATELY like tax incentives (and cuts) for small businesses and Pre-existing condition coverage for kids, etc.....
Why is 10 years used to show that it supposed to actually start being cost effective?   Because it costs money to help 30+ million Americans receive Health Care and the immediate cost is a lot to bear- but it does show that it WILL reduce the deficit by 1.2 Trillion dollars with 20 years.  Also, unlike the Bush Tax Cuts (which were supported by the CBO as well)- this Bill is NOT UNFUNDED! 
Why would you want the government to control another aspect of your life?  Quite honestly, I don't see it as Government control of my life, just as I don't view Social Security or Medicare as Government control of my life! I truthfully see it as a RIGHT given to the American People- a RIGHT to Health Care- not a privilege like a lot of people think it should be! Why should ONLY those who make good money be allowed to have Health Care because they are the ONLY ones who can afford it? I'm SICK of the RICH running my life and it's about time that a piece of Legislation has been passed in this Country FOR THE PEOPLE!
Good?  
#178 | 1585 days ago

vindog wrote:
Let me try to answer your questions one by one for you with a truthful (unsegregated answer):    How many back door bribes had to be made to gain necessary votes?    I really don't know- do you? Maybe a lot of them, maybe none of them. I guess it comes down to whomever (or WHICH PARTY and LIE you believe)!  There is NO EVIDENCE that anything like that was done at all, just a lot of political banter from the Right!
Would you start paying for anything that took 3-4 years before you received any benefits from it?   You mean like your retirement, savings accounts, Cd's, investments, pensions, Social Security, etc....  We do it ALL THE TIME and besides, a lot of things in this Bill START IMMEDIATELY like tax incentives (and cuts) for small businesses and Pre-existing condition coverage for kids, etc.....
Why is 10 years used to show that it supposed to actually start being cost effective?   Because it costs money to help 30+ million Americans receive Health Care and the immediate cost is a lot to bear- but it does show that it WILL reduce the deficit by 1.2 Trillion dollars with 20 years.  Also, unlike the Bush Tax Cuts (which were supported by the CBO as well)- this Bill is NOT UNFUNDED! 
Why would you want the government to control another aspect of your life?  Quite honestly, I don't see it as Government control of my life, just as I don't view Social Security or Medicare as Government control of my life! I truthfully see it as a RIGHT given to the American People- a RIGHT to Health Care- not a privilege like a lot of people think it should be! Why should ONLY those who make good money be allowed to have Health Care because they are the ONLY ones who can afford it? I'm SICK of the RICH running my life and it's about time that a piece of Legislation has been passed in this Country FOR THE PEOPLE!
Yes - there is evidence of back door bribes ... they are written into the bill for states that are going to receive special treatment.  The ones that could be even worse are the possibility of those that we don't know about -- and if you say that's an "if" -- then just think of what politicians do best -- you know darn well that there are other bribes going on.

CD's, pension, investments, etc -- you do receive benefits from immediately.  Pension in particular offer tax credits as incentives to save for it.  CD's and other investment offer interest and dividends that you can see grow.  They are talking about supposedly "saving" or putting aside dollars to pay for something that doesn't exist.  Which, in itself, is a joke for politicians to say that they can "save" or "stock up".  They  pi$$ away more money than I could possibly dream of.

This bill will be funded by taxpayers -- there isn't any way around it.  It will not reduce the deficit ... hence, the infected band aid comment.

Medical care is not a right for anyone ... you have to earn rights, they should never be given - when rights are given - people expect them to be given for everything.

This legislation was not passed for the people -- it was passed for power and control by government   for government to take more control of our lives and have more power over your life.
Bad?  
#179 | 1585 days ago
vindog (+)

SickPuppy wrote:
Yes - there is evidence of back door bribes ... they are written into the bill for states that are going to receive special treatment.  The ones that could be even worse are the possibility of those that we don't know about -- and if you say that's an "if" -- then just think of what politicians do best -- you know darn well that there are other bribes going on.

CD's, pension, investments, etc -- you do receive benefits from immediately.  Pension in particular offer tax credits as incentives to save for it.  CD's and other investment offer interest and dividends that you can see grow.  They are talking about supposedly "saving" or putting aside dollars to pay for something that doesn't exist.  Which, in itself, is a joke for politicians to say that they can "save" or "stock up".  They  pi$$ away more money than I could possibly dream of.

This bill will be funded by taxpayers -- there isn't any way around it.  It will not reduce the deficit ... hence, the infected band aid comment.

Medical care is not a right for anyone ... you have to earn rights, they should never be given - when rights are given - people expect them to be given for everything.

This legislation was not passed for the people -- it was passed for power and control by government   for government to take more control of our lives and have more power over your life.
Obviously, we have fundamental differences in how we view this Bill. You have, as does EVERY AMERICAN, the RIGHT to change this if you desire via the voting process. If you don't like what the politicians did- you CAN vote them out of office. However, now that 30 million Americans are NOW receiving Health Care- trying to get somebody elected who is AGAINST Health Care is going to be extremely difficult. How is a politician gonna campaign on the idea of " I'M TAKING YOUR HEALTH CARE AWAY"? LOL  It ain't happening. This Country "over-whelmingly" elected President Obama to change this Country and Health Care was one of his BIGGEST Campaign points- AND he DID what HE PROMISED AMERICANS he would do! That is a lot more than ANY previous President has ever done.   Look at the latest polls for example, the majority of  Americans were against this Bill (mainly because of all the arguing and bickering going on- with NO results)- since the passing of this Bill- the Country has flipped and now support it AND the Presidents numbers have gone back up as well. Finally Congress and the Senate did SOMETHING instead of doing nothing and wasting tax payer money doing nothing.  Good luck to John McCain as well, as he clearly stated that he is going to REFUSE TO COOPERATE in the Senate now (because of the passing of this Bill) and that he is just going to collect a paycheck- WHAA WHAA WHAA! Lets see if the American people are going to re-elect a person to the Senate who refuses to DO HIS JOB- LOL!
Good?  
#180 | 1585 days ago
vindog (+)

SickPuppy wrote:
Yes - there is evidence of back door bribes ... they are written into the bill for states that are going to receive special treatment.  The ones that could be even worse are the possibility of those that we don't know about -- and if you say that's an "if" -- then just think of what politicians do best -- you know darn well that there are other bribes going on.

CD's, pension, investments, etc -- you do receive benefits from immediately.  Pension in particular offer tax credits as incentives to save for it.  CD's and other investment offer interest and dividends that you can see grow.  They are talking about supposedly "saving" or putting aside dollars to pay for something that doesn't exist.  Which, in itself, is a joke for politicians to say that they can "save" or "stock up".  They  pi$$ away more money than I could possibly dream of.

This bill will be funded by taxpayers -- there isn't any way around it.  It will not reduce the deficit ... hence, the infected band aid comment.

Medical care is not a right for anyone ... you have to earn rights, they should never be given - when rights are given - people expect them to be given for everything.

