| Author | Post |
|---|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:48 am |
|
BigSurprize wrote: callmelou wrote: BigSurprize wrote: This link takes you to the 1502 pages of the Senate Healthcare Bill...enjoy! 
http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdf
October 19, 2009
Senate Finance Committee bill has been filed
Senate Finance Committee members have been notified that the committee's health reform bill was filed today. S. 1796 weighs in at 1,502 pages, according to a Senate Republican leadership source. It's still not up yet on the Finance Committee website or Thomas.gov. We'll post a link as soon as we get one.
UPDATED:
Read the entire 1,502 page Finance bill.
Read a document outlining the concerns of Sens. Kerry, Schumer, Menendez, Stabenow and Rockefeller that the tax on high-end plans will hit plans that are not overly generous.
Read Sen. Rockefeller's expanded views on reform.
UPDATE 2: The Senate Finance Committee filed its sweeping health care reform bill Monday and its release served largely to highlight the divisions among Democrats over the direction of reform.
The massive, 1,500 page bill is expected to serve as the backbone for Democratic reform efforts going forward and five senators expressed concerns about one of its main provisions, a 40 percent tax on high-end insurance plans.
The tax is designed to pay for reform and lower costs by making the so-called Cadillac plans less attractive for insurers to offer. Under the bill, a plan that costs an individual more than $8,000 and a family more than $21,000 annually would be subject to the tax.
But Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez, Debbie Stabenow and Jay Rockefeller are concerned that the threshold that defines a Cadillac plan is too low and will whack middle-class people.
“We remain concerned that the thresholds are too low and will impact plans that are not overly generous and that in 2019 far too many plans will be impacted by the excise tax. We plan to continue to work with Chairman Baucus on this issue to ensure that provision bends the cost curve, but not at the expense of middle-income Americans,” the senators wrote in a one-page “additional views” document that was released with the bill.
The document is reminiscent of a dissent that is filed with the majority opinion in a court case.
Rockefeller filed his own 13-page additional views document that spelled out his concerns, many of which he aired during the eight-day mark up of the bill. The West Virginia Democrat remains concerns that the bill does not contain a public option; that it does not uniformly apply insurance market reforms and that state-based exchanges designed to help people buy insurance will not be as effective as a single national one.
UPDATE 3: It's important to remember that the bill won't exist in this form for long. Senate Majority Leader Reid and Sens. Max Baucus and Chris Dodd along with senior White House aides are merging the Finance and Health Committee legislation into one bill that will be considered on the floor of the Senate. The behind-closed-doors dealings have drawn criticism from Republicans, particularly because President Obama had promised a transparent process and pledged to negotiate the health care bill on C-SPAN
The point of reading this is what? I don't think you read UPDATE 3 above.
It's as close as you'll get for quite some time...take it or leave it. 
I'll wait til they turn it into a movie...it's going to be renegotiated ad nasuseum.
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:46 am |
|
callmelou wrote: BigSurprize wrote: This link takes you to the 1502 pages of the Senate Healthcare Bill...enjoy!
http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdf
October 19, 2009
Senate Finance Committee bill has been filed
Senate Finance Committee members have been notified that the committee's health reform bill was filed today. S. 1796 weighs in at 1,502 pages, according to a Senate Republican leadership source. It's still not up yet on the Finance Committee website or Thomas.gov. We'll post a link as soon as we get one.
UPDATED:
Read the entire 1,502 page Finance bill.
Read a document outlining the concerns of Sens. Kerry, Schumer, Menendez, Stabenow and Rockefeller that the tax on high-end plans will hit plans that are not overly generous.
Read Sen. Rockefeller's expanded views on reform.
UPDATE 2: The Senate Finance Committee filed its sweeping health care reform bill Monday and its release served largely to highlight the divisions among Democrats over the direction of reform.
The massive, 1,500 page bill is expected to serve as the backbone for Democratic reform efforts going forward and five senators expressed concerns about one of its main provisions, a 40 percent tax on high-end insurance plans.
The tax is designed to pay for reform and lower costs by making the so-called Cadillac plans less attractive for insurers to offer. Under the bill, a plan that costs an individual more than $8,000 and a family more than $21,000 annually would be subject to the tax.
But Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez, Debbie Stabenow and Jay Rockefeller are concerned that the threshold that defines a Cadillac plan is too low and will whack middle-class people.
“We remain concerned that the thresholds are too low and will impact plans that are not overly generous and that in 2019 far too many plans will be impacted by the excise tax. We plan to continue to work with Chairman Baucus on this issue to ensure that provision bends the cost curve, but not at the expense of middle-income Americans,” the senators wrote in a one-page “additional views” document that was released with the bill.
The document is reminiscent of a dissent that is filed with the majority opinion in a court case.
Rockefeller filed his own 13-page additional views document that spelled out his concerns, many of which he aired during the eight-day mark up of the bill. The West Virginia Democrat remains concerns that the bill does not contain a public option; that it does not uniformly apply insurance market reforms and that state-based exchanges designed to help people buy insurance will not be as effective as a single national one.
UPDATE 3: It's important to remember that the bill won't exist in this form for long. Senate Majority Leader Reid and Sens. Max Baucus and Chris Dodd along with senior White House aides are merging the Finance and Health Committee legislation into one bill that will be considered on the floor of the Senate. The behind-closed-doors dealings have drawn criticism from Republicans, particularly because President Obama had promised a transparent process and pledged to negotiate the health care bill on C-SPAN
The point of reading this is what? I don't think you read UPDATE 3 above.
It's as close as you'll get for quite some time...take it or leave it.
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:43 am |
|
BigSurprize wrote: This link takes you to the 1502 pages of the Senate Healthcare Bill...enjoy!
http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdf
October 19, 2009
Senate Finance Committee bill has been filed
Senate Finance Committee members have been notified that the committee's health reform bill was filed today. S. 1796 weighs in at 1,502 pages, according to a Senate Republican leadership source. It's still not up yet on the Finance Committee website or Thomas.gov. We'll post a link as soon as we get one.
