Advertisement

Archive for Sunday, March 21, 2010

Congress approves historic health care legislation

President Barack Obama, joined by Vice President Joe Biden, makes a statement to the nation Sunday night following the final vote in the House of Representatives for a comprehensive overhaul of the health care system, in the East Room of the White House in Washington, March 21, 2010.

President Barack Obama, joined by Vice President Joe Biden, makes a statement to the nation Sunday night following the final vote in the House of Representatives for a comprehensive overhaul of the health care system, in the East Room of the White House in Washington, March 21, 2010.

March 21, 2010, 9:52 p.m. Updated March 21, 2010, 11:25 p.m.

Advertisement

— Summoned to success by President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled Congress approved historic legislation tonight extending health care to tens of millions of uninsured Americans and cracking down on insurance company abuses, a climactic chapter in the century-long quest for near universal coverage.

Key points

Within a year: Insurers would be barred from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions, imposing lifetime limits on coverage and dropping people from coverage when they get sick.

By 2014: Most consumers would be required to have coverage, and most employers would have to offer it. Those not complying would face penalties.

"This is what change looks like," Obama said a few moments later in televised remarks that stirred memories of his 2008 campaign promise of "change we can believe in."

Widely viewed as dead two months ago, the Senate-passed bill cleared the House on a 219-212 vote. Republicans were unanimous in opposition, joined by 34 dissident Democrats.

A second, smaller measure — making changes in the first — cleared the House shortly before midnight and was sent to the Senate, where Democratic leaders said they had the votes necessary to pass it quickly. The vote was 220-211.

Far beyond the political ramifications — a concern the president repeatedly insisted he paid no mind — were the sweeping changes the bill held in store for nearly every American, insured or not, as well as the insurance industry and health care providers that face either smaller than anticipated payments from Medicare or higher taxes.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the legislation awaiting the president's approval would extend coverage to 32 million Americans who lack it, ban insurers from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and cut deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade. If realized, the expansion of coverage would include 95 percent of all eligible individuals under age 65.

For the first time, most Americans would be required to purchase insurance, and face penalties if they refused. Much of the money in the bill would be devoted to subsidies to help families at incomes of up to $88,000 a year pay their premiums.

'Big things'

For the president, the events capped an 18-day stretch in which he traveled to four states and lobbied more than 60 wavering lawmakers in person or by phone to secure passage of his signature domestic issue. According to some who met with him, he warned that the bill's demise could cripple his still-young presidency, and his aides hoped to use the victory on health care as a springboard to success on bills to tackle stubbornly high unemployment that threatens Democratic prospects in the fall.

Obama watched the vote in the White House's Roosevelt Room with Vice President Joe Biden and dozens of aides, exchanged high fives with Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, and then telephoned Speaker Nancy Pelosi with congratulations.

"We proved that we are still a people capable of doing big things," he said later in the White House East Room. "We proved that this government — a government of the people and by the people — still works for the people.

Crowds of protesters outside the Capitol shouted "just vote no" in a futile attempt to stop the inevitable taking place inside a House packed with lawmakers and ringed with spectators in the galleries above.

Across hours of debate, House Democrats predicted the larger of the two bills, costing $940 billion over a decade, would rank with other great social legislation of recent decades.

"We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, health care for all Americans, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, partner to Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in the grueling campaign to pass the legislation.

"This is the civil rights act of the 21st century," added Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the top-ranking black member of the House.

Republicans readily agreed the bill would affect everyone in America, but warned repeatedly of the burden imposed by more than $900 billion in tax increases and Medicare cuts combined.

"We have failed to listen to America," said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, leader of a party that has vowed to carry the fight into the fall's midterm elections for control of Congress.

The final obstacle to the bill's passage was cleared at mid-afternoon when Obama and Democratic leaders reached a compromise with anti-abortion lawmakers whose rebellion had left the outcome in doubt. The White House announced he would issue an executive order pledging that no federal funds would be used for elective abortion, satisfying Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and a handful of like-minded lawmakers.

A spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed skepticism that the presidential order would satisfy the church's objections.

Republican abortion foes also said Obama's proposed order was insufficient, and when Stupak sought to counter them, a shout of "baby killer" could be heard coming from the Republican side of the chamber.

The measure would also usher in a significant expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor. Coverage would be required for incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, $29,327 a year for a family of four. Childless adults would be covered for the first time, starting in 2014.

Insurance changes

The insurance industry, which spent millions on advertising trying to block the bill, would come under new federal regulation. They would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions and from canceling policies when a policyholder becomes ill.

Parents would be able to keep children up to age 26 on their family insurance plans, three years longer than is now the case.

A new high-risk pool would offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion would go into high gear.

After more than a year of political combat, Democrats piled superlative upon superlative across several hours of House debate.

Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York read a message President Franklin Roosevelt sent Congress in 1939 urging lawmakers to address the needs of those without health care, and said Democrat Harry Truman and Republican Richard Nixon had also sought to broaden insurance coverage.

Republicans attacked the bill without let-up, warning it would harm the economy while mandating a government takeover of the health care system.

