|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Aug 31, 2009 14:46:48 GMT -5
The people who are arguing against it are doing so for their OWN selfish purposes. How many of you out there have earned $750,000,000 million dollars in the last 10 years? If I had that much money I guess I could afford to be cavalier about health care too. www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7l1dmVjEkY
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Aug 31, 2009 15:04:37 GMT -5
The truth is worse than what Hollywood could make up.
All these damn settlements and they continue to operate, continue to thrive, continue to have wide influence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Warner Fite on Aug 31, 2009 15:20:23 GMT -5
The people who are arguing against it are doing so for their OWN selfish purposes. How many of you out there have earned $750,000,000 million dollars in the last 10 years? If I had that much money I guess I could afford to be cavalier about health care too. www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7l1dmVjEkY exactly... |
|
|
|
Post by Dasani on Sept 4, 2009 2:42:08 GMT -5
*SMH*
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Sept 14, 2009 15:06:36 GMT -5
Wow and SMDH!!!! From the DC rally this weekend.....  |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Sept 14, 2009 15:15:31 GMT -5
I saw that too. Shows you the calibre of people we're dealing with. You don't have to be a Jedi to feel the "hatred". And at their core - that's who they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chal™ on Sept 14, 2009 15:34:23 GMT -5
omg, are you serious? When will people realize that everyone's finances are not the same. some of us po folks might need a lil help. $750,000,000.00??? right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 21, 2010 22:57:57 GMT -5
And it passed!
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 22, 2010 6:38:28 GMT -5
*Laughing at all Republicans, Tea Baggers, and Fear Mongers that fought reform*
Perhaps they really did feel like it was ok for insurer's to game the system at the expense of the consumer. Thankfully not all people felt that way. And frankly I think the Republicans are in FAR worst spot than they were before.
You have fought reform, mischaracterized it, lied about it, obfuscated and dragged your feet, and NOW it's going into law. What happens when people see that the reforms actually work to their benefit? What happens when the draconian predictions Republicans made in order to stop refrom do not come to pass? When there are no death panels and no government take overs of Health Care - what then? You won't be able to tell people that they AREN'T benefitting. Now you'll have to explain why you opposed it.
I look forward to Republicans continuing on in their refrain that America doesn't want reform. Keep on saying it. Bank on that in November. Let that be your resume. I am a Republican and I opposed the Health Care Reform that will reduce the deficit and help the middle class. Yes - please - continue on.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Mar 22, 2010 7:12:34 GMT -5
Even though what passed in the House was the Senate version, now the Senators will suddenly not be in favor of their own bill. I bet you. Politics I tell ya.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Mar 22, 2010 7:40:36 GMT -5
They also passed some pretty significant student loan overhauls that's aren't getting any press at all.
House boosts college aid for students in need
By JIM KUHNHENN
The Associated Press
11:46 p.m. Sunday, March 21, 2010
WASHINGTON — Riding the coattails of a historic health care vote, the House on Sunday also passed a broad reorganization of college aid that affects millions of students and moves President Barack Obama closer to winning yet another of his top domestic policies.
The bill rewrites a four-decades-old student loan program, eliminating its reliance on private lenders and uses the savings to direct $36 billion in new spending to Pell Grants for students in financial need.
In the biggest piece of education legislation since No Child Left Behind nine years ago, the bill would also provide more than $4 billion to historically black colleges and community colleges.
The bill was paired with the expedited health care bill, a marriage of convenience that helped the prospects of each measure. That combined measure passed 220-211.
"We are pairing this historic health reform with another opportunity that cannot be missed — the chance to make the single largest investment in college affordability ever at no cost to the taxpayers," said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif.
The Senate will take up the bill next week under the same expedited rules used for health care legislation. That means the Senate can pass the education measure by a simple majority, virtually guaranteeing its success despite qualms from some Democrats and opposition from Republicans.