UPDATED:
Read the entire 1,502 page Finance bill.
Read a document outlining the concerns of Sens. Kerry, Schumer, Menendez, Stabenow and Rockefeller that the tax on high-end plans will hit plans that are not overly generous.
Read Sen. Rockefeller's expanded views on reform.
UPDATE 2: The Senate Finance Committee filed its sweeping health care reform bill Monday and its release served largely to highlight the divisions among Democrats over the direction of reform.
The massive, 1,500 page bill is expected to serve as the backbone for Democratic reform efforts going forward and five senators expressed concerns about one of its main provisions, a 40 percent tax on high-end insurance plans.
The tax is designed to pay for reform and lower costs by making the so-called Cadillac plans less attractive for insurers to offer. Under the bill, a plan that costs an individual more than $8,000 and a family more than $21,000 annually would be subject to the tax.
But Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez, Debbie Stabenow and Jay Rockefeller are concerned that the threshold that defines a Cadillac plan is too low and will whack middle-class people.
“We remain concerned that the thresholds are too low and will impact plans that are not overly generous and that in 2019 far too many plans will be impacted by the excise tax. We plan to continue to work with Chairman Baucus on this issue to ensure that provision bends the cost curve, but not at the expense of middle-income Americans,” the senators wrote in a one-page “additional views” document that was released with the bill.
The document is reminiscent of a dissent that is filed with the majority opinion in a court case.
Rockefeller filed his own 13-page additional views document that spelled out his concerns, many of which he aired during the eight-day mark up of the bill. The West Virginia Democrat remains concerns that the bill does not contain a public option; that it does not uniformly apply insurance market reforms and that state-based exchanges designed to help people buy insurance will not be as effective as a single national one.
UPDATE 3: It's important to remember that the bill won't exist in this form for long. Senate Majority Leader Reid and Sens. Max Baucus and Chris Dodd along with senior White House aides are merging the Finance and Health Committee legislation into one bill that will be considered on the floor of the Senate. The behind-closed-doors dealings have drawn criticism from Republicans, particularly because President Obama had promised a transparent process and pledged to negotiate the health care bill on C-SPAN
The point of reading this is what? I don't think you read UPDATE 3 above.
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:21 am |
|
This link takes you to the 1502 pages of the Senate Healthcare Bill...enjoy!
http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdf
October 19, 2009
Senate Finance Committee bill has been filed
Senate Finance Committee members have been notified that the committee's health reform bill was filed today. S. 1796 weighs in at 1,502 pages, according to a Senate Republican leadership source. It's still not up yet on the Finance Committee website or Thomas.gov. We'll post a link as soon as we get one.
UPDATED:
Read the entire 1,502 page Finance bill.
Read a document outlining the concerns of Sens. Kerry, Schumer, Menendez, Stabenow and Rockefeller that the tax on high-end plans will hit plans that are not overly generous.
Read Sen. Rockefeller's expanded views on reform.
UPDATE 2: The Senate Finance Committee filed its sweeping health care reform bill Monday and its release served largely to highlight the divisions among Democrats over the direction of reform.
The massive, 1,500 page bill is expected to serve as the backbone for Democratic reform efforts going forward and five senators expressed concerns about one of its main provisions, a 40 percent tax on high-end insurance plans.
The tax is designed to pay for reform and lower costs by making the so-called Cadillac plans less attractive for insurers to offer. Under the bill, a plan that costs an individual more than $8,000 and a family more than $21,000 annually would be subject to the tax.
But Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez, Debbie Stabenow and Jay Rockefeller are concerned that the threshold that defines a Cadillac plan is too low and will whack middle-class people.
“We remain concerned that the thresholds are too low and will impact plans that are not overly generous and that in 2019 far too many plans will be impacted by the excise tax. We plan to continue to work with Chairman Baucus on this issue to ensure that provision bends the cost curve, but not at the expense of middle-income Americans,” the senators wrote in a one-page “additional views” document that was released with the bill.
The document is reminiscent of a dissent that is filed with the majority opinion in a court case.
Rockefeller filed his own 13-page additional views document that spelled out his concerns, many of which he aired during the eight-day mark up of the bill. The West Virginia Democrat remains concerns that the bill does not contain a public option; that it does not uniformly apply insurance market reforms and that state-based exchanges designed to help people buy insurance will not be as effective as a single national one.
UPDATE 3: It's important to remember that the bill won't exist in this form for long. Senate Majority Leader Reid and Sens. Max Baucus and Chris Dodd along with senior White House aides are merging the Finance and Health Committee legislation into one bill that will be considered on the floor of the Senate. The behind-closed-doors dealings have drawn criticism from Republicans, particularly because President Obama had promised a transparent process and pledged to negotiate the health care bill on C-SPAN
Last edited on Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:24 am by BigSurprize
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 04:14 am |
|
clarz007 wrote: Reply to Dman:
Technically the government isn't FORCING anyone to buy insurance. There will be a financial penalty (high taxes) if you don’t. Just like they don’t force folks to stop smoking they just tax the heck out of those cigs. This is why it’s not “universal care”.
Comprende?
It's obvious you don't understand your own proposal.
|
clarz007
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 6th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 224 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 02:01 am |
|
Reply to Dman:
Technically the government isn't FORCING anyone to buy insurance. There will be a financial penalty (high taxes) if you don’t. Just like they don’t force folks to stop smoking they just tax the heck out of those cigs. This is why it’s not “universal care”.
Comprende?Last edited on Tue Oct 20th, 2009 02:02 am by clarz007
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 12:42 am |
|
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 20th, 2009 12:07 am |
|
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19th, 2009 04:52 pm |
|
Obamacare May Be Unconstitutional
Obamacare May be Unconstitutional
Sunday, October 18, 2009 6:05 PM
By: David A. Patten
President Obama's healthcare proposals face serious legal problems and scholars expect at least some provisions will be ruled unconstitutional.
The legal vulnerability of ObamaCare -- assuming some version of healthcare reform is passed -- stems from the unprecedented powers it grants the federal government.