"The American people know you can't reduce health care costs by spending $1 trillion or raising taxes by more than one-half trillion dollars. The American people know that you cannot cut Medicare by over one-half trillion dollars without hurting seniors," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich.

"And, the American people know that you can't create an entirely new government entitlement program without exploding spending and the deficit."

Obama has said often that presidents of both parties have tried without success to achieve national health insurance, beginning with Theodore Roosevelt early in the 20th century.

The 44th president's quest to succeed where others have failed seemed at a dead end two months ago, when Republicans won a special election for a Massachusetts Senate seat, and with it, the votes to prevent a final vote.

But the White House, Pelosi and Reid soon came up with a rescue plan that required the House to approve the Senate-passed measure despite opposition to many of its provisions, then have both houses pass a fix-it measure incorporating numerous changes.

Paying for change

To pay for the changes, the legislation includes more than $400 billion in higher taxes over a decade, roughly half of it from a new Medicare payroll tax on individuals with incomes over $200,000 and couples over $250,000. A new excise tax on high-cost insurance policies was significantly scaled back in deference to complaints from organized labor.

In addition, the bills cut more than $500 billion from planned payments to hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and other providers that treat Medicare patients. An estimated $200 billion would reduce planned subsidies to insurance companies that offer a private alternative to traditional Medicare.

The insurance industry warned that seniors would face sharply higher premiums as a result, and the Congressional Budget Office said many would return to traditional Medicare as a result.

The subsidies are higher than those for seniors on traditional Medicare, a difference that critics complain is wasteful, but insurance industry officials argue goes into expanded benefits.

Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn and Erica Werner contributed to this report.

Comments

cato_the_elder 4 years, 9 months ago

Well, the faculty lounge Marxist got his new toy after all. When it's ultimately held to be unconstitutional, it will then be thrown into the trash can where it belongs.

love2fish_ks 4 years, 9 months ago

What a wasted opportunity. This is nothing more than a feel good grab of control by the governament. We need reform that will drive down the cost of the working people. nothin in this bill reduces cost for the individual. More taxes, more cost, more spending.....for what??? Why not have tort reform? Drugs purchased internationally? Insurance across state lines? This is sickening that we had a chance to lower cost and went instead for bigger government controll. UGH.

skinny 4 years, 9 months ago

cato_the_elder, I hope you are right. Let's also hope it doesn't take three or four years to get tossed out in the trash can where it belongs.

yankeevet 4 years, 9 months ago

ok; great; wonderful;.........now how do i get this FREE medical care???

yankeevet 4 years, 9 months ago

ok; great; wonderful;.........now how do i get this FREE medical care???

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 9 months ago

This is a really crappy bill, no doubt about it. It's so crappy that even if they take control of Congress in the fall, the Repugs won't try to override it with an even crappier bill.

geekin_topekan 4 years, 9 months ago

"The insurance industry warned that seniors would face sharply higher premiums as a result, " ++++ Do I hear Death Panel?

Hmm..where have I heard this before...?

Jay Keffer 4 years, 9 months ago

The Productive Class takes it on the chin once again. More taxes, more entitlements. No way to pay for it but to pile on those that go to work every day and do the right thing.

Dems own this lock, stock and barrel.

Christine Anderson 4 years, 9 months ago

Oh well. Time to watch reruns of "Star Trek".

scott3460 4 years, 9 months ago

Not all it should be, not perfect, but, yes, we did.

BlackVelvet 4 years, 9 months ago

i say we force the congress to have the same "health care" that they are forcing onto us. they already don't paeticipate in social security...

winninteam 4 years, 9 months ago

edjayhawk you need to live in a different country where they take people like you on the day they turn 60 to the hospital and they never return home -- ummm, where do they go? outback! Just wondering if all you obamites are really happy about your new taxes - what person who makes over $200 thousand signs up for medicare? really doubt they are going to pay for this! has anything really changed? Just more taxes for the worker bees.

winninteam 4 years, 9 months ago

edjayhawk you need to live in a different country where they take people like you on the day they turn 60 to the hospital and they never return home -- ummm, where do they go? outback! Just wondering if all you obamites are really happy about your new taxes - what person who makes over $200 thousand signs up for medicare? really doubt they are going to pay for this! has anything really changed? Just more taxes for the worker bees.

feeble 4 years, 9 months ago

"The Productive Class " ?

Pray tell what the top 1% produces, other than trust fund babies and corporate welfare mothers.

Steve Jacob 4 years, 9 months ago

"exploitative capitalism" is the only way we can pay for this. Honestly, it is pretty watered down bill, and I don't think much will change as far as care. As far as taxes and debt, that's a concern.

RKLOG 4 years, 9 months ago

Oh boo-hoo, crabby people. I'm going to boil you all and eat you with drawn butter! If you all hate President Obama so much why did you vote for him? Can it, and take your medicines like men.

9070811 4 years, 9 months ago

healthier individual...healthier family...healthier community = a healthy and prosperous nation!

crackers 4 years, 9 months ago

My grandkids will never have staight teeth.

notajayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

I'll just repeat my question from the other thread, since nobody could answer it there:

Now that the smoke is clearing, perhaps one of you fine liberals can tell me exactly what you think you've "won"?

