Is proven to be another lie

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles...8165656854

Quote:Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

Bump.


This is f'ed up. Robert? Mach? Any of you libs wanna try to defend this?

Wonder how many congressmen actually read the damn thing... I'm sure (hope?) the insurance lobby has shifted into high gear.

(07-16-2009 03:50 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Bump.


This is f'ed up. Robert? Mach? Any of you libs wanna try to defend this?

Quote:The bill does not outlaw private insurance, of course. It just shifts its issuance to the Exchange so it can be regulated under ERISA rather than McCarran-Ferguson. But to someone who suffers from legal illiteracy and a case of the paranoids, taking page 16 out of context means you arrive at the erroneous conclusion "ObamaCare outlaws private insurance!", which was boldly published in a national forum without the slightest attempt to validate the conclusion with, well, somebody who knows even the tiniest bit about health insurance regulation and how the new bill interacts with the current regulatory framework.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7...-insurance

Wow! Another President Hussein broken promise, "you'll have choice if you like the plan you have at your current job you can move it with you".

(07-16-2009 05:39 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(07-16-2009 03:50 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Bump.
This is f'ed up. Robert? Mach? Any of you libs wanna try to defend this?

Quote:The bill does not outlaw private insurance, of course. It just shifts its issuance to the Exchange so it can be regulated under ERISA rather than McCarran-Ferguson. But to someone who suffers from legal illiteracy and a case of the paranoids, taking page 16 out of context means you arrive at the erroneous conclusion "ObamaCare outlaws private insurance!", which was boldly published in a national forum without the slightest attempt to validate the conclusion with, well, somebody who knows even the tiniest bit about health insurance regulation and how the new bill interacts with the current regulatory framework.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7...-insurance

It's going to take more than some partisan wonk on Daily Kos to convince me that the very plain language of a portion of the statute does not mean what a literal reading of it would imply. Particularly when the explanation given is that it is an attempt to work around a problem that shouldn't be a problem in the first place. And FYI I do know quite a bit about health care reulation.

I will agree that this provision does not make private health insurance illegal per se, and for conservative writers to claim that is a bit disingenuous. What it does do is introduce some practical constraints that effectively would serve as barriers against private insurance in the future. And the explanation that this is done to bring insurance under ERISA is most unsatisfying. That just means that the way is cleared for unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats to destroy private health care without anyone even noticing.

If Shrub hadn't been such a dolt, I don't believe the American people would ever have fallen for this pack of lies.

I need something besides kos to convince me this means something other than what it says.

Good news.


Centrist Dem Leader: Has Committee Votes To Block Health Bill


By Martin Vaughan, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.

"Last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee," Ross told reporters after a House vote. "We had seven against it last Friday; we have 10 today."

Three House committees are slated to begin considering the $1 trillion-plus bill this week, but the Energy and Commerce looms as the biggest challenge. That's because it counts among its 36 Democratic members seven members of the Blue Dog Coalition, a fiscally conservative bloc that is opposing the House Democrats' effort.

Ross said the bill, introduced Wednesday by House Democratic leaders, doesn't include provisions adequate to curb rising health care costs, including what the government spends on healthcare.

"The current bill would have to be substantially amended before we could consider supporting it," Ross said.

The Energy and Commerce panel is scheduled to meet Thursday afternoon to kick off its review of the legislation, but its session is expected to stretch into late next week.

Ross said Blue Dogs have been meeting every day to craft amendments that will be offered during that meeting, but offered no details on what those amendments are. He said those amendments could number in the dozens.

Ross said he expects Blue Dogs will meet with the panel's chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., soon to discuss their specific proposed changes.

-By Martin Vaughan, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9244; martin.vaughan@ dowjones.com

(END) Dow Jones Newswires
07-15-091403ET
Copyright © 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

The blue dogs may end up being the salvation of the country. They're pretty much all that's standing between us and ruin now. Fortunately they're probably the one group whose views come closest to mine.

