Why are liberals suddenly objecting to the name "ObamaCare?"

you're delusional. he's been way more accepting of responsibility than Bush ever was, and you right-wingers worshiped him. remember when Bush was asked if he would change ANYTHING about his presidency, and he couldn't come up with anything? that's a man that refuses to take blame.

but you republicans live in a fantasy world.

well spoken Beckyal

"he's been way more accepting of responsibility......"

you must be related to joulesbeef too.

Amazing that the right wing has already written HCR off as a failure before they even see how the program works. The CBO told us that W's medicare drug program would be very costly (which is why he / the GOP didn't fund it), but we waited until it became the albatross that it is BEFORE we bitched and moaned about a program that makes US citizens pay more for drugs made in the USA than canadians pay for the same drugs... just so W could please his buddies in big Pharma...

This talking heads 'spin-doctor' type governance is what we need to get away from. evidence based governance has been such a welcome change since '08.

Tiocfaidh Ar La

they live in an imaginary world.. where alaska energy policy isnt socialist.
where sarah palin is a genius.
where everyone in america and the planet was for the iraqi war.
where bush never lied.
9-11 happened during the clinton years.
bush inherited a recession.

I could go on but I'll let jeff gannon say it.. you know jeff the wh press corps plant..put in there by republicans despite no expereience, to ask bush softball questions.. republicans might know him better as a gay porn star.

how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?

..put in there by republicans despite no expereience

Kind of like our president. Put in their by the dems/libs despite no experience.

"Kind of like our president. Put in their by the dems/libs despite no experience."

Put in there by a majority of American Voters.....

Studiusbagus

Put in there by a majority of American Voters.....

... many of whom are experiencing a bad case of buyer's remose.

Obama's a fiscal nitwit, a bull in a china shop making one bad decision after another and burying the nation in debt in the process.

Beckyal

Liberals seem to have problem with Obama being blamed for anything that is bad.

Some nitwit libbie here accused me earlier of hating Obama because he's a black man. Then yesterday the Newsvine Thought Police put the kabosh on an article I'd written exposing rude words directed at me by six lefties including the seeder Killfile who also violated CoH#4 by telling me to "shut your hole". Of all people he should know better, but he offered no apology.

Normally I let this stuff slide so as not to pester Tyler. This was over the top, so I emailed him the details. He showed up on the column, but only to uncollapse a post of mine. Not one reprimand. If I did that stuff I'd draw a week in the penalty box. But when lefties do it? Nothing.

Many liberals have a problem with anyone whose ideology conflicts with theirs and they'll stop at nothing to silence us on the right. To that I say, let 'em try. They just look stupider and stupider when they do.

A great deal of subjective analysis here; “Liberals don't want Obama blamed for anything that is bad”, right wingers went into unrelenting attack mode against this President immediately after inauguration; therefore those who generally support the President went into an automatic counter mode. I am a liberal but I have many disagreements with this President; however, I am so busy dealing with right wing propaganda that I don't have time or inclination to outline my issues with the President.

Satori-1437991

right wingers went into unrelenting attack mode against this President immediately after inauguration

This right-winger did. Recall that before he'd served 30 days in office he'd signed his "stimulus" into law. Here it is in a nutshell:

• Ignore the lessons from TARP and legislate as quickly as possible.
• Toss billions of dollars willy-nilly into the private sector.
• Rub lucky rabbit's foot, cross fingers, and hope for the best.
• Stick the taxpayers with the tab.

This is not only lunacy, it's perilous. The economy is poised to collapse and here he is adding another $787 billion to an already towering pile of sovereign debt.

Beckyal:

You will notice he refuses to take blame and always blames someone else.

Like when, f'rinstance? Care to stand behind that statement by giving an example?

I'll wait.

Ric:

The economy is poised to collapse and here he is adding another $787 billion to an already towering pile of sovereign debt.

Shhh... Don't tell anybody... But.... The first part of the Stim Bill (signed under GWB's auspices) is almost completely paid off.... Sorry to ruin your fun.... Turn over some more rocks.... I bet you'll find something....

... many of whom are experiencing a bad case of buyer's remose.

Oh ya, I really regret not voting for Grandpa Munster and Caribou Barbie </sarcasm>.

Whatever you gotta tell yourself to sleep well at night.

If there were a legitimate, non-teabagger whacko third party candidate on the ballot, then yeah, maybe.

But Obama was certainly the lesser of two evils. And by a wide margin. McCain de-legitimized himself when he picked that know-nothing bimbo media whore Palin.

Can't even name a publication she reads for news when asked.

And you think people really have buyer's remorse?

What, did you follow Will Farrell to Land of the Lost or something?

The first part of the Stim Bill (signed under GWB's auspices) is almost completely paid off....

Links please. I want to read about it. Thank you.

NotALeftist #2.15

There was a discussion on this topic last week here on NV and danged if I can't find it. Anyway, it looks like the US has been paid back about $200 billion so far, with interest. There is a proposal for a TARP tax on those institutions who borrowed. This link provides a good breakdown:

http://www.visualeconomics.com/a-detailed-look-at-tarp/

The point is, the TARP funds were always meant to be loans and not giveaways. The taxpayers will be paid back. Apologies for that 100 billion number (at least until I can find it on NV) to you and Rick.

The point is, the TARP funds were always meant to be loans and not giveaways.

Yeah, I knew that part. I just wanted to know how we were doing as far as being paid back.

Thanks for the link.

Rickace:

This right-winger did. Recall that before he'd served 30 days in office he'd signed his "stimulus" into law. Here it is in a nutshell:

Kathleen:

Shhh... Don't tell anybody... But.... The first part of the Stim Bill (signed under GWB's auspices) is almost completely paid off.... Sorry to ruin your fun.... Turn over some more rocks.... I bet you'll find something....

Kathleen

You do realize that the TARP and Stimulus were different bills, correct? The TARP was intended to be loans, the Stimulus was pretty much what Rick was stating. Sorry to ruin your fun... turn over some more rocks... I'll bet you could find that out easily...

Ric, quite right. We were talking about TARP, not the Stimulus Package. Now that you mention it though, here's some of what it contained:

The economic stimulus package, which is best summarized here, includes the following:

- $32 billion to update the nation's energy grid
- $16 billion to repair public housing
- $6 billion to weatherize modest-income homes
- $10 billion for science facilities, instrumentation and research
- $6 billion to expand broadband internet access
- $30 billion for highway construction
- $31 billion for modernizing and improving infrastructure that lead to energy cost savings
- $19 billion for clean water, flood control, and environmental restoration investments
- $10 billion for transit and rail to reduce traffic congestion and gas consumption
- $41 billion for local school districts; $13 billion through Title I funding, $13 billion for IDEA, $14 billion for school modernization and repairs and $1 billion for education technology
- $79 billion in state fiscal relief to prevent cuts to education programs
- $15.6 billion to increase Pell grants by $500
- $6 billion for higher education modernization

Not a single republican voted for the Stim Package. 91 of them, however, voted for TARP. Funny how they would vote to give the banks a blank check with no accountability but wouldn't vote to give actual citizens any help.

Typical.

Actually the polls showed most Americans agreed with health care reform. Many opposed the bill because it wasn't liberal enough.

Don't let the facts get in your way, though. I know fox news probably didn't explain that one very well to you.

lol Robert.

That is exactly right!

Actually the polls showed most Americans agreed with health care reform. Many opposed the bill because it wasn't liberal enough. Give the man a cigar. Liberals object to the name "ObamaCare" because Obama didn't write it. The Republicans did-- in 1993. Then Mitt Romney and pals got it done in Mass., so arguably it should be called RomneyCare. Democrats passed it because it was what they thought they could get accomplished, although they had to do so with no help from Republicans, who would rather have seen 10% of America continue to be without insurance than vote for something they themselves lauded as the only sane approach to healthcare reform little more than a decade ago, thereby giving Democrats a "w" in the win/loss column.

It was an achievement to get it passed (something Republicans never did, and never would do, being quite comfortable to let people die without insurance), but I'd rather reserve the name "ObamaCare" for something far more liberal in scope-- like single payer.

In the long run, however, the millions of people who will benefit from this won't give a @!$%# what you call it. I suspect that as more people end up benefiting from it, Republicans will reverse course (say, about 2014) and start trying to claim credit for it ("it was all our idea, back in 1993!!!").

And then all you little conservative amnesiacs will be lining up to applaud. Go figure.

This plan does not insure everyone. It costs enough to, but does not. I don't think it's an achievement to run up the deficit to levels making it difficult to ever control. People who were ill before this "malodorous" legislation was "passed" so to speak, would be treated at an ER whether they were able to pay or not. That is still the case. Certainly, the costs were passed on to the consumer, but directly. Not through some bloated bureaucracy, wasting money and making decisions that are best left to private citizens. No one in this country should be able to tell you that you have to purchase something. Your crystal ball seems about as flawed as your logic.

This plan does not insure everyone. It costs enough to, but does not. You're right. It only insures almost everybody, taking the number of uninsured down from 40 million to about 4 million. Of course, other plans would have done better, but Republicans seemed determined to stymie all of them, so any movement in this direction seems better than no movement at all.

I don't think it's an achievement to run up the deficit to levels making it difficult to ever control. I hear this a lot from fiscal chickenhawks who never had a qualm about the Republican "Deficits Don't Matter" Party that's responsible for 75% of the debt we currently hold. But in the long run, the point is moot. This law, considered over the next ten years, is pretty much deficit neutral.

People who were ill before this "malodorous" legislation was "passed" so to speak, would be treated at an ER whether they were able to pay or not. That is still the case. Certainly, the costs were passed on to the consumer, but directly. Not through some bloated bureaucracy, wasting money and making decisions that are best left to private citizens. Spare me. People being "treated at an ER" was one major issue that jacked medical spending in America up to 17% of GDP over the last few decades. And that 10% or so that we spend over and above what other industrialized nations spend, with their more rational and structured approaches to healthcare, isn't really doing us any good in the pockets of the insurance companies, who take the increase delivery prices and tack on their extra bit, making care not only "directly" passed on to the consumer, but also "passed on" more than once.

And of course, plenty of private citizens are unable to make the decision they'd like to make, precisely because people like you have no problem maintaining a rigged game that excludes about 40 million Americans from the possibility of deciding to carry health insurance.

No one in this country should be able to tell you that you have to purchase something. Bull@!$%#. Whether or not you're smart enough to realize it, you're told that you have to purchase a multiplicity of things, daily. If you'd like examples, I can list them...

Your crystal ball seems about as flawed as your logic. Says the fellow whose political presbyopia prevents both detailed and distance vision.

funny yall demanded we not govern by polls under bush/.

what did cheney say when it was found out that a majority of america was against teh iraq war which killed 5000 of our citizens.. SO!!

and does it surprise anyone how many people were against it when the gop are scaring everyones grandmothers with lies about death panels.

well since you "republicans" values polls so much, i can count on yall demanded we repeal and replace obama care with a public option. SINCE A MAJORITY SUPPORT THAT.. NO? why the @!$%# then should we listen to yall about polls?

No one in this country should be able to tell you that you have to purchase something. Bull@!$%#. Whether or not you're smart enough to realize it, you're told that you have to purchase a multiplicity of things, daily. If you'd like examples, I can list them...

bring it on... if you can, where is the list of "products" I have to buy under threat of fines and jail time.

I call bull@!$%# my friend - can you back your stink up?

