The Party Of 'No No No!' Kicks Their Feet And Holds Their Breath As Obama Signs Historic Bill
Look, the Republicans are no more going to repeal this bill than they are to execute Santa Claus. Not gonna happen! But the Mighty Wurlitzer is geared up now to express the party's "sadness" and "concern" over the "government takeover" that's being "shoved down our throats" (hats off to Frank Luntz for that S&M imagery!).
They're happy to beat this issue like the dead horse it is, just as they've done with abortion for decades. Talking about the socialist evils of health care reform will fire up their base and be a cash cow for their various fundraising efforts. So everybody's happy!
(And just as an aside: Notice Gov. Tim Pawlenty has finally cut off his mullet. That's how you know he's a Very Serious Candidate for president.)
President Obama will sign the historic health care bill into law this morning, but Republicans are still fighting back with promises of lawsuits and heated rhetoric, including a shot from one GOP governor who blasted what he called Obama's "nanny nation approach" to government.
Republicans across the country are specifically challenging the mandate in the health care bill that requires every individual to have health insurance, charging that it is unconstitutional.
The individual mandate is an "unprecedented overreach by the federal government forcing individual citizens to buy a good or a service for no other reason then they happen to be alive or a person," Republican governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty said today on "Good Morning America."
Pawlenty said he sent a letter to Minnesota's Democratic attorney general arguing against the constitutionality of the mandate.
"They've taken it to this big, federalized, bureaucratic, government-run, kind of nanny nation approach," Pawlenty said. "I don't think defending the Constitution and individual's rights under the Constitution, and the relationship between states and the federal government under the Constitution is a frivolous matter."
Twelve state attorneys general, all of whom are Republican, have already filed suits to block the health care bill on the grounds that its requirement that everyone have health insurance is unconstitutional. Four state legislatures have already passed laws blocking the bill.
Joe Biden from Delaware, we love you!
...who desperately need our help, or for the many soulless Republicans who are stroking out over this HCR.
Frankly I am to the point where I can't even listen to them anymore. "Government-run, nanny nation, government knows better than you do" etc.
These are ridiculous claims if you look at each of them individually. It's still private insurance-run, so I guess the "nannies" are insurance company reps. And who the hell are they to say government "knows better than you do" when THEIR government started two wars, left a crippling recession, tortured and spied, and worse - acted with disregard to the constitution by adding real activist judges to the supreme court.
I think that passing health care reform only made the rabid nasties that much worse for progressives. If you think the last 10 years suck just you wait for the next 10 they will bring us as punishment for this reform.
How is this going to help the millions of people who can't afford insurance AT ALL?
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
And what is that popping sound? Is that champagne corks or Republican heads exploding?
Both. The red bursts are the GOP heads.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
That would be implosions. Vacuums don't explode.
He's on the bandwagon to take this thing to the Supreme Court, using taxpayer money at a time when we can't even meet the needs of the Commonwealth budget, and people have lost their jobs because there was no money to pay them.
Scoundrel.
is swearing to fight this also- long live that long-dead Capital of the Confederacy. They'll take another public beating I suppose.
For that information about Tom Corbett especially since he hopes to be the Republican candidate for Governor of PA. We can take him down with this irresponsible spending of taxpayers money.
They don't want to spend money covering people but to fight evil socialism they'll spend millions. It's a stunt. They know they can't stop it or repeal it but they can keep the argument going up to the elections. They hope it'll still help them. Only problem with their logic is when people see the early results of this bill such as pre-existing conditions, no denial etc...How are you going to tell people that's a bad thing?
is intended to be a factual statement
Wasn't he a Space Ranger back in the day?
until the elections? That's the best gift the Republicans can give the Dems.
Call me crazy, but I think that this November is going to be another Waterloo for the Repubs.
They're on the losing end of this debate, big time!
If the mandate is deemed to be unconstitutional wouldn't the next step HAVE to be to have universal healthcare for all because that would be the only way to have equal justice under the law? Also, I am so sick of the media saying that most people are against this bill! Who in the HELL are they polling??????!!!! We need to show our support and get the media to STFU!!!