This legislation was not passed for the people -- it was passed for power and control by government   for government to take more control of our lives and have more power over your life.
One other thing, you stated: " Yes - there is evidence of back door bribes ... they are written into the bill for states that are going to receive special treatment.  The ones that could be even worse are the possibility of those that we don't know about"     


Quite honestly, I've read the entire Bill and have yet come across one of these "bribes" that you are talking about. Maybe I just missed it- who knows. Could you please provide me with a reference and/or link to one of these "back-door deals" that you are referring to? Because for the life of me- I can't find them..... Just because Jon Boener or Eric Cantor states something- doesn't make it the TRUTH you know....
Good?  
#181 | 1585 days ago

I guess you're forgetting about the "Louisiana Purcahse" given to Mary Landrieu from Louisiana..... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102272.html
Bad?  
#182 | 1585 days ago

vindog wrote:
One other thing, you stated: " Yes - there is evidence of back door bribes ... they are written into the bill for states that are going to receive special treatment.  The ones that could be even worse are the possibility of those that we don't know about"     


Quite honestly, I've read the entire Bill and have yet come across one of these "bribes" that you are talking about. Maybe I just missed it- who knows. Could you please provide me with a reference and/or link to one of these "back-door deals" that you are referring to? Because for the life of me- I can't find them..... Just because Jon Boener or Eric Cantor states something- doesn't make it the TRUTH you know....
Sorry - I was in a hurry to respond as I had to leave for a while and mistyped that the bribes were written into the bill.  "Back door bribes" are a fact -- several states will receive preferential treatment either to the health care bill itself or for some other pet project.  They are also known as pork when added to a bill -- the bill itself may not reflect these, but the "bribes" were used to gain "yes" votes -- this has been documented --- it is a fact, all you had to do is listen to the news.  I don't have the time to research links and I won't make the time to do that -- the ones I know about have been made public -- it's the ones that I don't know about that should scare you and everyone else.

Frankly, we aren't going to agree on this at all.  You are hung up on 30+ million people being covered and feel it's the best thing since soda pop was invented.  I am hung up on loss of freedom of choice, the corruption that took place to force this bill to be passed and direction that this will take our country.  

Who is Jon Boener and Eric Cantor?

Anyway -- I think you will understand better as time goes on, I just hope it isn't realized before it's too late.
Bad?  
#183 | 1585 days ago
vindog (+)

icfeet wrote:
I guess you're forgetting about the "Louisiana Purcahse" given to Mary Landrieu from Louisiana..... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102272.html
No, I did NOT know that and I AM against this type of thing- but it's not going to change my mind on the passage of this Bill! Unfortuneatly, in this Country, this is the POLICY and SYSTEM that WE have allowed to take place. Did you complain when ANY of the other Administrations did this? I don't like it and NEVER have, but this Bill STILL would have passed WITHOUT her vote as well.
Good?  
#184 | 1585 days ago

icfeet wrote:
I guess you're forgetting about the "Louisiana Purcahse" given to Mary Landrieu from Louisiana..... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102272.html
Thank you Kurt -- I have been so disgusted with this deal, that I think I chose not to remember the bribes in any detail at all.  I know there's a bunch of them.   I think Montana got something special too ... seems like 3 or 4 other states got something out of this to curb the additional costs or requirements.
Bad?  
#185 | 1585 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
SickPuppy wrote:
Yes - there is evidence of back door bribes ... they are written into the bill for states that are going to receive special treatment.  The ones that could be even worse are the possibility of those that we don't know about -- and if you say that's an "if" -- then just think of what politicians do best -- you know darn well that there are other bribes going on.

CD's, pension, investments, etc -- you do receive benefits from immediately.  Pension in particular offer tax credits as incentives to save for it.  CD's and other investment offer interest and dividends that you can see grow.  They are talking about supposedly "saving" or putting aside dollars to pay for something that doesn't exist.  Which, in itself, is a joke for politicians to say that they can "save" or "stock up".  They  pi$$ away more money than I could possibly dream of.

This bill will be funded by taxpayers -- there isn't any way around it.  It will not reduce the deficit ... hence, the infected band aid comment.

Medical care is not a right for anyone ... you have to earn rights, they should never be given - when rights are given - people expect them to be given for everything.

This legislation was not passed for the people -- it was passed for power and control by government   for government to take more control of our lives and have more power over your life.
Medical care is not a right for anyone ... you have to earn rights, they should never be given - when rights are given - people expect them to be given for everything.


Really, tell that to the single parent raising two children, working two jobs who isn't provided Medical Benefits from either employer and CAN'T AFFORD Health Care for their children and NOW one of them just got diagnosed with Cancer! Are you saying that this hard working American doesn't have a RIGHT to get the proper Medical treatment for their child because they can'y afford it?   Seriously?  In the GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD a hard working American doesn't have that RIGHT simply because they were BORN in America AND CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH CARE?    We live in the BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD yet we treat our Citizens like second class Citizens.  Obviously this argument goes deeper than just Rights- it hits right home on moral issues! I feel it is completely immoral to deny any American Citizen the RIGHT to proper Health Care- obviously you don't! This isn't a dispute over if this Bill is good or bad- it's a dispute over what you believe is humane and what I believe is humane! I don't believe MONEY is the most important thing here- obviously you do. The most important thing to me is human lives.........
Good?  
#186 | 1585 days ago
vindog (+)

Medical care is not a right for anyone ... you have to earn rights, they should never be given - when rights are given - people expect them to be given for everything.


Here is another example for you: 
  A man spends the first 12 years of his adult life serving this Country in the United States Marine Corps. Protecting and defending the RIGHTS of EVERY American Citizen. This Man then spends the next 13 years of his life as a hard working "blue collar" American Citizen and belongs to a Union which provides this man (and his family) with a "Cadillac" Health Care Plan in exchange for his work. Now (at this exact point of this mans life) at 43 years old- he is about to lose his Health Insurance because he has been unemployed since December 3rd 2009, and his benefits run out on June 15Th, 2010. This man is unemployed simply because the construction work "dried up" in his City and to NO FAULT of his own. Has this man not "Earned the RIGHT" to Health Care in your opinion? An American Veteran who put his life on the line in defense of this Country- does NOT have the RIGHT to Health Care- simply because he can't afford it? Even though he served his Country with HONORS?    This story is a TRUE story!  The reason why I know this is a true story? Because this story is MY STORY!              

So please tell me why I DON'T have the RIGHT to Health Care again?????????
Good?  
#187 | 1585 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
icfeet wrote:
I guess you're forgetting about the "Louisiana Purcahse" given to Mary Landrieu from Louisiana..... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102272.html
So does this mean that her counterpart (R) Senator David Vitter will be giving HALF of that "bribe money" back to the United States Government? It's HIS State too- even though he voted against the Bill- right? Is he NOT going to accept the money for his State or is he going to do what he did last time, ( "the bailout"- which he voted against as well), and report to his constituents "bragging" about how HE "secured more needed funds" for his hurricane damaged State... HMMMMMMM        My guess? He's going "home" to BRAG and Fund Raise for his next campaign on the idea that HE secured more funding for HIS State and his Democratic counterpart did nothing- LOL! 
Good?  
#188 | 1585 days ago

vindog wrote:
Medical care is not a right for anyone ... you have to earn rights, they should never be given - when rights are given - people expect them to be given for everything.