House lawmakers passed the bill last year, but in the Senate it did not have 60 votes to overcome a near certain filibuster. By riding shotgun on the fast-track health care bill, the legislation now can avoid that obstacle.
Still, Obama won't get the Pell Grant expansion he initially sought. Congressional Democrats had to trim their original spending plans when the 10-year savings realized by switching to direct government loans dropped from $87 billion to $61 billion.
Private lenders have conducted an all-out lobbying effort against the bill, arguing it would cost thousands of jobs and unnecessarily put the program in the hands of the government.
America's Student Loan Providers, a trade group representing lenders, called for the Senate to reject the measure. "This is not the final chapter," the group said in a statement. "The Senate now has the historic opportunity to pass health reform — without eliminating thousands of jobs and critical student services."
Under the college lending program, financial institutions provide college loans at low interest rates, the government guarantees the loans in the event of default and subsidizes private lenders when necessary to keep rates low.
"By moving to the federal government's direct loan program, we will put the best interests of students first and make college loans more reliable and affordable," said Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, D-Texas, the chairman of a House higher education subcommittee.
In addition to using the $61 billion in savings from that change for Pell Grants and higher education institutions, the legislation would direct about $19 billion for deficit reduction and to offset expenses in the health care legislation.
Besides increasing Pell Grants, the bill provides $1.5 billion to make it easier for student borrowers to repay their loans. Beginning in 2014, borrowers would be allowed to devote no more than 10 percent of their monthly income to repay student loans. The current cap is 15 percent.
Still, the legislation is not as generous as the bill the House passed last year. The bill had anticipated far more spending on community colleges and had called for increasing the Pell Grants each year by the consumer price index plus 1 percent. Democrats had to scrap the additional 1 percent increase.
Instead, the bill proposes no increases in Pell Grants over the next two years and a modest increase over the five years that follow. The maximum Pell Grant, which a House-passed bill last year would have raised to $6,900 over 10 years, will now only increase to $5,900. The current maximum grant for the coming school year is $5,500.
What's more, a poor jobs market that has driven potential workers to colleges and technical schools has put a strain on the Pell Grant program. Of the $36 billion destined for Pell Grants, $13.5 billion would help fill a $19 billion Pell Grant shortfall.
Following Republican criticism, Democrats dropped a provision in the new bill that would have allowed the state-owned Bank of North Dakota to continue making federally financed student loans to students.
"That's out, end of the story," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 22, 2010 7:42:12 GMT -5
We'll be hearing about it more and more in the coming months, weeks, and days 91. The Republicans will have some explaining to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Mar 22, 2010 7:58:03 GMT -5
I'm really interested to see how they're going to curb Medicare/Medicaid fraud. EVERYBODY and their momma is getting a piece of that pie and folks are not going to give up those reimbursements without a strong fight.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 22, 2010 8:00:42 GMT -5
I'm really interested to see how they're going to curb Medicare/Medicaid fraud. EVERYBODY and their momma is getting a piece of that pie and folks are not going to give up those reimbursements without a strong fight. |
|
|
|
Post by Robelite on Mar 22, 2010 8:45:50 GMT -5
Right makes Might!! Yesterday's historic legislation was a victory for America! Try as they might, the wingnutfreaks spewed every lie, conspiracy theory and racist and hate-filled epithet they could come up with, but after all the dust settled, our leaders (minus repubbas) did what was best for this nation. And while the president will be credited for his outstanding leadership in this effort (which he surely deserves,) Speaker Pelosi's stock has gone up as well! She had a task set before here, and she did not deter from it.
And all this gloom and doom about what will happen to democrats in November...don't fall for it folks! This legislation will energize the left and its constituency will hit the polls en masse! If the wingnuts think they are lost now, just wait until after these midterm elections.
On this morning we can truly say GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 22, 2010 10:07:52 GMT -5
I'm on a political message board right now and let me tell you - those dudes are DE-MORA-LIZED. They got served and they know it. That is why they are reacting so intensely. They are angered and frustrated, that their anger and frustration didn't stop the bill. They can't seem to wrap their hands around reality.