:P

Please don't try to explain my views, you're having enough trouble cogently elucidating your own without profane hyperbole. I am not in favor of deficits, period. Treating people in ERs is cheaper than supporting a bloated bureaucracy and then still paying for them. Please list your "multiplicity" of mandatory purchases. You don't need detailed and distant vision to see we're headed in Europe's direction. Just some common sense and simple math skills.

bring it on...

Sure. In the past the government has required Ad Valorem tax for goods and services to pay for public use of things ranging from railroad unification in the 1800's to utility construction and more currently to road projects via property taxes, real and otherwise, to be paid out to private companies to carry out construction maintenance and upkeep, in the name of the public interest. Through taxes, which you are forced to pay under threat of fines and jail time, you've purchased:

• law enforcement
• fire departments
• medical squads
• roads
• public transportation
• the power grid
• sewage treatment
• clean water
• public education
• a military force
• and so forth (this is not an exhaustive list)

Bought a car? You paid more for it due to government mandated safety features. Drive a car without those features, and you're likely to experience the threat of fines and jail time. Own a car? You're forced to purchase auto insurance under threats of fines and jail time. Have you purchased a home on loan? You've been forced to purchase home insurance. Have a job? You've been forced to purchase future equity in a retirement fund.

These are only a few of the government mandated purchase that you are forced to make.

Please don't try to explain my views, you're having enough trouble cogently elucidating your own without profane hyperbole. Where have I tried to "explain" your views? They don't make any sense, so the job of explaining them is entirely yours.

I am not in favor of deficits, period. I have my doubts as to the veracity of that statement, but since we have no way to validate it, it's rather irrelevant.

Treating people in ERs is cheaper than supporting a bloated bureaucracy and then still paying for them. No, it quite obviously isn't. I'm sorry that you don't understand the economics of the situation, but I suggest you look into them.

You don't need detailed and distant vision to see we're headed in Europe's direction. Just some common sense and simple math skills. I have gone through this exercise too many times to count. There are a number of "European" (socialized) medical systems that cost less than our "free market" capitalist one, while simultaneously delivering better access to health care and better quality of outcome.

Common sense and math skills point out the fact that we have the most expensive healthcare "system" in the developed world, and the quality of that system ranks behind more than a dozen countries on every measure of quality.

QED, your "cheaper" mantra is revealed as nothing other than rank bull@!$%#.

So then, you are essentially intellectually bankrupt as well as rude. That's sufficient information for me. Thank you for your "discussion".

So then, you are essentially intellectually bankrupt as well as rude. Does that sort of ad hominem substitute for reasoned discussion in your circles? If so, the general sad state of conservative discourse and its essential lack of worthy ideas stands explained.

Physician, bill thyself.

"This law, considered over the next ten years, is pretty much deficit neutral."

I have yet to have anyone explain how spending a trillion dollars saves money, lets not even point out that we are already being taxed for services that we aren't getting for quite a while yet.

I also like how your list uses all public works, taxes don't force you to have any private services. Also taxes are direct to the people that go to something we all use pretty much everyday. Forcing people to have health insurance is in no way similar to having a gas tax to keep your roads in working order.

I would also like to point out that Bush only left a 1.3 Trillion dollar deficit, what is it at now and how fast is it growing. A trillion dollar deficit isn't even a bad thing with the way most economic systems work today have some amount of debt isn't a bad thing as long as it is a manageable amount kind of like making an investment in a mortgagethat you later sell for a profit. But 12 trillion plus with the printing presses in full swing will kill any economic system and that is what scares conservatives.

Yes, it was explained above... we save huge amounts of money not providing health care in the ER. That has been the clear consensus on why we pay so much for our healthcare in the US (more than any other country), but yet we get care that does not rank at the top. To bring costs under control, we need comprehensive health care so that we avoid the high costs of ER visits AND costly procedures for serious conditions that are much cheaper to treat if found early... That is why it can be deficit neutral.

There is no way that it will cost America a trillion dollars by people that show up to that ER who do not have health insurance. We are only talking about 35million people in the whole country who don't have insurance.

Hospitals are making money now though the cost of people declaring bancruptcy and not paying medical bills falls on the hospitals. So by your idea of saving money we are just making sure the hospital never gets stiffed and this is called by you, a saving for the federal government. that just doesn't make sense.

you are once again saying that increasing taxes will save us money...?

But 12 trillion plus with the printing presses in full swing will kill any economic system and that is what scares conservatives.

Sure it does, that's why you want to bring back Reaganomics, right? BTW, he ran up, at that time, the largest Fed debt and deficit in the histoy of this country, even though he raised taxes on mutliple ocassions.

Bottom line is this, as long as it is your guy in office, you gives a $hit about debt and deficit.

But as soon as someone is in office who doesn't share my sociopolitical and socioeconomic dogmas, then it becomes an issue.

I might also add, if you care about debt and deficit, why support a patrty whose last 3 Presidents are responsible for 3/4 of the debt this country owns?

Just curious.....

And I know, we can always attach a value to human life. F&ck them, they can die if it means we don't have to sell more Treasury bills to China.....

you are once again saying that increasing taxes will save us money...?

Ever bought a more efficient appliance, car, replacement windows, etc? Same premise.

It's about increasing efficiency. Your rates, your premiums, have these unpaid services factored into the equation. You're already paying.

And by the way, emergency room care is far more expensive than visits to primary care physicians, plus, those who wait until they have to go to an ER are often much more sick, and require much more treatment, with icnreased cost, than if someone visits their PCP at the first sign of symptoms.

That having been said, I don't care for the bill because we still leave a for-profit system of treating the ill and dying relatively undisturbed, and still leave a fee-for-service structure in place.

That huge deficits are bad for the economy is something the rational among us can clearly agree on. What I find confusing is why anyone embracing the current President's policies would even want to touch the subject. His spending dwarfs that of any other chief executive. He has literally bankrupted the nation, "purchased" worthless debt of huge banks at the expense of taxpayers and expanded the number of people dependent on government. That's alright, if that is what you want. But, please just say so instead of making ridiculous comparisons to previous administrations that just don't hold up in light of the numbers.

bring it on...

iarnuocon
Sure. In the past the government has required Ad Valorem tax for goods and services to pay for public use of thing

LOL

A tax on a product is not the same as being forced to buy a product.

that is the best you have huh?

LOL

nice try my friend - no dice.

:)

You could have read the paragraph after the list of taxes. Although, to iarnucon's point, and exactly what he said. You are forced to pay the tax. You have (relatively) no say in which what that tax money pays for. So, indirectly, you are forced to buy (and maintain) all items that iarnucon posted under his tax listing. If you pay taxes, that is.

Don't bother, cappiez. If these fellows want to pretend that the end of the world is here, and that we've suddenly moved to the left of Sweden, let them. The more often they do so publicly, the less relevant anyone other than other wingnuts will think they are. Hell, Truth-Hurts doesn't even understand what taxes are.

And notice how they simply ignore the things they have no argument for? QED.

One last thing-- this?

A tax on a product is not the same as being forced to buy a product.

Would be so much more convincing if what we were talking about wasn't also a tax. You're basically whining because you think one tax isn't the same as another tax.

But you're simply wrong.

Would be so much more convincing if what we were talking about wasn't also a tax. You're basically whining because you think one tax isn't the same as another tax.

But you're simply wrong.

hey.... wake up.

A tax is paid to the federal government - not to a privately owned company by virtue of a mandated purchase of a product

you are simply wrong

:P

A tax is paid to the federal government - not to a privately owned company by virtue of a mandated purchase of a product... you are simply wrong No, actually it's still you.

The term "individual mandate" is misleading for two reasons. First, the law would not actually require all individuals to purchase insurance. The mandate would not apply to dependents, persons receiving Medicare or Medicaid, military families, persons living overseas, persons with religious objections, or persons who already get health insurance from their employers under a qualified plan.

Second, it is not actually a mandate. It is a tax, which people would not have to pay if they purchased health insurance. The House bill imposes a tax of 2.5% on adjusted gross income if a taxpayer is not part of a qualified health insurance program. The Senate bill imposes what is called an "excise tax" — a tax on transactions or events — or a "penalty tax" — a tax for failing to do something (e.g., filing your tax return promptly). The tax is levied for each month that an individual fails to pay premiums into a qualified health plan.

Reading is fundamental. You might have learned more if you had bothered to click the link. In its final form, the penalty tax is $695 or 2.5% of income, whichever is greater. You call it a "fine," but it's still a tax.

You don't want to buy insurance? Don't buy insurance. The law specifically allows you to not buy insurance if you don't want to. You just go ahead and don't buy it, and the IRS will levy the additional tax on your income.

But hell, even that isn't exactly set in stone. The law also specifies that if you don't buy the insurance and you don't pay the tax, pretty much jack @!$%# will happen to you-- the law specifically says that no criminal action or liens can be imposed on people who don't pay the tax.

So, really, all your bloviating amounts to zip.

then you have nothing to worry about when this hits the supreme court

;)

enforceable or not -as you might think

I will not be told to buy a product by the federal government - ever

nor will I give them that power by just saying well it is ok this time...

something about NEVER gonna happen comes to mind.

I will not be told to buy a product by the federal government - ever

But, the state government is different if you drive a car, right?

then you have nothing to worry about when this hits the supreme court Yes, that's right. I think people who think the SCOTUS is going to invalidate this law are in for a rude awakening.

Whether it does or not, they will have a state sovereignty fight on their hands. That won't be much of a fight, despite all the big talk.

I will not be told to buy a product by the federal government - ever

But, the state government is different if you drive a car, right?

when you understand the difference between state and federal power

speak

until then

go back to civics class.

I understand the difference. So, screw your civics class. Answer the question. Why is one government alright, but not the other? Exact same principle.

Maybe the Code of Honor should spell it out: "If you can't not be a condescending douche bag, leave."

Oh, really? Even though my post wasn't directed towards anyone. Meanwhile, Truth Hurts tries to insult my intelligence, and that's perfectly okay?

Then I suggest you plead your case with Tyler and see how far you get. Good advice, although even if tyler does nothing, it won't change the reality that you're a haphazard moderator, at best.

I've never seen you delete even the most gross violation of the CoH, provided it's posted by someone you agree with. Go figure.

I don't post to remind you. I post to remind other people.

Or, you could be an unbiased moderator. I mean, both really work, but I don't run to daddy crying when someone does something wrong. But, I understand. That's a big box to ask you to open.

Thank you.

Why is one government alright, but not the other? Exact same principle.

the federal governments powers is not exactly the same as the states powers

in fact the feds power is limited and clearly defined by the tenth

again I say: take a civics class, your education is lacking

cheers
:)

I've restored the comment so everyone can see what all the fuss was about. If Truth Hurts has a complaint, then he can take it to Tyler.

no prob, in fact I found it funny ;)

The Tenth, as far as I can know, and tell, does not directly state that the federal government cannot penalize people, through taxation, for not purchasing a product.

and tell, does not directly state that the federal government cannot penalize people, through taxation, for not purchasing a product.

the powers not specifically granted by the constitution to the feds are left to the states and the people

as no place in the constitution specifically allows the federal government to penalize people, through taxation, for not purchasing a product - they simply do not have that power.

as Obama is so fond of saying - let me be clear about this.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

still confused - maybe take a civics class?

no place in the constitution specifically allows the federal government to penalize people, through taxation, for not purchasing a product - they simply do not have that power.