(07-16-2009 06:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-16-2009 05:39 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(07-16-2009 03:50 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Bump.
This is f'ed up. Robert? Mach? Any of you libs wanna try to defend this?

Quote:The bill does not outlaw private insurance, of course. It just shifts its issuance to the Exchange so it can be regulated under ERISA rather than McCarran-Ferguson. But to someone who suffers from legal illiteracy and a case of the paranoids, taking page 16 out of context means you arrive at the erroneous conclusion "ObamaCare outlaws private insurance!", which was boldly published in a national forum without the slightest attempt to validate the conclusion with, well, somebody who knows even the tiniest bit about health insurance regulation and how the new bill interacts with the current regulatory framework.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7...-insurance

It's going to take more than some partisan wonk on Daily Kos to convince me that the very plain language of a portion of the statute does not mean what a literal reading of it would imply. Particularly when the explanation given is that it is an attempt to work around a problem that shouldn't be a problem in the first place. And FYI I do know quite a bit about health care reulation.

I will agree that this provision does not make private health insurance illegal per se, and for conservative writers to claim that is a bit disingenuous. What it does do is introduce some practical constraints that effectively would serve as barriers against private insurance in the future. And the explanation that this is done to bring insurance under ERISA is most unsatisfying. That just means that the way is cleared for unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats to destroy private health care without anyone even noticing.

If Shrub hadn't been such a dolt, I don't believe the American people would ever have fallen for this pack of lies.

This.

(07-16-2009 07:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The blue dogs may end up being the salvation of the country. They're pretty much all that's standing between us and ruin now. Fortunately they're probably the one group whose views come closest to mine.

I wouldn't put much stock in these guys. Pelosi and co. will just sweeten the pot for them with big money for big projects in their districts and like dominos, over they'll go. Then we'll be paying billions for the lack of health care plus the billions it will take to buy their votes.

(07-16-2009 04:01 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Wonder how many congressmen actually read the damn thing... I'm sure (hope?) the insurance lobby has shifted into high gear.

So you haven't heard? THey are spending 10 million+ a day on lobbying.

(07-17-2009 12:01 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(07-16-2009 07:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The blue dogs may end up being the salvation of the country. They're pretty much all that's standing between us and ruin now. Fortunately they're probably the one group whose views come closest to mine.

I wouldn't put much stock in these guys. Pelosi and co. will just sweeten the pot for them with big money for big projects in their districts and like dominos, over they'll go. Then we'll be paying billions for the lack of health care plus the billions it will take to buy their votes.

That's a risk. That's why I said "may." A lot of them cannot get re-elected if they cave, and that will be a factor.

(07-17-2009 03:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2009 12:01 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(07-16-2009 07:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The blue dogs may end up being the salvation of the country. They're pretty much all that's standing between us and ruin now. Fortunately they're probably the one group whose views come closest to mine.

I wouldn't put much stock in these guys. Pelosi and co. will just sweeten the pot for them with big money for big projects in their districts and like dominos, over they'll go. Then we'll be paying billions for the lack of health care plus the billions it will take to buy their votes.

That's a risk. That's why I said "may." A lot of them cannot get re-elected if they cave, and that will be a factor.

I got a Robo Call last night from some organization urging me to call my Congressman and tell him to vote for "Health Care Security" for everyone.

Let the arm twisting begin.

(07-16-2009 04:01 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Wonder how many congressmen actually read the damn thing... I'm sure (hope?) the insurance lobby has shifted into high gear.

all the Congressmen get "Free Healthcare" for life anyway, most probably don't care unless it could make them lose their jobs/power

(07-17-2009 01:58 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-16-2009 04:01 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Wonder how many congressmen actually read the damn thing... I'm sure (hope?) the insurance lobby has shifted into high gear.

So you haven't heard? THey are spending 10 million+ a day on lobbying.

But you see Robs, here in lies the Rub ...

Fearful Leader said and I Quote: "I will NOT ALLOW LOBBYIST" ....

Promise Number 9,999 B-R-O-K-E-N ......

.