Did you get anything that will reform health care? No. There is not a single thing in any of the legislation that changes anything about health care, it just changes who pays for it.

Did you get anything that will bring down the costs of health care? Again, no. The CBO and others, such as the Kaiser Foundation, have said insurance premiums will continue to rise. With more people paying into the pool. The only ones that will be paying less will be those who get subsidies - paid for through higher taxes. Overall, our healthcare spending will continue to grow.

Did you get your precious nationalized health plan like they have in all those gee-whiz neato other countries that are so much better than ours? Nope, nothing even close. You didn't even get your public option, did you? (That question is not directed to porchie, who still thinks we got the public option - provided by private companies. That one's gonna' be good for laughs for years to come.)

Did you get a president who fulfilled his promises for bi-partisanship and transparency? No - you have C-Span, of all reporting agencies, talking about closed-door back-room deals, and a rift that hasn't been seen since the Civil War, with 38 states working on legislation to negate the effects of this law. A law that was forced down our throats against the will of the American people, paid for by a lot of payola with billion-dollar payoffs in pet projects to Democratic legislators. All led by a president who's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 'change' he promised was more of the same, and that he cares more about his own image than about the will of the people who elected him.

Oh, and you got sold out on abortion rights, let's not forget that.

So let me be the first to congratulate you! You got - well, let's see, nothing you asked for, and a lot you didn't, with a trillion-dollar bill to pay. Congratulations!

notajayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

edjayhawk (anonymous) says…

"Justice is served for the little guy. Time to but a stop exploitative capitalism..."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100322/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_special_deals

"Insurers, doctor-owned hospitals get late help"

"Among the beneficiaries, according to lobbyists and congressional aides, are Kaiser Permanente, the giant California-based insurance company; Geisinger Health Plan based in Pennsylvania; and doctor-owned health facilities in about a dozen states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee."

[Those states, in case you didn't know, are represented by Democratic Reps. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania, and Bart Gordon of Tennessee, all of whom needed last-minute cajoling to secure their votes.]

Yep, congratulations, ed, a real blow stricken for the 'little guy'.

grammaddy 4 years, 9 months ago

Yes We Can!! Yes We Did! That One 2012.Watch out right-wingnuts. That Kenyan and his Death Panels are coming for your kiddies!!

headdoctor 4 years, 9 months ago

I don't want to spoil the fun for those that want health care but there could still be a small obstacle standing in the road. It is called the Supreme Court. I suppose it depends on how much fighting they want to do about the shenanigans pulled to get the votes and the way they went about passing it.

My biggest question is, if they don't remove the state buy offs does that mean the other states can invade places like Nebraska, Montana, Connecticut, and a small part of Florida to either become citizens there or just use force to remove them all together from the benefit?

bearded_gnome 4 years, 9 months ago

May God save our country!

Repeal now! Will of the people. the "reconciliation bill" won't make it through the Senate, house Democrats have been lied to.
and a presidential "executive decision" does not trump law on the books.

Curtis Lange 4 years, 9 months ago

sigh One more nail in the coffin for our great country. :(

Mike Ford 4 years, 9 months ago

I voted for Obama because I was sick and tired of Republicans who repeated the same garbage over and over, "Guns, No Abortions, and No taxes" while dragging this country into wars where we gave no bid contracts to Haliburton and Blackwater to benefit investors like Dick Cheney and built up so much debt that the U.S. Dollar had to be devalued and we might as well consider the Chinese currency OUR currency until we pay them off. All of this while letting our country go to hades in a handbasket. Who lets the Geriatric Oppressive Partisans off the hook with their "Consequential Amnesia"? I don't . It's the uninformed rubber stamping rural populace that lets these Elephants go drunk spending money on wars and yet becomes "OUTRAGED" when Mr. Obama tries to chart a different course from the GOP reign of financial destruction that slowed down after the Architect of Financial destruction left office as his GOP party got pummeled in the 2008 elections. Do you REALLY think that these screaming for a throwback moneyblowers deserve to be put back in office to wreck the car again by being re-elected in 2010? REALLY!!!! I don't want 1955 or 1984 in 2010. I want affordable healthcare so that I don't have to work two and three jobs to pay premiums at my work based healthcare as I did in 2007-2008. The more people in this plan means lower premiums. If you don't believe this tell me that more product at Wal-Mart doesn't makes their selling costs cheaper?

weeslicket 4 years, 9 months ago

a significant accomplishement for our elected representatives. not a perfect bill (what is, really), but a decent start in the right direction.

previous posters are correct, in that, this is not the only bite at the apple. our elected representatives are always welcome to present, and achieve, further modifications to this bill.
democracy, like rust, never sleeps.

otherwise: 1. you cannot be denied health coverage due to pre-existing conditions (i.e., because you and your family members are currently alive) 2. mostly closes the donut-hole (remember that giveaway to big pharma??) 3. millions more americans covered (that means many people you know) 4. this bill has the ability to reduce federal expenditures over time (of course, time will tell on this;
also, we know that insurance premiums only inflate over time, regardless of the health of the individual or group) 5. to repeat: our elected representatives are always welcome to present, and achieve, further modifications to this bill. 6. i find it most humorous to hear republicans comparing this plan to canada and its single payer system, and then finding this bill lacking in that comparison:
when did the republican party become the paramours of medical socialism???

much still to be accomplished, but i have learned to embrace small successes whenever they occur. and, imo, this is a step in the right direction.