The Online Constitution

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The tax related to healthcare reform promotes the general welfare. It falls directly under Congress' delegated power under Article 8 of the Constitution.

Note, this is a penalty tax. It falls under a power of Congress which is already settled in law. It's no different than the government levying a tax on polluters who refuse to install pollution control devices. And as if that weren't enough to settle the argument, people who refuse to purchase insurance are, in fact, self-insuring through a variety of means. Their activity has a direct impact on interstate commerce, and as such is able to be regulated under the authority of the federal government as expressed in the Commerce Clause (in no different a manner than as held in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) or Gonzales v Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)).

You were saying?

your post is only worthy of consideration when

promote general welfare = mandate general welfare.

nice try

:P

Lol... Do they or do they not have the power to tax? If the answer is yes, the next question is "for what purposes?" In the wording of the document, one legitimate purpose is to "promote the general welfare." Does this penalty tax promote the general welfare? It obviously does-- more people will wind up having health care.

So, nice try, but I suggest you go back to civics class.

Care to try another argument?

I think you both probably took civics. How about sticking to the subject?

Care to try another argument?

nope sticking to

the federal government does not have the power to force me to buy a product from a private company or have the IRS fine me if I do not.

Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to mandate that an individual enter into a contract with a private party or purchase a good or service from a private party under threat of IRS fines and penalties.

see you guys in court :)

Where you and people proposing your argument will lose, since this is already settled law (again, think polluters and mandates that said polluters enter into individual contracts with private parties to purchase pollution control devices). But you keep telling yourself your little tales about what the Constitution says.

Where you and people proposing your argument will lose, since this is already settled law (again, think polluters and mandates that said polluters enter into individual contracts with private parties to purchase pollution control devices). But you keep telling yourself your little tales about what the Constitution says.

your not serious are you?

I am not a oil refinery creating pollution

unless of course the truth is toxic

there is no example of the federal government forcing people not already engaged in commerce, [like an oil company] to buy a product from a private company - there is none

:)

Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to mandate that an individual enter into a contract with a private party or purchase a good or service from a private party under threat of IRS fines and penalties.

key word here : individual

not a business

an INDIVIDUAL

:P

Truth, the government will not force you to buy anything. Where in the world did you get such a silly notion? If you choose not to be insured, then you will be taxed to cover the expense of your health care should you get ill. sorry, I do not want to cover that for you, that would be socialism and we know that won't fly in this here US of A. If you choose not to pay those taxes, you will be punished like any other common tax evader.

Truth, the government will not force you to buy anything. Where in the world did you get such a silly notion? If you choose not to be insured, then you will be taxed to cover the expense of your health care should you get ill

that is a penalty tax for not buying a product from a private company

nope - not gonna fly by my friend

BS, the tax is a means to make those who will receive care actually take the responsibility to pay for the care. If you don't have insurance and you go to the hospital, you will be cared for. I will not pay for your lack of foresight, nor will my taxes. You will be taxed to pay for your care. Unfortunately, the taxes will not be enough to cover your care, but at least I won't have to cover all of it for you. Now grow up, be responsible and get health coverage... it is best for you and for your country.

May as well give up, Matt. Chuckles, here, thinks that if he just redefines the English language, suddenly his argument will make sense. It ain't gonna happen that way in the Supreme Court, no matter how many times he pretends that Congress doesn't have the power to tax, directly or indirectly, businesses, individuals, transactions, et cetera, taking place within the US.

If "nuh-uh" makes him feel better, let him say it all he wants.

Go on, Truth... keep saying "nuh-uh." We'll all be quietly getting on with our lives while you bury your head in the sand.

Go on, Truth... keep saying "nuh-uh." We'll all be quietly getting on with our lives

let me see....

listen to liberal newsviners

or my own education...

which by some odd coincidence is exactly the same argument 14 state attorney generals are going to be making in federal court.

hmmmmmmmm such a hard choice here.

:P

how bout we watch it go through court before pointing fingers at who is stupid or not and who has their head in the sand or up their own ass?

for our reading amusement:

Judge denies extension for federal response to health lawsuit‎
News-Medical.net - 1 day ago
Legal Newsline: "A federal judge in Florida is not granting the federal government an extension of time to respond to a challenge to health care reform made ...

Virginia Health-Care Argument Is Scheduled for July 1‎ -

should be fun to watch huh?

july 1 is just round the corner...

:P

Truth... no response to my point? Why should taxpayers cover health care costs for those that don't buy insurance? How is this not a socialist approach that you are suggesting?

Truth... no response to my point? Why should taxpayers cover health care costs for those that don't buy insurance?

that problem needs to be sorted out at the state level - not the federal level as that is a state issue

states can pass a law mandating people buy health insurance or not, their choice

the fed can not make that mandate - as their powers are by design limited.

read the tenth amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I know there are a lot of words there... LOL

Why should taxpayers cover health care costs for those that don't buy insurance?

why should Texans pay for Californians health care costs?

Texans have no interest in supporting Californians health care or their sanctuary cities and the resulting illegals health care

:P

I get a little tired of having to paraphrase the legal arguments, just so that Truth can engage in his patented "nuh-uh" strategy, but for anyone interested, here's a lawyer and professor of law explaining all the reasons why Truth is mistaken. Read it at your leisure.

Whether Truth will ever substantively reply to the arguments contained, herein, remains to be seen. I suspect we'll be treated to continued "nuh-uhs," without any actual argument to back them up.

And, since everything that needs to be said about this topic has already been said, or linked to, I'll just leave it at that.

Later, guys.

here is a link to facts explaining all the reasons why iarnuocon is mistaken

Later, guys.

cheers
:)

truth hurts, how about a little truth... simple truth. Do you think that someone who does not have insurance and goes to the hospital should have their costs covered by the taxpayers? I don't think that is fair to those of us who are responsible enough to get insurance. Taxing folks for services seems reasonable if there is no evidence that the individual has any ability to pay for the services if they need them. How is this not the american way?

Do you think that someone who does not have insurance and goes to the hospital should have their costs covered by the taxpayers?

nope..

and I also do not think Texans should subsidize Californians health care

do you think it is fair for middle america to support the medical costs of illegals in californias sanctuary cities?

health care is a state issue not a federal issue

health care falls under the general welfare clause in the same way education does.

NOT

Q. Where, in the Constitution, is there mention of education?
A. There is none; education is a matter reserved for the States.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html

Health care is no different than education in the it is not specifically mentioned as a power given to the federal government

Q. The United States government is frequently described as one of limited powers. Is this true?
A. Yes. The United States government possesses only such powers as are specifically granted to it by the Constitution.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html

On the other hand, Article VI of the Constitution grants supremacy to federal law.

On the other hand, Article VI of the Constitution grants supremacy to federal law.

only if the federal law is constitutional

so... no.. you can not use your other hand because of article VI
:P

OK truth. so you don't think I should have to pay for the health expenses of someone else who chooses NOT to pay for insurance. So, who is going to pay for those expenses that the uninsured can't cover? Who? I suggest it be the uninsured themselves and a tax to achieve that goal seems like a pretty easy approach to solving the problem.

dude,, I have some news for you,,, states currently cover that cost by way of taxes and I have no problem with that.

Texas manages to treat all indigents,,, and still is a donor state.. go figure huh?

why should Texans be burdened with the likes of Califonia who is broke beyond belief?

more to the point

your asking Texas citizens to subsidize the legislative failures of not only the State of California, but every other State that can not afford its peoples health care - due to that states past legislative and economic policy.

why should Texas cover the mistakes of other States?

you voted for your state "decision makers"

live with it.

health care is a state issue not a federal issue.

think on that for a bit

It doesn't matter if the legislation makes the problem worse, just as long as they feel good about what they've done.

LOL

ooooooo ahem,, well that is dfferent... my ass... LOL

hun, kids, it is time ta clean da guns a for them city slickers start up with that feely goody changey way of taking our money - damn revenuers.. LOL

( end sarcasm )

:)

hilarious. thanks for speaking up for me Grim... but the difference is your still acting like an asshat and remember, that is you, not me...

Truth, if you are so upset about texas taxes (I was really talking about the feds, since the HCR your're @!$%#ing about is a federal program), then by all means push for secession. Apart from UT Austiin and a bit of West Texas, you can have the rest of that mess... that was my point and you seem unable or unwilling to address the fact that you oppose people getting free healthcare if they don't have insurance, but you seem to have nothing to offer in terms of HOW THOSE COSTS WILL BE COVERED. So if you don't like the tax idea, what can you offer that is better?

I don't want MY federal taxes paying for your healthcare because you're too independent minded to get insurance...

I suggest it be the uninsured themselves and a tax to achieve that goal seems like a pretty easy approach to solving the problem.

it is always easier to not follow the constitution

you do realize the same people who are uninsured now will remain uninsured under obamacare? ya know the people who do not work? under the poverty line, no insurance, and get this, no fine for not having insurance

so in the end nothing really changes except now the fed has set a precedent of telling us what to buy and when to buy it - unless of course your unemployed - then ya get a free pass.

that means if I just say screw it. I am gonna just retire, earn no money, I will have no fines for not having insurance, no tax and free health care at your expense "if your working"

why then am I against it? unconstitutional - period.

Lots of words, but no answer. C'mon Truth. You've got billions of dollars in hospital debt as a result of uninsured folks getting treatment. What is your plan to find the money to cover those costs? You clearly have a plan because you have thought enough about the issue to be sure that a tax is NOT the plan. So, what is your well considered alternative?

In the end, about 40 million more people will be covered under Obama care. If the number is as low as you suggest, then the cost of the program will be much lower and there is one less 'issue' you'll have to whine about.

just so ya know,,

if obama care gets past the supreme court and the states fail to nullify it.

I will never earn another dime, I will cancel my health insurance policy, and retire like a king as I got mad cash from my life as a capitalist to augment my new socialist retirement

if they trash the constitution on this issue - you can count on that.

if the constitution stands and ObamaCare is shot down - I will break ground and resume building America from the ground up by providing jobs - another promise you can count on

till this is settled I am on hiatus

:P

n the end, about 40 million more people will be covered under Obama car

stop drinking the cool-aid

odd how you can decide on a whim if you want to help your country or not. A real american helps his country regardless of who is in the white house or which specific legislation passes. Only a partisan hack cuts off his nose to spite his face... I hope you never lift a hammer again.

Oh, by the way. still waiting for your solution to covering the costs of the uninsured... Seems like you have nothing... just can't stand the idea that a reasonable solution uses the word 'tax'...

in May, the Congressional Budget Office updated its cost projections. It found that the new health legislation would cost $115 billion more than estimated when it was enacted.

what ever Obama says

count on it being far from the truth

wake up my friend - or not.. no worries

cheers

:)

odd how you can decide on a whim if you want to help your country or not. A real american helps his country regardless of who is in the white house or which specific legislation passes.

welcome to the real world

business and people make decisions based on legislation every day - get over it.

yepp I am a real American who will only support freedom of choice and will not support mandates by force - nothing odd about that. I work because I want to - not because I am told to.

if they subvert the constitution to this liberal ideology of Obama's it will no longer be the America I once knew and it will no longer deserve my support

think that is not fair?

that is unfortunate for you.

yes, but as a business person you are opting to not help America because of a change in the political landscape over the last 1.5 years... you are opting not to make money or help your friends and neighbors make money out of what, spite? just doesn't seem like the America I grew up in... If you dislike this new america so much, move.

regarding the CBO estimate, you failed to note that the extra expense also extends coverage to more people, so I have no issue with the adjustment. The idea is to insure people and the more that are insured, the better the financials in the end... Also, Obama didn't make the first CBO estimate nor the second. It is an independent evaluation, so any change in the estimate has nothing to do with Obama.