Here is another example for you: 
  A man spends the first 12 years of his adult life serving this Country in the United States Marine Corps. Protecting and defending the RIGHTS of EVERY American Citizen. This Man then spends the next 13 years of his life as a hard working "blue collar" American Citizen and belongs to a Union which provides this man (and his family) with a "Cadillac" Health Care Plan in exchange for his work. Now (at this exact point of this mans life) at 43 years old- he is about to lose his Health Insurance because he has been unemployed since December 3rd 2009, and his benefits run out on June 15Th, 2010. This man is unemployed simply because the construction work "dried up" in his City and to NO FAULT of his own. Has this man not "Earned the RIGHT" to Health Care in your opinion? An American Veteran who put his life on the line in defense of this Country- does NOT have the RIGHT to Health Care- simply because he can't afford it? Even though he served his Country with HONORS?    This story is a TRUE story!  The reason why I know this is a true story? Because this story is MY STORY!              

So please tell me why I DON'T have the RIGHT to Health Care again?????????
Well --- that sure explains an awful lot about your position.  I am truly sorry that you have been out of work for so long.  But I will still stand by statement that everyone has to earn rights -- in your case, you have more than earned it.  I too was in the military and also had the pleasure of being spit on by several people while in uniform.  I have always felt that anyone who serves our country has earned several rights that are not currently afforded, as should police officers and fireman/women ... whatever.  Those people truly serve our country with actions not lip service and bu!!sh!t that comes out of most politicians mouths.

One of the reasons you are unemployed is because laws were passed 8-10 years ago to allow the purchase of homes by individuals who had no means of paying for them.  The housing industry flourished and then dropped through a sink hole when payments couldn't be made --- this and other laws were passed by our Congress and I believe at that time it was a Democratic controlled congress --- now this same "group" of people have bailed out a major insurance company ... no questions asked, no accountability, no strings attached -- while the rest of the country was going down the tubes.  Instead of promoting new businesses or aiding new business  -- they chose to give away money to people who did not know how to run a business.  

Look --- I think  I understand a lot better of why you feel this way and I feel that NO veteran should ever have to go through what you are.  I'll keep my comments to myself for now.  I wish you all the luck in the world.
Bad?  
#189 | 1585 days ago
vindog (+)

SickPuppy wrote:
Well --- that sure explains an awful lot about your position.  I am truly sorry that you have been out of work for so long.  But I will still stand by statement that everyone has to earn rights -- in your case, you have more than earned it.  I too was in the military and also had the pleasure of being spit on by several people while in uniform.  I have always felt that anyone who serves our country has earned several rights that are not currently afforded, as should police officers and fireman/women ... whatever.  Those people truly serve our country with actions not lip service and bu!!sh!t that comes out of most politicians mouths.

One of the reasons you are unemployed is because laws were passed 8-10 years ago to allow the purchase of homes by individuals who had no means of paying for them.  The housing industry flourished and then dropped through a sink hole when payments couldn't be made --- this and other laws were passed by our Congress and I believe at that time it was a Democratic controlled congress --- now this same "group" of people have bailed out a major insurance company ... no questions asked, no accountability, no strings attached -- while the rest of the country was going down the tubes.  Instead of promoting new businesses or aiding new business  -- they chose to give away money to people who did not know how to run a business.  

Look --- I think  I understand a lot better of why you feel this way and I feel that NO veteran should ever have to go through what you are.  I'll keep my comments to myself for now.  I wish you all the luck in the world.
Actually from the years 1994-2006 the MAJORITY in both the House AND Senate was Republican- that Democrats didn't take over the majority until November of 2006. Also, the first "bailout"- which was the ONLY BAILOUT with "no strings attached" was given out (SIGNED BY THE CURRENT PRESIDENT AT THAT TIME) in October of 2008- and that "bailout" was for the sum of $800 Billion!   Who was the President at that time, and who's SIGNATURE is on that bailout?  I'll give you a hint- it was NOT President Obama whom was NOT elected until November of 2008 and didn't sit at the Oval Office desk until January of 2009!   Yes,  they did do another "bailout" after President Obama was elected, but there WERE strings attached to that one and banks were forced to pay back the money OR not get the money at all and CURRENTLY some of THAT money has already been paid back (Bank of American has paid back their ENTIRE sum, as well as others have too) .  So, I guess what I'm saying is that it wasn't just the Democrats who are to blame for this problem- the Republicans ALSO had a HUGE part in it!
Good?  
#190 | 1585 days ago

vindog wrote:
Actually from the years 1994-2006 the MAJORITY in both the House AND Senate was Republican- that Democrats didn't take over the majority until November of 2006. Also, the first "bailout"- which was the ONLY BAILOUT with "no strings attached" was given out (SIGNED BY THE CURRENT PRESIDENT AT THAT TIME) in October of 2008- and that "bailout" was for the sum of $800 Billion!   Who was the President at that time, and who's SIGNATURE is on that bailout?  I'll give you a hint- it was NOT President Obama whom was NOT elected until November of 2008 and didn't sit at the Oval Office desk until January of 2009!   Yes,  they did do another "bailout" after President Obama was elected, but there WERE strings attached to that one and banks were forced to pay back the money OR not get the money at all and CURRENTLY some of THAT money has already been paid back (Bank of American has paid back their ENTIRE sum, as well as others have too) .  So, I guess what I'm saying is that it wasn't just the Democrats who are to blame for this problem- the Republicans ALSO had a HUGE part in it!
Very true --- that's one of the reasons I'm registered as NONE   I don't to be a part of either "party" ... there shouldn't be career politicians, there shouldn't be any lobbying, there should be a spending cap on all types of elections, special interest groups should not be allowed to happen.  Power corrupts, Absolute Powers corrupts absolutely   and bills like this drive towards absolute power.  I used to think that lawyers that advertise on TV and radio were the lowest scum of the earth -- but then I remembered we have politicians.  I really do hope that something good turns up for you very very soon.
Bad?  
#191 | 1585 days ago
vindog (+)

SickPuppy wrote:
Very true --- that's one of the reasons I'm registered as NONE   I don't to be a part of either "party" ... there shouldn't be career politicians, there shouldn't be any lobbying, there should be a spending cap on all types of elections, special interest groups should not be allowed to happen.  Power corrupts, Absolute Powers corrupts absolutely   and bills like this drive towards absolute power.  I used to think that lawyers that advertise on TV and radio were the lowest scum of the earth -- but then I remembered we have politicians.  I really do hope that something good turns up for you very very soon.
Even though with disagree with this Bill- we do agree on some things- like career politicians, lobbiests, special interest groups, and spending "caps" on elections!  Unfortunately though, the "Republican Controlled" Supreme Court just took the "spending caps" off of the elections! Now Businesses are allowed to spend UNLIMITED AMOUNTS of money to get "their Boys" elected and push "their agendas"!  President Obama even chastised the Supreme Court for doing this in his State of the Union address.   This "law" by the Supreme Court is a travesty to the voting process of this Country!  Basically, we might as well just put the Ceo's of Shell/Exxon Oil, and AIG or Goldman Sachs into Office as our President, Vice President, and Secretaries Of State- because their money WILL control our next Presidential Election and whomever THEY WANT to lead this Country WILL be elected- period!
Good?  
#192 | 1585 days ago
vindog (+)

SickPuppy wrote:
Well --- that sure explains an awful lot about your position.  I am truly sorry that you have been out of work for so long.  But I will still stand by statement that everyone has to earn rights -- in your case, you have more than earned it.  I too was in the military and also had the pleasure of being spit on by several people while in uniform.  I have always felt that anyone who serves our country has earned several rights that are not currently afforded, as should police officers and fireman/women ... whatever.  Those people truly serve our country with actions not lip service and bu!!sh!t that comes out of most politicians mouths.