Mixolydian 4 years, 9 months ago

We'll be paying taxes on this and forced to buy insurance or face fines and/or imprisonment for the first four years before any government benefits kick in. There's stil time then to reverse this monstrosity of a bill.

Cait McKnelly 4 years, 9 months ago

I am a liberal. notajayhawk is not. I agree with every single word in his/her last post. By the way, something that should have a helluva impact in a college town. Buried deep in this legislation is the death of the federally insured student loan. It dies as of July 1. Sallie Mae goes byebye. Between that and the epic fail of this legislation I want to throw up. May Stupak rot with the devil.

rhd99 4 years, 9 months ago

Take your individual mandate ridden healthcare bill, Dems & STUFF IT! Prepare to go down in November!

Mike Ford 4 years, 9 months ago

Do you really think that the Laissez Faire Blind at the wheel for Eight Years Geriatric Oppressive Partisan Dumblicans should be allowed to come back to perfect destracting rural America with destractions like abortion, guns, and taxes, while ignoring REAL issues for another term? H.L Mencken once stated, "Never underestimate the stupidity of the American People" This was said in the 1920's. Why does it still apply in 2010?

Cait McKnelly 4 years, 9 months ago

On a bright note, if Rush Limbaugh carries through with his threat (which he won't but we can hope) he will "leave the country". Of course this means retire to Aruba with three hot babes and a vodka martini.

Olympics 4 years, 9 months ago

I'd tell you what you I think about this bill, but I'm too busy being sent to a medical gulag where my grandma is facing a bureaucratic death panel staffed out with radical terrorists in Barrack [sic] Hussein's Ameristan.

Oh wait, no I'm not - because it turns out that was all bs and lies.

Seth Peterson 4 years, 9 months ago

So when all the negative things that the conservative movement and insurance companies where ramming down everyone's throats don't happen will they change their attitudes and support the bill and our president?

To paraphrase one of my favorite neo-cons:

Propaganda, teabaggers and conservatism fail.

Bless the President and our country.

lounger 4 years, 9 months ago

Great! Obama is a prez for the people. I feel represented for once. Elitist, tea party people can tuck tail and shut the hell up for once. I have NEVER had Insurance and could use it for sure! Thanks again Obama.....

TopJayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

Lounger I think your name says it all....No insurance? Ever? Here's an idea......GET a freakin' job You lazy moron. Let me see what this means for those of us who actually work.

Higher premiums on my health insurance 900 million in new taxes..in addition to user fees, excise taxes and the like. half a trillion in cuts to medicare. this will hurt my employer, and probably mean less raises for my wages. I could possibly even lose my job over time.

All of this is geared towards people without insurance, many of which choose not to buy it. This is wealth redistributrion, pure and simple.
Our previous President did dumb things because he was, well dumb. This President is cold and calculated, and he is intentionally trying to change everything about this country. He is a socialist, and that is what he wants...total socialism.

TopJayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

Ludas And when all of this does what common sense says it will do.
Lower health care standards. Run people out of work. Trash the economy even more with mountains more debt that we already can't service. Force Doctors to pay unfair amounts of taxes, and they decide to take a six month vacation. Will you also stand up and admit that you are an idiot?

TopJayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

Ludas Where are all the savings to offset this bil coming from? And if iti is so easy, why haven't they been done before?

Richard Heckler 4 years, 9 months ago

Repub Teabaggers have not supported America since 1980 and Reagan/Bush. Global Economy Reaganomics aka Wreckanomics screwed over America big time. Global Economy Reaganomics chief export were the blue and white collar jobs of America.

Think about it. In the past 30 years the repub party has been in involved two major home loan scandals that effectively took the USA economy down the tubes. One is too damn many but twice represents repub economic policy. Wreckanomics is a failed economic policy. In fact wreckanomics is beginning to smell like well planned crimes.

The republican party have become masters at putting millions upon millions upon millions of people out of work. AND stealing taxpayers retirement plans along the way.

What Repubs do with a remarkable degree of consistency is wreck the economy,initiate huge movements of shipping jobs abroad aka the Reagan-Bush Global Economy and try to wreck social security and medicare.

Is there a definite pattern? Absolutely!

  1. The Reagan/ Bush Home Loan Scandal http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

  2. The Bush/Cheney Home Loan Scandal http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

  3. What did Bush and Henry Paulson do with the bail out money? http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

  4. Why did GW Bush Lie About Social Security?( This would cost taxpayers $4 trillion and wreck the economy) http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0505orr.html

  5. Still A Bad Idea – Bush Tax Cuts http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2001/0301miller.html

  6. The "tea parties" BTW are part of the wreckanomics program funded by the Koch Brothers... well known oil billionaires. These thinkers back a tax payers bill of rights which is another scheme to reward the upper 1% which is designed to wreck local and state governments. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0705rebne.html

All of the above displays reckless economic behavior that which drains the cookie jars.