Constitutional challenges could arise on several fronts: the government's power to regulate interstate commerce; privacy concerns related to doctor-patient interactions that have their origins in Roe v. Wade; constitutional restrictions on the federal government's authority to levy taxes; and the plan’s numerous clauses promoting racial preferences.
Andrew P. Napolitano, the former New Jersey Superior Court judge and senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel, calls ObamaCare "unconstitutional at its core."
Hans Bader, senior counsel for special projects at the Competitive Enterprise Institute think tank, tells Newsmax it is probable that at least some provisions in the evolving legislation will eventually be nixed.
Bader adds courts could also invalidate the entire bill.
GOP Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, recently echoed Bader's concerns with NewsmaxTV, saying in an exclusive interview that reform marks "the first time in the 225-year history of our country" that the federal government has ordered its citizens to make a purchase – in this case, healthcare coverage under the individual mandate. Citizens who opt not to obtain coverage face tax penalties.
Grassley adds, "I don't think we've ever had this issue before of having to buy something. And a lot of constitutional lawyers are saying it is unconstitutional, or at least a violation of the 10th Amendment. Maybe states can do this -- but can the federal government do it? I have my doubts."
Writing in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Napolitano stated, "What we have here is raw abuse of power by the federal government for political purposes. The president and his colleagues want to reward their supporters with ‘free’ health care that the rest of us will end up paying for. The only restraint on their exercise of Commerce Clause power is whatever they can get away with. They aren't upholding the Constitution -- they are evading it."
Among the problems legal scholars see in the current healthcare bills:
The Commerce Clause
The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “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.”
This raises the question: What constitutional authority does the federal government have to require “the people” to buy healthcare insurance?
Ever since the Constitution was ratified, those seeking to expand the federal government’s role have cited Article I, Section 8 -- the commerce clause.
Napolitano describes the interstate commerce clause as “the favorite hook on which Congress hangs its hat in order to justify the regulation of anything it wants to control.”
The clause states Congress shall have the power to “regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
Proponents would argue that not having an individual mandate would cause disruptions in the flow of goods and services among the states.
Healthcare reform would have a massive impact on one-sixth of the nation’s economy. There is a strong precedent for regulation of the insurance industry, at least on the state level. But courts could view reform as essentially as an entitlement program, not primarily related to commerce, and therefore beyond the federal government’s constitutional mandate.
The irony, says Napolitano, is that many of the current market anomalies in the insurance sector stem from congressional legislation that exempts companies from the competitive pressures of interstate commerce. “It has permitted all 50 states to erect the type of barriers that the commerce clause was written precisely to tear down. Insurers are barred from selling policies to people in another state,” Napolitano writes.
"That's right,” he adds, “Congress refuses to keep commerce regular when the commercial activity is the sale of insurance, but claims it can regulate the removal of a person's appendix because that constitutes interstate commerce.”
That blatant contradiction is one reason Congress is considering legislation to revoke the insurance industry’s anti-trust exemption.
A Taxing Situation
The only reason the federal government can tax your income is the 16th Amendment. Ratified on Feb. 3, 1913, it consists of perhaps the 30 most costly words ever written: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
Taxing people to make them purchase insurance is not addressed in the Constitution. So how can the government do it? Answer: By calling it an “excise tax.”
Ernest S. Christian, who served as deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury Department during the Ford administration, and Betty Jo Christian, an appellate lawyer who has argued commerce clause cases before the Supreme Court, recently addressed this problem for Investors.com.
“Sen. Baucus claims that the tax on the uninsured is an ‘indirect’ excise tax . . . But Sen. Baucus appears to be in error,” they write. “An excise tax is a tax on a ‘thing’ (such as a commodity or a license). That is why an excise tax is classified as ‘indirect.’"
“People who choose not to buy insurance are not things.
“They are people. And the tax is imposed directly on them in exactly the same way as a direct income tax, except that in this instance, the tax amount does not depend on the size of the person's income.
They add: "Let us all hope that that the court stands fast -- because if Barack Obama can make us buy a designated insurance policy, why can't he make us see designated doctors, submit to designated treatments, send our children to designated schools, force us to live in designated neighborhoods, give our money to designated charities (such as Acorn) and do all kinds of other designated things?" Excise taxes are levied on things you buy. The healthcare “excise tax” takes away your money for something you don’t buy -- health insurance.
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17th, 2009 07:49 pm |
|
Take This ObamaCare and Shove It! With No Debate Congress Gave Themselves Lavish Healthcare
Congress gave themselves lavish healthcare with 24-Hour On-Site Care, No Coverage Limits or "Pre-Existing Condition" Clauses; Congress Gets It All - But You Pay for It, as reported by CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson.
According to CBS's Sharyl Attkisson, "as members of Congress debate a "public option" for health care coverage, they remain safe and secure in their own generous health plan."
They are subsidized by millions of your tax dollars annually. The Congress doesn't even keep track the total cost of what they spend on themselves. Yet they plan to force every American to pay an additional estimated $3500/yr for coverage that is not even as good as what they get at your expense.
How does Obama Plan To Make You Pay For It ALL?
- Tax and hurt seniors by taking $500 Billion from Medicare.
- Tax and hurt the uninsured by forcing them to spend 20% of their pay and buy Government Run or Private Healthcare
- Tax and hurt those with private insurance by forcing them to pay taxes on their employer health care plan.
- Tax and hurt hard working retired union members by forcing them to pay taxes on their retirement health benefits.
- Tax and hurt every American who turns on a light switch imposing a new Green Energy Tax (Cap and Trade) that steals 80% of the new tax for Obama's general budget.
ObamaCare's fuzzy math calculations for Medicare claim that the government run plan is less costly. Yet a Heritage Foundation study shows that Medicare administration more costly than private insurance. Is the Medicare claim just another Obama lie or is he believing his own Spin?
Calculations Show The ObamaCare Tax Gap Is
$1,000,000,000,000
ObamaCare cannot be paid for without new taxes.