To them, they were louder, so they were right. America agreed with them... the proof was in the volume of their anger. They still don't realize a new day is upon them. I mean being loud and boisterous worked in Florida in 2000 why won't it work now? It won't because it doesn't anymore - your old bully tactics don't - work - anymore. And you can keep on attacking opposing politicians like Joe Wilson and the other mystery coward who called Stupak a baby killer... but you expose yourselves for what you are... an unintelligent low brow ham fisted mob unfit to lead or serve America.
And here it is again - they are being put back in their place by a black man and a liberal woman. I mean it is absolutely GALLING them today to have to swallow this. They just keep going on and on about November pay backs... and I'm asking...
...which one of you all wants to stand up in November and say that you fought AGAINST legislation that would prevent Insurance companies from deny coverage to children? LOL... yeah - you all keep right on going with that anger and frustration. See where that gets you in 2010.
When the elections roll around, the Democrats will be able to say that they did SOMETHING for Americans. What will the wingnuts say? They spent political capital too you know - they just spent it on a losing cause, for a bill that will only become MORE and MORE popular. It's as low as it can get right now with all the Republican Demonizations. But when the reality of Health Care Reform sets in, and people see that there was more truth in what the Democrats were saying than what the Republicans were saying - when they see there won't be death panels or sex orgies - what will be the position of the Republicans then?
Will they THEN try to take credit for the bill that they've been trying for a year to kill - and not even on the sake of merit - but for the sake of weakening the President?
If you are a moderate or to the left you have GOT to be loving this. This is a HISTORIC moment and it is KILLING the naysayers, n'er do wells, and party of obstruction right now. LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 22, 2010 10:24:26 GMT -5
Wonder what the Tea Party folks are doing now, lol! Also, I'm hoping Rush Limbaugh is packing his bags as I type this cause he said if the bill passes, he is leaving America. Rush, got your passport? LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 22, 2010 10:33:07 GMT -5
LOL @ Juicy. He did say that didn't he? Ole Windbag. Speaking of Radio Talk heads. Here is what David Frum said about the passage of Health Care Reform (David was a speech writer for George Bush) He's saying almost EXACTLY what I'm saying. www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/22/health-care-reactions-fir_n_507753.htmlConservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s. It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. [...] No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal? We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. [...] So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Mar 22, 2010 10:51:30 GMT -5
Are we jumping the gun a bit?
1) Doesn't the Senate have to pass the amendments?Is it guaranteed that they will do so without a filibuster?
2) The bulkof the changes don't take place for 4 years. Unless Obama ups his communications game, the opponents will intensify their misinformation to the American public and he'll be out of office by the time benefits kick in.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 22, 2010 11:33:43 GMT -5
Are we jumping the gun a bit? 1) Doesn't the Senate have to pass the amendments?Is it guaranteed that they will do so without a filibuster? 2) The bulkof the changes don't take place for 4 years. Unless Obama ups his communications game, the opponents will intensify their misinformation to the American public and he'll be out of office by the time benefits kick in.
But as for the larger battle, i.e. The Battle over Heath Care Reform - it's over. It's coming whether Republicans want it or not |
|
|
|
Post by Robelite on Mar 22, 2010 12:22:56 GMT -5
Are we jumping the gun a bit? 1) Doesn't the Senate have to pass the amendments?Is it guaranteed that they will do so without a filibuster? 2) The bulkof the changes don't take place for 4 years. Unless Obama ups his communications game, the opponents will intensify their misinformation to the American public and he'll be out of office by the time benefits kick in.