What do Reagan,Bush and Bush republicans plan for 2010. Start the typical repub character assassination campaign which in essence is a massive cover-up scheme for the financial disasters that illustrate how the repubs are NOT the financial giants of our time.

Weather_Watcher 4 years, 9 months ago

To think in my lifetime I have seen the fall of the Soviet Union, the falling of the Berlin Wall, and now the falling of the US Constitution.

commuter 4 years, 9 months ago

One of my favaorite quotes from a movie "So this is how democracy ends, with thunderous appluase"

For everyone who thinks this is a victory time will tell. I am still extremely disappointed that tort reform and having Congress's health care plan were not included in this bill. Would I have expected the common man Democrats do this, No because it would hurt them. At least the Repubs don't try to hide their views.

commuter 4 years, 9 months ago

One of my favaorite quotes from a movie "So this is how democracy ends, with thunderous appluase"

For everyone who thinks this is a victory time will tell. I am still extremely disappointed that tort reform and having Congress's health care plan were not included in this bill. Would I have expected the common man Democrats do this, No because it would hurt them. At least the Repubs don't try to hide their views.

commuter 4 years, 9 months ago

One of my favaorite quotes from a movie "So this is how democracy ends, with thunderous appluase"

For everyone who thinks this is a victory time will tell. I am still extremely disappointed that tort reform and having Congress's health care plan were not included in this bill. Would I have expected the common man Democrats do this, No because it would hurt them. At least the Repubs don't try to hide their views.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

"tuschkahouma, there was nothing laissez faire about the previous administration."

The term laissez faire is exactly the term that would describe the past admin's approach to market regulation. And they had it in spades. And it helped lead to the market meltdown, among other things.


When the dust settles, unfortunately, people won't remember all of the lies and claims that never materialized - death panels, job killing, world ceasing to exist, stubborn obstructionism at every turn, supposedly not being invited to participate in the process, etc. And it is sad in that respect because it deserves to be part of the political discussion on where the GOP stood when initiatives that would help average Americans were being pursued. The American people finally scored a victory, although measured, over the special interests for the first time in a long while. At least businesses now know the lay of the land and can begin the recovery in earnest that has been waiting in the wings while the GOP delayed it.

Message to the GOP - lead, follow, or get outta the way!

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

commuter (anonymous) says… "I am still extremely disappointed that tort reform and having Congress's health care plan were not included in this bill."

Tort reform is already in place in 38 states including NY, FL, CA, and TX. Why this point didn't get called out during the debate is a mystery.

"Would I have expected the common man Democrats do this, No because it would hurt them. At least the Repubs don't try to hide their views."

You couldn't be more wrong. The truth is that the GOP did not want HCR, period. They hid it, but not very well.

Keith 4 years, 9 months ago

" TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…

'Congress approves historic health care legislation'

Another misleading headline. It should read:

'Democrats approve historic health care legislation'"

Hey look, Tom is uncomfortable with majority rule, unless it's his majority.

cowboy 4 years, 9 months ago

While this bill is simply a reform bill , it may stem some of the abuses by the insurance industry , insure some quite poor folks( 29,000 for a family of 4) , and eventually set up some high risk exchanges , it is far from the answer to delivering quality healthcare to the nations hurting middle class. We need a full public option. If the rich folk don't want it , fine , it's really not their issue now is it ? The best thing to come out of this is that the dems have finally displayed the cojones to pass a major piece of legislation and developed some leadership in the house and senate. That bodes well for the future. This is just one small step for common man , who has been ignored for the past few decades. Should be interesting to watch the money flow to politicians over the next year after the republicans were unable to deliver results to their masters after billions of dollars of lobbying money was placed in their coffers. They have found their true constituency , the tea baggers , and a small group of airhead idealogues.

Now , if the gov't can continue addressing issues that actually effect citizens , as opposed to fat cats and corporations , we might see some further progress.

Mike Ford 4 years, 9 months ago

I will stoop to the level of Barry, Shewmon, and others and say "WAAAAAAAAGH"!!!!!!!!

Seth Peterson 4 years, 9 months ago

Top - If it does what common sense will do then none of the things which you mentioned will happen. It would take an event of some magnitude to bring that type of cataclysmic event to bring this about, and this bill just isn't it. It's a wonderful step in the right direction, one that hasn't really been taken in some time.

If the events described in your post actually happen do happen - and I mean really do happen, not the doctor that Faux Opinion will bring out to interview in 6 months who 'quit' his job to prove a point - then I would absolutely stand up and say this was a mistake.

So far, so good.

As to why it hasn't been done before - it's hard to get anything that would benefit individuals who don't have enough money to make a difference in their representatives pockets established it would actually require a number of individuals who care more about country than self to get to happen - something which I can't remember ever occurring in the upper echelon of our government.

Seth Peterson 4 years, 9 months ago

Top - If it does what common sense will do then none of the things which you mentioned will happen. It would take an event of some magnitude to bring that type of cataclysmic event to bring this about, and this bill just isn't it. It's a wonderful step in the right direction, one that hasn't really been taken in some time.

If the events described in your post actually happen do happen - and I mean really do happen, not the doctor that Faux Opinion will bring out to interview in 6 months who 'quit' his job to prove a point - then I would absolutely stand up and say this was a mistake.