By the way, still waiting for your solution to covering the costs of the uninsured... Seems like you have nothing... just can't stand the idea that a reasonable solution uses the word 'tax'...

yes, but as a business person you are opting to not help America because of a change in the political landscape over the last 1.5 years... you are opting not to make money or help your friends and neighbors make money out of what, spite?

have you read the bill?

gotta be honest here I have yet to get through all 2000+ pages but the bill basically removes any incentive I have...

INCENTIVE is what runs this economy - not mandates

my doctor of 20 yrs? has the same plan as me. he simply can not afford to run his practice and abide by the bills new guidelines and still show a profit for his 80+hour weeks.

wanna bet about 30 million others can and will do the same? maybe more?

yanno... lots of wealthy people are becoming un-banked at the moment...

I wonder why that is?

LOL

Wow, you must have really been a driven individual if one single piece of legislation is all it takes to remove all of your incentive. How did your incentive feel about the medicare part D bill? The one that Bush didn't fund but is costing seniors and the feds a fortune because he negotiated higher drug costs for americans buying US made drugs than canadians pay for US made drugs... This had not impact on your 'incentive'...

maybe if I dry your crocodile tears you can get back on that horse and become just a regular american like me again... just doing what is best for you and your community, rather than letting your spite and frustration destroy your incentive and your love for your country... maybe?

Seems like you have nothing... just can't stand the idea that a reasonable solution uses the word 'tax'...

actually.. there is no reason to argue the feds power to tax and spend that power has been proven over and over again.
tax us all equally based on income and provide health care, easy solve and totally constitutional.

a mandate to buy a product from a private company?

not so proven - in fact no precedent what so ever exists.

why no precedent you may ask? it is unconstitutional [see the tenth amendment]

what we are really looking at is the federal government trying to push its responsibility off on the private sector - wake up my friend, please... our constitution might actually die over this.

I said

tax us all equally based on income and provide health care, easy solve and totally constitutional.

this means I would probably pay more than the avg person and I am all for it.

think about that before you question my love of country and our constitution

I have no problem with everyone being taxed equally, as long as you tax ALL income, including capital gains. The problem with your, 'its a states issue' response is that the states are doing nothing to solve the problem. If the states could solve this, why would the feds get involved? Why isn't the damn problem solved already?

. If the states could solve this, why would the feds get involved?

ahhhh.. the magic question

want the answer?

have you heard the term "power grab"

they could have solved the problem constitutionally, as I pointed out above, but they did not...

ask yourself why that is?

maybe

"We have to pass it so you can find out what's in it." - quote Pelosi

suddenly makes sense?

this bill needs to die a swift death

If I had the answer as to why states did not solve this before your alleged 'power grab', I would not have asked. The US health care system is the most expensive and the product ranks quite low on health outcome assessments... This system is broken and has been for some time... why have the states doing nothing to fix it? The bill is required in my view, due to a lack of any real effort by the states to deal with the problem.

Truth Hurts,

As I understand the Constitution (and I'm no expert), it was deliberately written to be vague to allow our country to address issues of national significance as they evolve. Not every particular possibility is addressed in the Constitution's broad language. It is a living document. Since the Constitution was written, our population has burgeoned, our cultural makeup has vastly changed, and big business has undergone considerable consolidation in the last 50 years as mergers and monopolies (even multi-monopolies, which sounds like an oxymoron but isn't) have emerged. And health care is BIG business. In fact, it's a business that relies on people being sick.

More to the point, Thomas Jefferson in the DoI used strong terms to stress the importance of the nation's interests as a whole, as a conglomerate, not individualism and states' rights divides we're seeing in the wake of Obama's election as POTUS. Surely, Jefferson realized the strength in numbers benefit and the erosion of our national strength if we are to become pitted one against another. This, to me, seems to be the most relevant aspect of health care reform and what negates it as a state issue.

Getting back to the basics, we all know that the cost of care and the cost of insurance are exorbitant. We all know people who either can't afford or can't qualify for coverage, and who cannot afford one major illness, even if they worked a lifetime to pay for it. We all know that medical bankruptcies are at an all-time high. We all know our health care today is rationed. The wealthy and upper middle-class have little trouble affording care, whether or not they can qualify for insurance. It's everyone below that bar who struggles desperately with this most basic aspect of life if they don't have employer-sponsored health insurance.

Giving the management of an issue of this magnitude—of life and death—to the states fails on several levels. First, most of the states aren't dealing with it. If they were, it wouldn't be the problem it is. Second, you cite the financial problems in California. Many other state budgets are falling further into the hole every day. They are not prepared to take on the scope of health care reform. Third, this is an issue, in my opinion, of national security; when the citizenry is not assured access to the care that gets and keeps them healthy when they need it, we're putting the entire nation at risk. This is a national crisis. We should all be concerned about the direction in which we're heading, and we should stop being self-focused to the exclusion of our fellow citizens. That's what Thomas Jefferson addressed in the DoI, and it's what John Kennedy tried to renew with his "Do not ask..." speech.

As you've noted, the question of the constitutionality of H.R. 3590 will reach the courts in a few short weeks. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on H.R. 3590, because this is certainly a case that falls under the "general welfare" clause, and, if you recall the fight for civil rights and the Jim Crow laws that the states of the South screamed were their right, the states rarely stand a chance fighting against Article VI.

For those of us who can barely afford health insurance, the attorneys general of the 14 states that are challenging H.R. 3590 is nothing but a double slap. First we worry about our ability to remain productive, hard-working Americans, and then we have to watch our hard-earned tax dollars be spent in a way that would keep us in that state of worry. Of course, to so many of those who are healthy and well-insured and employed, that's not your problem. And that's exactly the selfish, self-defeating, nationally compromising attitude that Thomas Jefferson addressed in the Declaration of Independence.

As you've noted, the question of the constitutionality of H.R. 3590 will reach the courts in a few short weeks. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on H.R. 3590, because this is certainly a case that falls under the "general welfare" clause,

lets review shall we.

health care falls under the general welfare clause in the same way education does.

NOT

Q. Where, in the Constitution, is there mention of education?
A. There is none; education is a matter reserved for the States.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html

Health care is no different than education in that it is not specifically mentioned as a power given to the federal government

Q. The United States government is frequently described as one of limited powers. Is this true?
A. Yes. The United States government possesses only such powers as are specifically granted to it by the Constitution.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html

john conyers is simply wrong

:)

there is no end to the liberals twisting truth to further their cause...

they think they are smarter than us... when actually they are just more arrogant, and always the first to resort to personal attacks. when they have no ground to stand on then they start calling us @!$%#s, stupid, or what have ya.

in the end we will be thanking them for reawakening the true Americans out of their political slumber.

Nov is almost here :)

Truth Hurts:

Health care is no different than education in that it is not specifically mentioned as a power given to the federal government

Nor is health care included in the Constitution as something to be administered specifically by the states, nor is it specifically excluded from the federal government's responsibility to its citizens.

Furthermore, you cite education as a parallel subject for the purposes of this debate. The condition of public education in the U.S. makes a good argument against handing over health care reform to the states. Our students rank very poorly against their peers in other countries, coming in at 22 in math and 28 in science in a study of just 39 countries. To make matters worse, state economists expect a $1 billion shortfall in education funding for 2011. Conditions and performance of our educational system don't support the notion that states are somehow better prepared than the federal government to implement and manage something as complex as health care. In fact, it does just the opposite.

Beyond the practical, the legal precedent for federal intervention has been set numerous times.

As an aside, lashing liberals doesn't support your argument. Health care solutions is not a subject suited to partisan or ideological application. Thomas Jefferson, for one, placed emphasis on the nation's need for unity, not division. We are all real Americans.

Nor is health care included in the Constitution as something to be administered specifically by the states,

you my friend are wrong

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

placed emphasis on the nation's need for unity,

the "tenth" is what keeps the states united.

if the tenth falls so does America - count on that

if the constitution is not successfully defended and the tenth does not stand - a lack of health care will be the least of your worries - again... count on it.

Truth Hurts,

There's little point in our debate on what is constitutional and what is not, because the question will be decided for us by the courts. I'm no constitutional lawyer, and I sincerely doubt you are either.

What lies at the heart of this issue is class warfare, not partisan politics. It's more about profit v. human life and health. We can point fingers at the insurance companies, health care providers and the medical industry that supplies them as perpetrators of skyrocketing costs that are forcing employers to no longer be able to offer medical benefits to their employees and our individual inability to afford even the most basic of care.

What many people fail to understand is that this is not as much a political issue as it is a practical one that's governed by bastardized capitalism. What you seem to fail to understand is that what's written on paper is only as valuable as the paper itself. Ultimately, it is the unity of the people that will keep this nation together. Until we drop our sabers and acknowledge our common needs, we are doomed to live and die under the crushing heel of the ruling class. And at that point, yes, health care is a non-issue...because the dead are free.

I'm no constitutional lawyer, and I sincerely doubt you are either.

hey,,, news flash

it does not take a constitutional lawyer to understand the tenth amendment.

that assertion is ridiculous.

as there are less than 30 words and they are not even big words.

if you can not process the less than 30 words in the tenth amendment...

your not capable of holding a conversation about it. go back to school.

however, and let me be clear about this.

it does take a constitutional lawyer to try to go around the tenth amendment

VisionCoast: You are exactly right. Many in our country fail to understand that divided we fall. We all need to cooperate and work together for the greater common good, for ourselves and our fellow man.

We all need to cooperate and work together for the greater common good, for ourselves and our fellow man.

We will stand for the constitution.

thanks to liberals the conservatives are wide awake.

the recent move to the left by Obama will result in an even more right minded nation.

the left is never right :)

Thanks gc for the regular/daily right whine of the day. LOL

What do expect when his source is aptly named Hot Air

Glad you were able to add your daughter to your health care. I was able to sign up for my new premiums to start in September - up $120 to $991/month I get to pay for a family of three. Yeah - thank you Health Care/ ObamaCare/ Who cares?

Also, what is with all the whining about calling it ObamaCare? It would take a thread all by itself to list all the names the left calls the right. The newest one I saw "Anti-choicers" so I guess the other side can be called "Anti-lifers"?

Anti choice is a accurate as it is part of the gop plank. This is what they stand for.

And if you don't like your insurance plan, shop around.

Anti choice is a accurate as it is part of the gop plank. This is what they stand for.

I guess "anti-life" is a good name for the other side - it is what the left stands for.

And if you don't like your insurance plan, shop around

I did - that is what is available. Unfortunately, everyone's premiums are going up now that it is a requirement - why should the insurance companies lower their price - they have a captive audience.

everyone's premiums are going up now that it is a requirement - why should the insurance companies lower their price - they have a captive audience. Yeah, not so much, although that might be true were the law to have actually abolished insurance companies. Given that there are still independent insurance companies, any one of them which decides to offer a lower price for the same benefits will see the free market benefit of greater patronage.

In fact, this is precisely how Germany keeps its insurance premiums low in its "socialized" medical system-- a network of not-for-profit insurers whose organizational "health" depends on convincing the insured that they are doing a better job than the next company.

But don't let facts get in the way of your nonsense.

