(03-17-2010 01:10 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 12:48 PM)klake87 Wrote:  I will be SOL when rationing happens.

I dont understand this fear. Health care is already rationed by your provider. Or it is rationed by your own inability to pay for a procedure.

Healthcare is also rationed based largely upon where you live, rural hospitals cannot offer anywhere near the expertise in specialized treatment as larger urban hospitals can. Many rural folks have to travel 100 miles or more to a hospital that can treat them for anything much beyond prescribing medications and setting a broken bone.

(03-17-2010 06:21 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 03:55 PM)cyberdawg Wrote:  conservative political commentator appeared on ctlt/wgn & made mention of the more prominent examples this morning at 6am.

Classic examplers years ago were raising the debt and banning smoking in certain facilities.

However, when it was used by the Repubs, it was for nothing nowhere as important (or as unpopular) as this.

This may not be popular in your tony upscale burb but most Americans would be wiped out financially if they got sick to the point where they couldn't work even if they had health insurance. Most polling shows that the majority of Americans favor Single Payor, at the very least a Public Option and this bill isn't even anywhere near the change that would be.

(03-19-2010 12:51 AM)onlinepole Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 06:21 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 03:55 PM)cyberdawg Wrote:  conservative political commentator appeared on ctlt/wgn & made mention of the more prominent examples this morning at 6am.

Classic examplers years ago were raising the debt and banning smoking in certain facilities.

However, when it was used by the Repubs, it was for nothing nowhere as important (or as unpopular) as this.

This may not be popular in your tony upscale burb but most Americans would be wiped out financially if they got sick to the point where they couldn't work even if they had health insurance. Most polling shows that the majority of Americans favor Single Payor, at the very least a Public Option and this bill isn't even anywhere near the change that would be.

Why don't the proponents of government run health care actually call it "government run health care" instead of obstructing it with a phrase like "single payor" (sic)?

Because they know that most Americans are against government run health care, so they change the name and hope noone asks, "who exactly is the single payer, and where does that money come from?". Coincidentally, the same applies to the phrase "pro-choice", which really means pro-abortion, and there will be no choice when it comes to tax payer funding of abortion, if this health care plan passes.

If the majority of Americans really wanted this nationialized health care plan, it would have passed already.

(03-19-2010 12:51 AM)onlinepole Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 06:21 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 03:55 PM)cyberdawg Wrote:  conservative political commentator appeared on ctlt/wgn & made mention of the more prominent examples this morning at 6am.

Classic examplers years ago were raising the debt and banning smoking in certain facilities.

However, when it was used by the Repubs, it was for nothing nowhere as important (or as unpopular) as this.

This may not be popular in your tony upscale burb but most Americans would be wiped out financially if they got sick to the point where they couldn't work even if they had health insurance. Most polling shows that the majority of Americans favor Single Payor, at the very least a Public Option and this bill isn't even anywhere near the change that would be.

Don't tell me where I live. My house is surrounded by corn fields.

Since you know it all, tell me how this bill changes your first point. Most people have some sort of disability insurance already. We have SS disability too. MOST Americans would not be wiped out.

Show me a poll where the there is a majority of the American public saying that they, individually, want to be covered by single payer. I'll be waiting. I anticipate that we'll hear back from you with facts around the same time we hear back from RobertN on all his claims.

(03-19-2010 12:45 AM)onlinepole Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 10:05 AM)klake87 Wrote:  The House is going to try and use the Slaughter Rule to pass healthcare. Instead of voting on the actual healthcare bill, they will vote on procedures and this will cause the bill to pass without voting on the actual bill.

On such an important issue as healthcare (1/6th of the economy) shouldn't a vote on the actual bill be required.

Also, I am disappointed in Kuchinich. Even though I don't agree with most of his positions, at least he did not waiver from his beliefs. With healthcare, he has.

It's called Reconciliation. W and the rethugs did it a number of times during his 8 years. Elections have consequences, deal with it!

It is called deem and pass, which is not reconciliation. Try doing a little reading.

(03-19-2010 09:12 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-19-2010 12:45 AM)onlinepole Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 10:05 AM)klake87 Wrote:  

It's called Reconciliation. W and the rethugs did it a number of times during his 8 years. Elections have consequences, deal with it!

It is called deem and pass, which is not reconciliation. Try doing a little reading.