Obama and Democrats in Congress are ignoring plan details and adding more than $3000/yr of debt to every American.
Obama has lied again by pushing massive tax increases on every American earning less than $250,000/yr. Every Person will be hurt with increased costs of an out of control Government Run Health Care bureaucracy.
Polls Show That The Plans Details Are Killing ObamaCare!
In The Latest Rasmussen Poll - 56% Oppose ObamaCare!!!!
Only 41% Favor Government Health Care Takeover - A New Low!
Fox News reports that the bill "has no Republican support and moderate Democrats say the Senate will never go along".
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17th, 2009 06:41 pm |
|
azsu wrote: this american thinks we should wait until the bill is written before wanting to read it
The House didn't read the Cap And Trade Bill and it's 3AM Amendments before they passed it. Why should this be any different?
|
azsu
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 1st, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 620 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17th, 2009 06:37 pm |
|
| who knows, this could be a first. I think what has gone on in d.c. the last 35 years has made many of us a bit cynical
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17th, 2009 06:30 pm |
|
I don't trust any of them to put us first anymore...that goes for the media as well as politicians. 
|
azsu
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 1st, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 620 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17th, 2009 06:25 pm |
|
| this american thinks we should wait until the bill is written before wanting to read it
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17th, 2009 06:24 pm |
|
azsu wrote: just maybe, this is the time to think of the american people and politics be da&#ed
Don't you think reading the bill before they ram it would be inour best interests...this American thinks so!
|
azsu
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 1st, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 620 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17th, 2009 06:21 pm |
|
| just maybe, this is the time to think of the american people and politics be da&#ed
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17th, 2009 06:14 pm |
|
azsu wrote: are you saying they need less than 50 votes + the v.p.? during george's tenure, cheney was always on the ready to break a tie. but they always seemed to get 51 or more without his help
This strategy is used in Budget Bills only. It has never been used like they propose now. If the Dems use this, it will be political suicide.
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17th, 2009 06:11 pm |
|
| If they go nuclear...all they need is a majority to pass it.
|
azsu
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 1st, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 620 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17th, 2009 06:07 pm |
|
are you saying they need less than 50 votes + the v.p.? during george's tenure, cheney was always on the ready to break a tie. but they always seemed to get 51 or more without his help
BigSurprize wrote:
Gird your loins...
Dems Pave Way for Nuclear Option
A key House committee on Thursday quietly altered its health care legislation in a way that could allow the Senate to mow over Republican opposition to Democratic reforms by exploiting a budgetary loophole.
The Ways and Means Committee adjusted its health care overhaul package so that the Senate, down the road, could avoid a filibuster and pass health care reform with a smaller number of votes than normally required.
The long-discussed process, nicknamed the "nuclear option," is known as reconciliation. It's coming into potential play after the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday became the last of five committees to approve health care reform legislation, sending the overhaul proposals a big step closer to the president's desk. Before it gets there, though, the bill has to pass from the committees to the floors of the House and Senate
|
BigSurprize
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17th, 2009 06:01 pm |
|
Gird your loins...
Dems Pave Way for Nuclear Option
A key House committee on Thursday quietly altered its health care legislation in a way that could allow the Senate to mow over Republican opposition to Democratic reforms by exploiting a budgetary loophole.
The Ways and Means Committee adjusted its health care overhaul package so that the Senate, down the road, could avoid a filibuster and pass health care reform with a smaller number of votes than normally required.
The long-discussed process, nicknamed the "nuclear option," is known as reconciliation. It's coming into potential play after the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday became the last of five committees to approve health care reform legislation, sending the overhaul proposals a big step closer to the president's desk. Before it gets there, though, the bill has to pass from the committees to the floors of the House and Senate
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16th, 2009 03:06 am |
|
What makes anyone believe that what the Dems are putting forth is going to help anyone? I haven't seen any sign of that at all which is exactly why there are so many against it. It doesn't help anything, it just makes it worse. That is why we don't want the GOVERNMENT involved because they never make things better. History tells the tale.
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16th, 2009 01:53 am |
|
I always hope they wont, but they will.
|
azsu
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 1st, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 620 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16th, 2009 01:51 am |
|
| for the sake of all the people out of work that don't have insurance, let's hope they don't
|
Craig
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16th, 2009 01:48 am |
|
When the dems screw this up it will make 2010 so much easier...
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15th, 2009 11:17 pm |
|
Razenkn wrote: callmelou wrote: designman124 wrote: Lieberman Will Oppose
Lieberman Will Oppose Baucus Bill
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 5:16 PM
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said Tuesday he will not support the healthcare bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee earlier today.
Though Lieberman is not a member of the 23-member committee that approved the preliminary legislation crafted by Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., by a vote of 14-9, the Connecticut Democrat is one of a handful of key Senate centrists who are shaping the fate of health reform this year.
"No, not the way it is now," Lieberman said during an appearance on "Imus in the Morning" on the Fox Business Network this morning when asked if he could support the Baucus bill.
Lieberman echoed concerns that the Finance committee bill would hike taxes on insurance companies, which would then be passed along to consumers.
"I'm afraid that in the end the Baucus bill is actually going to raise the price of insurance for most of the people in the country," Lieberman said.
Duh..Niel, Lieberman represents Connecticut...the insurance capitol of the US...you're really surprised he opposes anything that would cut into insurance company's profits?
Duh bren, I thought you libbies luved Joe Lieberman and even wanted him to run for Prez?? So he was trustworthy then but not now when he disagrees with your luvbug?? How did that happen? Did he suddenly become Conservative? LOL
As usual, Gino, your assumption is wrong..therefore your conclusion is as well...Baaaaaa...you need a shearing.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15th, 2009 09:29 pm |
|
Harry Reid says:
Harry Reid Suggests Health Care to Cost $2 Trillion
HARRY REID: "He talked about CBO saying that there would be $54 billion saved each year if we put caps on medical malpractice and put some restrictions — tort reform — $54 billion. Sounds like a lot of money, doesnt it, Mr. President? The answer is yes. But remember, were talking about $2 trillion, $54 billion compared to $2 trillion. You can do the math. We can all do the math. Its a very small percent."