TheKay:

Unfortunately, everyone's premiums are going up now that it is a requirement...

Fact check: Last year my premium went up 25 percent, from $800 to $1,000 a month. This year it went up 3.2 percent, to $1,032. That's a decrease of 21.8 percent over last year's increase.

I guess "anti-life" is a good name for the other side - it is what the left stands for.

Wrong again. The left stands for a woman's freedom to self-determination.

So then we have established that the abortion issue has two sides and both like to call each other names. Any discussion of the facts? Perhaps some sort of counseling where both sides are presented by adult representatives, one from each viewpoint, and leaving the decision to the ladies in question? Or are both sides so frightened of the other that a reasonable discussion is not even possible?

iarnuocon... it is amazing that you post the same facts on the same right-leaning seeds and folks just don't care to digest those facts... The desire to spew empty rhetoric seems to be the major goal of the right-leaning participants on newsvine. It is basically a whine-a-day club with Grim as the court jester...

If it had been put through by republicans you can bet it would have been called "PATRIOTCARE", or something similar.

Minan: #5.1

PatriotCare, that's funny. :)

Tiocfaidh Ar La
Calling it ObamaCare is a stupid and cynical attempt by the Republican Party to link every single aspect of health care reform to Barack Obama and NO ONE else.

Your right ObamaCare is stupid considering we have unemployment above 9%, a weakened economy, Americans being tossed out of their homes, Millions of Mexicans crossing over to the US and killing American lands owners each year.

Obama deserve all the credit for his bill and failed administration.

Millions of Mexicans crossing over to the US and killing American lands owners each year.

Wow... that's a LOT of Mexicans killing a LOT of land owners.

so how come "people dying from lack of health care" isn't on the same level of worth as illegal immigration? or the mortgage crisis? or the (recovering) economy?

sounds to me like just another excuse for the right-wingers to complain about everything Obama does. if you think back, maybe you'll remember that it was the Republicans that wanted to "start over" and "slow down" on health care reform, while the Democrats wanted a strong bill and straight forward debate so they could move on to the NEXT crisis. But the Republicans didn't want to do that. Their stated goal is to stop Obama and the Democrats from accomplishing anything they set out to do, and then they sit back and complain when nothing gets done fast enough. Do you really think the people will keep falling for that, if it's all you ever do?

...considering we have unemployment above 9%, a weakened economy, Americans being tossed out of their homes, Millions of Mexicans crossing over to the US and killing American lands owners each year.

Wasn't it basically like this during Bush's 2nd term? I'm sure that I can find the documentation on it to refresh your memory. Oh, how easily we forget.

Tiocfaidh Ar La
so how come "people dying from lack of health care" isn't on the same level of worth as illegal immigration? or the mortgage crisis? or the (recovering) economy?

Anyone that needs medical attention must be treated by a doctor or hospital in America. It's the law!

Passing a bill that will only cover a handful of poor Americans is not going solve a mythical crisis of Americans dying for lack of health care.

There was no justification for the passage of this bill at this time in history other than an inexperience president trying to make a name for himself.

Anyone that needs medical attention must be treated by a doctor or hospital in America. It's the law!

You sound as ignorant as Bush, who said exactly the same thing...the ER and/or Doctor's care still has to be paid for, and the patient gets stuck with the bill, at full cost, instead of being helped by any insurance. On top of that, when the patient can't pay within 30-60 days, they're charged other fees. So how does your stated law make any big difference? You mean, just because the hospital isn't allowed to let someone die on their steps anymore for lack of insurance?

Anyone that needs medical attention must be treated by a doctor or hospital in America. It's the law!

Sure, except they aren't required to actually heal a person. Stabilize you and make sure you don't die? Yeah. Actually help you out so that you don't almost die again? No. If you have cancer, the ER isn't going to treat your cancer. If you fall and break your hip, they'll stabilize you but they wont just hand over a hip replacement. And then the bill comes, so now a person not only may have long term health issues that need attention....they also can't pay a huge bill.

Hircock joined the ranks of countless patients who confront complicated billing codes, long lists of charges, unfathomable language about insurance coverage and sometimes sums they simply can't pay.

But what Hircock knew - he's a professional patient advocate - is that medical bills can be challenged.

Don't expect health care reform to make this easier. Whatever plan Washington comes up with, patients will face confusing, complicated bills and potentially large out-of-pocket medical expenses.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/consumer/articles/2009/10/12/20091012medbills.html#ixzz0p9UPmCbH

There is help with med and hosp bills. Most will work with you on a payment plan.

Health care: the thread topic that pushes my buttons. The uninsured, as a general rule, do not get preventive check ups and care, necessary medications that can keep mild problems from becoming major ones. By the time they wind up at the ER, unless it is for a sprained ankle, or broken bone or such caused by accidents, they are in serious condition. My thoughts are that a European model, with preventive care available and affordable would have been one solution to the ER cost issue that has burdened hospitals and passed costs to the insured.

only cover a handful of poor Americans

If a "handful" is approximately 30 million, I would love to know what your definition of a metric @!$%# ton is.

30 bajillion, naturally.

I just have no sympathy for the @!$%#ing idiots who ply the "just go to the ER" line. I speak from personal knowledge on this issue. My sister-in-law had a non-emergency medical situation that she needed to have taken care of through surgery. She wound up waiting more than a year to get on a list in order to have a local hospital consider whether or not they would provide the care as "charity." Once on the list, she waited for another 8 months or so before they finally made a decision. Then, another month of waiting while they scheduled it. She had the surgery yesterday.

So, for the better part of two years, she dealt with an extremely painful medical condition while waiting for our "system" to "work," because she had no medical insurance.

And morons want to tell me that "socialized systems" are "bad" because of wait times, and that everyone can get their care for "free" by just going to the ER.

Thanks, but I live in the real world. Apparently, their fantasy land is much nicer. Too bad we can't all live there.

I'll say it again, our "system" ranks number one in costs (as in the most expensive), and falls somewhere between 12th and 28th in quality of service, depending on which metric you want to measure. And this tepid tweak of what is still the most capitalist system in the world barely even begins to address that situation.

But, sure, I'm sure capitalism is going to fix healthcare... any day now...

Or not.

iuarnicon: #6.11

Yeah, we'll all wait for unbridled capitalism to fix health care. Anytime now. /sarc

My daughter, who is married with a little one, was in the hospital for five days with a kidney infection recently. They rent their home and don't make much money, like, there's always too much month left at the end of what money they have.

Her bill after, AFTER, AFTER insurance? $5,000. For them, it might as well be $5 million. I don't know where the hospital is going to get it from, unless they make her sell her kid.

Capitalism, my @$$.

Sorry about your poor sister-in-law. It should never have happened, not in the richest country in the world.

I have new benefits......I'm adding my college kids to my plan.......any other questions????

PS: They are college age and I couldn't do this before this bill......they were uninsured which means people like you would have paid their bills if they went to a clinic or broke a bone...etc.........

And......you're welcome. Please read up a bit so you won't look so uninformed as you bash a program of which you seem to know nothing.

Z-

you've said almost the exact same thing in every post on here. get something new to say. people have already benefited from the health care bill, and there are more things to come that have not yet been enacted. why do you choose to ignore that?

Nope Z......I couldn't..I guess you just don't have financial information on everyone on earth....lol..so I guess you will have to deal with it.......we won......you lost......see you in November.

......they were uninsured which means people like you would have paid their bills if they went to a clinic or broke a bone...

We are going to end up paying for it either way. And as for pre-existing conditions, those are not a problem as long as you stayed insured from one plan to the next. Only time that came into play was if you let your coverage lapse.

Even though the president is NOT the one to actually write any legislation,

Or read it, either. Of course, none of them read it, just stuck it to us, again.

zjjjc
Let me help you, I know the basics can be tough at times and its why a few of you PREFER to be taken care of like children. Your child contacts an insurance provider. Heck, if they are to lazy you can do the work. The insurance provider will provide a cost. You have that DEDUCTED off a DEBT card or pay by check from your account.

At 23 I paid my own insurance, HAD ZERO debt but my house payment with ZERO help from parents and CERTAINLY not BORROWED welfare from the Government.

Well. Pin a @!$%#ing medal on you.
Praytell, how did you afford that while going to school full time?
Did your pell grants or federal loans pay it, or are you just totally full of @!$%#?

Too bad z......lol.....I enjoy aggravating you......mwahahahahahahahahaha

I'm also shopping for less expensive insurance as I, and many others, have pre existing conditions and my current insurance has been raising my premiums yearly and yearly and yearly.

And the benefits go on and on and on and on and on......

I'm debt free as well..........I own my own house on the beach....and I'm retired....so nanny nanny boo boo..........

good luck in November......you and yours are going to need if....off to walk the beach......the oil hasn't reached my area yet....another gift from Bush/Cheney and your crowd....but of course that's for another time, another thread......have a good one.

You're not aggravated.....lololololololol.....ok

8.14 reported as inflammatory and name calling.

If you need to resort to that, first of all, it exemplifies you've got no facts.......second of all, if you want to name call.....get yourself to a gop function.....that's all they do....big bunch of babies they are.

NOW off to enjoy the beach, birds, air, sun and sand. Enjoy your day.

r.e. zjjjc

Hey tyler...it looks like our pal dezzzzeeee's baaaackkk!

It's cheaper to put your children on your plan rather than have them get an entirely different plan and pay for that one. That is a direct benefit of the new reform.

Get a reduction notice yet on how much your premiums are going to be reduced? How about all the NEW wonderful benefits?

No, but I didn't get a notice that my premiums were going up 26% like last year either.

Alise42..the even sadder thing is,is that he/she lacks the imagination to come up with a screen name that is nothing more than what seems stuttering while typing! You really have to wonder what was it that sent this person over the edge and others like him who post on the vine!..

Z's posts sound just like another rereg. Why so much anger?

Agreed, Cat & Mama...there are context clues, too, that you would think s/he would omit, but no. Just not a very bright individual. I guess that's why s/he is so angry and arrogant.

ZJ: Feed the greed? The dems are trying to regulate the greed, but the GOP can't put attach any strings to their corporate masters. Can't wait to see the GOP airing their objections on TV during the reconciliation of the Wall St reform bill. Oh, maybe you're going to spin some silly tale about govt regulations being bad as you criticize the govt for not cleaning up the oil mess made by private business... Yea, same old story, keep govt out of business, UNTIL its time for someone to clean up their mess... Sounds just like the previous 8 years of govt,, relative to the clean-up effort that is ongoing... ZJ, your name should be 'cognitive dissonance'

Apart from the GOP trying to loosen restrictions on CONSUMER PROTECTION (who cares about the consumer when you can take it easy on your rich cronies), the wall st reform bill is in good shape and you can read all about it, IF you take the time to do some homework. Again, it will be very entertaining seeing the GOP reject consumer protection months before an election... the GOP hypocrisy meter will be off scale.

zjjjc
Who is going to regulate the ones creating the so-called REGULATIONS? You fools act like we didn't have any in place before...

We didn't. It was a period called "de-regulation." When Republicans, specifically, pushed to remove "outdated" regulations because they were impeding business.

And that is about all the answer I'm going to give someone who ignorantly calls me a fool.

How clueless of you and your link to not realize he said it "quote-unquote". He used the term, but he was quoting someone else.

Usually, when people do this, it is being used to distance themselves from the implication that they agree with the term or to imply sarcasm.