Stop your pissing and moaning mr hastert, the only reading that needs to be done is the vote total on this bill when it passes. Elections have consequences if you don't like what's happening that get off your Dupa and work toward the next election cycle.

(03-19-2010 08:55 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-19-2010 12:51 AM)onlinepole Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 06:21 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 03:55 PM)cyberdawg Wrote:  conservative political commentator appeared on ctlt/wgn & made mention of the more prominent examples this morning at 6am.

Classic examplers years ago were raising the debt and banning smoking in certain facilities.

However, when it was used by the Repubs, it was for nothing nowhere as important (or as unpopular) as this.

This may not be popular in your tony upscale burb but most Americans would be wiped out financially if they got sick to the point where they couldn't work even if they had health insurance. Most polling shows that the majority of Americans favor Single Payor, at the very least a Public Option and this bill isn't even anywhere near the change that would be.

Why don't the proponents of government run health care actually call it "government run health care" instead of obstructing it with a phrase like "single payor" (sic)?

Because they know that most Americans are against government run health care, so they change the name and hope noone asks, "who exactly is the single payer, and where does that money come from?". Coincidentally, the same applies to the phrase "pro-choice", which really means pro-abortion, and there will be no choice when it comes to tax payer funding of abortion, if this health care plan passes.

If the majority of Americans really wanted this nationialized health care plan, it would have passed already.

You are right that they don't use "government" but NOT because people don't want a "government option".

As for the pro-choice crap, there are very few people that are "pro-abortion". Most want there to be as few as possible but still have the option available.

(03-19-2010 10:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  As for the pro-choice crap, there are very few people that are "pro-abortion". Most want there to be as few as possible but still have the option available.

I would normally tend to agree with you that most people want as few abortions as possible.

However, read this Stupak interview, in the context of the "health care" bill debate.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q...ZlZDQ5NTY=

(03-19-2010 10:22 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-19-2010 10:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  As for the pro-choice crap, there are very few people that are "pro-abortion". Most want there to be as few as possible but still have the option available.

I would normally tend to agree with you that most people want as few abortions as possible.

However, read this Stupak interview, in the context of the "health care" bill debate.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q...ZlZDQ5NTY=

My view on abortion is this: People should have free choice. I don't want to have to pay for kids that someone else does not want but I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for murdering fetuses. Terminating a life is murder. Those who get abortions have to live with it.

(03-19-2010 10:22 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-19-2010 10:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  As for the pro-choice crap, there are very few people that are "pro-abortion". Most want there to be as few as possible but still have the option available.

I would normally tend to agree with you that most people want as few abortions as possible.

However, read this Stupak interview, in the context of the "health care" bill debate.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q...ZlZDQ5NTY=

Quote:What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

They do not respect life on the other side either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sp-VFBbjpE

Of course, if you are a mass murderer or a terrorist, THEN they want to keep you alive.

Representative King from Iowa had a good line.

For decades they have said women should have freedom of choice over their bodies to get abortions. Now they want to require everyone to buy insurance. So we no longer have freedom over our bodies?

(03-19-2010 10:04 AM)onlinepole Wrote:  It's called Reconciliation. W and the rethugs did it a number of times during his 8 years. Elections have consequences, deal with it!

It is called deem and pass, which is not reconciliation. Try doing a little reading.
[/quote]

Stop your pissing and moaning mr hastert, the only reading that needs to be done is the vote total on this bill when it passes. Elections have consequences if you don't like what's happening that get off your Dupa and work toward the next election cycle.
[/quote]

What vote? There isn't going to be one on the bill.

(03-19-2010 10:22 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-19-2010 10:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  As for the pro-choice crap, there are very few people that are "pro-abortion". Most want there to be as few as possible but still have the option available.

I would normally tend to agree with you that most people want as few abortions as possible.

However, read this Stupak interview, in the context of the "health care" bill debate.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q...ZlZDQ5NTY=

Comments from a member of "The Family" on a rightwing rag? Yeah, that will change my mind.

(03-19-2010 10:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-19-2010 08:55 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-19-2010 12:51 AM)onlinepole Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 06:21 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 03:55 PM)cyberdawg Wrote:  conservative political commentator appeared on ctlt/wgn & made mention of the more prominent examples this morning at 6am.

Classic examplers years ago were raising the debt and banning smoking in certain facilities.