In a poll I saw last night, it turns out that 41% oppose the bill because it goes too far, but another 13% oppose it because it doesn't go far enough, for a total of 54% OPPOSED.
For me, the biggest surprise is that only 13% don't think it goes far enough.
I second that. Its sad the 46 were "satisfied". I guess thats why we got what we got.
some of us like things shoved down our throats! It's not ALWAYS a bad thing.
i apologize for this
Every point that he made about a bi-partisan bill is in this bill and this is not a single payer government run health care system. Will these stupid lying lips ever stop flapping disinformation? They won't quit. If Republicans were against sunshine and the sun was shining they would continue telling everyone that it was raining.
No more parties in the back.
I don't see how this could pass the test of being constitutional. If the federal government wanted to impose a tax for coverage, then that would be constitutional. Forcing someone to buy a private product, enforced by fines and possible jail time by the federal government, just for being born cannot possibly be constitutional. This is not auto insurance, I can choose not to drive a car. And this cannot be covered by the "General Welfare" clause, otherwise we would be open to being forced to only buy certain products from companys that the US taxpayer is currently on the hook for (IE GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc). Once that pandoras box has been opened we all could be forced to buy products from companies that we have no desire to do business with. This is just wrong on so many levels.
My two cents...
I think they would have researched that, 4liberty. The Democrats hire lawyers too.
Of course, if it gets up to the Supreme Court, we can thank the Bushite Fifth Columnists on the Court to swear that it is unconstitutional.
But the SC has ruled before that laws have been unconstitutional before. Just because a lawyer (Yoo is a prime example) says it's constitutional does not make it so.
Ouch, he does have point with the Yoo thing.
is intended to be a factual statement
the SCOTUS has. That's not the point I just made.
And I see that Yoo hasn't been disbarred for his wrongheaded and frankly barbaric "opinion."
I must have missed your point. Still am I guess. The point I thought you were making was that the Dems have lawyers and they have declared it as constitutional. My reply was to that point. If you had another one that you were trying to make, I missed it.
What are you saying? That my auto insurance (which in mandatory) that I've purchased from a private company isn't constitutional?
My god man... I would like the see these idiots start to burn their auto insurance cards and refuse to buy it now.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
to drive a car. Are you saying that everyone in the US should be forced under penalty of fine or jail to purchase auto insurance, regardless of whether they own a car?
In most places in the country you can't choose to drive a car. How the fuck would you get to work in places with little to no public transportation? And most people have to work at the very least 20 minutes away from where they live thanks to this mentality of suburban sprawl.
I'm arguing the same thing down thread. Give it up - he has tunnel vision and a limited view of the rest of the world outside NYC.
Just because "most" people need a car, does not mean that "all" people should be forced by penalty of fines/jail to purchase auto insurance. Are you really saying that everyone in the US should be forced to purchase auto insurance regardless of whether they drive a car? If that is what your saying, we can delve into that further. If not, this is just a straw-man argument.
Doesn't it have something to do with commerce? I heard that on one of the cable shows. (not Faux)
Everything can be tied to commerce in some way, shape or form. Mandates to buy newspapers? That's commerce. Mandates to buy handguns? Thats commerce.
To me this is a very slippery slope.
I don't understand all the legalities in this bill or in the Constitution and I guess it could be a slippery slope but if people don't cover themselves with health insurance, then don't we have the same thing we had before this bill was passed? I guess what I'm asking is...doesn't everyone have to participate for this reform to work?
For this "reform" to work, everyone has to participate. But this must be accomplished through legal, ie constitutional, means. I am only arguing for the rule of law to be enforced, just as I did in the Bush years. Our constitution allows for taxation, but nowhere does it give the government the authority to force everyone under its rule to purchase a private product. And what of a future administration that decides that everyone should purchase, let's say umbrellas, oh and the administration just so happens to be loaded up with ex-umbrella executives.
And NO, I am not saying this administration is loaded up with ex-insurance executives.
Every family that pays taxes should have health insurance coverage, the premiums being a part of your taxes.
