| Author | Post |
|---|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 05:06 am |
|
OBAMACARE ENDORSEMENTS: WHAT THE BRIBE WAS
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
As the suicidal Democratic congressmen proceed to rubber-stamp the Obama healthcare reform despite the drubbing their party took in the '09 elections, the president trotted out the endorsements of the AMA and the AARP to stimulate support. But these -- and the other endorsements -- his package has received are all bought and paid for.
Here are the deals:
* The American Medical Association (AMA) was facing a 21 percent cut in physicians' reimbursements under the current law. Obama promised to kill the cut if they backed his bill. The cuts are the fruit of a law requiring annual 5-6 percent reductions in doctor reimbursements for treating Medicare patients. Bravely, each year Congress has rolled the cuts over, suspending them but not repealing them. So each year, the accumulated cuts threaten doctors. By now, they have risen to 21 percent. With this blackmail leverage, Obama compelled the AMA to support his bill...or else!
* The AARP got a financial windfall in return for its support of the healthcare bill. Over the past decade, the AARP has morphed from an advocacy group to an insurance company (through its subsidiary company). It is one of the main suppliers of Medi-gap insurance, a high-cost, privately purchased coverage that picks up where Medicare leaves off. But President Bush-43 passed the Medicare Advantage program, which offered a subsidized, lower-cost alternative to Medi-gap. Under Medicare Advantage, the elderly get all the extra coverage they need plus coordinated, well-managed care, usually by the same physician. So more than 10 million seniors went with Medicare Advantage, cutting into AARP Medi-gap revenues.
Presto! Obama solved their problem. He eliminates subsidies for Medicare Advantage. The elderly will have to pay more for coverage under Medigap, but the AARP -- which supposedly represents them -- will make more money. (If this galls you, join the American Seniors Association, the alternative group; contact sbarton@americanseniors.org. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .)
* The drug industry backed ObamaCare and, in return, got a 10-year limit of $80 billion on cuts in prescription drug costs. (A drop in the bucket of their almost $3 trillion projected cost over the next decade.) They also got administration assurances that it will continue to bar lower-cost Canadian drugs from coming into the U.S. All it had to do was put its formidable advertising budget at the disposal of the administration.
* Insurance companies got access to 40 million potential new customers. But when the Senate Finance Committee lowered the fine that would be imposed on those who don't buy insurance from $3,500 to $1,500, the insurance companies jumped ship and now oppose the bill, albeit for the worst of motives.
The only industry that refused to knuckle under was the medical device makers. They stood for principle and wouldn't go along with Obama's blackmail. So the Senate Finance Committee retaliated by imposing a tax on medical devices such as automated wheelchairs, pacemakers, arterial stents, prosthetic limbs, artificial knees and hips and other necessary accoutrements of healthcare.
So these endorsements are not freely given, but bought and paid for by an administration that is intent on passing its program at any cost.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 11:47 pm |
|
AMA Members Unhappy
AMA's Endorsement of House Health Care Bill Sparks Internal Uprising
Some AMA members are outraged that the group's trustees made the endorsement without the formal approval of the organization's House of Delegates.
The American Medical Association's much-touted endorsement of the House health care reform bill has triggered a revolt among some members who want the endorsement withdrawn.
Some members are outraged that the group's trustees made the endorsement without the formal approval of the organization's House of Delegates.
On Monday, delegates will vote on a resolution offered by some members that, if approved, will withdraw the AMA’s endorsement of the bill.
President Obama cited the endorsement of the influential AMA, along with AARP's, in a surprise appearance Thursday in the White House briefing room as he attempted to beat back criticism that the bill would gut Medicare.
"They're endorsing this bill because they know it will strengthen Medicare, not jeopardize it," he told reporters. "They know it will protect the benefits our seniors receive, not cut them."
"So I want everyone to remember that the next time you hear the same tired arguments to the contrary from insurance companies and their lobbyists and remember this endorsement the next time you see a bunch of misleading ads on television," he added.
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 11:16 pm |
|
| "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" - unkn
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 11:08 pm |
|
Moveon Threatenes Dems
MoveOn Threatens to Push Primary Opponents to Dems Voting Against Health Plan
Moveon.org has reportedly raised $3,578,117 in contributions to fund primary challenges against 'any Democratic senator who blocks an up-or-down vote on health care reform with a public option,' according to an e-mail sent to group members on Thursday.
A civil war is threatening to erupt within the Democratic Party as liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org looks to punish moderate Democrats opposed to the sweeping health care overhaul proposed by party leaders.
MoveOn has reportedly raised more than $3.5 million in contributions to fund primary challenges against "any Democratic senator who blocks an up-or-down vote on health care reform with a public option," according to an e-mail sent to group members on Thursday.
The e-mail warned that any Democratic House member who joins Republicans to filibuster the health care reform measure will "face an enormous backlash from the grassroots."
The group also highlights a letter from Democracy for America, the nation's largest progressive political action founded by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, which urges Senate Democrats to strip committee chairmanship from "any Democrat who filibusters health care."
MoveOn.org, which has 5 million members, has become increasingly vocal in its threats against conservative and moderate Democrats who remain opposed to the health care bills laid out by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Several Democrats, including Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama, have expressed resistance to Pelosi's $1.055 trillion measure in recent days -- underscoring the intra-party rift over President Obama's top domestic priority.
Obama had planned a rare visit to the House Friday morning to persuade wavering Democrats, but was forced to reschedule it until Saturday as delays push back a vote on the measure.
Among the most heated disagreements among rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers are issues related to abortion and illegal immigrants.
Democratic opponents of abortion -- under pressure from Catholic bishops -- want stronger provisions written in the bill that no federal funds would be used to finance abortion in coverage bought in the government-run exchange.
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:54 pm |
|
Obama: 'Now's the Time to Finish the Job' on Health Care Reform
WASHINGTON -- President Obama urged the House on Saturday to "finish the job" in passing its version of a sweeping health care overhaul after he met privately with Democrats.
"This is our moment to live up to the trust that the American people has placed in us, even when it's hard -- especially when it's hard," he said from the Rose Garden of the White House. "This is our moment to deliver."
p.s. yea, finish the job of screwing over the American public who were gullible enough to think someone had their interests at heart. Talk about misplaced trust . . .