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15th, 2009 04:13 pm |
|
callmelou wrote: designman124 wrote: Lieberman Will Oppose
Lieberman Will Oppose Baucus Bill
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 5:16 PM
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said Tuesday he will not support the healthcare bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee earlier today.
Though Lieberman is not a member of the 23-member committee that approved the preliminary legislation crafted by Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., by a vote of 14-9, the Connecticut Democrat is one of a handful of key Senate centrists who are shaping the fate of health reform this year.
"No, not the way it is now," Lieberman said during an appearance on "Imus in the Morning" on the Fox Business Network this morning when asked if he could support the Baucus bill.
Lieberman echoed concerns that the Finance committee bill would hike taxes on insurance companies, which would then be passed along to consumers.
"I'm afraid that in the end the Baucus bill is actually going to raise the price of insurance for most of the people in the country," Lieberman said.
Duh..Niel, Lieberman represents Connecticut...the insurance capitol of the US...you're really surprised he opposes anything that would cut into insurance company's profits?
Duh bren, I thought you libbies luved Joe Lieberman and even wanted him to run for Prez?? So he was trustworthy then but not now when he disagrees with your luvbug?? How did that happen? Did he suddenly become Conservative? LOL
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15th, 2009 03:20 pm |
|
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15th, 2009 12:24 am |
|
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 11:04 pm |
|
designman124 wrote: Lieberman Will Oppose
Lieberman Will Oppose Baucus Bill
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 5:16 PM
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said Tuesday he will not support the healthcare bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee earlier today.
Though Lieberman is not a member of the 23-member committee that approved the preliminary legislation crafted by Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., by a vote of 14-9, the Connecticut Democrat is one of a handful of key Senate centrists who are shaping the fate of health reform this year.
"No, not the way it is now," Lieberman said during an appearance on "Imus in the Morning" on the Fox Business Network this morning when asked if he could support the Baucus bill.
Lieberman echoed concerns that the Finance committee bill would hike taxes on insurance companies, which would then be passed along to consumers.
"I'm afraid that in the end the Baucus bill is actually going to raise the price of insurance for most of the people in the country," Lieberman said.
Duh..Niel, Lieberman represents Connecticut...the insurance capitol of the US...you're really surprised he opposes anything that would cut into insurance company's profits?
Last edited on Wed Oct 14th, 2009 11:05 pm by callmelou
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 04:31 pm |
|
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Surprise, Surprise: Obamacare Will Hit The Middle Class With Massive Tax Hikes
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 9:11 AM Another eye-opening analysis of the outlines of the Obamacare fiasco, this in the Wall Street Journal and authored by Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
Senator Snowe's vote yesterday did not commit her to voting yes on cloture when the final bill emerges from Senator Reid's office. In fact, it has put her in a much stronger position to do just that, and if Joe Lieberman stay in opposition and Snowe is disappointed by what Reid proposes, the bill is dead. If even one more Democrat --Nebraska's Ben Nelson or Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln-- declares as Lieberman did that the bill is too badly broken and too destructive of Medicare and votes no on cloture, the game is over. If two or three of these senators huddle together and decide now is the time to turn the switch off, it could happen any day. A new "Gang of Four or Six or Eight" could emerge and completely take over the process and save Medicare and American medicine generally.
So keep focusing the message of implacable opposition to the Democratic senators below along with your firm commitment to fund and walk precincts for their opponent in 2010 or beyond if they voite for cloture. Call, write, e-mail and make personal visits if possible. Find your friends in their states and ask them to do so as well.
It is all about the cloture.
Arkansas
Sen. Blanche Lincoln
DC Phone: (202) 224-4843
Local Phone: Dumas (870) 382-1023, Fayetteville (479) 251-1224, Little Rock (501) 375-2993, Jonesboro (870) 910-6896, Texarkana (870) 774-3106
Link to E-mail
Sen. Mark Pryor
DC Phone: (202) 224-2353
Local Phone: Little Rock (501) 324-6336
Link to E-mail
Colorado
Sen. Michael Bennet
DC Phone: 202) 224-5444
Local Phone:
Denver Metro Office: (303) 455-7600 Toll Free: (866) 455-9866 Fax: (303) 455-8851
Colorado Springs Office: Phone: (719) 328-1100
Link to E-mail.
Connecticut
Sen. Joe Lieberman
DC Phone: (202) 224-4041
Local Phone: (860) 549-8463
Link to E-mail
Florida
Sen. Bill Nelson
DC Phone: (202) 224-5274
Local Phone: Orlando (407) 872-7161, Miami-Dade (305) 536-5999, Tampa (813) 225-7040, West Palm Beach (561) 514-0189, Tallahassee (850) 942-8415, Jacksonville (904) 346-4500, Broward (954) 693-4851, Fort Meyers (239) 334-7760
Link to E-mail
Indiana
Sen. Evan Bayh
DC Phone: (202) 224-5623
Local Phone: Evansville (812) 465-6500, Fort Wayne (260) 426-3151, Hammond (219) 852-2763, Indianapolis (317) 554-0750, Jeffersonville (812) 218-2317, Southbend (574) 236-8302
Link to E-mail
Louisiana
Sen. Mary Landrieu
DC Phone: (202) 224-5824
Local Phone: Baton Rouge (225) 389-0395, Lake Charles (337) 436-6650, New Orleans (504) 589-2427, Shreveport (318) 676-3085
Link to E-mail
Montana
Sen. Jon Tester
DC Phone: (202) 224-2644
Local Phone: Billings (406) 252-0550, Bozeman (406) 586-4450, Butte (406) 723-3277, Glendive (406) 365-2391, Great Falls (406) 452-9585, Helena (406) 449-5401, Kalispell (406) 257-3360, Missoula (406) 728-3003
Link to E-mail
Nebraska
Sen. Ben Nelson
DC Phone: (202) 224-6551
Local Phone: Omaha (402) 391-3411, Lincoln (402) 441-4600, Scottsbluff (308) 631-7614, Kearney (308) 293-5818, South Sioux City (402) 209-3595
Link to E-mail
North Dakota
Sen. Kent Conrad
DC Phone: (202) 224-2043
Local Phone: Bismarck (701) 258-4648, Fargo (701) 232-8030, Grand Forks (701) 775-9601, Minot (701) 852-0703
Link to E-mail
Sen. Byron Dorgan
DC Phone: (202) 224-2551
Local Phone: Bismarck (701) 250-4618, Fargo (701) 239-5389, Minot (701) 852-0703, Grand Forks (701) 746-8972
Link to E-mail
South Dakota
Sen. Tim Johnson
DC Phone: (202) 224-5842
Local Phone: Aberdeen (605) 226-3440, Sioux Falls (605) 332-8896, Rapid City (605) 341-3990
Link to E-mail
Virginia
Sen. James Webb
(202) 224-4024
1-866-507-1570
Link to E-mail.