It works fine for us in Canada.
We dun need ur Earth Logic here!!!
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
No, it's wrong on one level (the one you talked about), and the 'evil' that it is is no reason to repeal all the rest of the good things the bill does.
That reasoning sounds like Bush and his clan saying that "yea, it's toture, but we did it for the right reasons." The end does not justify the means.
Soo...millions of people getting coverage and not dying = torture? Utter bullcrap.
republicans and teabaggers wanna know....What's the Bible say about it?? Who would Jesus deny coverage to??
all it takes is all of us
Dint u no Jesus hated poor peoples? He wuz a Republikin!
Dang commie.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
Big corporations will be find $2000 per person they do not cover annually. OK, but for a single person alone would cost no less than $6000.00 to cover. Where's the sense there? This bill needs a lot of work.
is intended to be a factual statement
I really don't know jack about constitutional law; unfortunately, neither do five of our SC justices...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
for SC nominations create the ridiculousness that is SCOTUS.
From tax payers to corporations. Its ok, they'll give it back to the politicians as campaign donations. Time to start buying our goods and services from the corporations who back the politicians we like, its our only voice in politics now.
In which case the thing which the insurers are relying on to dilute their costs will disappear. They will be forced to generally raise rates beyond the ability of most people to pay and their other techniques like recission, pre-existing conditions won't be available. At which point some sort of single payer will become inevitable. I fully expect the insurers will be lavishly spending to stop these challenges by the Republicans.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Maybe not. You may have to do what we do here in Canada. Medicare paid for through our taxes, therefore we are paying for a government service (health insurance) directly to the government instead of to a private insurer who takes 30% off the top to pay themselves profits and operating expenses.
If CFO and Democratic candidate Alex Sink has any sense at all, she'll pounce all over state AG and GOP candidate Bill McCollum about this. Billy Mac's going to sue over the health care, and has had his astroturfers attacking Sink about her tenure as a bank president.
Sink needs to set up ads with the subject "Why Does Bill McCollum Hate Florida?" Bill's trying to come across as an outsider, when he's actually a former US Reprehensible and about as crooked as a spirochete.
Bill McCollum's going to sue the Federales, with a state already mired in a $3 billion budget deficit.
Oh sure, they'll cut retirement pensions for law enforcement, firefighters and EMTs, but spend millions in a frivolous lawsuit.
Florida's deficit was classic Bush Family economics, thanks to Jebbie:
1. slash taxes on the rich;
2. scratch your head when the rich stuff that cash in tax shelters;
3. wonder why such great capitalism isn't generating tons of money for all;
4. blame the wasteful taxpayers;
5. cut services and needed programs, and say you are being fiscally responsible.
"..as crooked as a spirochete."
Hah!!! Thank you for my newest favorite phrase!
.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Only 2% of new doctors coming out of US medical schools go into primary care. Can anybody guess why? But I predict that soon the medical schools will also be government run.
In Italy, there is a primary care doctor every three blocks. People are healthier, live longer and have a better quality of life. Socialized medicine is the only way to go.
We can fix the shortage of primary care doctors very easily. In exchange for forgiving part of their student loans, newly minted doctors could agree to practice primary care for maybe 3 or 4 years, especially in rural areas or in inner city hospitals - the two places they are needed most.
This plan would have several benefits:
* New doctors wouldn't be buried for decades by their loans.
* Better health care would be provided to the inner city and the countryside.
* Our doctors would be more well-rounded.
* It would piss off the Republicans something fierce.
The last one is justification enough by itself ;-)
screw the med students and their student loans...non-MDs student loans are just as high and most don't have cushy Dr. jobs. I'm tired of MDs whining about their student loans. How about instead of taking advantage of the numerous existing MD loan repayment and forgiveness programs, they live in an apartment for a year or 2 instead of buying new cars and houses as soon as they graduate (or before in most cases).
What planet are you from?
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
The same thugs who have intimidated and allowed Bush to JAM two wars down our throats (you do support the troops don't you?) as well as a host of crap that was just too big to fit (ie harriet myers) - those self same thugs now are trying their thuggery to intimidate the legally elected (see 2000 presidential election for contrast) congress and President to do their jobs... high high hypocrisy away! Sorry thugs you and your msm apologists lose this round...