However, when it was used by the Repubs, it was for nothing nowhere as important (or as unpopular) as this.

This may not be popular in your tony upscale burb but most Americans would be wiped out financially if they got sick to the point where they couldn't work even if they had health insurance. Most polling shows that the majority of Americans favor Single Payor, at the very least a Public Option and this bill isn't even anywhere near the change that would be.

Why don't the proponents of government run health care actually call it "government run health care" instead of obstructing it with a phrase like "single payor" (sic)?

Because they know that most Americans are against government run health care, so they change the name and hope noone asks, "who exactly is the single payer, and where does that money come from?". Coincidentally, the same applies to the phrase "pro-choice", which really means pro-abortion, and there will be no choice when it comes to tax payer funding of abortion, if this health care plan passes.

If the majority of Americans really wanted this nationialized health care plan, it would have passed already.

You are right that they don't use "government" but NOT because people don't want a "government option".

As for the pro-choice crap, there are very few people that are "pro-abortion". Most want there to be as few as possible but still have the option available.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that? Name one thing the baby killing left has done to reduce the number of abortions.

Name one thing The Anointed One has done to decrease abortions.

(03-19-2010 12:47 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-19-2010 10:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-19-2010 08:55 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-19-2010 12:51 AM)onlinepole Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 06:21 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 03:55 PM)cyberdawg Wrote:  conservative political commentator appeared on ctlt/wgn & made mention of the more prominent examples this morning at 6am.

Classic examplers years ago were raising the debt and banning smoking in certain facilities.

However, when it was used by the Repubs, it was for nothing nowhere as important (or as unpopular) as this.

This may not be popular in your tony upscale burb but most Americans would be wiped out financially if they got sick to the point where they couldn't work even if they had health insurance. Most polling shows that the majority of Americans favor Single Payor, at the very least a Public Option and this bill isn't even anywhere near the change that would be.

Why don't the proponents of government run health care actually call it "government run health care" instead of obstructing it with a phrase like "single payor" (sic)?

Because they know that most Americans are against government run health care, so they change the name and hope noone asks, "who exactly is the single payer, and where does that money come from?". Coincidentally, the same applies to the phrase "pro-choice", which really means pro-abortion, and there will be no choice when it comes to tax payer funding of abortion, if this health care plan passes.

If the majority of Americans really wanted this nationialized health care plan, it would have passed already.

You are right that they don't use "government" but NOT because people don't want a "government option".

As for the pro-choice crap, there are very few people that are "pro-abortion". Most want there to be as few as possible but still have the option available.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that? Name one thing the baby killing left has done to reduce the number of abortions.

Name one thing The Anointed One has done to decrease abortions.

He is for partial birth abortions. These should definitely be illegal. Delivery the living baby part of the way then stab his or her brain till it dies then finish delivery. No that is not murder.

Also, does anyone really believe that this bill will save 500 billion from medicare savings. When has government ever been more efficient. They are saying they will save 500 billion yet just signed a bill giving $230 billion to doctors for medicare underpayments.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

(03-19-2010 12:53 PM)klake87 Wrote:  Also, does anyone really believe that this bill will save 500 billion from medicare savings. When has government ever been more efficient. They are saying they will save 500 billion yet just signed a bill giving $230 billion to doctors for medicare underpayments.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Check out this link. It is a story about how the Democrats plan on putting the Medicare money back in at a later date. Medicare won't work without the money, but they need it out for this bill to make it look like it is balancing.


http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/E...ml?showall

The only way I see this bill saving money is if it results in a decrease in health care consumption.

- The bill will instantly give health care to some 30M Americans.
- There will no instant increase in capacity of doctors.
- The result is that people will have to wait months to get in to see a doctor.

In fact, some general practice doctors have been closing their practices because they're losing money. Many doctors can't accept Medicaid now because the expenses are orders of magnitude greater than the reimbursement. This likely will get worse with the government run health care, driving more doctors from general practice at a time when the number of insured increases dramatically. This is the reality of the health care bill being forced through Congress. It's typical for government, shove a bill through so you can say your got something done while ignoring the practicality and reality of the situation.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Medicare-f...l?x=0&.v=2


CBO says the bill INCREASES the deficit.