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:57 pm by goldrush
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:50 pm |
|
What It bSays: Wall Street Journal
What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says
Here are some important passages in the 2,000 page legislation
- By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.
What the government will require you to do:
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.
Eviscerating Medicare:
In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.
• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."
The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."
A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.
• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.
• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.
• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.
• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."
Questionable Priorities:
While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.
• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."
These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.
• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.
• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."
• Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:43 pm |
|
Here’s a questionable priority . . .
Sec. 222 (pp. 617) provides reimbursement for cultural and linguistic training of health care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their “right” to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.
p.s. do you know how many health care workers there are in the U.S.? This sure won't bring down health care costs.
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:31 pm |
|
BigSurprize wrote:
AP - November 05, 2009
Democrats' Plan to Help 'Uninsurables' Requires 6-Month Wait
In addition to a six-month wait to qualify for the health insurance program, there's a more fundamental issue -- whether $5 billion set aside for the three-year program is enough.
Now that my husband has had cancer...real world experience and logic tells me that waiting 6 months to qualify for help (re: pre-existing issues) is still not good enough - he would have died in that amount of time! 
Like I said yesterday...waiting 6 months is too long!
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:22 pm |
|
This bill is the biggest bait and switch scam of all times. The majority of Americans are being duped and they don't know it.
By the way, the Senate version has a 6-month waiting period for people with pre-existing conditions. The good news - it's not in the Pelosi bill.
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:23 pm by goldrush
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2527 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:16 pm |
|
| goldrush, did you see the part where they are going to relieve Veterinarians of their loans....it is part of the bill. When asked, they said it was because of the swine flu. This is pathetic, isn't it.
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:12 pm |
|
We'd be better off with British or Canadian-style health care.
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:14 pm by goldrush
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2527 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:10 pm |
|
| And the Democrats are on C-SPAN right now lying through their teeth. They are saying you will be able to go to your doctor, there are no panels, there will be no reduction of services. Like I said, they are lying through their teeth and doing it with a straight face; hopefully the public is watching and will vote these people out at their next election.
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:06 pm |
|
and . . .
Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.
p.s. that will bring down the costs of health care. PAs salaries are much less than physicians'.
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:14 pm by goldrush
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:01 pm |
|
and . . .
Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) you get to choose between three “qualified plans” – basic, enhanced, premium. The benefits are all the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ.
p.s. eighteen months after the bill becomes law, HHS will decide what a “qualified plan” covers and how much you’ll be legally required to pay for it.
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 09:49 pm |
|
and . . .
Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see, to a gatekeeper model. Further, the bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as their primary-care provider.
p.s. In other words an HMO model. A "nurse practitioner" is less qualified than a "physician assistant".
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:17 pm by goldrush
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 09:37 pm |
|
The devil is in the details . . .
Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) reduces payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country.
p.s. that’s great if you live in Mississippi
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 09:10 pm |
|
New NY Congressman Breaks 4 Campaign Promises In First Hour
Owens Breaks 4 Campaign Promises in first hour in Congress
Northern NY News
Written by Nathan Barker
Friday, 06 November 2009 12:04
GOUVERNEUR, NY - Congressman-elect Bill Owens was sworn in at noon today.
Owens indicated in a press release released shortly afterwards that he was now in favor of the the "Affordable Healthcare for America Act" bill in direct contrast to his earlier position during the election campaign.
According to Politico.com, Mr. Owens assured voters that he felt the public option had no place in the health care reform bill. Contrary to that position, Mr. Owens now indicates that he intends to vote in favor of the bill even though it now contains a public option.
UPDATED: A spokesman for Congressman Owens indicated correctly that Mr. Owens had recanted his solid position against public option later in the campaign, clarifying that he did not wish public option to be a 'litmus test' for the Health Reform bill and that on Oct. 30th, several days prior to the election, in a debate had stated that he generally supported the public option as it was now written (at that time.)
Mr. Owens also indicated during his campaign that he was firmly opposed to cutting Medicare benefits, taxing health care benefits, and increased taxes on the middle class in any way as you can see clearly in the screenshot below, taken directly from Mr. Owens' campaign website.
 Click to enlarge image
The House Health reform bill contains sections that cut Medicare benefits, tax existing health care benefits, and increases taxes on the middle class, yet Mr. Owens stated today that he will now vote in favor of those things contrary to what he had promised the voters of NY's 23rd Congressional District that he would vote against.
Mr. Owens indicated in his press release today that "This legislation will reform the insurance industry and provide increased access to affordable healthcare without taxing healthcare benefits, cutting Medicare benefits or raising taxes on the middle class, and that is exactly the direction we need to go."
When The Gouverneur Times attempted to contact Mr. Owens to clarify this information, we received no direct response to our phone or email inquiries. Both FactCheck.org and the Congressional Budget Office agree that HR 3962 contains potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in planned cuts to Medicare, yet Mr. Owens indicates that he supports this legislation and says that it does not cut Medicare benefits. Either Mr. Owens has been snowed or the public is about to be.
HR 3962 also includes a range of various taxes on middle-class families as well as language to repeal tax relief already in place. Has Congressman Owens blindly followed Ms. Pelosi's rhetoric in believing that the end to a tax cut is not the same thing as an increase in taxes or is he hedging his bet with very carefully chosen words?
HR 3962 now also contains language that allows illegal immigrants to be covered under the legislation. When The Gouverneur Times attempted to contact Mr. Owens for clarification of this language, we received no response other than the press release heretofore mentioned. Specifically, we asked if illegal immigrants would be forced to purchase healthcare insurance as citizens will be and whether or not they would be forced to do so at standard rates or if they would qualify for the public option subsidy.
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 08:09 pm |
|
President Procrastinator can't make a decision on Afghanistan where our brave young men and women are in harms way but he certainly can go to the belly of the beast to shove a horrible 2,000 page bill down America's throat without knowing what is in it or having read it.