West Virginia
Sen. Robert C. Byrd
DC Phone: (202) 224-3954
Local Phone: Charlestown (304) 342-5855, Eastern Panhandle (304) 264-4626
Link to E-mail
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 04:08 pm |
|
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 04:00 pm |
|
New Taxes
-- $201 billion in new taxes on high-premium health care plans.
-- $83 billion in new taxes paid by workers who will receive less employer-sponsored coverage or lose that coverage altogether but will be compensated with higher wages or monetary benefits, which are taxable.
-- $23 billion in penalty fees paid by employers who do not comply with the federal insurance mandate.
-- $4 billion in penalty fees paid by individuals who don't have health insurance.
-- $16 billion in new income and Medicare payroll tax revenue due to changes in Medicare.
-- $180 billion in other tax revenues items calculated by the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT).
According to the JCT, this $180 billion in new taxes would include: A new tax on prescription drug makers that would account for $22.2 billion over 10 years; a new tax on medical device manufacturers that would bring in $38.6 billion; and a new annual tax on insurance companies would net the government $60.4 billion.
Are you starting to notice a trend here? More taxes. More government. More bureaucrats. The Democrats are creating bigger government with more strings attached to the purse.
Elections have consequences.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 03:39 pm |
|
Lieberman Will Oppose
Lieberman Will Oppose Baucus Bill
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 5:16 PM
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said Tuesday he will not support the healthcare bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee earlier today.
Though Lieberman is not a member of the 23-member committee that approved the preliminary legislation crafted by Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., by a vote of 14-9, the Connecticut Democrat is one of a handful of key Senate centrists who are shaping the fate of health reform this year.
"No, not the way it is now," Lieberman said during an appearance on "Imus in the Morning" on the Fox Business Network this morning when asked if he could support the Baucus bill.
Lieberman echoed concerns that the Finance committee bill would hike taxes on insurance companies, which would then be passed along to consumers.
"I'm afraid that in the end the Baucus bill is actually going to raise the price of insurance for most of the people in the country," Lieberman said.
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 02:56 pm |
|
Snowe Votes Yes on Baucus Bill Tax Increases and Medicare Cuts
Snowe is a joke. Obama is a disaster. On to fascism.
|
callmelou
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 583 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 06:24 am |
|
Miloinski wrote: Amerca's Health Insurance Plans made a last ditch effort to save private insurance by making thier announcement on the eve of the senate vote. It's hard to believe they would tell America that if the bill was passed their rates would go up!
It doesn't take much to realize that this outburst will only confirm to the Amercan people that maybe we should have a public program that will reduce our costs by creating competition within the industry.
But.......they had to do something I guess.
I received a press release today that the VA is going to built an outpatient clinic on MtView and Grand in Surprise...That is awesome....Let's see how many of the far rightnutjobs go picket it because the VA is a gov't healthcare program.
Very brave and honest decision made by Sen. Snowe (R) today concerning her support of the Backus Bill.....there was apparently some moderate Republicans left with the guts to do the right thing even if she becomes a Rush/Beck target for the forseeable future.....but...we still need the public option to include healthier citizens so that the per participant cost is lower....many dolts still don't get that Medicare is so expensive because you have to be at least 65 to join and 65 plus are high users of medical care...you'd think the average bear could figure that out on their own.
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 12:47 am |
|
Miloinski wrote: Amerca's Health Insurance Plans made a last ditch effort to save private insurance by making thier announcement on the eve of the senate vote. It's hard to believe they would tell America that if the bill was passed their rates would go up!
It doesn't take much to realize that this outburst will only confirm to the Amercan people that maybe we should have a public program that will reduce our costs by creating competition within the industry.
But.......they had to do something I guess.
That would be the perception the liberals in Congress and WH would like for us to believe but nobody has presented anything to confirm that it would actually lower costs on anything, in fact just the opposite. Costs will increase across the board including more and more taxes to pay for the albatross. The insurance companies have remained hidden because they did not want to become the target of this administration because they are witnessing how they target and destroy when somebody dares to disagree with them.
There would be no such thing as "competition" because you can't pit a private enterprise that has to make a profit against a massive money printing machine that doesn't have to and in fact always operates in the red. So it's not possible to compete with them plus they don't have to do the tax thing and they can make up their own rules for the private companies as they go along. Where's the free enterprise in that scenario?? It's gone. It becomes a massive BIG GOV RUN healthcare program that will be down the same bunny hole as Medicare and Medicaid. Our Tax Money pours down the abyss and nobody knows where it went. It's purely unsustainable for 310 MILLION people. That might work for a small country but not one the size of ours.
Here's a thought. How about cleaning up Medicare and Medicaid fraud and waste and see how that works out before we entrust 1/6 of our Economy to them to handle?? If they can't clean up the GOV RUN programs that are in place and keep them from going bankrupt now, why would we give them control over the rest of it?? Sometimes Milo you have to ask the hard questions. Don't get sucked into the abyss because once we're in it, we're in it for good. The bottom line plan is for a one-payer system.