One of the reasons you are unemployed is because laws were passed 8-10 years ago to allow the purchase of homes by individuals who had no means of paying for them.  The housing industry flourished and then dropped through a sink hole when payments couldn't be made --- this and other laws were passed by our Congress and I believe at that time it was a Democratic controlled congress --- now this same "group" of people have bailed out a major insurance company ... no questions asked, no accountability, no strings attached -- while the rest of the country was going down the tubes.  Instead of promoting new businesses or aiding new business  -- they chose to give away money to people who did not know how to run a business.  

Look --- I think  I understand a lot better of why you feel this way and I feel that NO veteran should ever have to go through what you are.  I'll keep my comments to myself for now.  I wish you all the luck in the world.
BTW, the point of telling my own story was to open up peoples eyes to the plight that is happening in this Country- and not just to me! Those 30 million+ uninsured Americans are people just like me and just like you. That figure does NOT include people collecting welfare either- as those welfare recipients already receive Health Care through the Government!  Those "numbers" are everyday hard working Americans who just can't afford health care for their families through no fault of their own. And a lot of those 30 million + Americans are ALSO American Veterans just like you and I......    People say that this is just for "free loaders" which simply IS NOT TRUE at all!  Yes, some of them probably are free-loaders but most of them aren't, and it's not proper or HUMANE to punish the many for the selfish acts of the few either!
Good?  
#193 | 1585 days ago

vindog wrote:
BTW, the point of telling my own story was to open up peoples eyes to the plight that is happening in this Country- and not just to me! Those 30 million+ uninsured Americans are people just like me and just like you. That figure does NOT include people collecting welfare either- as those welfare recipients already receive Health Care through the Government!  Those "numbers" are everyday hard working Americans who just can't afford health care for their families through no fault of their own. And a lot of those 30 million + Americans are ALSO American Veterans just like you and I......    People say that this is just for "free loaders" which simply IS NOT TRUE at all!  Yes, some of them probably are free-loaders but most of them aren't, and it's not proper or HUMANE to punish the many for the selfish acts of the few either!
I understand and I am aware that there are a lot of people that can't afford medical care. If it weren't for the responsibilities that I have, I wouldn't carry it. We won't agree on the this bill -- we do agree that there needs to be health care reform .. I just don't support this bill .... it has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. Like I said -- I vote for a person, not for a party. You'd be surprised how many free loaders there are ... NYS is loaded with the little ba$tards.
Bad?  
#194 | 1585 days ago

vindog wrote:
Also, I am quite certain that some sort of Tort Reform WILL be added to this Bill in the future. This Bill is just a "rough start" to things to come and ultimately will change over time just as Social Security and Medicare has changed. Tort Reform is something that can be argued and fought for on the floor of the House and Senate- all you have to do is convince the Republicans to quit SAYING NO to every damn thing that is brought forth and actually work on this thing with the Democrats! I know that's a noble idea- but it might just work....
I don't know how good the news covers information on this anywhere else in our nation, but here's a little information for you that has been covered for two full months here... the Democrats are the ones saying no to EVERY single Republican suggestion and keeping them out of the debate.  The Tort Reform ideas were from a Republican Senator as well as not allowing this to cover illegal aliens and them (our elected officials) having to have the same coverage they are trying to put on us.  Read the entire bill and you'll notice none of that is in there because of one reason... the Democrats won't allow the Republicans to be involved in this.  Right before this was passed many Republicans were calling for a chance to have an opinion and be involved in fixing health care.  They even brought up the fact that the Democrats had just passed the "pay as you go" system and was violating one of their own rules by implementing something they money is not there to pay for.  Republicans have not been saying no all along to helping the people, just no to not being allowed an opinion on how to help.

As for the money to pay for this bill, yes we don't have it right now and taxes/cuts/etc are suppose to raise the money for it.  Here's some thoughts for you though.  Most of America is lucky if they have enough money to afford to get by.  Now if they don't have health insurance because they can't even afford one they're required to get, they'll still be worse off because that money they don't have for health insurance will be taken from them in fines for not getting the insurance.  I don't know about you, but to me taking money from someone because they can't afford something the government wants to require makes me feel a lose of freedom since there is no choice in the loss of that money.  Add to that, with so many barely getting by what will be the way to keep them from losing all just because they didn't have the money the government is now taking from them.

That's just individuals, now look at the companies that are too small to afford health insurance costs for their employees.  Did you know that if they pay a certain amount of payroll they'll be required to provide health insurance or pay a fine?  There are already smaller companies around here talking about having to layoff workers just to avoid a fine because they can't afford health insurance.  With unemployment like it is, how can this be a good thing?  That's not even addressing the fact that the little guys are now being run out by the big companies all thanks to the governments help.

The one that really gets me going though has to do with a tax to help cover the cost of this bill.  Obama himself talked of not putting more strain on the middle class, yet when plastic surgery was the thing that would get taxed to help cover the cost of this overhaul hardly anyone knew about it.  The Drs did and fearing loss of money from those who can afford a few extra dollars here and there, got together with lawyers and our so called elected representatives to do something about this.  Those people elected to represent us turned because we don't have the money and now the tax to pay for this is on indoor tanning.  Roughly $1 more per session to cover for everyone else in America to be able to visit a Dr when they want.  I'm not saying tanning is a good or bad thing or that only the middle class pay for it, but it's something that will affect the middle class who are struggling every single day to get by.

All of this is due entirely to the Democrats since the Republicans have been keep out of as many discussions as possible and that's not even getting into the little "add ons" to get this person or that person to vote for it. 