For example: "George Bush is a, quote-unquote, "brush-clearing rancher". Or, "I think the thug on the next block is a, quote-unquote, "private businessman". Or, "Sarah Palin is a, quote-unquote, "politician".

Get it?

and it shows.
You also misued dyslexia.
Man, you were on a roll.

fred call...a Psychiatrist..Your never going to win a debate or even get close with just parroting the same tired lies and RWNJ crap that is like manna from Republican Heaven! You may have those who agree with you but sadly they are as lost and as ill informed as you are...the misery is and loves your company..

Pfft. Yeah, because all the spending useless you Republicans did while in power( coughcough Iraq coughcough) will be wiped away and nobody will ever remember it.

Are you referring to the Iraq war, approved by both parties? According to the War Powers Act, or the continuing votes to keep funding that war, which couldn't have happened without democrat votes?

Off subject, Sir

Own up to the idiocy of supporting this Trillions-of-dollars mistake. It may well bankrupt us unless its repealed. We're talking about Obama-Bankruptcy-Care, not the Iraq war.

sinbad..Uhmm.Creed is NEVER correct! Creed is one of the most toxic trolls ever to press digits to keyboard and this is well known on the vine..except it seems by you. And yes I am aware that there are those who would and will attempt in vain to make that claim against me but that will not hold water! I merely fight back against the ignorance that permeates the right wingers here on the vine, if I seem a bit angry at times that I will cop to! And that is frankly because I'm sick and FRAKKIN' tired of you arrogant righties who NEVER have the FACTS but claim through frothing lips that you are correct when in fact reality proves you wrong EVERY Frakkin' Time! Get it through you thick skulls that you can never win if you ignore the truth!...BTW if you have to claim out loud that you are "Real American" then obviously your not! Get used to being wrong!

Cat, I always appreciate your posts. I am tired of the hate rants. I enjoy reading the discussions between differing opinions of the political issues, as long as both sides use good debate etiquette without resorting to name calling. I have observed that many on the left make good arguments without resorting to name calling, back up their arguments with facts and links, and in general use good manners (with a few exceptions). I have also observed a lot of hate, name calling and in general poor choice of words, lack of information/facts from most of the right/conservative/Republican posters (with a few exeptions for good behavior !). Also, there seems to be a poster or poster(s) out there who crop up with hate and vitriol on every one of these threads, using different registry names. All the posts have a similar style..................and the hate jumps off the screen ! Does anyone else sense this ?

Yes.

I have observed that many on the left make good arguments without resorting to name calling, back up their arguments with facts and links, and in general use good manners (with a few exceptions). I have also observed a lot of hate, name calling and in general poor choice of words, lack of information/facts from most of the right/conservative/Republican posters (with a few exeptions for good behavior !).

You wouldn't be biased? Seems I've read the same thing from the other side about your side. Funny how that works;)

Creed is one of the most toxic trolls ever

I'm sick and FRAKKIN' tired of you arrogant righties who NEVER have the FACTS but claim through frothing lips

Get it through you thick skull

Is what S Cat wrote and this is what Middle Class wrote in response:

Cat, I always appreciate your posts.

I am tired of the hate rants.

I enjoy reading the discussions between differing opinions of the political issues, as long as both sides use good debate etiquette without resorting to name calling.

I am so LMBO!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

wow.

Well, Mthrof3, you are right. I do enjoy Cat's posts, but I think he should have said that Creed's posts are toxic, not Creed, because that is calling him names. Calling someone's words toxic is not the same as calling the person toxic. So you got me on that one. We can disagree with someone's opinion and the words used to express that opinion without calling the person ridiculous or hateful names.

I take it you do not agree with Republican politics, but for some reason are unable to elucidate that stance without resorting to your bowling alley political education terminology. I think Obamacare was first used by the press. Since this administration has been in power for nearly two years, what "last 8 years" are you referring to? Is there a point when you would expect the current administration to take any responsibility for anything at all, or are you going to blame Bush for all it's failures and excesses in spending?

RE, I think the point is that the american people recognized that the US was in a tailspin when W was leaving office (remember McCain saying the economy was fine just days before he said we need to cancel the presidential campaign to deal with the economic crisis???) and, as such, there success of this new administration was going to be based on how quickly it could turn around the mess it was left with. So, in order to address this measure, we do have to go back to understand how the mess has been dealt with. Now, the existence of the mess is not really up for debate, since the whole world became embroiled in the meltdown that our financial markets precipitated. So, the issue that is up for debate is how well the new admin dealt with it. Most economists are very happy that we avoided a major recession / depression and that we are slowly emerging from the worst of it.

I believe in Obamacare and if it fails the blame will be on the Democrat Party....We take responsibilty for what happens in the future.

Never happen.

What I am waiting for is the Democcrat who will say....I believe in Obamacare and if it fails the blame will be on the Democrat Party....We take responsibilty for what happens in the future.

Really? Alright.

I believe in this health care plan, and if it fails I'll blame the Democrat party. We take responsibility for what happens in the future. I refuse to call it "Obamacare" because the name has been stigmatized by its opponents, but I believe in the plan nonetheless. That wasn't that hard.

Now, one good turn deserves another. As a conservative, could you pledge that if the health care plan is a success, you'll give proper credit to the Democrat party?

I'm not a Conservative but sure. If by some miracle it is a success I'll give proper credit to the Democrat party.

I believe in this health care plan, and if it fails I'll blame the Democrat party. We take responsibility for what happens in the future. I refuse to call it "Obamacare" because the name has been stigmatized by its opponents, but I believe in the plan nonetheless. That wasn't that hard.

When you say we take responsibility...you mean blame George Bush...What I would love to see is The Democrat not put the blame on anyone else.

could you pledge that if the health care plan is a success, you'll give proper credit to the Democrat party?

let me say it this way ...the healthcare plan has done what it was supposed to do.....

1. Bring 34 million new customers to healthcare with a stroke of the pen.

2. Force people to buy insurance on the promise of tax credits if they cant afford it.

It has to be deficit neutral, have some actaul reform, be affordable, not make people pay extra taxes on their plan, and be legal.....if that happens I would say that Dem's deserve credit...but since we spend 2.5 trillion on healthcare now and will spend 3.5 trillion on Obamacare ...well were are going to have a problem.

When you say we take responsibility...you mean blame George Bush...What I would love to see is The Democrat not put the blame on anyone else.

Uh, no. You issued a challenge, I accepted it. I voted for Obama, I favor the plan, and I accept that the Democrats are responsible if it turns out poorly. I know you're shocked that someone stepped up to do so, but don't put words in my mouth to convince yourself that you weren't wrong.

It's just too bad you can't live up to the conditions you set for your political opponents. I accept that if the plan fails, it's Democrats' own fault. All I asked in return was that you accept that if it succeeds, you credit the Democrats for the good it does. You can't even do that, and you blame me of being blindly partisan. Hilarious.

When you say we take responsibility...you mean blame George Bush...What I would love to see is The Democrat not put the blame on anyone else..........Uh, no.

What do you mean no...when has this adminstratation not blamed Bush...really seriously....or is that the new orders from high command to deny democrats blame Geaorge Bush for everything...really....and yes i am shocked that with all the iformation on the healthcare that is out there thatyou would say this....but like Eric holder not reading the AZ bill the Democrat will say anything act like it is true with no proof of anything...I dont believe the Democrat is capable of politically doing what it says(if it is for the betters of the people)..but like I said if they can do this and not violate constitutional law, make it deficit neutral, affordable with out taxing peoples healthcare plan...then you can have credit

I'm speaking for myself, Billy. You asked for an honest Democrat, apparently believing it wouldn't happen. I stepped forward and proved that assumption wrong. You can't change the goal posts now and claim you were talking about "the Obama administration." You issued a challenge to make a pledge, and I did so. I asked for you to make a similar gesture, and you refused.

Congratulations. This little stunt has succeeded in putting egg on your face and exposing you as an insincere hypocrite. For what it's worth, Tinfoil Annie made the pledge I asked for, but I was really asking you personally to do it. Good job, Annie. Billy could learn a lesson or two from you.

yes well acttually you didnt otherwise if you had read what Zi said ...you would have seen the terems and conditions which I would have given dems credit....

Like I said before I don't care if it's called the Garbage Can Bill someone is going to have to foot the bill. By the way how can you say it's virtually the same bill as the Republican one when all you libs said they didn't have a health care plan? You can't have it both ways.

By the way how can you say it's virtually the same bill as the Republican one when all you libs said they didn't have a health care plan?

You can't accuse a single person of hypocrisy by comparing their comments to that of a group they happen to belong to. It's a common tactic I've seen around here, but it's illogical.

That said, to answer your question, it is practically the same bill the Republicans proposed in 1993 -- including the individual mandate, which is suddenly "unconstitutional." Of course, it wasn't unconstitutional when it was their idea. Only when it comes from the enemy can it be vilified, even if it's internally consistent and makes no sense.

Now when they rejected their own ideas but failed to offer alternative solutions, I can see how many liberals assumed they didn't have any other plans. They were opposing it to attack a political enemy, and offered silence when asked for solutions. Again and again the Democrats compromised and made concessions to Republican wishes, but nothing was good enough. That's why people said they didn't have a plan. When you're so desperate to attack an enemy that you reject your own ideas, and still reject them after concessions have been made, you aren't actually trying to accomplish anything. The word for that is "grandstanding."

Suddenly? I've been objecting to the name since I first heard it. It's an overly reductive name used by conservatives to vilify a health care package that's almost identical to the one they proposed in 1993

I have to admit the astute observation...although I dont support forced healthcare which will drive the cost up.....The post makes an excellent point....In 1993 America did not want Hillary care..... neither does America want Obamacare....the seeder is right there are similarities.

If memory serves me correctly the 1993 bill was a bill in oposition to hillarycare.

Also If memory serves me quite well the 1993 bill was never passed.

So now we have 2 bills that look pretty much the same. ANd now we all know Obama and congress are not capable of comming up with their own ideas. Thank you for pointing out the obvious. Frankly I don't care who came up with it first it's who passed it that counts. And I for one don't want to pay for anymore social programs reguardless! Do what you want with your own money just leave me out of it.

If memory serves me correctly the 1993 bill was a bill in oposition to hillarycare.

Indeed it was. Nevertheless, they suggested many of the same measures, including the individual mandate. It wasn't called "unconstitutional" then. The point is that this outrage is for show. It's to look good on TV cameras and to fire up a base of ignorant people who haven't noticed the hypocrisy.

Also If memory serves me quite well the 1993 bill was never passed.

And rates continued to skyrocket, making true reform a more significant priority. If you ask me they should have passed it back then and avoided some of the mess we're in now.

ANd now we all know Obama and congress are not capable of comming up with their own ideas.

It's statements like this that devolve an intelligent discussion to partisan bickering.

And I for one don't want to pay for anymore social programs reguardless! Do what you want with your own money just leave me out of it.

Again, this is a common conservative battle cry, but somewhat uninformed. You are already paying for other people's health care. Emergency hospital visits are subsidized by the government -- you might remember hacks like Limbaugh claiming that gives us the best health care in the world. Here's the rub: emergency care is far more expensive than preventive care. If you have to subsidize people's preventive care, you will be paying less due to less need for emergency care.

In other words, you're already paying for socialized health care. It's just that the method by which you do it is ass-backwards and expensive.

Thank you Steve, very good post, with which I agree. Preventive care is much less expensive. We are already paying for those who can't pay.