But as for the larger battle, i.e. The Battle over Heath Care Reform - it's over. It's coming whether Republicans want it or not [/size] ...and there it is!! BTW, I read that op-ed of David Frum's on The Huffington Post early this morning. You couldn't describe the devastation this defeat has on the wingers any better than that! |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 22, 2010 12:57:06 GMT -5
They are passing the "fix it" bill via reconcillation - there is no opportunity for filibuster. The Health Care Reform Bill is ALREADY sitting on Obama's desk, the Senate already passed it Dec. 24. Once he signs it - it's a done deal - it's law of the land. The only thing they can hold up is the fix-it bill - which was intended to modify the larger Health Care Reform Bill (taking out some of the kick backs etc) - it would only require 51 votes via reconcilliation, but the Senate would have to approve the bill too, and to get it done by reconcilliation there are apparently strict rules on what can be passed and how the bill can be modified.
But as for the larger battle, i.e. The Battle over Heath Care Reform - it's over. It's coming whether Republicans want it or not [/size] ...and there it is!! BTW, I read that op-ed of David Frum's on The Huffington Post early this morning. You couldn't describe the devastation this defeat has on the wingers any better than that! [/quote] They are wallowing in it - doomsday predicting anything and everything is their last bastion of hope. What we need to understand is like I said earlier (and David Frum said it too) - it's not getting repealed. From here on out it only gets more popular. The best they can hope to do is to try to get some credit on Obama's next iniative - which will probably be more on jobs (people keep mentioning Immigration Reform but I have doubts if that's the one he'll pick)
They tried to make this Obama's waterloo - and instead it became theirs. It also takes one more arrow out of their quiver the oft heard refrain, "what change? He hasn't done anything". What say ye now fair wingnuts? LOL. This is almost as sweet as him being elected in the first place.
You should go read hillaryis44.org to see their contortions. They revel in the thought of victory only to be resoundingly defeated time and time again. For them (the PUMA) it was Hillary losing the nomination, then Barack winning the Presidency, now it's Health Care. It is HI-LARIOUS |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 22, 2010 14:13:30 GMT -5
Well some argue that it is the socialization of Health Care. Some also think that this measure will make the entire system inefficient citing Medicare as an example.
This is really a fight over money with the pharmaceutical industry. It's looking bleak for them with the FDA making it harder for drugs to come out of the pipeline and now this. It was also a way for the federal government to push the digitalization of all medical records which personally I'm against. In all I think this measure will do more hurt in the short term.
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 22, 2010 14:59:04 GMT -5
The major factors for this bill for me, is that insurance companies can't kick me off just because they feel like it, everyone can get health insurance regardless if they have pre-existing conditions or not (is it the person's fault they were born with luekmia (sp?) or any other type of disease? They are being punished for that? Seriously? Isn't the diease enough?) and that children can stay on their parents' health care longer because lets be real, not that many students coming out of college are going straight to jobs that provide the bomb heatlh care.
AND, I love the fact that you can get health care regardless if you are employed or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 22, 2010 15:11:01 GMT -5
In with all those things you just mentioned premiums will be high as chit. More people getting insurance is like more money in circulation. We will see an inflation affect taking place. It's like Hospitals are already struggling with the shortfalls of nurses, technologist and in some instances doctors. Now you will have more people in the system. This will be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oren Ishii on Mar 22, 2010 15:46:02 GMT -5
Okay, I'll be the one to say it; I have some issues with this bill.
1. I shouldn't have to pay a penalty if I ELECT not to purchase insurance.
I've done a cost benefit analysis in re: to the cost of healthcare for me, and because I mitigate my health risks (eating properly, moderate exercise, etc), it's less expensive for me to pay for such expenses out of pocket, because I rarely have any, extending beyond my annual optometry, dental visits, etc.
2. Will this reform expand what is covered by most insurers?
I am naturopathic, so I don't take any synthethic pharmaceuticals. Will visits to an N.D. be regarded in the same manner as an M.D.? What about alternative (commonly called complementary) treatments for disease? Other preventative measures? Natural (whole) supplements - will they be subsidized in the same way as "traditional" Western medications?
If not, how does this plan benefit the millions of constituents who live like me?