We want so much given to us, but I wonder how many of us actually think for ourselves anymore about what we lose to be given just one little thing.  I can't help wondering how many of us just read what is put in front of us and don't think about the effect it will have on our entire country, not just ourselves.  I'm lucky enough to still have insurance through my job, though I still struggle to make ends meet and talk is the next contract with the insurance company will drive our costs even higher, not to mention our employers share.  Yet, despite all that I'm more concerned with the amount of people in my area of the country who will lose their houses, their cars, their very way of life because now they'll be added another charge from the government that they can't afford.  We all need to start doing this.  Don't follow what is shown to you, but do the research and think for yourself about every single one of your fellow Americans.  If we really are brothers and sisters, we need to think about each other and look out for one another.  Sorry if I offend any of you, but it's about time someone speaks up and says what needed to be said that has taken the time to research more than what has been put in front of them.
Bad?  
#195 | 1585 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
SickPuppy wrote:
I understand and I am aware that there are a lot of people that can't afford medical care. If it weren't for the responsibilities that I have, I wouldn't carry it. We won't agree on the this bill -- we do agree that there needs to be health care reform .. I just don't support this bill .... it has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. Like I said -- I vote for a person, not for a party. You'd be surprised how many free loaders there are ... NYS is loaded with the little ba$tards.
As you would be surprised at how many American Military Veterans don't have Health Care because they can't afford it! On another note, the U.S. Government is about to make the American taxpayers 8 BILLION DOLLARS from the "bailout" that we were just talking about! Citi Bank took a bailout and our tax dollars bailed them out and the Government owned 27 % of the stocks from Citi! This upcoming week, they are selling the stock back to Citi and making us taxpayers an 8 billion dollar profit on our investment! Hmmm, Government "takeover" or "smart business move"- you make the call!
Good?  
#196 | 1585 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
LoriDbl18fan wrote:
I don't know how good the news covers information on this anywhere else in our nation, but here's a little information for you that has been covered for two full months here... the Democrats are the ones saying no to EVERY single Republican suggestion and keeping them out of the debate.  The Tort Reform ideas were from a Republican Senator as well as not allowing this to cover illegal aliens and them (our elected officials) having to have the same coverage they are trying to put on us.  Read the entire bill and you'll notice none of that is in there because of one reason... the Democrats won't allow the Republicans to be involved in this.  Right before this was passed many Republicans were calling for a chance to have an opinion and be involved in fixing health care.  They even brought up the fact that the Democrats had just passed the "pay as you go" system and was violating one of their own rules by implementing something they money is not there to pay for.  Republicans have not been saying no all along to helping the people, just no to not being allowed an opinion on how to help.

As for the money to pay for this bill, yes we don't have it right now and taxes/cuts/etc are suppose to raise the money for it.  Here's some thoughts for you though.  Most of America is lucky if they have enough money to afford to get by.  Now if they don't have health insurance because they can't even afford one they're required to get, they'll still be worse off because that money they don't have for health insurance will be taken from them in fines for not getting the insurance.  I don't know about you, but to me taking money from someone because they can't afford something the government wants to require makes me feel a lose of freedom since there is no choice in the loss of that money.  Add to that, with so many barely getting by what will be the way to keep them from losing all just because they didn't have the money the government is now taking from them.

That's just individuals, now look at the companies that are too small to afford health insurance costs for their employees.  Did you know that if they pay a certain amount of payroll they'll be required to provide health insurance or pay a fine?  There are already smaller companies around here talking about having to layoff workers just to avoid a fine because they can't afford health insurance.  With unemployment like it is, how can this be a good thing?  That's not even addressing the fact that the little guys are now being run out by the big companies all thanks to the governments help.

The one that really gets me going though has to do with a tax to help cover the cost of this bill.  Obama himself talked of not putting more strain on the middle class, yet when plastic surgery was the thing that would get taxed to help cover the cost of this overhaul hardly anyone knew about it.  The Drs did and fearing loss of money from those who can afford a few extra dollars here and there, got together with lawyers and our so called elected representatives to do something about this.  Those people elected to represent us turned because we don't have the money and now the tax to pay for this is on indoor tanning.  Roughly $1 more per session to cover for everyone else in America to be able to visit a Dr when they want.  I'm not saying tanning is a good or bad thing or that only the middle class pay for it, but it's something that will affect the middle class who are struggling every single day to get by.

All of this is due entirely to the Democrats since the Republicans have been keep out of as many discussions as possible and that's not even getting into the little "add ons" to get this person or that person to vote for it. 

We want so much given to us, but I wonder how many of us actually think for ourselves anymore about what we lose to be given just one little thing.  I can't help wondering how many of us just read what is put in front of us and don't think about the effect it will have on our entire country, not just ourselves.  I'm lucky enough to still have insurance through my job, though I still struggle to make ends meet and talk is the next contract with the insurance company will drive our costs even higher, not to mention our employers share.  Yet, despite all that I'm more concerned with the amount of people in my area of the country who will lose their houses, their cars, their very way of life because now they'll be added another charge from the government that they can't afford.  We all need to start doing this.  Don't follow what is shown to you, but do the research and think for yourself about every single one of your fellow Americans.  If we really are brothers and sisters, we need to think about each other and look out for one another.  Sorry if I offend any of you, but it's about time someone speaks up and says what needed to be said that has taken the time to research more than what has been put in front of them.
Since you wrote this in response to one of my comments, then I will respond to you directly! I DID READ the entire Bill and nearly EVERYTHING you just stated are just blatant FALSEHOODS! Especially the part about small businesses, who in REALITY will be getting HUGE tax exemptions that will nearly pay for EVERY DIME of their Health Care for their employees!  So I will challenge YOU to actually read the Bill yourself. Obviously you did not read it at all!  As far as Republicans being "kept out of the discussions"- that is the BIGGEST LIE of your entire statement! The Republicans sat on their a$$es for nearly a year and declined EVERY discussion put forth to them. President Obama even invited them to a "round table discussion" on this Bill and all they did was argue and complain WITHOUT offering ANY solutions until it reached a point when President Obama just said f%^k-it- we don't need you in this discussion- period! G.W. Bush did the same exact thing with the Democrats who refused to work with him- but I guess that was O.K. with you huh?        Seriously- read the Bill!
Good?  
#197 | 1585 days ago
Scottpositron27 (+)

kantwistaye wrote:

Just a few quick thoughts:

  • 32 million more Americans gain access to health care
  • Premiums will go down by 14-20%
  • The federal deficit will be lowered by $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years due to this bill
  • No more pre-existing conditions
  • No more caps on the amount of health care you can receive
  • No public option, or any more added government health care insurance plans

There are flaws in this bill, no doubt. However, I have yet to see one good argument for why the status quo is better than this bill.
Almost half the Americans surveyed by Quinnipiac University oppose the new health reform law, while 40 percent are in favor.

The Government Will Be Unfair Competition

Employers May Stop Offering Health Care

The problem, the law provides a less than complete guarantee that children with health problems will qualify for coverage.Under the new law, insurance companies would be able to refuse new coverage to children with pre-existing medical conditions. Administration officials are scrambling to fix the gap.

Of course, the most troubling aspect of this bill is that it is so blatantly unconstitutional and contrary to the ideals of liberty.  Nowhere in the constitution is there anything approaching authority for the Federal government to do any of this. 

The new health care program, assuming it’s implemented in 2014, which means it is being paid for for 3 years before anyone can use it.
The health care bill headed for a vote in the House this week costs $1.2 trillion or more over a decade, according to numerous Democratic officials and figures contained in an analysis by congressional budget experts, far higher than the $900 billion cited by President Barack Obama as a price tag for his reform plan.