This is different from your normal behavior in what way, again?

I'm a liberal, and if you want to call it Obamacare, fine with me. I may be able to retire early now. I have a pre-existing condition (diabetes) and could not have hoped to get healthcare insurance at a decent price before Obamacare. If you want to call my retirement account Obama401(K), that's fine also. It's also doing pretty good right now.

Well, I think it would be nice if everything were put in its proper perspective. First of all, nothing wrong with calling it Obamacare. Getting healthcare reform was, after all very important to the President. And yes, he will take credit/blame for it, even though it was crafted by Congress, and he simply signed the bill they crafted. To those liars teabaggers neoconservatives who claim that any effort by Republicans to amend the bill were ignored, sorry. There were several DOZEN REPUBLICAN amendments to the bill, most of which were a direct benefit to the Insurance companies that finance their campaigns. Yes this could have been a much better bill, if it hadn't been gutted by puppets of the Insurance lobby. It is still a great improvement of the status quo, which would have meant that in 30 years, many people's insurance would cost more per year than their income.

There were several DOZEN REPUBLICAN amendments to the bill, most of which were a direct benefit to the Insurance companies that finance their campaigns.

smurph-Please describe in detail with links just one of these amendments for us. Thanks.

Smurph's comment is true with an element of falsehood, or vice-versa. The Republicans did propose a dozen or so amendments (not several dozen), and some of them were even good ideas. But they waited until a politically opportune time to do it, in an attempt to derail the health care bill by forcing it back to the floor of the House.

They could have proposed those good ideas earlier, and worked with the Democrats to make a stronger bill. Instead they held their proposed amendments to play political games as a last-ditch effort to kill it. They knew that by proposing good ideas in that late stage, they would place Democrats in a corner: approve the amendments and kill the bill, or refuse to approve the amendments and look bad for rejecting good ideas.

Political gamesmanship at its finest, so they have no one but themselves to blame for their amendments being rejected. They should have proposed them earlier -- but then, their goal was never really to make the bill better.

That said, there were concessions made by the Democrats when forming the bill, most notably the removal of the public option. The public option was heavily favored in opinion polls, but the Republicans insisted the "American people" didn't want it, and that it would kill the insurance industry. Democrats removed it, public support for the bill dropped, and suddenly it was being blasted by righties as a hand-out to the insurance industry.

Noticing a trend here? The Republicans didn't give a @!$%# about making a good bill. They refused to play ball and just attempted to kill it on principle, hoping to hand Obama a political defeat. Even honest conservatives agree that the strategy blew up in their faces.

There are 160 amendments to the HCR bill that were proposed by Republicans (out of a total of over 500 proposed amendments) and approved as part of the final bill. These are provided along with the text of the bill. It is standard policy to include the amendment proposer in the record, so it is obvious to tell which are from republicans.

Steve, Smurph, Matthew--I ask again:

Please describe in detail with links just one of these amendments for us.

No one ever answers......why is that?

The Individual Mandate
Individual health insurance mandate started as a Republican idea

There's a quick look, give me a little while and I'll find proposed bill that was proposed by a Republican senator for this go-around of Healthcare Reform.

lisaed. As the information on the HCR and the amendments is freely available on-line, I see no reason to do this homework for you. A quick google search will give you many hits that all agree on the 160 republican amendments. That should give you enough impetus to actually read both the final bill and the list of amendments.

Matthew---a refusal to provide the details of even one GOP amendment that was not purely technical but of substance.....just proves that there weren't any I guess.

Oh, so now you admit that there were GOP amendments, but you consider them to be purely technical. That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.

Thanks for agreeing that the GOP had input. Wasn't that my point?

Now that we all agree that the GOP did have input into the final version of the bill, can we move on?

Matthew---if the HCR bill was "bipartisan" then it would have gotten bipartisan support. It didn't.

OK, so you suggest that the presence of GOP amendments in the law does not make it bipartisan and only if some number (how many pray tell?) of Rep folks voted for the bill would it be bipartisan.

Seems like you're just changing the burden of proof rather than admitting that the original issue (did the GOP have input into the crafting of the bill) has been resolved.

Here is what YOU asked for:

smurph-Please describe in detail with links just one of these amendments for us. Thanks.

so, it seems like you DID NOT accept that there were any GOP amendments to the bill at that time. Now apparently you DO accept that there were GOP amendments to the bill. So, to quote your boy W, 'Mission Accomplished'.

Matthew--I never denied there were amendments---but as I've said I've never seen evidence anywhere from anyone that these were anything but technical (not substantive) in nature. Can you counter that?

if the HCR bill was "bipartisan" then it would have gotten bipartisan support.

No, it would not have, and I know you know exactly why: The GOP votes were part of a greater political calculation.

Your attempt at coyness doesn't work, nor does it free you of RomneyCare, the legacy of one of your party's favorite sons.

Can I suggest you drop the partisan devotion and begin looking at the merits and flaws of the system instead?

Lisa, when it comes to making law, the critical details are very often in the 'technical' amendments. These determine HOW the law is administered. Why would you downplay any GOP contributions? Were those 160 amendments good additions to this legislation or just GOP crap? What side of this issue will you champion?

Lisa. Here is one from McCain that was accepted:

Require members of Congress to participate in Community Health Insurance Option

Matthew---thanks! That's a good one.

So, you now agree that the GOP had input into the bill and that the loud clatter we hear about a lack of bipartisan opportunities is just spin doctoring?

Matthew---the bill passed without a single GOP vote in either House or Senate. You go ahead and spin that however you want. Obama's HCR does not do anything it set out to do...it does not bend down the cost curve on healthcare and it does not ensure coverage for everyone. The dems own this debacle:

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/02/morning-bell-obamacares-true-costs-coming-to-light/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

wow lisa, you are really a piece of work. Any chance we can stop moving the goal posts here. You asked for one of the amendments, I gave it to you and you said it was a good one. So, that means you accept that there was bipartisan input on crafting the final version of the bill.

So, as I asked above, how many GOP votes would have been enough for you to consider the bill bipartisan?

So, as I asked above, how many GOP votes would have been enough for you to consider the bill bipartisan?

Matthew: Easy...more than zero.

OK, so one vote from the GOP and you would feel it would have been a bipartisan bill?

matthew--is that what I said? Let's put it this way...one GOP vote would have qualifed as "bipartisan" to Mr. Obama. He didn't get it. McConnell and Boehner are to be heartedly commended for that.

So you admit that the GOP leadership pushed their people to vote against JUST so that they could say it was not bipartisan... well, that was the main point that was made above. In fact, the GOP announced before Obama took office that their plan was to show a total lack of support REGARDLESS of what the HCR bill looked like. That little ditty is easily found via a google search. So, given the push for total opposition before the president even took office, what might be the primary reason for a lack of GOP votes on this legislation?

By the way, if I ask how many votes are needed, and you respond with, "Easy...more than zero.", then yes, my statement that one vote would do it is totally consistent with what you said. Right? The number one does qualify as 'more than zero'. Again with the pretzel logic.

matthew--is that what I said? Yeah, that's what you said. Allow me to quote you-- "more than zero." Since we're talking about people, the only options are whole numbers, and the first whole number greater than zero is "one."

QED, you said "one."

But keep spinnin' it, sister. ;)

OK, it's way past time to call this out for what it is.

Question from Matthew:

...how many GOP votes would have been enough for you to consider the bill bipartisan?

Answer from lisaed:

more than zero.

is that what I said?

Oops, train wreck.

Note to Matthew: You're trying to hit a moving target—one that's been greased with snake oil. Save yourself, brother.

Hey Vision:

Lisa is one of my favorite purveyors of pretzel logic. I love to ask a simple question, get a simple answer and then see her try to unwind the logic so that her answer still supports her point of view. Today she was off her game and basically screwed the pooch from the go. Still you have to love it when someone puts up an argument in opposition to: 1 is greater than zero. Where is the wiggle room in that argument?

lol...I didn't know you were just having fun. Go, guy. Can't wait to read lisaed's next spin job.

If you follow the thread, you can see where Lisa starts to move the target. At that point, I just focussed on demonstrating that her position was logically flawed. I see it more as trying to teach folks the power of using logic, rather than just having fun.

Noble cause, Matthew. I've tried untying lisaed's logic for her before, and all she did was bob and weave. I made another attempt at the same in 24.14 and you see how she responded. Silence. She's obviously devout, to which I say, Good luck with that strategy!

I don't want to discourage you, but I believe you have a case of invincible ignorance on your hands. Have fun trying, though. The rest of us will no doubt enjoy the show.

cheers mate.

And the same. :o)

Matthews---let me be clear (in the manner of Obama): "More than zero"---does not necessarily define any particular number....it means what it says more than zero. period. And I already said had there been even one freaking gop vote (which there was not) Obama would have called his historic HCR bipartisan......I would have disagreed. Does that clarify things for you?

PS--what kind of childhood did you have? Didn't you ever play I'm thinking of a number between one and ten? There are multiple possible answers....

Wow lisa, just wow. In an effort to stay consistent with your failed statements, you want to change mathematics as we know it? Good luck with that.

Didn't you ever play I'm thinking of a number between one and ten? There are multiple possible answers....

Yes, there are multiple possible answers and the number 'one' is clearly one of the possible answers. right?

And I already said had there been even one freaking gop vote (which there was not) Obama would have called his historic HCR bipartisan......I would have disagreed. Does that clarify things for you?

I didn't ask you what Obama would have required to call it bipartisan, I asked the following question, "OK, so one vote from the GOP and you would feel it would have been a bipartisan bill?"

The question asks how 'you would feel', not Obama. So, you most certainly DID NOT answer the question. Want to take a stab at answering the question?

Want to take a stab at answering the question?

Matthew-- I did. Not going to do it again. Because as you know (more than zero) can have multiple responses....counter to what Iarnucuon said that I must have meant in saying that "one".....there's no number I could conger that would satisfy you. And in the end it is irrelevant.....the GOP did not support Obama's HCR and the dems for better or worse own it now.

Sorry, but I don't see any answer to my question regarding how many GOP votes, in YOUR opinion, would make the passage of the bill bipartisan. Unless you are saying that you agree with your view of the POTUS and that at least one vote would make it bipartisan. Is that the case?

Wow, is this really that hard for you. You think I'm trying to get you to conjure some magic number. I am asking you a simple question with regard to your opinion. You can't be wrong on this, although I reserve the right to hold a different opinion. Is it impossible for you to make a statement that isn't provided for you by some canned right wing talking point?

borncorn---that would be President Johnson you should thank--and btw medicare passed with BIPARTISAN support...unlike Obama's historic for so many reasons (none of them good in my book) HCR.

Medicare was just as much a liberal versus conservative issue as Healthcare reform is now. Any other take is just revisionist history.

Here is the vote of 1965

Summary of Party Affiliation on Medicare Vote:

Senate:
Democrats - 57 yea, 7 nay, 4 not voting
Republicans - 13 yea, 17 nay, 2 not voting

House:
Democrats - 237, 48, 8
Republicans - 70, 68, 2

Lisaed, any comment regarding the bipartisan passage of medicare? Looks like it would have failed had it been up to the republicans, right?

Borncorn, thanks for posting the facts. so refreshing to have a debate with some established facts as the basis.