Why would you ever trust the government to do something of that magnitude and assume they will do it well...they are incapable and that is when they start limiting and managing every aspect of your life because the GOV will have complete control and you will have no choice but to acquiesce. They will have to nickel and dime us to death and they will decide how and when we can even do that.
Do you really want the IRS running your healthcare because that is where it will end up. I don't. Nothing like having the Gestapo making those decisions for you.
If they were really interested in containing cost and bringing more people in to be covered (today's plan still leaves 25 million uncovered), there are many things that can be done to achieve that and it won't cost us that thin dime that BHO promised he wouldn't raise our taxes. He was right, it's not a thin dime, it will be a lot more.
|
Miloinski
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 14th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 36 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14th, 2009 12:17 am |
|
Amerca's Health Insurance Plans made a last ditch effort to save private insurance by making thier announcement on the eve of the senate vote. It's hard to believe they would tell America that if the bill was passed their rates would go up!
It doesn't take much to realize that this outburst will only confirm to the Amercan people that maybe we should have a public program that will reduce our costs by creating competition within the industry.
But.......they had to do something I guess.
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 13th, 2009 03:47 pm |
|
They all know this is a flawed bill that has been brought forth by the DEMS to be voted on today but they are going to do it anyway. Most if not all have not even read it, they openly admit that. Who really knows what all is in it?? Nobody. Who knows who is writing it?? Nobody. Just on the merits of Baucus's talking points, this bill will trash our economy, our health care system and significantly RAISE costs on the American people with less quality and access and yet they are all merrily skipping down the halls of Congress patting themselves on the back for what a good job they are doing.
What exactly is in that water they drink??? Are they all just freakin' crazy??? This mess shouldn't be out of committee much less ready to take a vote. It is heavy handed and counterproductive, costs nearly a TRILLION dollars and does nothing positive for our health care. So, again, we must as the obvious question here....WHY??? WHY are they going forward with this??? POWER and CONTROL.
They are saying "it doesn't have the public option" but I say, yes it does, just in a backdoor way. It will literally destroy your current health insurance plan forcing them to set up the "non-profits" which will quickly turn into GOV RUN. This is the most deceitful bunch of windbags I think we've had in our Congress in America's history. It doesn't get any worse than this group and the poll numbers prove that out, 21% approval ratings. There's a good reason for that, but do they care what you think?? Obviously not.
Hurry up 2010!!
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 13th, 2009 01:00 am |
|
White House, Supporters Pile on Health Insurance Industry over Critical Report
The health insurance industry sharply escalates its criticism of the Senate health care bill, charging that the legislation would shift costs to privately insured people, raising the price of policies.
The White House and congressional Democrats, along with prominent supporters of their health care reform plans, fired back Monday at the insurance industry for issuing a study that claims the reform bill working its way toward a key vote Tuesday will raise the cost of individual coverage by hundreds of dollars a year.
Off course it will as younger and healthier people choose not to be insured. It’s pretty simple . . . the government needs to spread the risk and avoid adverse selection or the costs will go through the roof. Translated it means you have to insure all the people so that those who opt out don’t apply for insurance only when they need it. It’s called adverse selection. You can bet that Congress has actuaries on staff.
Linda Douglass, spokeswoman with the Office of Health Reform, said in a statement that the timing of the study, released just hours before the Senate Finance Committee is set to vote on its bill, raises questions about its legitimacy. Hey, turnabout is fair play, heh. If you screw them, don't b_tch when they screw you.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 13th, 2009 12:51 am |
|
It Will Cost More!
Insurers: Obamacare Will Raise Average Policy by Thousands of DollarsMonday, October 12, 2009 11:27 AM
WASHINGTON -- The health insurance industry is warning that a comprehensive Senate bill would increase the cost of a typical policy by hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars a year after lawmakers eased up on the requirement that all Americans get coverage.
The stinging attack, on the eve of a pivotal Senate vote, sent a clear message to President Barack Obama and congressional Democratic leaders who have been making headway on overhauling the nation's healthcare system. The industry fears that a weakening of the penalties for failing to get insurance would let Americans postpone getting coverage until they get sick.
The industry has worked for months behind the scenes to help shape healthcare reform. Unlike the 1990s, when the insurance industry contributed to the failure of President Bill Clinton's health overhaul, it has found the promise of millions of more people getting coverage too alluring to resist. Translation: millions of new consumers buying policies.
The industry wants lawmakers to expand coverage, not lessen the penalties that would reduce the number of people. The Senate Finance Committee is slated to vote on its 10-year, $829 billion bill on Tuesday, but more important to the industry are the steps beyond the panel's decision.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., will be merging the bill with a companion measure from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, with the goal of a sweeping, affordable bill. In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Democratic leaders have been pulling together legislation from three committees.
Angered by the insurance industry's late-in-coming cost estimate, a spokesman for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont, questioned the credibility of the numbers.
"It's a health insurance company hatchet job, plain and simple," said the spokesman, Scott Mulhauser.
Late Sunday, the industry trade group America's Health Insurance Plans sent its member companies a new accounting firm study that projects the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013, when most of the major provisions in the bill would be in effect.
Premiums for a single person would go up by $600 more than would be the case without the legislation, the PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis concluded in the study, which the insurance group had commissioned.
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12th, 2009 11:47 pm |
|
AP - Insurance companies aren't playing nice any more. Their dire message that health care legislation will drive up premiums for people who already have coverage comes as a warning shot at a crucial point in the debate, and threatens President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091012/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul_insurers
Last edited on Mon Oct 12th, 2009 11:48 pm by Razenkn
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12th, 2009 02:43 pm |
|
Dole Objects To Dem AD
Healthcare Ad Nixed After Dole ObjectsM
Monday, October 12, 2009 8:23 AM
The Democratic National Committee is canceling a television ad touting GOP support for health care reform after protests from one of the Republicans mentioned, former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole.
The ad quotes a series of Republicans - including California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson - saying the U.S. health care system needs to be reformed.