So far, so good.

As to why it hasn't been done before - it's hard to get anything that would benefit individuals who don't have enough money to make a difference in their representatives pockets established it would actually require a number of individuals who care more about country than self to get to happen - something which I can't remember ever occurring in the upper echelon of our government.

jafs 4 years, 9 months ago

I would say that this bill isn't as good as the supporters claim, and that it isn't as bad as the detractors claim.

grammaddy 4 years, 9 months ago

Love it Ludus! I hope you don't mind if I borrow it on occasion.

Propaganda,teabaggers and conservatism fail. God Bless our President in all he does. Darwin please watch over Barrypenders.

true_patriot 4 years, 9 months ago

It isn't the real reform those on the left want nor is it the government run program those on the right fear, it's a small step in addressing the worst of the dysfunctionality in our current system.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 9 months ago

In a year, your insurance premiums will be higher (if you have insurance), your taxes will be higher (if you work and pay taxes), unemployment will be higher, the deficit will be higher. Welcome to Dear Leader's Brave New World.

headdoctor 4 years, 9 months ago

Hey Shewmon, I figured I would offer a little help for you and all your e-coffee drinking buddies. That crow will taste a lot better if you pluck it first then bake it with a strong sliced up onion in chicken broth. Bon Appétit. OM NOM NOM. LMAO

cowboy 4 years, 9 months ago

Snap , And this economic downturn began when ? under who ? the stimulus was enacted by who ? the market crashed under who ? the trillion dollar war under who ? jus sayin

headdoctor 4 years, 9 months ago

Yeah, Snap and company doesn't like Socialism when the idea comes from the Democrat side. He prefers the Socialism from the Republican side. He also suffers from selective memory syndrome. After all this time he hasn't been able to grasp that distribution of income works in a variety of ways and not just from the rich to the poor.

headdoctor 4 years, 9 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says… http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/22/...

Where's Tom? He should see this.


He is probably out to the local drug store picking up some antacid medicine for all that crow he is chowing down.

Jaminrawk 4 years, 9 months ago

The Republicans have simply become fear mongers. It's sad because this new form of "Republican" that emerged from the second Bush administration is the lowest ilk of politician yet. They try to instill fear in their supporters to push through their agenda because they simply failed to address these issues during their reign of power. This bill is outlined to make healthcare affordable and available to everyone. It attempts to take the unfair practices that have been abused by privatized insurance for decades, out of the equation. Conservatives talk about death panels to scare folks. I'll tell you what a REAL death panel is, a bunch of well-to-do insurance company executives that decide they won't cover your claims because they are pre-existing or cut off or cap your insurance on your cancer treatments because they just don't want to pay anymore. Insurance has been the most crooked industry in America for a long time and it's the corruption by insurance companies and stubborness from the conservatives that caused this bill to happen. So in reality, dems should thank the ridiculous talking heads on Fox News and the do-nothing Republicans in the government. You crazies set this up and will actually benefit from it while whining the whole way.

On a side note, I bet Rush, Glenn, Sean and Bill are jumping for joy because their fan base is riled up again and that always equals $$$ for fear mongering.

meggers 4 years, 9 months ago

Wow, a lot of misinformation out there.

A couple that jump out at me: The claim that people will be jailed for not having insurance. Absolutely false. There will be no criminal penalties for not having insurance. There will, however, be a fine of approximately $700 per year. The fine will not apply to low income citizens.

That student loans will no longer be federally insured. Not so. The legislation simply removes the "middle man" (ie. Sally Mae). When one currently defaults on loans through Sally Mae, the government must purchase the loan from the lender at an additional cost. The legislation allows the government to directly provide the loans in order to avoid the additonal costs.

The legislation will be ruled unconstitutional. Not so, say many legal scholars. The federal government has the constitutional right to enact the "supreme law of the land". The laws themselves do not need to be expressly outlined in the constitution. For example, when desegregation became federal law, the state of Virginia passed a law refusing to comply and it eventually went to the Supreme Court. The court upheld that the law set by the federal government was in fact constitutional. Same goes for medical marijuana. Federal law trumps state law. Although the justice department has backed off on prosecuting medical marijuana cases as of late, they are still legally entitled to prosecute.

Also, in order to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation, an individual or state would need to claim that they have somehow been harmed by the legislation. Since the mandate does not kick in until 2014, this minimizes the possibility of the court hearing a challenge anytime soon. The only thing that does concern me with regard to a court challenge is the fact that we now have one of the most activist Supreme Courts in history. They certainly aren't afraid of overturning precedent, something the court has historically been reluctant to do. If precedent prevails, however, the legislation will most certainly be ruled constitutional.

oldvet 4 years, 9 months ago

As long as you enjoy benefits being cut, longer waits and fewer opportunities to see a real doctor, you will be happy with this. sfn

Seth Peterson 4 years, 9 months ago

Snap, the doomsday forecasting is overdone a bit - both by the opposition should this bill pass and by the supporters should the bill fail. Will taxes and premiums be higher? Barely for those who make less than $200,000 per year.

It seems funny to me that some individuals want to use the same arguments against supporting this bill that they claim others use to support climate change:

Is there global temperature rising and ice caps melting? Maybe. Will unemployment and the deficit be higher? Maybe.