He came out again this week and bragged how AARP and the AMA (American Medical Association) is backing this debacle so somehow that makes it legit. It turns out, not true. The AMA Board of Directors made the decision to support it but NOT THE MEMBERS. They are getting ready to meet to rescind the SUPPORT. One has to ask what the Prez promised the AMA board to get them to agree in the first place but whatever it was, apparently the physician members say too bad and are speaking out against it.
We already know what's in it for AARP....Bezillions of $$$$...thanks for scamming our Senior population AARP. I hope they go down the toilet, it would serve them right. 
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 07:35 pm |
|
designman124 wrote: PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail
Friday, November 06, 2009
Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”
Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
- - - - - - - - - -
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
- - - - - - - - - -
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.
If the liberals pass this, they should be arrested for violating our Constitutional rights. Saying they are out of control is a major understatement. To say they are NUTS is an understatement. What is happening in our free Nation?? Is party loyalty more important to the DEMS than caving into the worst piece of punitive legislation ever written in our history?? The consequences for going through with this will be devastating. This will be the IRS coming after you on STEROIDS. They can come after you even if you have insurance, but if it's not the kind they deem qualified, you can still be fined and/or IMPRISONED.
Don't forget, the libs won't allow any language to prohibit abortion being paid by the taxpayer.
This is Soviet Style governing and our President is twisting and breaking arms Chicago thug style as we speak to get it passed. What does that say about our Leader of the free? world???
Fox News Alert:
OBAMA URGES HOUSE TO 'FINISH THE JOB' AFTER MEETING WITH DEMOCRATIC LEADERS DURING DEBATE ON HEALTH CARE BILL
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 07:38 pm by Razenkn
|
cindisue_g
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2527 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 04:15 pm |
|
A total embarrassment. I'm watching the health care "debate" on C-SPAN - which is no debate at all (it is obvious that the Democrats don't want any questions asked or a debate to happen - WHY??). I would hope that more Americans would see what is going on - maybe more would cast their votes when elections come around.
It is now about 10:30 and it is funny how after the Republicans did the same thing the Democrats were doing, everything seems to have settled down and now we are seeing some respect for each other - let's hope this continues. what a bad example both the Democrats and Republicans are to the US citizens.
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 05:31 pm by cindisue_g
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 01:51 pm |
|
PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail
Friday, November 06, 2009
Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”
Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
- - - - - - - - - -
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
- - - - - - - - - -
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 12:57 am |
|
| The AMA is counting a follow-on "fix it" bill that will rollback the proposed Medicare cuts. Sure! Talk about being naive and trusting of a government that doesn't give a d**n about docs . . .
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 12:45 am |
|
AMA having second thoughts...I would hope so!
FOXNews.com - November 06, 2009
AMA's Endorsement of House Health Care Bill Sparks Internal Uprising
Some AMA members are outraged that the group's trustees made the endorsement without the formal approval of the organization's House of Delegates.
The American Medical Association's much-touted endorsement of the House health care reform bill has triggered a revolt among some members who want the endorsement withdrawn.
Some members are outraged that the group's trustees made the endorsement without the formal approval of the organization's House of Delegates.
On Monday, delegates will vote on a resolution offered by some members that, if approved, will withdraw the AMA’s endorsement of the bill.
President Obama cited the endorsement of the influential AMA, along with AARP's, in a surprise appearance Thursday in the White House briefing room as he attempted to beat back criticism that the bill would gut Medicare.
"They're endorsing this bill because they know it will strengthen Medicare, not jeopardize it," he told reporters. "They know it will protect the benefits our seniors receive, not cut them."
"So I want everyone to remember that the next time you hear the same tired arguments to the contrary from insurance companies and their lobbyists and remember this endorsement the next time you see a bunch of misleading ads on television," he added.
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 12:21 am |
|
House Health Bill Vote May Be Delayed
Washington - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said today that Democratic leaders are close to securing the 218 votes needed to pass health-care legislation this weekend.
Mr. Hoyer (D., Md.) and others are trying to gather enough support within Democratic ranks for the bill, which in recent days has been caught up in intra-party disputes over abortion and immigration. In a conference call with reporters, he said he expected that the House would finish debate on the bill by 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. EST Saturday evening and proceed to a vote, but cautioned that debate could stretch into next week.
Source: wsj
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 12:21 am by goldrush
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 12:01 am |
|
BigSurprize wrote: callmelou wrote: BigSurprize wrote: callmelou wrote: BigSurprize wrote: callmelou wrote: BigSurprize wrote:
AP - November 05, 2009
Democrats' Plan to Help 'Uninsurables' Requires 6-Month Wait
In addition to a six-month wait to qualify for the health insurance program, there's a more fundamental issue -- whether $5 billion set aside for the three-year program is enough.
Now that my husband has had cancer...real world experience and logic tells me that waiting 6 months to qualify for help (re: pre-existing issues) is still not good enough - he would have died in that amount of time! It's unfortunate people need to wait at all but we've waited 96 months under the do nothing bush administration.
Put your political baggage aside...I'm talking about the here and now. If we're going to end up with healthcare reform at some point...then the details are important. Those details aren't just potential deal breakers (for people already at risk)...they're heart breakers! Waiting 6 months for covering those ailments is way too long...JMHO 
Just curious...I don't recall you telling us 6 months was too long from 2001-2009. Maybe you just didn't expect much of bush..in that case, you were right on.
Never had cancer before this year...so yeah, I have a whole lot more empathy (these days) re: health insurance, medical bills, and family members w/pre-existing ailments.
Just curious...(since it's all politics with you)...I don't recall you complaining when President Clinton was too busy play'n games (in the oval office ) to get healthcare pushed through. Maybe you just didn't expect much of him...in that case, you were right. 
I'll play your game for a bit, raz..so if your "spouse" (winky wink, rokey doke) had not become ill, you'd be still unconcerned about healthcare issues...how novel for a conservative to feel that way....and Hillary, apparently you continue to have issues remembering contributions of women, did try to get something passed...oh, since you bring up presidential spouses, I don't recall what Laura Bush did to further healthcare reform...essentially, in eight years, she read to some children and smiled stupidly at the camera.