(03-19-2010 12:47 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-19-2010 10:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-19-2010 08:55 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-19-2010 12:51 AM)onlinepole Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 06:21 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 03:55 PM)cyberdawg Wrote:  conservative political commentator appeared on ctlt/wgn & made mention of the more prominent examples this morning at 6am.

Classic examplers years ago were raising the debt and banning smoking in certain facilities.

However, when it was used by the Repubs, it was for nothing nowhere as important (or as unpopular) as this.

This may not be popular in your tony upscale burb but most Americans would be wiped out financially if they got sick to the point where they couldn't work even if they had health insurance. Most polling shows that the majority of Americans favor Single Payor, at the very least a Public Option and this bill isn't even anywhere near the change that would be.

Why don't the proponents of government run health care actually call it "government run health care" instead of obstructing it with a phrase like "single payor" (sic)?

Because they know that most Americans are against government run health care, so they change the name and hope noone asks, "who exactly is the single payer, and where does that money come from?". Coincidentally, the same applies to the phrase "pro-choice", which really means pro-abortion, and there will be no choice when it comes to tax payer funding of abortion, if this health care plan passes.

If the majority of Americans really wanted this nationialized health care plan, it would have passed already.

You are right that they don't use "government" but NOT because people don't want a "government option".

As for the pro-choice crap, there are very few people that are "pro-abortion". Most want there to be as few as possible but still have the option available.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that? Name one thing the baby killing left has done to reduce the number of abortions.

Name one thing The Anointed One has done to decrease abortions.

Condoms and sex education. Not the stupid rightwing solution of "abstinence only". (note: abstinence should be part of sex ed but not be the only option offerered).

Funny how the right is so worried about "life", yet 40,000+ people die every year because they don't have healthcare coverage.

Btw, if we outlaw abortions how many of the kids will you adopt? Will you be willing to pay more in taxes to pay for all the kids that will end up on government aid? I didn't think so.

(03-20-2010 01:26 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-19-2010 12:47 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-19-2010 10:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-19-2010 08:55 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-19-2010 12:51 AM)onlinepole Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 06:21 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 03:55 PM)cyberdawg Wrote:  conservative political commentator appeared on ctlt/wgn & made mention of the more prominent examples this morning at 6am.

Classic examplers years ago were raising the debt and banning smoking in certain facilities.

However, when it was used by the Repubs, it was for nothing nowhere as important (or as unpopular) as this.

This may not be popular in your tony upscale burb but most Americans would be wiped out financially if they got sick to the point where they couldn't work even if they had health insurance. Most polling shows that the majority of Americans favor Single Payor, at the very least a Public Option and this bill isn't even anywhere near the change that would be.

Why don't the proponents of government run health care actually call it "government run health care" instead of obstructing it with a phrase like "single payor" (sic)?

Because they know that most Americans are against government run health care, so they change the name and hope noone asks, "who exactly is the single payer, and where does that money come from?". Coincidentally, the same applies to the phrase "pro-choice", which really means pro-abortion, and there will be no choice when it comes to tax payer funding of abortion, if this health care plan passes.

If the majority of Americans really wanted this nationialized health care plan, it would have passed already.

You are right that they don't use "government" but NOT because people don't want a "government option".

As for the pro-choice crap, there are very few people that are "pro-abortion". Most want there to be as few as possible but still have the option available.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that? Name one thing the baby killing left has done to reduce the number of abortions.

Name one thing The Anointed One has done to decrease abortions.

Condoms and sex education. Not the stupid rightwing solution of "abstinence only". (note: abstinence should be part of sex ed but not be the only option offerered).

Funny how the right is so worried about "life", yet 40,000+ people die every year because they don't have healthcare coverage.

Btw, if we outlaw abortions how many of the kids will you adopt? Will you be willing to pay more in taxes to pay for all the kids that will end up on government aid? I didn't think so.

So it's all about money. Now that everyone is going to get health insurance, I guess there is no more "need" for abortion, right? I hope that Obama will at least keep his promise to Stupak and forbid Obamacare money from funding abortion. The problem is that he has already broken so many promises, that I do not think I can trust him to keep that one. He has already shown his love for any and all forms of abortion.

Everyone gets healthcare in America. No one gets turned away from emergency rooms.

I also know many on the right who have adopted and I know of one particular couple that is trying to adopt, but so far, there has been way too much government red tape standing in their way.

Enjoy paying more payroll tax.