 

Earlier this week, the Obama administration revised its own budget estimates and raised the projected deficit for this year to a record $1.84 trillion, up 5 percent from the February estimate. The revision for the 2010 fiscal year estimated the deficit at $1.26 trillion, up 7.4 percent from the February figure. The White House Office of Management and Budget also projected next year’s budget will end up at $3.59 trillion, compared with the $3.55 trillion it estimated previously.

since the Federal Government has done such a wonderful job running Social Security and Medicare, what makes anyone think they can run 1/6 of our economy?  the Federal government has step outside its area of expertise.
 

Bad?  
#198 | 1585 days ago
Scottpositron27 (+)

oh yeah, my taxes are high enough thank u
Bad?  
#199 | 1585 days ago
Scottpositron27 (+)

RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
#1 Argument against this:

All Americans 'mandated' to be covered.

Nevermind all of the key points I'll delve into more fully later, this one kills the legitimacy of it!
along with being mandated, when you loose your insurance you can only buy it from once place, the federal government.  Which under our constitution does not have the right to make money.  The consitution does not allow the government to sell things.  and when your government insurance has to rise, and you cannot meet their bill, they will FINE YOU!  and when u cannot pay your FINE, they will JAIL YOU!  read the bill folks, be smarter than your Senators
Bad?  
#200 | 1585 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
Scottpositron27 wrote:
along with being mandated, when you loose your insurance you can only buy it from once place, the federal government.  Which under our constitution does not have the right to make money.  The consitution does not allow the government to sell things.  and when your government insurance has to rise, and you cannot meet their bill, they will FINE YOU!  and when u cannot pay your FINE, they will JAIL YOU!  read the bill folks, be smarter than your Senators
YOU SIR ARE LYING AND YOU KNOW IT!        I want you to PROVE everything that you just stated- especially the JAILING part! PROVE it with FACTS!       I READ the Bill and you are LYING- period!  You guys and your FEAR TACTICS are unbelieveable sometimes- WOW!
Good?  
#201 | 1585 days ago
ssusiej46 (+)

Scottpositron27 wrote:
along with being mandated, when you loose your insurance you can only buy it from once place, the federal government.  Which under our constitution does not have the right to make money.  The consitution does not allow the government to sell things.  and when your government insurance has to rise, and you cannot meet their bill, they will FINE YOU!  and when u cannot pay your FINE, they will JAIL YOU!  read the bill folks, be smarter than your Senators
will be back with respect
Bad?  
#202 | 1585 days ago

vindog wrote:
Since you wrote this in response to one of my comments, then I will respond to you directly! I DID READ the entire Bill and nearly EVERYTHING you just stated are just blatant FALSEHOODS! Especially the part about small businesses, who in REALITY will be getting HUGE tax exemptions that will nearly pay for EVERY DIME of their Health Care for their employees!  So I will challenge YOU to actually read the Bill yourself. Obviously you did not read it at all!  As far as Republicans being "kept out of the discussions"- that is the BIGGEST LIE of your entire statement! The Republicans sat on their a$$es for nearly a year and declined EVERY discussion put forth to them. President Obama even invited them to a "round table discussion" on this Bill and all they did was argue and complain WITHOUT offering ANY solutions until it reached a point when President Obama just said f%^k-it- we don't need you in this discussion- period! G.W. Bush did the same exact thing with the Democrats who refused to work with him- but I guess that was O.K. with you huh?        Seriously- read the Bill!
There is no need to get rude.  As for me reading the bill, how about you take a look at the last debate on this site and look at the person that put up the link to the bill for everyone to read when people asked for it.  You may think you know so much and know me just because I see things that you haven't, but that gives you no right to be rude.  Since you seem to think all of this is falsehoods and I haven't taken the time, as soon as I get another 5 or 6 hours of free time added up I'll show you all of this.  Sadly, since I do have a life, including kids to raise, I can't just set aside that much time right away to go digging through everything again.  As for how I felt with the whole Bush keeping Democrats from being involved, you have no real idea how I feel since I don't okay that at all.  I do not support one party over the other or one tactic over the other as we are all Americans and should think of EVERY SINGLE one of us.  That's what I am to do when I dig into what those elected to represent us are doing and why I read between the lines and THINK of the effect on EVERY single person.  What may be good for some, may not be good for many and though it pains me to say it... we have to think of the majority before the few if we are to keep ourselves from ending up worse than we already are as a entire country.
Bad?  
#203 | 1585 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
LoriDbl18fan wrote:
There is no need to get rude.  As for me reading the bill, how about you take a look at the last debate on this site and look at the person that put up the link to the bill for everyone to read when people asked for it.  You may think you know so much and know me just because I see things that you haven't, but that gives you no right to be rude.  Since you seem to think all of this is falsehoods and I haven't taken the time, as soon as I get another 5 or 6 hours of free time added up I'll show you all of this.  Sadly, since I do have a life, including kids to raise, I can't just set aside that much time right away to go digging through everything again.  As for how I felt with the whole Bush keeping Democrats from being involved, you have no real idea how I feel since I don't okay that at all.  I do not support one party over the other or one tactic over the other as we are all Americans and should think of EVERY SINGLE one of us.  That's what I am to do when I dig into what those elected to represent us are doing and why I read between the lines and THINK of the effect on EVERY single person.  What may be good for some, may not be good for many and though it pains me to say it... we have to think of the majority before the few if we are to keep ourselves from ending up worse than we already are as a entire country.
You don't have to spend 5-6 hours looking it up, it's all right here. Every thing that you brought up is right in this link- provided by FactCheck.org- a NON PARTISON WATCHDOG GROUP! I've provided this link numerous times on this site, yet the same falsehoods keep getting brought up. Sorry if I came off a little course with you, but I'm just sick and tired of the status quo on this site and the same arguments over and over which have been proven false many times!  As I also said numerous times- I'm not pleased with EVERYTHING in this Bill- how could anyone be pleased with the whole thing at this point? But it is a start and WILL be amended millions of times before it's all said and done!       http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/a-final-weekend-of-whoppers/    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/        BOTH of these links tell the TRUTH about all of the rumors about this Bill.........     
Good?  
#204 | 1585 days ago

vindog wrote:
You don't have to spend 5-6 hours looking it up, it's all right here. Every thing that you brought up is right in this link- provided by FactCheck.org- a NON PARTISON WATCHDOG GROUP! I've provided this link numerous times on this site, yet the same falsehoods keep getting brought up. Sorry if I came off a little course with you, but I'm just sick and tired of the status quo on this site and the same arguments over and over which have been proven false many times!  As I also said numerous times- I'm not pleased with EVERYTHING in this Bill- how could anyone be pleased with the whole thing at this point? But it is a start and WILL be amended millions of times before it's all said and done!       http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/a-final-weekend-of-whoppers/    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/        BOTH of these links tell the TRUTH about all of the rumors about this Bill.........     
Here is where we differ.  It will take 5 to 6 hours for me because I don't use anything (non partison, bipartison, or what ever) to tell me what is really there.  I read the actual bill which is what you claimed you did when you said I hadn't.  It's one of our rights to be able to see exactly what is being voted on and with the internet it's easier than ever for every American to be really informed about what our elected officials are doing.  Since my Adobe reader isn't working right, I can't get to the link I want to post, but this is suppose to be the bill and looks like it might be right from another site:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3962/text