I have an errand to run...but if you'd like to discuss your concerns with me (BigSurprize)...then I'd be happy to take this further, once I get back. Now if you'd rather play your game with Raz...then go for it! Just a reminder though, it's my husband that has cancer...so either we keep this real or I suggest you MoveOn. (pun intended) 
Interesting, callmelou has posted more than a few times after my response and no word re: their decision. Okay...let the record show: libbie-lou would rather MoveOn than to keep it real. Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 12:11 am by BigSurprize
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 05:55 pm |
|
callmelou wrote: BigSurprize wrote: callmelou wrote: BigSurprize wrote: callmelou wrote: BigSurprize wrote:
AP - November 05, 2009
Democrats' Plan to Help 'Uninsurables' Requires 6-Month Wait
In addition to a six-month wait to qualify for the health insurance program, there's a more fundamental issue -- whether $5 billion set aside for the three-year program is enough.
Now that my husband has had cancer...real world experience and logic tells me that waiting 6 months to qualify for help (re: pre-existing issues) is still not good enough - he would have died in that amount of time! It's unfortunate people need to wait at all but we've waited 96 months under the do nothing bush administration.
Put your political baggage aside...I'm talking about the here and now. If we're going to end up with healthcare reform at some point...then the details are important. Those details aren't just potential deal breakers (for people already at risk)...they're heart breakers! Waiting 6 months for covering those ailments is way too long...JMHO
Just curious...I don't recall you telling us 6 months was too long from 2001-2009. Maybe you just didn't expect much of bush..in that case, you were right on.
Never had cancer before this year...so yeah, I have a whole lot more empathy (these days) re: health insurance, medical bills, and family members w/pre-existing ailments.
Just curious...(since it's all politics with you)...I don't recall you complaining when President Clinton was too busy play'n games (in the oval office) to get healthcare pushed through. Maybe you just didn't expect much of him...in that case, you were right.
I'll play your game for a bit, raz..so if your "spouse" (winky wink, rokey doke) had not become ill, you'd be still unconcerned about healthcare issues...how novel for a conservative to feel that way....and Hillary, apparently you continue to have issues remembering contributions of women, did try to get something passed...oh, since you bring up presidential spouses, I don't recall what Laura Bush did to further healthcare reform...essentially, in eight years, she read to some children and smiled stupidly at the camera.
I have an errand to run...but if you'd like to discuss your concerns with me (BigSurprize)...then I'd be happy to take this further, once I get back. Now if you'd rather play your game with Raz...then go for it! Just a reminder though, it's my husband that has cancer...so either we keep this real or I suggest you MoveOn. (pun intended)
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 05:41 pm |
|
BigSurprize wrote: callmelou wrote: BigSurprize wrote: callmelou wrote: BigSurprize wrote:
AP - November 05, 2009
Democrats' Plan to Help 'Uninsurables' Requires 6-Month Wait
In addition to a six-month wait to qualify for the health insurance program, there's a more fundamental issue -- whether $5 billion set aside for the three-year program is enough.
Now that my husband has had cancer...real world experience and logic tells me that waiting 6 months to qualify for help (re: pre-existing issues) is still not good enough - he would have died in that amount of time! It's unfortunate people need to wait at all but we've waited 96 months under the do nothing bush administration.
Put your political baggage aside...I'm talking about the here and now. If we're going to end up with healthcare reform at some point...then the details are important. Those details aren't just potential deal breakers (for people already at risk)...they're heart breakers! Waiting 6 months for covering those ailments is way too long...JMHO
Just curious...I don't recall you telling us 6 months was too long from 2001-2009. Maybe you just didn't expect much of bush..in that case, you were right on.
Never had cancer before this year...so yeah, I have a whole lot more empathy (these days) re: health insurance, medical bills, and family members w/pre-existing ailments.
Just curious...(since it's all politics with you)...I don't recall you complaining when President Clinton was too busy play'n games (in the oval office) to get healthcare pushed through. Maybe you just didn't expect much of him...in that case, you were right.
I'll play your game for a bit, raz..so if your "spouse" (winky wink, rokey doke) had not become ill, you'd be still unconcerned about healthcare issues...how novel for a conservative to feel that way....and Hillary, apparently you continue to have issues remembering contributions of women, did try to get something passed...oh, since you bring up presidential spouses, I don't recall what Laura Bush did to further healthcare reform...essentially, in eight years, she read to some children and smiled stupidly at the camera.
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:31 pm |
|
designman124 wrote: Now we have Illinois Senator Roland Burris. There's a waste of a Senate seat. He'll be gone soon, so maybe there will be an improvement. Burris was asked to specify which part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to implement an individual mandate on individuals to buy health insurance. Burris' answer? It is the responsibility of the federal government "to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country."
Here's the quote: "Well, that's under certainly the laws of the--protect the health, welfare of the country ... That's under the Constitution. We're not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country."
Well guess what? The word "health" does not appear in the Constitution. The guy is wrong. Rather than worrying about reading 2,000 page healthcare bills, Roland Burris and his Democrat buddies should try and refresh themselves on our Constitution - the foundations of this country and what make this country great.
President Procrastinator knows it's not Constitutional, he taught Constitutional Law. But the problem here is "he doesn't LIKE the Constitution". He believes it isn't applicable for him or other minorities so therefore they do not have to abide by it. He said that many times in speeches throughout the years, only nobody paid attention to WHAT he was saying, just HOW he was saying it. That's how we got him. Can you imagine President Bush or even President Clinton denying the Constitution?? Our founding Father's must seriously be rolling over in their graves.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:09 pm |
|
Boehner: 'Rebellion' occurring in U.S.
By: Andy Barr
November 5, 2009 03:49 PM EST
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday that the day’s tea party rally outside the Capitol is a sign that a “rebellion” is occurring in the United States.
Boehner, who spoke at the rally, made the comment during an online town hall being put on by the Republican National Committee.
“I do think there is a rebellion going on in this country,” Boehner said. “How else could you get 10,000 people to show up with only a few days notice?”
“What they are saying is ‘enough, is enough,’” he continued. “There are tens of thousands of Americans who have come to Washington to say they don’t want Pelosi-care.”
Boehner was a second-term congressman in 1994 when the GOP swept to power in the Republican Revolution. Comparing the current political climate with what he saw then, Boehner said that Democrats in the House and Senate are “far more liberal” now, leading to a stronger counteraction from the conservative grassroots.