Cry, Cry, Cry!
Whineybaby Pawlenty screams, "NANNY STATE, NANNY STATE". I say "Terry Schaivo"!
Pawlenty screams, ""unprecedented overreach by the federal government", and I say, " The Bush Administration's lies to illegally invade Iraq.
Pawlenty screams, "I don't think defending the Constitution and individual's rights under the Constitution, and the relationship between states and the federal government under the Constitution is a frivolous matter." I say "Supreme Court decision on the 2000 presidential election."
An open request to the Regressive Party. Please do this nation a favor and STFU!!
to the Senate bill that will allow states to opt out for Single Payer (like Pennsylvania, California and others) WITHOUT THE THREAT OF LAWSUITS FROM INSURANCE CORPORATIONS.
Remember when Kucinich was against the bill before he was for it about a week ago? And he said, "I will vote "yes" if there is a robust public option and if my amendment, that was passed in committee then removed by Pelosi from the bill, allowing states to opt out for Single Payer without the threat of lawsuits from insurance corporations, is put into the bill."
Well, we all know that he was unable to get these things and still voted "yes".
I urge all who live in states that are currently moving toward a Single Payer system to lobby your senators to PLEASE allow the states who choose to to opt out.
In California, IF Brown becomes the next governor, all the stars will be aligned for us to move into a NOT FOR PROFIT system of healthcare. But if the insurance companies are not cut off at the knees by Congress, it will make it all the more difficult and financially constraining to move forward.
I hope to see some action from Boxer and Feinstein on this issue on behalf of the people of the state of California.
Boxer is up for re-election. She, especially, needs to consider what her next move is on this.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Leahy is also up for re-election and of course Bernie likely supports this amendment. So I'll write to them to get them on the bus!
of these things are still possible? doesn't the Senate still have a chance to force changes and a re-vote in the House? Didn't Grayson or someone try to get a short bill with Medicare buy-in attached? I've had other things on my mind, but perhaps you or someone else knows about how the bill might still change into something easier to swallow.
Didn't the bill still contain the "opt out" provision for the States?
Just let them refuse the coverage. Period.
Then we can watch the tea bagger heads explode.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
for his "yes" vote???
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
So..he voted yes. Is it in there?
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Otherwise when Kucinich gave his "woe is me....I took a ride on Air Force One and all I got was this stupid hat" speech, he would have crowed about the fact that this was the concession he won. He said nothing.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
to be S&M you're doing it wrong.
Implies a rape scenario.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
If you consider forced to be doing it right you may be a teabagger.
I would not mind one bit to pay into medicare, but not insurance companies.
I think it is great if more people have coverage but the way they are doing it does not give a sense of shared responsibility. This will only make the insurance companies righer at our expense.
I do love it tha republicans are putting up such fake outrage. The only reason they do is to try and fool the ignorant republican voter into giving them another chance to steal us blind and make us into slaves. Hell I guess we are already slaves.
i think this bill is a travesty, but i will give the obama political machine credit in their ability to get this thing signed. which was not an easy political feat with the GOP playing scorced-earth-politics
".....forcing individual citizens to buy a good or a service for no other reason then they happen to be alive or a person."
I agree, Pawlenty. In fact, I agree so much that I am going to move to Minnesota and refuse to buy auto insurance for that same reason. I'll just tell any friendly police officer who takes offense at my lack of insurance to contact you and you'll make them see the wisdom of your stance. I'll be awaiting an apology from said officer, and accolades for such a logical and principled stance.
I, of course, would haave been stopped on a small back road, because I don't travel major highways due to the fact they're a socialist plot, being funded by tax money, you know.
God bless America.
that you had to buy auto insurance just for being alive?
In reality, and unfortunately, in this country most people do NOT have the option of not driving. I would love to live in a society in which driving a car is merely an option, but unless one lives in a city with good public transportation, driving is a necessity.