Will it be because of something man made, or from extenuating circumstances? Unlikely. Will it be higher because of this man made bill, or from extenuating circumstances? Unlikely.

The difference, of course, being that there have been decades of research as to what has been happening with climate change, versus this bill which - as pointed out earlier, or in another thread - has never been done before, because it's just wasn't easy.

Fortunately, with both of these events, if you're here long enough, you get to see the results happen and find out the actual effects - provided you pay attention and don't just follow the new spin that will be put on it in years to come.

beatrice 4 years, 9 months ago

The Democrats stepped up and did something substantial! Fantastic!

In their protests, the Teabaggers proved to be the racist bigots they really are, while Republicans showed they love to be the party of "NO." They all failed, thank goodness.

Tom, you recently showed that you will blatantly lie in order to get a point across. Glad to see another of your many predictions being incorrect.

headdoctor 4 years, 9 months ago

meggers (anonymous) says… Wow, a lot of misinformation out there.


You may have just spoke to much truth for the Modern Republican posters out there to wrap their brain around.

Personally I don't think the basics of the health care bill will cause problems with the Supreme Court. I would think that if anything the problem will arise out of the method in which it was passed along with what ever the outcome is with the reconciliation bill. The kick back/buy off provisions may also send up red flags with the court if they are not successfully removed from the legislation.

Seth Peterson 4 years, 9 months ago

Did you take your drive yet this morning Tom? If you know of any medical professionals in our community who packed up and quit because this bill passed as you first believed? If you did, I'm willing to listen and consider your ability to predict the future, but until that point your past and track record shows you are to be ignored.

headdoctor 4 years, 9 months ago

TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says… Democrats actually probably will hold power until 2012. Is this is the best scenario? Strategically, I say yes. Painful? Yes, but necessary.


Yes, it will be necessary to prove beyond the shadow of doubt that there is no place in Washington for the abominations of the modern Republican party.

Grundoon Luna 4 years, 9 months ago

Gettin' a D&C? I knew you weren't really a man anyway, barrypenders, since you are here proving it everyday. And a few weeks, months, years down the road I will still be here to remind you that health care reform didn't ruin yours nor anyone else's fraidy cat life.

headdoctor 4 years, 9 months ago

I still think a good share of the modern Republican party and its platform is based on the 1843 "Know Nothing Party." The plays are to similar, they just need to change the party slogan to the "Do Nothing Party" so it looks more like an original thought.

Jaminrawk 4 years, 9 months ago

Personally, I think if some of the Republican leaders would have been more involved with the healthcare issue rather than soliciting homosexual encounters, this might have developed differently.

monheim 4 years, 9 months ago

Can one of you please tell us what is unconstitutional about this? So far all I see is blanket statements that it's unconstitutional. Are you referring to the reconciliation process? The bill itself? The constitution isn't very long, shouldn't be hard to find the section/article/amendment that this bill violates. I eagerly await.

headdoctor 4 years, 9 months ago

TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says… I'm merely suggesting that I personally prefer we 'go the distance' with O/P/R and in November 2012, there will be a level of hysteria on the left that will make the Bush/Cheney years seem like a snorefest. But the idea of a wild swing back to a GOP majority in onechamber or even both this year is not out of the realm of possibility. I truly am curious as to what else O/P/R have up their sleeves for us. I am not kidding either. Obama said "transformation". I want to see the finished product. I want everyone else to see it along with me. I want to see what the most corrupt congress and whitehouse in the history of this nation have in store for us all. We ain't broke and it will take more than four years of these jokers to put us that way-----a whole lot more. Hows bouts you superstars? Can you weather it too? Cap & trade? Lots of other hot agendas on O/P/R's plate. Exciting times! Thirty eight states filing lawsuits? WOW!


Wow is right. Tom, you have the passion. I just wish that once you and your e-coffee drinking buddies would back away from Fox News and your favorite political websites and actually do some research on your own instead of listening to some regurgitated crap.

When was Congress and or the White house not corrupt? They are just bolder now. More of that selective memory thing that Snap suffers from I guess.

I could never see you or your think alike buddies being part of the Democratic Party, but if you people really thought for yourselves just once in your life, you wouldn't want to be associated with the Modern Republicans either. Contrary to your popular belief the Republicans aren't doing you any favors. I am just wondering if there is any chance you will ever figure that out?

ferrislives 4 years, 9 months ago

While I definitely agree that health care needed some major reforms, mainly regarding their own bloated costs and unfair practices, we just don't have the money right now. I guess China will be paying for this bill.

Concerning fighting this bill in the courts, it will probably take quite a while to sort out. I say that mainly because the fine part of this bill was modeled after a similar Massachusetts bill passed in 2006 that gave a fine for non-coverage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachu...). Several people have challenged that bill without success so far, and that's four years later.

So we'll be hearing about this crap for quite a while. How wonderful.

On a side note, if the Tea Party people want their side heard by reasonable people, they should really avoid calling congresspeople racial epitaphs and spitting on them. It makes the whole group look bad.

notajayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"Obama sold out no one. All he did was reaffirm that the Hyde Amendment (already law) would be followed. I read the release from the White House. ( http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/21/... ) I'm for abortion rights and I saw nothing wrong with what Obama will sign. That's what the law is already. Been that way for a long time."