“The intensity I saw leading up to 1994 wasn’t one-one-hundredth of what I’m seeing today,” he said. “When America speaks up, Washington listens. And we need your help.”
During his remarks to Thursday’s rally, Boehner rallied the crowd by cheering the “town hall rebellion” that took August against the Democratic health care plan.
“It was a simple statement by Americans that they love their country, they love our way of life, they love the things that America stands for – prosperity, liberty and freedom – and they want nothing more to hand freedom off to their kids and to their grandkids,” he said.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:03 pm |
|
Now we have Illinois Senator Roland Burris. There's a waste of a Senate seat. He'll be gone soon, so maybe there will be an improvement. Burris was asked to specify which part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to implement an individual mandate on individuals to buy health insurance. Burris' answer? It is the responsibility of the federal government "to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country."
Here's the quote: "Well, that's under certainly the laws of the--protect the health, welfare of the country ... That's under the Constitution. We're not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country."
Well guess what? The word "health" does not appear in the Constitution. The guy is wrong. Rather than worrying about reading 2,000 page healthcare bills, Roland Burris and his Democrat buddies should try and refresh themselves on our Constitution - the foundations of this country and what make this country great.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:01 pm |
|
Did you know that Nancy Pelosi thinks that she and her fellow Democrats are ready to vote on a bill even though they don't know the price tag? The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services does not believe that it can come up with a cost estimate for the bill before Saturday's vote. Eh .. not surprising. That's not what this is really about anyway, is it? This is about the government takeover of healthcare .. making you more dependent on government .. power. The price tag for your children and grandchildren isn't important.
Speaking of your children and grandchildren. The Cato Institute has done the research and it has determined that Obamacare could as much as double premium costs for young Americans (25-year-olds). And you thought this was all about making healthcare more affordable?
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 04:11 am |
|
callmelou wrote: BigSurprize wrote: callmelou wrote: BigSurprize wrote:
AP - November 05, 2009
Democrats' Plan to Help 'Uninsurables' Requires 6-Month Wait
In addition to a six-month wait to qualify for the health insurance program, there's a more fundamental issue -- whether $5 billion set aside for the three-year program is enough.
Now that my husband has had cancer...real world experience and logic tells me that waiting 6 months to qualify for help (re: pre-existing issues) is still not good enough - he would have died in that amount of time! It's unfortunate people need to wait at all but we've waited 96 months under the do nothing bush administration.
Put your political baggage aside...I'm talking about the here and now. If we're going to end up with healthcare reform at some point...then the details are important. Those details aren't just potential deal breakers (for people already at risk)...they're heart breakers! Waiting 6 months for covering those ailments is way too long...JMHO
Just curious...I don't recall you telling us 6 months was too long from 2001-2009. Maybe you just didn't expect much of bush..in that case, you were right on.
Never had cancer before this year...so yeah, I have a whole lot more empathy (these days) re: health insurance, medical bills, and family members w/pre-existing ailments.
Just curious...(since it's all politics with you)...I don't recall you complaining when President Clinton was too busy play'n games (in the oval office) to get healthcare pushed through. Maybe you just didn't expect much of him...in that case, you were right.
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:30 am |
|
BigSurprize wrote: callmelou wrote: BigSurprize wrote:
AP - November 05, 2009
Democrats' Plan to Help 'Uninsurables' Requires 6-Month Wait
In addition to a six-month wait to qualify for the health insurance program, there's a more fundamental issue -- whether $5 billion set aside for the three-year program is enough.
Now that my husband has had cancer...real world experience and logic tells me that waiting 6 months to qualify for help (re: pre-existing issues) is still not good enough - he would have died in that amount of time! It's unfortunate people need to wait at all but we've waited 96 months under the do nothing bush administration.
Put your political baggage aside...I'm talking about the here and now. If we're going to end up with healthcare reform at some point...then the details are important. Those details aren't just potential deal breakers (for people already at risk)...they're heart breakers! Waiting 6 months for covering those ailments is way too long...JMHO
Just curious...I don't recall you telling us 6 months was too long from 2001-2009. Maybe you just didn't expect much of bush..in that case, you were right on.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:17 am |
|
Nervous Dems Rethinking
Price: 'Nervous Democrats' Rethinking Obamacare
Thursday, November 5, 2009 8:39 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Rep. Tom Price of Georgia tells Newsmax that "nervous Democrats" in the House are wavering in their support for their leadership's "terrible, terrible" bill to overhaul the healthcare system.
Rep. Price is chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a caucus of conservatives, and is himself a physician. He said the House bill now under consideration would "definitely" face a court challenge over its constitutionality.
Newsmax.TV's Kathleen Walter asked Rep. Price about the massive rally at the Capitol in Washington on Thursday to protest the Democrats' plan for healthcare reform.
"The mood was incredible upbeat and optimistic," Price said.
"Tens of thousands of individuals. They're concerned and they're fearful and they're angry, but they know that this is the greatest nation in the history of the world and that the power within this nation rests with the people.
"They are here to express their concern about a bill that would be an absolute movement in the wrong direction, a government takeover of their healthcare that they're not interested in. They're not interested in the taxes, they're not interested in the rationing. That's the message that we heard."
Noting that a vote on the bill in the House is possible as early as Saturday, Walter asked if the Democrats' legislation can still be stopped.
"There are a lot of nervous Democrats who, if they were to represent their constituents, would be voting against this bill," Price declared.
"The problem is, so far they've just represented their leadership, and that's wrong. That's what the American people are so upset about.
"Those moderate Democrats are talking and I think they're getting very very skittish about voting for a bill that they know their constituents don't want.
"So even if this passes the House, and I'm hopeful that it will not go through in the form that it is in right now, that's just the next step in this process. The Senate has to act and then there has to be a conference committee and then bill has to get to the president.
"We're a long way from the end, but that doesn't mean the American people ought not to be engaging [their representatives], because they must right now make certain that their representatives know how they feel about this terrible, terrible bill."