Thus, one is forced to buy auto insurance.
My mother no longer drives, hence she does not have to have auto insurance. My son is not old enough to drive, hence he does not have to have auto insurance. Most of the residents of NYC does not have cars, hence no auto insurance. Not even remotely close.
Why should I have to buy auto insurance if there are others that don't? Just because I have to drive a 40-mile commute every day? If I want to keep my job, I have to turn in my auto insurance card once a year. In fact, most jobs that I've done, has required proof of auto insurance.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
That if you have to purchase anything, everyone else should be forced to purchase that thing as well, regardless of whether they need or want it?
Oh my god.... everyone NEEDS healthcare. I don't think you guys get this. And preventative medicine in which everyone can see general doctors and hopefully catch disease in it's early stages SAVES MONEY in the long run.
Actually studies show that preventive care adds cost to the system due to additional testing.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
What "studies?"
You need to show proof.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/...
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-...
http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/092209.pol...
Here ya go.
You need to keep an open mind and learn how to read.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
to auto insurance by Matt. I was addressing that, not healthcare. Sorry for the confusion.
What the hell am I saying... who knows?
In the greater scheme of things it really matters not. I could see how purchasing insurance in anything would be a great detriment to the well-being and peace of mind of society.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
"Most of the residents of NYC does not have cars, hence no auto insurance.
Apparently you didn't comprehend what I wrote, even though it's pretty damn obvious: MOST people don't live in NYC, hence they don't have access to public transportation. Think outside your sheltered little world for once.
BTW - you should have written "Most of the residents of NYC do not have cars...." not "does." Just in case they don't teach proper grammar in the fabulous NYC.....
I live in the midwest and I own multiple cars. Not that it is relevent to the point that I was making. I comprehended what you wrote. You are basically saying that everyone should be forced to purchase auto insurance regardless of whether everyone drives.
BTW - Thanks for the grammer correction. That added so much to the debate.
"You are basically saying that everyone should be forced to purchase auto insurance regardless of whether everyone drives."
Not what I'm saying at all, but I guess I'll just have to leave you at not getting it.
"BTW - Thanks for the grammer correction. That added so much to the debate."
Just havin' a little fun - no offense meant.
P. S. It's grammar, not grammer. :)
Good form.
I don't see how purchasing health insurance is a bad thing. If I could see the inherent evils of such, perhaps it would make more sense.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
Being forced to purchase a private product by force of fine/jail just for being alive is. If the goal is to cover everyone with health insurance, then create a health tax and have the government provide health coverage. That, to me, is allowed under our constition. Simply forcing a mandate on the population to purchase a private product, ie health insurance, is not constitutional. Where does that end? What will be mandated to purchase next? This is a slippery slope that we should not traverse.
You, and others, dislike the idea of being told what to do when it could lead to a betterment of society as a whole.
Like... forcing our kids to get an education. If you don't, you could be thrown in jail, right?
I can see if we had the public option or single payer it would be better. Hell, that's what I wanted from the start. However, I haven't seen any studies or projections of how the mandate would grossly harm the average American. If you know of any please point me to the right direction.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
Who decides if "it could lead to a betterment of society as a whole."?
Who decides what an "average American" is?
Jeez, use some fucking common sense.
We'll start with some examples of the basics: Stop signs and traffic lights. Middle: Not having the runs every time I drink water. Advance: Social Security.
Average American. There's a median out there. In this case, I'm referring to average income earned by an American.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
I understand the need for rules, regulations, and laws. And that is basically being told what to do. And what I have been talking about has nothing to do with the betterment of society. I was arguing the constitutionality of the individual mandate.
During the Bush years, and even to this day, it was/is argued that he violated the "rule of law" on the torture issue, pre-emptive wars, habeous corpus, due process, illegal wiretapping. This was/is unconstitutional.
I am attempting to make the same point with the individual mandate. Again, as I have stated before, implement a health tax and make health care a government utility. Everyone's covered! But to violate the constitution (IMHO) to force everyone to purchase a private product is not the answer. Again I ask, where does it end? What other private product will we all be forced to purchase by mandate?
against the individual is that of a tax penalty then it's not unconstitutional. There are going to be exemptions and some will even get taxpayer money to either help pay for such insurance or allow them to purchase without cost to themselves based upon their economic standing.