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 22, 2010 15:52:40 GMT -5
I've heard people on tv, political blogs, and facebook ask the question about premiums will they go up. The answer is they already are. And they have been for some time... at rates that FAR outstrip inflation... which has been part of the reason why some have been saying we HAVE to enact some reform. www.prosperityagenda.us/node/3584
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 22, 2010 15:57:48 GMT -5
Okay, I'll be the one to sayit; I have some issues with this bill. 1. I shouldn't have to pay a penalty if I ELECT not to purchase insurance. I've done a cost benefit analysis in re: to the cost of healthcare for me, and because I mitigate my health risks (eating properly, moderate exercise, etc), it's less expensive for me to pay for such expenses out of pocket, because I rarely have any, extending beyond my annual optometry, dental visits, etc. 2. Will this reform expand what is covered by most insurers? I am naturopathic, so I don't take any synthethic pharmaceuticals. Will visits to an N.D. be regarded in the same manner as an M.D.? What about alternative (commonly called complementary) treatments for disease? Other preventative measures? Natural (whole) supplements - will they be subsidized in the same way as "traditional" Western medications? If not, how does this plan benefit the millions of constituents whole live like me? And there it is. I agree |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 22, 2010 16:11:10 GMT -5
Okay, I'll be the one to sayit; I have some issues with this bill. 1. I shouldn't have to pay a penalty if I ELECT not to purchase insurance. I've done a cost benefit analysis in re: to the cost of healthcare for me, and because I mitigate my health risks (eating properly, moderate exercise, etc), it's less expensive for me to pay for such expenses out of pocket, because I rarely have any, extending beyond my annual optometry, dental visits, etc. 2. Will this reform expand what is covered by most insurers? I am naturopathic, so I don't take any synthethic pharmaceuticals. Will visits to an N.D. be regarded in the same manner as an M.D.? What about alternative (commonly called complementary) treatments for disease? Other preventative measures? Natural (whole) supplements - will they be subsidized in the same way as "traditional" Western medications? If not, how does this plan benefit the millions of constituents whole live like me?
You may also feel like you're a safe driver or feel like the cost to benefit ratio suggests that you defer getting auto-insurance - however you assume risk... and unfortunately that risk is not constrained to just you.
If you wind up in an emergency room due to some accident or catastrophy, the costs of your care still have to be covered. And by electing to NOT purchase insurance, if you are unable to pay out of pocket, the cost is subsumed by those of us who DO pay insurance. Your risks affect more than just you.
Now with this new insurance bill, the one thing I can say is that out of pocket costs are capped. I believe that is one of the features of the bill that begins early on once it's signed, but I can absolutely understand the idea for a mandate. |
|
|
|
Post by Oren Ishii on Mar 22, 2010 16:23:42 GMT -5
Yes, the penalty doesn't begin until 2014.
Okay, I get what you're saying with the auto insurance reference, BUT...
They will absolutely track your health insurance status. I've no doubt that it will, in some way, be linked to your tax info, SSN #, something that you are already mandated to have. [This speaks to my opinion on some privacy issues, but that's another conversation entirely.]
How would the assumption of cost under this plan be any different than what happens in the system now when a person can't pay?
My major concerns are listed in #2 above. If you are mandating that I make a purchase which I otherwise would exercise my own judgment in, one would be inclined to believe that the cost would have some benefit to me.
*I do not take medication.
*I do not consult a traditional MD, other than annual screenings, which I pay out of pocket.
*Given my financial situation, I will not qualify for the income exemption, and I have my own opinions of sharing religious/personal sentiments with the government.
*By 2016, the cost of the penalty will likely outweigh the cost to me of carrying my own health expenses, with "the system" offering me little benefit for my mandatory participation.
I know I'm not alone in these feelings. At this point, all I'm seeing are the broad strokes for people who desperately need healthcare. I'd like to see some fine print that applies to people like me.
|
|
{=}http://s2.images.proboards.com/cool.gif{/=}