Price said Democrats are increasingly concerned that their leadership is "pushing them off the cliff." They also note the results of Tuesday's elections, when Republicans won gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, "and they say look, this is not where the nation wants to go.
"The question is, will they have the backbone to stand up and represent their constituents and not their leadership."
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:06 am |
|
Pelosi Lies Again!!!
Pelosi Breaks Pledge to Put Final Health Care Bill Online for 72 Hours Before Vote
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that the speaker will not allow the final language of the health care to be posted online for 72 hours before bringing the bill to a vote on the House floor, despite her September 24 statement that she was "absolutely" committed to doing so.
House members are still negotiating important issues in the bill--whether it will provide taxpayer-funding for abortions, for example. Pelosi is pushing for a Saturday House vote, and a number of big changes will be introduced, likely less than 24 hours before the vote takes place (if in fact it does). The Rules Committee hasn't yet released its resolution, or rule, that must be passed before the bill can move from committee to the floor. The rule will set the terms of debate and determine what amendments are in order.
It seems likely that the rule will allow very few, if any, up-or-down votes on amendments on the House floor. Rather, the rule will include a series of amendments that will all be adopted at once if the rule passes.
On September 24, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that she was "absolutely" committed to putting the text of the final House bill online for 72 hours before the House votes:
TWS: Madam Speaker, do you support the measure to put the final House bill online for 72 hours before it's voted on at the very end?
PELOSI: Absolutely. Without question.
But tonight, when asked if Speaker Pelosi will leave the bill online for 72 hours after we see what's in the rule, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly replied in an email: "No; [the] pledge was to have manager’s amendment online for 72 hours, and we will do that."
Apparently Pelosi's agreement to leave the "final" bill online "at the very end" of the process wasn't such a straightforward pledge.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:01 am |
|
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 10:55 pm |
|
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 10:29 pm |
|
callmelou wrote: BigSurprize wrote:
AP - November 05, 2009
Democrats' Plan to Help 'Uninsurables' Requires 6-Month Wait
In addition to a six-month wait to qualify for the health insurance program, there's a more fundamental issue -- whether $5 billion set aside for the three-year program is enough.
Now that my husband has had cancer...real world experience and logic tells me that waiting 6 months to qualify for help (re: pre-existing issues) is still not good enough - he would have died in that amount of time! It's unfortunate people need to wait at all but we've waited 96 months under the do nothing bush administration.
Put your political baggage aside...I'm talking about the here and now. If we're going to end up with healthcare reform at some point...then the details are important. Those details aren't just potential deal breakers (for people already at risk)...they're heart breakers! Waiting 6 months for covering those ailments is way too long...JMHO
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 10:05 pm |
|
Craig wrote: The mass exodus from AARP will begin NOW!!!
What part of AARP will stand to make a bezillion dollars if this debacle goes through don't the libs get?? They aren't going along with this plan because it's good for the Seniors, they are supporting it because they hear the ka-ching in their bank accounts. They are opportunists just like Al Gore and GE, they aren't looking out for anyone but themselves. Who would be so naive to think otherwise??
It's really disingenuous to use the argument -- well President Bush didn't do anything for the past eight years. Really? Well, guess what? Neither did the DEMS. Hillary made a big bumptious splash over health care REFORM when they entered the WH and it was soundly defeated for a reason....it was flawed. It was an expensive GOV'T program that was a TAKE OVER from the private sector. This is AMERICA. We are not Germany, or France or any of the other Countries, we are uniquely AMERICA, the beacon of FREEDOM. NOT Gov't controlling our lives, WE THE PEOPLE control our Gov't or at least we did until the radicals hit town.
There was nothing stopping Hillary from trying to make a difference in our health care system on a smaller scale, fix the issues like pre-existing illness. There was nothing stopping the DEMS from doing that when President Bush was in office either and the last two years we had a liberal Congress, what was stopping them??? We didn't want a massive take over then and we don't want it now.
They don't wan't to FIX it, they want to OWN it. That is what everyone is complaining about. We need to MEND it, NOT END it (Jesse Jackson).
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:19 pm |
|
The mass exodus from AARP will begin NOW!!!
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:06 pm |
|
BigSurprize wrote:
AP - November 05, 2009
Democrats' Plan to Help 'Uninsurables' Requires 6-Month Wait
In addition to a six-month wait to qualify for the health insurance program, there's a more fundamental issue -- whether $5 billion set aside for the three-year program is enough.
Now that my husband has had cancer...real world experience and logic tells me that waiting 6 months to qualify for help (re: pre-existing issues) is still not good enough - he would have died in that amount of time! It's unfortunate people need to wait at all but we've waited 96 months under the do nothing bush administration.
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:26 pm |
|
Is the hope and change you were looking for...not me!
Speaker Pelosi’s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium
Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on November 5th, 2009
Follow @GOPLeader on Twitter for updates.
Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life - not end it.
Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page government takeover of health care does just that. On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan. The Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.
What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan. It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.
Section 213 describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.
A majority of Americans believe that health care plans should not be mandated to provide elective abortion coverage, and a majority of Americans do not believe government health care plans should include abortion coverage. Currently, federal appropriations bills include language known as the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, while another provision, known as the Smith Amendment, prohibits federal funding of abortion under the federal employees’ health benefits plan.
Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page health care monstrosity is an affront to the American people and drastically moves away from current policy. The American people deserve more from their government than being forced to pay for abortion.
House Republicans are offering a common-sense, responsible solution that would reduce health care costs and expand access while protecting the dignity of all human life. The Republican plan, available at HealthCare.GOP.gov, would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. And under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage may not receive federal funds
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 06:39 pm |
|
Tea Party Today
Tea Party Patriots Descend on U.S. CapitolThursday, November 5, 2009 12:39 PM
By: David A. Patten
Still reeling from Democratic election setbacks in New Jersey and Virginia, members of Congress are bracing for a grassroots-conservative rally Thursday on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, as Tea Party Patriot leaders aim to derail the Obama administration's plans for a federal overhaul of U.S. healthcare.
Minnesota GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann has been calling for Tea Party and other grassroots to show up and send a message to Congress. The House of Representatives' initial vote on Speaker Nancy Pelosi's healthcare reform proposal could come as early as Saturday.