This is really no different than the same level of penalties taken against companies that don't pay their employees the minimum wage or install handicap accessible ramps for their businesses when necessary.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
So am I to understand that this really is not an individual mandate to purchase a private product, but a tax that I voluntarily pay to a private company for their product? That's an interesting interpitation.
And the comparison to penalties levied against companys for not following laws is not the same at all. Companies are not levied penalties for not purchasing a specific product.
I can't spell or use my tenses correctly.
And my comprehension skills are obviously lacking as well, cause I'm not getting the point you are trying to make.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myoVLMnKw2M
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
1. Allow anyone to buy into Medicare
2. Establish the Department of Health Insurance where anyone can buy insurance from the department which parallels Medicare, for those under 65.
3. Self-insure. Require a constant balance of $500,000 in an escrow account dedicated to health care.
4. Buy approved insurance anywhere.
5. The best solution: Single Payer within Medicare or parallel to Medicare.
There! I fixed it.
Hasn't Alan Grayson entered a bill for Medicare for everybody, something like 11 pages?
If you need funds to pay for essentials, you have a revenue problem
If you need funds to pay for frivolity, you have a spending problem
succinctly put Ron....
all it takes is all of us
Ron, ron, ron,
You've just GOT to stop making sense.
this bill, but just to bring you all back down to the ground be aware that this is what the passage of this particular bill means:
This bill was the result of a deal Obama made with big pharma/AHIP. I just heard an interview with a health insurance/big hospital "consultant" and he said that the problem for all these industries wasn't just stagnation on their profit streams...it was the fact that they "couldn't figure out how to increase their customer base and the President and Congress just did that for them".
According to Harvard Medical Research, over 180,000 Americans will die unnecessarily before this bill becomes law in 2014. Is it acceptable to the Democratic Party to have over 60 "9/11" fatalities in this country over the next four years? It's like KNOWING that over the next four years we will have to witness 900 jumbo jet crashes that will kill 200 Americans each time? These are our fellow citizens whose lives should have been treated as if those in Congress actually CARED?
This is unacceptable to me. And I really wish I had voted for a President who also felt it was unacceptable.
I wish he would have signed a law today that would have allowed me and all the other Americans who cannot afford health insurance, to see a doctor and be evaluated/treated for especially the diseases that will claim lives before their times, TODAY....not in four years.
I'm sorry to see that so many of you are "celebrating" a bill that to me is nothing more than a bailout of yet another sorry Wall Street corporate monster that deserved nothing less than a stake through it's rotten heart.
Just sayin'....
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Have I sounded giddy?
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
You're reaching again.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
I agree with you, Abby, but reform has to start SOMEWHERE, and there aren't enough true progressives in Congress to get single payer passed - yet.
As much as I don't like this bill, I think it's at least a start: over time, people will get used to this, possibly leading to better/more reforms, i.e. single payer.
Consider it a foot in the door - it's pretty damn painful to your foot at first, but eventually you get in the room, which was the main objective. (And by the time you get in, your single payer insurance will cover treatment to your foot.)
yes Giddy, nah, it seems to me I read where the insurance companies will have to spend 85% of what they take in on health care that in & of itself will make a helluva change. also even though it is four years to take effect, how many years would have taken if this did not pass? or worse yet if the Repugs were in control? God forbid. Yes your right the health insurance industry needs a stake driven through its heart if it had one. No the bill is not perfect will not please everyone but it is certainly a leap forward from where we were. to me it seems like an oxymoran "a for profit health care industry" Why should they be for profit? I mean one term counterdicts the other. & as far as the mandate its kinda like the auto insurance it is for the good of the whole, just sayin
Chomsky: Health bill sustains the system’s core ills
Despite its flaws, 'I'd hold my nose and vote for' reform, intellectual tells Raw Story
PS.
Study the symptoms not the virus...