Mr. Dole is quoted as saying: "I want this to pass ... We've got to do something."
The ad then accuses current GOP congressional leaders as "siding with the insurance companies" to fight health care reform.
Mr. Dole told ABC News on Sunday that he objected to the ad's criticism of the current Republican leadership.
"I just didn't think it was fair, when I've tried to be helpful in encouraging a bipartisan solution, for the DNC to run an ad that I interpreted and I know others did as a backhanded comment about Republicans," Mr. Dole said.
The former Kansas senator told ABC that he complained about the ad to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who told the DNC to kill the ad.
A DNC spokesman said Sunday: "We have great respect for Senator Dole and his commitment to reform. When Senator Dole's concerns were communicated to us we immediately agreed to pull the ad."
President Obama pointed Saturday to the support of Mr. Dole and other Republicans for an overhaul of the health care system. Mr. Obama has made the issue his top domestic priority, pushing for a sweeping makeover.
While Republicans in Congress have remained essentially unanimous in their opposition to his proposals, GOP luminaries such as Mr. Dole, Mr. Schwarzenegger and Mr. Frist have recently come out in favor of overhauling health care, even though they differ on some specifics.
"These distinguished leaders understand that health insurance reform isn't a Democratic issue or a Republican issue, but an American issue that demands a solution," Mr. Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet video address, calling it an "unprecedented consensus."
On Sunday, Mr. Dole said: "I still believe a compromise is there. No one I know is flatly against health care reform."
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10th, 2009 03:19 pm |
|
Can You Read The Bill?
Read the health bill! Not as easy as you think
By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer Fri Oct 9, 7:29 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Read the bill! It was a rallying cry at angry health care town halls this summer and has evolved into something of a political movement. Many Americans are demanding that lawmakers actually read the comprehensive legislation they've written — or at least make it publicly available — before voting on it.
The push for transparency has become a running side debate in Congress, with lawmakers — often minority Republicans, but some Democrats too — pressing leaders to post measures online for 72 hours before a vote.
"I don't think the American people can be left in the dark," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said this week.
It might sound like a no-brainer. President Barack Obama has made transparency a watchword of his administration, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged upon taking office to "create the most open and honest government in history."
The Internet makes it all possible.
So what's the problem?
Well, have you ever tried reading a bill?
Take Medicaid. An average person might describe it as the federal-state health insurance program for the poor. But to the authors of the House Democrats' health care bill, "The term 'Medicaid' means a State plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act (whether or not the plan is operating under a waiver under section 1115 of such Act)."
The bill goes on to say, "The terms 'premium plan' and 'premium-plus plan' have the meanings given such terms in section 203(c)."
Like those examples, the legislation is peppered with cross references to other laws or statutes that are never explained, defying understanding by anyone without a law degree or years of legislative experience. Most lawmakers have never read the bills; that's what staff members are for.
"The minutiae of legal drafting is not necessarily related to understanding the concepts in the bill," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., who certainly has had his hand in writing laws in nearly 20 years in the House.
"You could literally get lost in the forest for the trees" trying to read it, he said.
The impenetrability of legislative language is not in itself an argument against posting bills online and letting voters try to figure them out. That happened over the summer with the House's 1,017-page health care bill, with mixed results. Some sections of the bill were taken out of context or misunderstood, often to feed critics' political agendas. At the same time, there was a full airing of concerns that the legislation raised.
Despite the hubbub, the House bill is not even close to the final product that Obama might ultimately sign into law. And that's another part of the problem.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 11:54 pm |
|
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 07:08 pm |
|
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 03:34 pm |
|
|
goldrush
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1407 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 12:48 am |
|
The number of independents who oppose health-care reform hit 57% at the end of September. (Fox)
Among college graduates, opposition to health-care reform is now 50%. (Gallup)
Among seniors, opposition to ObamaCare hit 63% last month. (Economist)
These 3 constituencies represent 70% of the voters who typically vote in off-year elections.
p.s. Seniors are the biggest consumers of health care, and their family members will probably take their concerns seriously.
|
Razenkn
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1809 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 8th, 2009 11:32 pm |
|
TAX THE SICK: OBAMA'S NEW PLAN
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
October 8, 2009
Faced with a need to scrounge for revenue to fund his plan for health care, President Barack Obama and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus have come up with a brilliant new idea: Tax the sick!
In a new amendment to the health care bill, they propose to limit the deductibility of medical expenses on income taxes.
Now, taxpayers may deduct any medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of their Adjusted Gross Income. Obama and Baucus want to raise that threshold to 10% as long as the taxpayer is under 65.
Eight million Americans are sick enough and poor enough that they have to pay more than 7.5% of their income in medical expenses. And it is these folks that the liberals Obama and Baucus plan to tax! Six million of them earn less than $75,000 a year!
For a family earning $75,000 a year and facing out-of-pocket medical bills of $7, 500, this proposal would cost them about $600 a year in extra taxes.
And let's remember who it is that they are taxing. This proposal affects people whose incomes are so limited and whose medical costs are so high that they exceed 7.5% of their pre-tax income.
Their proposal literally hopes to raise $20 billion over ten years by taxing sick people.
The Democrats defend their proposal by saying that it would discourage health care spending. But nobody deliberately spends 7.5% of their income on medical costs unless they are pretty sick and needy.
Obama and Baucus have singled out the sickest among the middle class for this heinous tax. (The poor will not have to pay it because they are eligible for Medicaid). Originally, the Democrats continued their war on the elderly by proposing to tax everyone who spends more than the 7.5% threshold on medical costs. But they retreated when it became clear that six million elderly would be hit with the tax. Now they just sock it to eight million sic k, middle income Americans.
This tax, and their desire to cut Medicare and Medicaid by $500 billion, makes Obama and Baucus unlike any Democrats I have ever known. Democrats, at least when I worked for Clinton, defended the elderly and the sick rather than cut the former and tax the latter.
|
designman124
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4262 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 8th, 2009 10:53 pm |
|
|
Current time is 09:00 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...   |
|
|
|