"The American people spoke loud and clear at town hall meetings all across the country throughout August," Bachmann said in a statement earlier this week. "But it would appear that Congress didn't hear a word they had to say … The American people need to stand up again and make sure that Congress hears them this time."
The rally will be headlined by conservative actor Jon Voight and conservative author and talk-radio host Mark Levin, and it comes at a critical point in the nation's healthcare-reform debate.
Pundits say the Obama administration's inability to use the president's popularity to help re-elect Democrat Jon Corzine in New Jersey has shaken the confidence of Democrats from moderate districts and who can no longer count of the president's coattails to help them win re-election if they support unpopular legislation.
"This is it. This is the Super Bowl of freedom we're looking at right now," Bachmann says.
Speaking in a YouTube video, Bachmann has been urging voters to make "a house call on Congress … to tell Congress what they can do with their healthcare bill."
She's urging Americans to walk up and down the halls of the Capitol on Thursday, knock on doors, find their congressional representatives, and tell them they oppose what Bachmann calls the socialization of American healthcare.
"Go into the Capitol and find members of Congress. Don't bring your pitchforks," she says, "bring your video cameras. And get them on record saying how they're going to vote and why."
When congressional staffers aren't looking out their office windows at the gathering crowds, they will probably be busy Thursday answering their phones and picking up faxes. That's because activists unable to attend the rally are planning phone and fax campaigns to members of Congress, to make known their views on healthcare reform.
"We need everyone to come and look at their member of Congress in the eye and say, 'Don't you dare take away control over my healthcare from me!' At the bottom line, that's what this is all about," Bachmann says.
Moderates nervously eyeing Tuesday's election results also are witnessing the grassroots' evolution from a protest movement to a politically engaged force, as reflected in the demolition of liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava's candidacy in New York District 23.
That race was won by Democrat Bill Owens. Scozzafava, whose campaign reportedly received over $1 million in funding from the national GOP, pulled out of the race and endorsed the Democrat over conservative favorite Doug Hoffman.
Privately, Republicans and conservatives are expressing confidence they will reclaim that District 23 seat from Democrats in the next election. They are dismissing the notion that Scozzafava's forced exit and Hoffman's defeat will hurt the GOP's future prospects.
During the campaign's waning days, the Tea Party Patriots and other conservatives launched phone-bank campaigns that involved members around the country calling New York and New Jersey residents in key districts, urging them to support conservative principles.
Some political analysts have criticized those efforts as unsophisticated and possibly even counterproductive – because voters tend to resist outside influences on local races. But the larger point is that the groups are beginning to actively translate their organizations into power at the ballot box.
Immediately after the election, for example, the leaders of grassroots organizations began to discuss what they did right and wrong, and what lessons they can learn to be more effective in future elections.
Tea Party Patriots, for example, is developing "candidate cards" for future elections that would rate politicians on key principles of limited government, low taxes, and free markets. The objective: To publish a rating on every U.S. candidate running for office in the 2010 midterms.
This ongoing evolution into the realm of power politics could well have a chilling effect on politicians who have now seen, in District 23, the high price some voters will exact on candidates who overlook their districts' center-right leanings.
Today's Tea Party rally is but the latest in a series of events, rallies, and activities that have been simmering continuously throughout the year.
Combined with the anti-incumbent, anti-Washington mood that the electorate conveyed in Tuesday's elections, the rally will give Democrats a lot to think about as the administration's push for ObamaCare moves into its final stages in the days and weeks to come.
"I think what's happening is people are choosing policy, not a party," Everett Wilkinson, a national spokesman for Tea Party Patriots, tells Newsmax. "People are registering more and more as Independents every day … People want to make a decision based on where a candidate stands on the issues, not their party. This is going to happen more and more in the future: The American people are going to look at candidates' policies and issues, rather than the political parties that they are affiliated with."
The increasingly independent attitude of the electorate could be a major problem for Democrats, given polls showing that Independents are shifting away from Democrats and Obama in droves.
Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell tells Newsmax that the time has come for national GOP leaders to accept the rising strength of grassroots activists.
"I think the RNC better run around the block, and get in front of the grassroots parade," Blackwell tells Newsmax. "We can only rebuild the GOP by articulating conservative principles, inspiring our base, decentralizing operations, and building the technical infrastructure that will unite millions of Republicans behind the common goal of conservative resurgence across the country."
Blackwell warns that it won't be enough to just pay lip service to the conservative activists and use them politically.
"The engaged participants in Tea Parties and town halls are not going to be abused and used anybody they perceive to be opportunistic and phony" Blackwell says. "At the end of the day, the future, and the revitalization, and the re-establishment of the GOP as America's majority party, will turn on our leadership's ability to understand that its future is tied to the conservative base.
"Contrary to what the pundits on MSNBC, CNN, and in newsrooms across the country try to tell us, this is not some extreme movement," Blackwell says. "This is a movement that is reflective of the general and pervasive attitude of America. Over their brie and Chablis, the pundits and strategists on the left know what's happening. They know that this is a genuine American movement. This is not some out-of-the-mainstream happening."
Bachmann insists that despite the efforts of Democratic leaders to present ObamaCare as unstoppable, it is anything but.
"I think there are Democratic members of Congress who love this country who will vote no on this bill," she says in the YouTube video. "It's not inevitable. We can win big time."
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 04:19 pm |
|
BigSurprize wrote:
AP - November 05, 2009
Democrats' Plan to Help 'Uninsurables' Requires 6-Month Wait
In addition to a six-month wait to qualify for the health insurance program, there's a more fundamental issue -- whether $5 billion set aside for the three-year program is enough.
Now that my husband has had cancer...real world experience and logic tells me that waiting 6 months to qualify for help (re: pre-existing issues) is still not good enough - he would have died in that amount of time!
GOD was definitely looking over your shoulder on this one.
I know I sound like a broken record but the facts are just that, facts. The PELOSIOBAMACARE bills have little or nothing to do with helping anyone except for their Socialism agenda. If you go into that 2,000 page mess you will find item after item that has absolutely NOTHING to do with healthcare but everything to do with more Gov't interference and power over us. The money that will be spent is off the charts criminal because of our deficit spending and it has little or nothing to do with following our Constitution which I was under the impression the DEMS were all about during President Bush's two terms. That's all you heard about how he was destroying the Constitution but nary a peep about it now, guess all that Patriotism just flew out the window with the truth.