"I'm sorry to see that so many of you are "celebrating" a bill that to me is nothing more than a bailout of yet another sorry Wall Street corporate monster that deserved nothing less than a stake through it's rotten heart."
Do you still have the gun in this video? :-O
Study the symptoms not the virus...
No, I never "had" the gun...a friend of mine let me use it.
And you can tell three things from that video:
1.) Sarah Palin/John McCain scared the ever living s&#t out of me.
2.) I supported Obama for POTUS.
3.) That I have absolutely NO idea how to handle a gun.
(P.S. Did you like the video?? I thought it was pretty funny....).
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Considering it was a Halloween thing, I thought it was very artistic and fitting. That's why I saved it in my favorites. ♥
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Regarding 3) it is a bit obvious. If you ever handle a gun again please remember 4 simple rules. I'm not bashing you, if you've never been taught, how would you know.
1)ALL firearms are ALWAYS loaded. Most accidents happen with an "unloaded" gun.
2)Always keep the firearm pointed in a safe direction.
3)Always be sure of your target and what lies beyond.
4)Always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
And if you have children/grandchildren please teach them the same. And I don't know if you support the NRA (although I could probably guess)but they have a program for young children that is excellent, they sell it cheap or provide it for free to pre-schools/day cares/elementary schools in most states. It's called the Eddie Eagle program they do not show any guns, or even mention the NRA in it at all, but it teaches children the don't touch/leave the room/tell an adult rules for youngsters, I highly recommend it.
Of 1,2, and 4 being violated by a trained person, luckily the damage done was no worse than it was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2442_rmiidY
the giddiness over this "incremental progress" is somewhat alarming. They act like something good was passed. Even though it might taste a little better with lettuce and mayo, a crap sandwich is still mostly crap.
his head is about to explode talking about the passing of the bill. Sputter, Sputter, Sputter….NOBODY wants this bill..Sputter, Sputter, Sputter…it will ruin the country! etc.etc.etc. Meh!
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
In the next few days or weeks, the insurance and pharma companies will stop making political contributions to secure votes against the bill. We'll then stop hearing this nonsense.
And by then, the GOP will have sucked out more money from the teabillies.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Priceless! Thank you!
Uh...not quite...about 13 state attorney generals have already filed suit against enacting this law in their state, in apparent violation of Article VI, and Amendment XIV. They're all republicans.
Normally I'd say knock yourself out; the courts are likely to throw such suits out as being without merit, and once the legal bills start stacking up your state will kick your sorry ass out.
But since Citizens United v FEC, the corporations aren't targeting major elections (yet) but off the radar judge elections, according to Bill Moyer. So these cases could possibly rise up to the Supreme Court level where we have conservative activists ensconced.
They will all likely open online legal accounts to plead for money to continue their suits.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Not a bad strategy since if they can push it all the way up to the SC, there is a good chance the right-leaning court could side with Republitards, um i mean state's rights peeps.
As Republicans gear up for a campaign to repeal this "government takeover" of health care, I sending my two Arizona senators, John McCain and John Kyle, some campaign donations ... in Monopoly money.
LMAO
I think my definition is the complete opposite of the definition that conservatives commonly use. Being asked to make small sacrifices to benefit your neighbors, and ultimately yourself in ways that might not be immediately apparent, is not indicative of a nanny state. A nanny state is bending people to your will via fear and intimidation.
from imaginary and created threats.
http://www.bible.ca/marriage/spanking-cupid.jpg
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
"Being asked to make small sacrifices to benefit your neighbors" What happens if your answer is no?
Jebus Christmas, do these guys even listen to themselves whining? The parabolic nonsense is overwhelmingly silly! Sour grapes and hard cheese.. What an apetizer! Ba, huh ha ha there Pawlenty!
Brie and Chardonnay?
Très chic.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
My question is, why does the media just sit there and listen to this pathetic drivel that is so EASILY refutable and say NOTHING to push back the blatant lies?