As for you coming off a little course.  All is forgiven, but please try to refrain from getting rude with me since you really don't know me and I'll show you the same respect.
Bad?  
#205 | 1585 days ago
vindog (+)

LoriDbl18fan wrote:
Here is where we differ.  It will take 5 to 6 hours for me because I don't use anything (non partison, bipartison, or what ever) to tell me what is really there.  I read the actual bill which is what you claimed you did when you said I hadn't.  It's one of our rights to be able to see exactly what is being voted on and with the internet it's easier than ever for every American to be really informed about what our elected officials are doing.  Since my Adobe reader isn't working right, I can't get to the link I want to post, but this is suppose to be the bill and looks like it might be right from another site:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3962/text

As for you coming off a little course.  All is forgiven, but please try to refrain from getting rude with me since you really don't know me and I'll show you the same respect.
Yes I have read the Bill, and the one you posted is the correct revised Bill. I only posted FactCheck.org to help those who don't read the entire 2500+ page Bill ansd FactCheck goes right to the most common lies out there!
Good?  
#206 | 1585 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

     In breaking news.....this JUST IN: the federal government has just outlawed the discussion of the recently passed US Health Care Laws.  According to inside sources, such discussion is causing the rise in hyper-tension, extremist psychosis, and the disappointment with Rush Limbaugh NOT leaving the country (fair enough I suppose, as Barbara Streisand didn't after making a similar threat).

The increased medical conditions were not foreseen, and have already increased the budget beyond expectations which are endangering the budgeted "kicker" amendments guaranteeing funding for Nancy Pelosi's plastic surgery, and Sarah Palin's Photoshop propaganda, VP Joe Biden's charm school sessions, and former VP Cheney's rifle handling lessons.....

Let's keep our priorities straight people......
#207 | 1585 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

icfeet wrote:
I guess you're forgetting about the "Louisiana Purcahse" given to Mary Landrieu from Louisiana..... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102272.html
Lol, good one!
#208 | 1585 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

vindog wrote:
Fair enough on all of your points- at least you are consistent in your beliefs- which is much, much more than I can't say about MOST who oppose this bill!  MOST people who oppose this Bill, oppose it for ONE REASON and ONE REASON ONLY- that reason? Because their Party didn't create it and because the President is a Democrat- nothing more! The thing that really gets me is that this Bill is nearly IDENTICAL to what Mitt Romney passed and implemented in Massachusetts- yet HE is also brain-washing (and lying) to people to be opposed to it.   This is a short breakdown of HIS Bill- which BTW was fully supported by the Republican Party

The Massachusetts health care reform law was enacted in 2006. It requires nearly every resident of Massachusetts to obtain health insurance coverage. Through the law, Massachusetts provides free health care for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL)[1], and partially-subsidized health care for those earning up to 300% of the FPL, depending on an income-based sliding scale. The law is credited with covering an additional 439,000 Massachusetts residents as of April 1, 2008.[2]

The law established an independent public authority, the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, also known as the Health Connector, which offers the subsidized coverage and facilitates the selection and purchase of private insurance plans by individuals and small businesses.[3][4] Incentives for residents to obtain health insurance coverage include tax penalties for failing to obtain an insurance plan. In 2007, Massachusetts tax filers who failed to enroll in a health insurance plan that was deemed affordable for them lost the $219 personal exemption on their income tax. Beginning in 2008, penalties (based on half of the cost of a health insurance plan) increased by monthly increments.[5][6]

The reform law was enacted as Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006 of the Massachusetts General Court, entitled An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care. In October 2006, January 2007, and November 2007, bills were enacted that amended and made technical corrections to the statute (Chapters 324 and 450 of the Acts of 2006, and chapter 205 of the Acts of 2007).[7]:       So I guess my thoughts are, if this Bill is good enough for Mitt Romney's "State"- then why is he opposed to this SAME TEXT OF A BILL being implemented throughout ALL States?  Reason? POLITICAL PURPOSES ONLY!!!   This action by Romney (and MOST of the "Politicians" opposed to this Bill) shows a clear reason WHY these people are fighting so hard against this Bill and WHY they refuse to be part of the process- it's ALL political!

I oppose the bill for various reasons and it is NOT because of any particular party or a Democratic President. I resent you making those kinds of accusations Vin. This is where you begin to trample on others. You haven't got a clue as to why so many people oppose this bill. They worry about how it will effect them, how will we pay for it, how much more money is going to be coming out of our pockets. What will it do to the quality of health care we will receive in the future. These are only a few reasons. Please try to stick to the facts and stop professing to know the minds of MOST people who oppose the bill.
#209 | 1585 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

LoriDbl18fan wrote:
There is no need to get rude.  As for me reading the bill, how about you take a look at the last debate on this site and look at the person that put up the link to the bill for everyone to read when people asked for it.  You may think you know so much and know me just because I see things that you haven't, but that gives you no right to be rude.  Since you seem to think all of this is falsehoods and I haven't taken the time, as soon as I get another 5 or 6 hours of free time added up I'll show you all of this.  Sadly, since I do have a life, including kids to raise, I can't just set aside that much time right away to go digging through everything again.  As for how I felt with the whole Bush keeping Democrats from being involved, you have no real idea how I feel since I don't okay that at all.  I do not support one party over the other or one tactic over the other as we are all Americans and should think of EVERY SINGLE one of us.  That's what I am to do when I dig into what those elected to represent us are doing and why I read between the lines and THINK of the effect on EVERY single person.  What may be good for some, may not be good for many and though it pains me to say it... we have to think of the majority before the few if we are to keep ourselves from ending up worse than we already are as a entire country.
Thank you so much!
#210 | 1584 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
confederate_rose98 wrote:
I oppose the bill for various reasons and it is NOT because of any particular party or a Democratic President. I resent you making those kinds of accusations Vin. This is where you begin to trample on others. You haven't got a clue as to why so many people oppose this bill. They worry about how it will effect them, how will we pay for it, how much more money is going to be coming out of our pockets. What will it do to the quality of health care we will receive in the future. These are only a few reasons. Please try to stick to the facts and stop professing to know the minds of MOST people who oppose the bill.
Agree or not- the FACTS are the facts! This Bill was opposed by EVERY REPUBLICAN in the House and Senate- period! If that isn't a Party Line- I don't know what is!   EVERY REPUBLICAN!   Can you NOT see something here? You mean to tell me that ONE person with an (R) beside their name in the House or Senate couldn't have thought this Bill was good enough to say yes to? Sorry, but I don't buy that NONSENSE!  IT's COMPLETE AND UTTER OBSTRUCTIONISM and it is sickening! But, some Democrats opposed it as well, showing that they DON'T VOTE along Party Lines ONLY!  - HMMMMM    It is a fool who can't put two and two together!  And before you jump to conclusions again- I'm not calling you a fool! I am however calling those who can't see that this Bill is PURELY POLITICAL fools!
Good?  
#211 | 1584 days ago

 There was not one single Republican vote for the bill that is now law. So yes, it was opposed by every federally elected Republican. There are your facts.
Good?  
#212 | 1584 days ago
vindog (+)