If they really were concerned about our Healthcare system and it's problems, they would have already enacted the few major steps in rectifying the problems starting with the number one item of TORT REFORM and Medicare fraud. So please, they need to stop insulting Americans with all this political doublespeak and let's get to it or shut up about it.
The GOP is presenting a simple but effective plan to start the ball rolling in the right direction that will significantly make a difference but won't damage anyone but you watch, Nancyfancypants will cut them off at the knees. This is all about politics, them wanting to radically TRANSFORM AMERICA into a SOCIALISTIC Nation, nothing to do with our healthcare issues. Everyone should be furious at them for the lies and the deceit. Nobody likes someone trying to pull the wool over their eyes and be taken advantage of especially on such a personal level.
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 03:38 pm |
|
AP - November 05, 2009
Democrats' Plan to Help 'Uninsurables' Requires 6-Month Wait
In addition to a six-month wait to qualify for the health insurance program, there's a more fundamental issue -- whether $5 billion set aside for the three-year program is enough.
Now that my husband has had cancer...real world experience and logic tells me that waiting 6 months to qualify for help (re: pre-existing issues) is still not good enough - he would have died in that amount of time! Last edited on Thu Nov 5th, 2009 03:39 pm by BigSurprize
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 03:00 pm |
|
Press Release from John Boehner
CBO Confirms GOP Plan Will Lower Health Care Premiums, Lower Deficit Without Tax Hikes on Families & Small Businesses
Nonpartisan Congressional Scorekeeper: GOP Plan Lowers Premiums By Up to 10 Percent
Washington, Nov 4 - House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement after the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) confirmed in a letter tonight that the Republican health care plan will lower health care premiums by up to 10 percent and reduce the deficit by $68 billion over 10 years without imposing tax increases on families and small businesses:
“When it comes to reforming health care, controlling skyrocketing costs is the American peoples’ top priority. Now CBO has confirmed that the Republican plan will lower health care costs for American families, and that’s good news for everyone struggling in today’s economy. The choice now could not be clearer: Speaker Pelosi’s plan raises costs. Our plan lowers them.
“Not only does the GOP plan lower health care costs, but it also increases access to quality care – including for those with pre-existing conditions – at a price our country can afford. The cost of the Speaker’s bill, now at $1.3 trillion and counting, is a debt that will be paid for by our kids and our grandkids. The American people deserve a better solution, and Republicans’ smart, fiscally-responsible plans give them exactly what they want.”
NOTE: In a letter delivered tonight, CBO estimated that the GOP health care plan would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States relative to what they would be under current law. Specifically:
• For the small group market (generally businesses with 2 to 50 employees), the GOP plan would reduce premiums in 2016 for example by up to 10 percent.
• For the individual market, the GOP plan would reduce premiums in 2016 by up to eight percent.
• For the large group market, the GOP plan would reduce premiums in 2016 by up to three percent.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 02:57 pm |
|
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 02:52 pm |
|
Ready To Pay A Fine?
Health Care Reform Assumes Millions Would Pay Fine Rather Than Get Coverage
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in its study last week that the House health care bill would bring in $167 billion over 10 years in penalties from those who don't get coverage.
The health care reform bill awaiting debate in the House assumes millions of workers and employers would rather pay $167 billion in fines than purchase or provide adequate coverage, according to a recent analysis, raising questions about whether the plan does enough to make insurance affordable.
Though the bill is estimated to expand coverage from the current 83 percent to 96 percent of legal U.S. residents, the windfall of projected penalty payments also exposes a potential contradiction in reform. A significant part of the plan to expand coverage relies financially on fines from the uninsured.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in its study last week that the House bill would bring in $167 billion over 10 years -- $33 billion from fines paid by individuals who decline to buy insurance, and the rest from employers who don't offer insurance to workers or contribute enough toward premiums.
Ernest Istook, a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma who is now a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, calculated that anywhere between 8 million and 14 million people would end up paying the fines.
This raises a few problems, he said. First, if those millions somehow get covered and don't pay the fine, then the health program is faced with a budget hole.
Second, he said, it speaks to a flaw with the insurance packages that are being offered. "If you say people would rather pay $167 billion in penalties rather than buy insurance under your new plan, what's wrong with your new plan?" he asked.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 02:48 pm |
|
Zero GOP Votes
'Very, very close to zero' GOPers will vote for House health bill
By Molly K. Hooper - 11/04/09 12:47 PM ET
Republicans will overwhelmingly reject the Democrats' healthcare reform measure when it is reaches the House floor, according to a key lawmaker.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), who serves as deputy GOP whip, told The Hill that the number of Republicans supporting the sweeping legislation will be “very, very close to zero.”
“I don’t know of a Republican out there advocating it," the lawmaker said.
Every House Republican rejected the Democrats' stimulus bill earlier this year while eight GOP lawmakers backed the climate change measure that passed 219-212.
Three centrist GOP lawmakers have told The Hill that they will likely vote against the Democrats' 1,990-page healthcare measure.
Republican Reps. Mark Kirk (Ill.), Mike Castle (Del.) and Joseph Cao (La.) all say that without significant changes, they will oppose the bill.
Kirk and Castle, who are both running for the Senate, were two of eight House Republicans who supported climate change legislation. Cao, who voted against the climate bill, is being targeted by Democrats in the 2010 cycle.
Cao has said he would oppose a bill that does not have strong prohibitions against abortions. He says that the current bill does not meet his standard.
House Democrats may amend the abortion-related provisions before the floor vote in an effort to attract more Democrats to support the bill.
Castle said that he doesn’t trust the cost estimates of the Democrats' bill.
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 04:28 am |
|
Miloinski wrote: I renewed mine for 3 years just today. There are more AARP members in this country than there are Republicans............and always will be.
Me, too. I admire their guts and willingness to stand up to the Rush and Dreck-ettes.
|
Current time is 07:57 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...   |
|
|
|