I'm not satisfied with this bill, but think of it this way, the Obama bill is a beat up 1955 Ford Lincoln Ventura that could be redesigned by a a new George Barris into this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uerDqAIjins
All it would take is some tweaking here and there that won't get near the attention, or the teabaggers nonsense, but only if we keep electing Democrats.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I live in Washington State and our Republican AG joined the suit without even notifying our Governor or Legislature. Our Governor was on TV last night and was outraged over this. Washington is a blue state and most of out Reps and both Senators supported HCR. The population here is not going to be on board with our AG. People want better healthcare options. I can't help but believe that he has been pressured by the National GOP to get on board. I see his potlical future circling the drain in this state. He better have national ambitions because this will finish him here.
I do not want to be forced to buy health insurance!
WTF
Car insurance is optional
No car no insurance
No access to any public health facility without demonstration of adequate ability to pay before treatment commences.
Same thing as no car.
If you are broke, we won't fix you without cash up front. Or good credit.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Pay Pay Pay
I go to the MD 2 times a year
pay $80 each time
RX = Cash
Hope you haven't filled out the Census form yet, thats how they'll find you to make sure you PAY.
O_o watch your back O_o
I hope that when everyone sees those Google ads on this site from FreedomWorks and the like that they click on them and "sign up" with a message from the reality-based community. They have to pay every time someone clicks.... fyi...
We have no public transportation here we haven't had any since I was a child. Republicans don't like spending money on things that actually help people. So unless you live where there is good public transportation you are forced to buy auto insurance.
I personally think that insurance is the biggest ripoff ever put over on the people. The second biggest fraud was everything the bush cabal did.
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness it has killed the economy and god only kows how many people!
God damn the GOP!
They don't want to put everyone on a level playing field and have everyone treated in an equal manner.
Conservatives want to bend the rules to their favor and when it goes against them, they'll just whine and complain that the rules are unfair.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
network of co-opted media outlets. Please don't conflate it with the GOP's noise machine, Susie. It's inaccurate and unhelpful to those of us who are trying to keep track of who's catapulting propaganda at us.
Where was Paw Paw when Bush was pushing 2 expensive budget busting failed wars down our throats?
Part of Pawlenty staffer's pay came from license plate funds
He was caught stealing/redirecting money from vets and pushing his preacher friends and the values crooks. Their main concern is the value of their bank accounts... make no mistake about it!
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Just wondering if the inhabitants of those 13 states can sue to recover frivolously wasted taxpayer money? The fact that most states have budget shortfalls--which have to be made up with higher taxes-- would preclude a prolonged courtroom battle anyway...and the put-upon taxpayers would be howling for Republican blood. Gee, now that I think about it, these stupid lawsuits might be an added bonus for Democrats.
They want to assert their unalienable right to watch people die on their terms... their Creator says they can, haven't you heard/noticed?
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Why can't the teabaggers and GOP get over the mantra "no government takeover of my health care." Isn't regulating the health insurance industry different from a total government takeover of the health care system? - Bill Maher said last week that this bill still represents capitalism.
The individual mandate is an "unprecedented overreach by the federal government forcing individual citizens to buy a good or a service for no other reason then they happen to be alive or a person," Republican governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty said today on "Good Morning America." Uh, wasn't that a Ronald Reagan idea? Reagan the patron Saint of Republithugs presented that idea when he was discussing healthcare reform... back in the day. Why does Tim Pawlenty hate Ronald Reagan?
http://www.republithugs.com
.
Is required by law if you drive a car in the united states. where is the argument on the constitutionality of that? Last time I checked, the government doesn't provide car insurance, so we're being "forced" to pay for a private service every month, are we not?
The fight that republicans have put up against this (very) compromised bill, would have been doubled if it were proposed as a health tax. It would have been nice to see a public option, but this law is a start.
is "if you drive a car". If you don't drive a car, do you still have to purchase auto insurance?
Is it true or not that liability insurance represents a government mandate to buy into a private service?
if I decide to participate in driving an auto. That is a choice I can make, or not, depending on what I want to do. Please explain how choosing to participate in an action where the government has placed a law regulating that participation is equivlant to mandating the entire populace to purchase a private product?
Comments are closed on this entry