Yup and we see the 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities in it... yup great program!

yup great program!... that helps almost every grandmother and grandfather in this country through their twilight years and with their end of life decisions. Yeah, lets just shut that crap down and forget about the sacrifices our parents and grandparents made for us when they were young. Yeah, that's what the great country is about, pay for wars, but not for our senior citizens.

If 'you are hope', then I fear for the less fortunate in your world.

It does need to be shut down! I can a better job with my OWN money then the bullshiit, wastefully Government we have any day.

That is an odd position, given that no one in govt seems to agree with you, at least when it comes to running for office on the platform of ending medicare. I hope all rep / TP / ind candidates run on that platform in the Fall!!! What percent of americans are going to vote for someone who wants to end the support net for our seniors???

25.8 Matthew

IMO, that is what they already plan to do - phase out Medicare. At some point, we will all be on a type of Medicaid, except for the very well off. I do not know if the tier system was carried over to the final bill. In the first drafts, they had premium and service tiers. One of the tiers was Medicaid and they had it so that anyone on Medicaid would still be on Medicaid under the new law. So, if poorer people thought they were going to get better care - guess again.

And it all boils down to the fact that you can not force (for now) a Doctor to see any patient in a private practice. So everyone will still goto the ER and not a regular Doctor seeing how in 5 years most will not take any medicare/Medicaid patients.

medicare did not pass like Obama's historic expansion of medicaid without a single GOP vote. Those who want to pretend that it did are the revisionsists here.

Lisa, did no one tell you that GWB initiated the most expensive prescription drug plan in history for Medicare recipients?

annie (25.9). those I've spoken to with medicare have no complaints about the quality of their care. So, if we go to a system of 'anyone can buy into medicare', which is what I supported from the start as a first step towards dealing with the uninsured in this country, then the level of care will be adequate or better and I think for most folks that is the goal.

Yes lisaed, when we had the medicare vote, the republicans actually participated in governance. So, rather than being cudgeled into voting as a block (as was the case with HCR), it used to be that individual republicans voted on the basis of their constituents views or their conscience, rather than vote in lock step with party leadership. In fact, some REP voted for medicare to make points in their home district because they knew it would pass and that opposing it would only hurt them politically. IN short, REP of the past were more astute politicians and cared more about the american people and less about the the business interests that fund their campaigns.

Matthew,

Not a huge fan of republicans who represent us, but on HCR, how many of the democratic senators voted against their party? How many "deals" took place to get the democrats to agree as a block to vote for a bill that over 50% of the country was against? Do you honestly believe that all the dems who got the bill passed believed their constituents wanted that bill passed? Whether there's an R or D by their name, they're all still politicians...

Almost all of the polling showed that 'HCR' was not that popular, but the programs that make it up all polled quite well on their own. The public supports the idea of HCR and most of the programs in the bill that passed. The reason for the overall low polling on 'obamacare', is all the right wing propaganda about death panels, socialized medicine and the rest of the fabricated crap that is not really part of the bill.

Lisa, did no one tell you that GWB initiated the most expensive prescription drug plan in history for Medicare recipients?

Is this the Prescription Drug Program (Part D) for the very poor and Medicaid?

Yes, that is Bush's unfunded boondoggle to the poor and aging. It allowed folks on medicare to pay 40% more for drugs made in the USA than canadian citizens pay for the same drugs. Yep, your govt negotiated with big pharma and some of your legislators and big pharma won... we all lost.

Mr Mat

Thanks to our pharma that do/make the Research and Switzerland, et al just label them, many ill people are productive.

det, I have no problem with pharma making the money off of their R&D. I don't like the US govt selling out to them so that folks in the USA pay more for US manufactured drugs than folks in canada pay for US manufactured drugs. It was a sellout pure and simple. The govt could have negotiated very low rates based on the huge drug plan in medicare. In lieu of those low drug rates, they got kickbacks. Now the govt pays more for drugs made by US companies for folks on medicare. There is no logic. Just greed.

Matthew-480753 see that's not true at all Health care reform was very popular for a long time. The process is what drove people to dislike it and in the end it depended on what polling you used some at the end still shown a majority support for it others didn't. Some polls were bull@!$%# as a remember a few poll separated the "Like the plan" and "like the plan but wish for more" groups to try and show less then majority support.

neo, see my post #25.16. way ahead of you. 25.20 is a post about W's medicare part D debacle. It socialized the cost of medicine for medicare but only after giving huge profits to big pharma.

Your post there still isn't true Most polling didn't not show Healthcare reform as unpopular. AT worst the polling was a split in the end.

Also dead on about part D. Bush did such a problem as to give a gift to Big pharma. Who was under threat of losing some of there profit from people and pharmaciesBuying drugs outside the US because the prices were lower. To stay competitive Big pharma would of in the end had to lower prices to reasonable levels. To prevent that they got Bush to put Part D into place which basicly forced large groups of people into buying from Big Pharma at whatever price big pharma wanted.

Neo, we can quibble about the polling, but when the question was asked in the worst possible way, you could get a strong majority opposing HCR as it was presented. I agree completely that the public has always been behind the actual programs in the bill.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

Well over 100 various polls on the subject from late 2009 into early 2010 show approximately 52% oppose and 41% supported...Just FYI...

oppose or support the bill? That is not the issue as noted above in 25.16 and 25.23.

Most polling didn't not show Healthcare reform as unpopular. AT worst the polling was a split in the end.

Sorry, the comment above referred to the popularity of Healthcare reform and mentioned the polling results. The poll I provided was simply to provide a reference point from late last year through May of this year...

kathleen 25.12----shhhhh....don't tell anybody---the GOP is evil and does not care about healthcare.

Please, no one fall prey to this partisan BS.

Smyth, regarding 25.15. I am sure that democratic legislators voted against HCR for several reasons, one of which was that their constituents wanted a public option and they would not support a bill without one. - meaning the bill wasn't revolutionary enough... The Dem side is always a mixed bag of folks with slightly different views on the issues. Many on the left, myself included, wanted Obama and company to go medieval on this @!$%# and at least provide the opportunity for anyone to buy into medicare... we were disappointed, but remain hopeful that this beginning can grow into the kind of program that maximizes efficiency while providing basic healthcare for the fast majority of Americans.

Sounds wonderful Matthew, but the fact remains that we still got a bill that the majority did not want passed. Some people wanted more, some wanted less, but the majority did not want what we got, and is not as confident as you in our government's ability to "maximize efficiency" in their massive programs...

Yes, when polled about the entire bill, there is certainly mixed feelings from the public. When the specific programs are polled, they get consistently good polling numbers. I thought we covered this ground already. What does this discrepancy in poling suggest to you?

When the specific programs are polled, they get consistently good polling numbers. I thought we covered this ground already.

Sorry, but I looked back over the recent comments and although you may have mentioned the consistently good polling numbers for specific programs, I didn't see the links to those polls. Let me know if I missed them. So you may have covered that ground already, but outside of your comments, the rest of us don't know what "specific programs" you're speaking of...

I believe that there were many elements that could have been agreed on by both sides during the HCR debate, and the country was clearly asking for reform, just not the bill that was being considered. Unfortunately, that's what we got anyway...

I didn't see the links to those polls. Let me know if I missed them.

Here's a few--

Health Care Polls: Opinion Gap or Information Gap?

What we see is that most individual components of the bill are popular -- in some cases, quite popular. But awareness lags behind...

How would public opinion change if people were fully informed about the content of the bills? It's hard to say for sure, but on average, the individual components of the bill are favored by a net of +22 points. An NBC poll in August also found that support went from a -6 net to a +10 when people were actually provided with a description of the bill.

Public Opinion and Health Care: Fearmongering on the Right

Pollsters know that few people genuinely understand the various proposals, so typically they ask respondents to express an opinion based on "what you've heard or read." That's what the NBC/WSJ poll did, and it found 36 percent saying Obama's plan was a "good idea," with 42 percent saying "bad idea," and another 22 percent expressing no opinion.

That apparently is the basis for Brooks' contention that public opposition is now "steady and stable." But the pollsters recognize that many respondents who express an opinion do not know what Obama's plan is. So, in this case, McInturff and Hart wrote a separate question that included a brief summary of the plan. Once respondents heard what the plan was, a 10-point majority expressed support (53 percent to 43 percent).

The NBC-WSJ poll referenced above [warning: PDF]

By Slim Margin, Americans Support Healthcare Bill's Passage

Nearly half of Americans give a thumbs-up to Congress' passage of a healthcare reform bill last weekend, with 49% calling it "a good thing." Republicans and Democrats have polar opposite reactions, with independents evenly split.

Poll: Americans want to 'give the new health-care law a chance'

Speaking of health-care reform, David Weigel catches an interesting health-care question in the new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll. It asks, "would you be more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who says we should give the new health care law a chance to work and make changes as needed, or a candidate for Congress who says we should repeal the new health care law entirely and start over?"

The answer? Fifty-five percent say we should give the bill a chance. Forty-two percent say we should start over.

And what drove opposition to healthcare reform in general, and this bill in particular? In one word, "misinformation."

First thoughts: Obama's good, bad news

One of the reasons why the public appears so wary about Obama's health-care plans is due to all the misinformation out there. Majorities in the poll believe the plans would give health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants (55%), would lead to a government takeover of the health system (54%), and would use taxpayer dollars to pay for women to have abortions (50%) -- all claims that nonpartisan fact-checkers say are untrue about the legislation that has emerged so far from Congress. Additionally, 45% think the reform proposals would allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing medical care for the elderly, which also isn't true. When you have nearly half of the public believing that the government is willing to pull the plug on grandma, you're in trouble.

Epistemic closure and political disinformation

ONE OF the problems with discussing how to keep Americans from believing political falsehoods (see, for example, the "epistemic closure" debate) is that the people having the discussion must first agree on what's false. But in an ideologically polarised environment, that kind of agreement on the underlying facts is becoming harder and harder to achieve. For example: the new health-care-reform law passed in March is an entirely private-insurer, free-market-based reform. If someone were to refer to it as a "government takeover of the health-care sector", that person would hold a factually incorrect ideological belief. But at this point a huge number of Republicans hold this factually incorrect ideological belief, making it hard for Democrats to engage in a conversation with them on the meta-issue of how to get people to stop embracing factually incorrect ideological beliefs.

Just some information for your perusal.

I'd go into greater depth and more sources, but I have work to do. This gives you a taste. There are multiple polls supporting Matt's main contention.

Did I miss all these from earlier, or are these being posted for the first time?

Matthew - Apologies if you posted these previously, but I just checked your most recent 10-15 comments and didn't see any links...

Anyway, per my previous message...I think there were many things that could have been agreed on, but unfortunately we didn't get the option to pick the things we all wanted, and had to accept the bill most of us didn't want...

No, these weren't posted from before. I was just watching the exchange, and thought the information might be useful, since I'd already seen some of the same polls that Matthew was referencing. Just trying to be helpful.

I think the interesting thing, here, is that about 55% of Americans prefer the notion "retain and modify" over "repeal and replace."

Maybe we didn't get exactly what we wanted, but more than half of us can live with what we got, as long as we continue to try to make it better.

iarnuocon, thanks for doing that heavy lifting. Also, I completely agree with your final analysis. We accomplished a first step in a long journey. Only someone very naive would think that we could fix a health care system as broken as ours is with a single piece of legislation.

Lisa: #25.28

kathleen 25.12----shhhhh....don't tell anybody---the GOP is evil and does not care about healthcare.

You're saying this sotto voce? Does this happen when you say things like, "The sky is blue"?