Facts for you to chew on:        The final House vote was 220 to 207, and the Senate vote was 56 to 43, with the Republicans unanimously opposed in both chambers. 
Good?  
#213 | 1584 days ago
vindog (+)

A video of Toby Keith singing a song is supposed to prove exactly what?  Seriously?
Good?  
#214 | 1584 days ago

 Jay Z? (you're going to have to listen through the whole song to get this)
Good?  
#215 | 1584 days ago
vindog (+)

Could you just spit it out and quit playing silly childish games please?
Good?  
#216 | 1584 days ago

vindog wrote:
Ummm, the CBO also supported the Bush Tax Cuts- were they an extension of the Democratic Party then?  Did you say those things then?  Were they "credible" then?  As MOST Republicans, you appear to ONLY support certain "non-partisan" groups ONLY if they agree with what YOU think- if they disagree with you- then they have a "Liberal Agenda"!   TYPICAL
As is the case with all cool aid drinking  left wing radical liberal democrats, and you also it appears, they assume they KNOW what a person supports and doesn't. They assume. Of course they do. Good luck with that, it gains you nothing, and while your at it, here is another cup of cool aid. It appears you're still thirsty.
Bad?  
#217 | 1584 days ago

According to the WSJ, this bill IS as bad as I believe it to be.  Actually, it's worse than I thought. It needs to be repealed NOW.
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575141642402986422.html
Bad?  
#218 | 1584 days ago
ssusiej46 (+)

das3cr wrote:
According to the WSJ, this bill IS as bad as I believe it to be.  Actually, it's worse than I thought. It needs to be repealed NOW.
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575141642402986422.html
Bad?  
#219 | 1584 days ago

ssusiej46 wrote:
SUCK'S  AND NOV. WILL SHOW IT.
hiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
#220 | 1584 days ago

One question, is everyone ready for your REAL ID? I posted in other blogs in 2005 when the act passed that every citizen is to be issued one. The Real ID Act creates a federal identity document that every American will need in order to fly on commercial airlines, enter government buildings, open a bank account, and more. You will need to buy a LEAD case from the gov to protect your information. It appears that walking pass a cell phone tower or surfing the net at your favorite cafe without it will make it easier for anyone stealing signals to get everything about you from that one card. Let me also inform you all that bars now (I know in my city) can already read your drivers license through you wallet! This will allow private industries to snap up the data on these IDs. as every convenience store learns to grab that data and sell it to data companies for a dime. Everything is coming together... This law allows for it's use.
Indifferent?   
#221 | 1584 days ago

vindog wrote:
BTW, the point of telling my own story was to open up peoples eyes to the plight that is happening in this Country- and not just to me! Those 30 million+ uninsured Americans are people just like me and just like you. That figure does NOT include people collecting welfare either- as those welfare recipients already receive Health Care through the Government!  Those "numbers" are everyday hard working Americans who just can't afford health care for their families through no fault of their own. And a lot of those 30 million + Americans are ALSO American Veterans just like you and I......    People say that this is just for "free loaders" which simply IS NOT TRUE at all!  Yes, some of them probably are free-loaders but most of them aren't, and it's not proper or HUMANE to punish the many for the selfish acts of the few either!
Agreed vin. my sister can't get help and she has numerous tumors, too many to count. She was told to LEAVE the E.R. I had to go get her after bringing her there! She was laid off and is now collecting unemployment. That is the problem, she must DROP UNEMPLOYMENT, WHICH WILL MAKE HER LOOSE HER HOME AND THEN APPLY FOR  WELFARE TO GET A WELL NEEDED OPERATION, WHICH BTW IS NOT GUARANTEED. Yes I am paying very close attention to this LAW.
Indifferent?   
#222 | 1584 days ago
Dooney (+)

confederate_rose98 wrote:
I oppose the bill for various reasons and it is NOT because of any particular party or a Democratic President. I resent you making those kinds of accusations Vin. This is where you begin to trample on others. You haven't got a clue as to why so many people oppose this bill. They worry about how it will effect them, how will we pay for it, how much more money is going to be coming out of our pockets. What will it do to the quality of health care we will receive in the future. These are only a few reasons. Please try to stick to the facts and stop professing to know the minds of MOST people who oppose the bill.
EASY Union boy! Jeez!
#223 | 1584 days ago

Bad?  
#224 | 1584 days ago

Judging from the number of times you posted this, I'd say that YOU are the real terror
Bad?  
#225 | 1584 days ago
confederate_rose98 (+)

vindog wrote:
Agree or not- the FACTS are the facts! This Bill was opposed by EVERY REPUBLICAN in the House and Senate- period! If that isn't a Party Line- I don't know what is!   EVERY REPUBLICAN!   Can you NOT see something here? You mean to tell me that ONE person with an (R) beside their name in the House or Senate couldn't have thought this Bill was good enough to say yes to? Sorry, but I don't buy that NONSENSE!  IT's COMPLETE AND UTTER OBSTRUCTIONISM and it is sickening! But, some Democrats opposed it as well, showing that they DON'T VOTE along Party Lines ONLY!  - HMMMMM    It is a fool who can't put two and two together!  And before you jump to conclusions again- I'm not calling you a fool! I am however calling those who can't see that this Bill is PURELY POLITICAL fools!
Vin, you see what you want and you never shut your mouth long enough to get a breath. Which is why you're not getting enough oxygen to your brain. I give up on you. I'm still trying to read the bill so I'm not commenting any of that. All I ask is that you quit using your conspiracy theories as facts.
#226 | 1584 days ago

maddhatter6691 wrote:
Just a waste of time putting any thought into this, USA is headed to H*LL, The just need to give us Bigger  Shovels so we can get there faster, Just Saying
Wow 654 posts on this B/S. Like I said before just give us Bigger Shovels so we can get there Faster 
Indifferent?   
#227 | 1584 days ago

(Edited by maddhatter6691)
Who is this KANE17 IDIOT? 40 OF THE SAME POSTS

Just my Opinion he Sould Be Gone from This Site 
Indifferent?   
#228 | 1584 days ago

BE GONE IDIOT
Indifferent?   
#229 | 1584 days ago

BE GONE IDIOT
Indifferent?   
#230 | 1584 days ago

Fortunately, his profile is gone.
Bad?  
#231 | 1584 days ago

SickPuppy wrote:
Fortunately, his profile is gone.
finally? Sweet :)
Indifferent?   
#232 | 1584 days ago
vindog (+)

Dude seriously, get the F^&K OFF of this site- you ignorant piece of s%^t!
Good?  
#233 | 1584 days ago

NOW IF we could just get RID of all these posts....it's making what was an "entertaining" thread (actually...it's on about 4 or 5 other polls I've answered) cumbersome....I reported him to about 3 or 4 mods....and flagged his profile....
Bad?  
#234 | 1584 days ago
ChristiSunshine (+)

icfeet wrote:
NOW IF we could just get RID of all these posts....it's making what was an "entertaining" thread (actually...it's on about 4 or 5 other polls I've answered) cumbersome....I reported him to about 3 or 4 mods....and flagged his profile....
 I'm working on it, but i think