Oh, a White House press release said so. Great.

Have another glass of kool-aid, little one.

Um - I hate to disturb such a great thinker, but why was the executive order necessary at all?


Ludus (anonymous) says…

"So when all the negative things that the conservative movement and insurance companies where ramming down everyone's throats don't happen will they change their attitudes and support the bill and our president?"

And when it turns out to be true, will you vote against him and work towards repeal?


a_flock_of_jayhawks (anonymous) says… Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

"When the dust settles, unfortunately, people won't remember all of the lies and claims that never materialized"

You mean how this is going to bring down healthcare costs, or reform healthcare in any way, shape, or form?

"The American people finally scored a victory, although measured, over the special interests for the first time in a long while."

Only if those American people work for a health insurance company.


true_patriot (anonymous) says…

"It isn't the real reform those on the left want nor is it the government run program those on the right fear, it's a small step in addressing the worst of the dysfunctionality in our current system."

If it took over 2800 pages of legislation and a trillion dollars to make this small step, I can't wait to see what real "reform" looks like.


beatrice (anonymous) says…

"The Democrats stepped up and did something substantial! Fantastic! "

And what was that, exactly, bea?

headdoctor 4 years, 9 months ago

monheim (anonymous) says… Can one of you please tell us what is unconstitutional about this? So far all I see is blanket statements that it's unconstitutional. Are you referring to the reconciliation process? The bill itself? The constitution isn't very long, shouldn't be hard to find the section/article/amendment that this bill violates. I eagerly await.


Most of the concern involves the way it was passed and how votes were traded for in the form of kick backs that would be unfair to the rest of the citizens as well as forcing people to have coverage.

You can Google more information if you want.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/23/health-bill-faces-constitutional-challenge/?feat=home_top5_commented

Seth Peterson 4 years, 9 months ago

BP - don't impose your self-loathing through me. I know you don't consider anything such as facts or reality before making a statement and this comment won't do much good, but for the sake of the rest who read your comment, it should be noted that once more nothing you posted has ever been stated. While you may want everyone except the neo-cons to be erased from the face of the earth, the absence of this happening doesn't mean that everyone wishes the same of your ilk.

Self supremacists, downers and health care opponents, live flinging spittle at their computer screens.

Bless you and everyone else.

David Albertson 4 years, 9 months ago

History will repeat itself. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security were all unpopular when passed but once implemented, they became very popular. This bill will be very popular soon. Once the mis-information campaign is over, the truth will prevail. Maybe if the GOP could learn to compromise, they too could be in the right side of history. But they have proven to be partisan and intolerant time and time again. The Dems will lose some seats in November, but will keep the majority. The GOP has no solutions only criticism. That's why they are the minority and will remain the minority for years to come.

David Albertson 4 years, 9 months ago

If Rush Limbaugh leaves the country, I'm buying a keg. Free beer everyone!

beatrice 4 years, 9 months ago

barrypenders: "Now I can have 'Carnal Knowledge' til my head spins and Big Government will pick-up the Birth control costs."

Don't worry barryp, you don't need birth control when there is only one person involved. However, thanks for chiming in to demonstrate how shallow the right wing arguments can be on this matter. You are playing your role perfectly.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

notajayhawk (anonymous) says… "You mean how this is going to bring down healthcare costs, or reform healthcare in any way, shape, or form?"

You keep saying that, obviously a GOP talking point, but the fact is that the inflated rates (costs) that are charged are the prices set before insurance company / Medicare negotiated discounts. The are purposely set high to still allow for a margin after negotiated pricing. So the pricing you see is not the real cost. Changing the approach to this practice reduces it's necessity and should result in reduction. If it doesn't sufficiently, there are several levers that can be used to improve upon it, but this is just the first, important step. Modification becomes a much easier proposition once the initial hurdle has been crossed. And it has. So, now maybe you have some ideas as to what can be done to further address costs. Honestly, we'd love to hear them.

notajayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"The Executive Order was so Stupak could go back to his district and proclaim that he defended the Hyde Amendment against attempts to strip it from further legislation. It was pure fluff. Obama was reaffirming a law which has been on the books since the Seventies. It was like certifying that the sun was going to rise tomorrow. Obama gave up absolutely nothing"

So the president of the United States signs executive orders based on "pure fluff"?

Brilliant, as always, child.

Now, without another rambling diatribe, little one, would you like to answer the question (or any of the dozens of other questions people have posed in response to your deluded posts, none of which you ever answer)? Why was that "pure fluff" even necessary? Why was there such disagreement on the issue between the House and Senate versions in the first place, if neither of them was doing anything but re-affirming a 30-year-old law?

Have another glass of kool-aid, porch.


bartstop (anonymous) says…

"History will repeat itself. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security were all unpopular when passed but once implemented, they became very popular."

And financially unsustainable. You're right - history repeats itself. Mostly because people are stupid enough to do the same thing over and over and expect it to work better than the last time.

"Maybe if the GOP could learn to compromise, they too could be in the right side of history."

I'm glad you brought that up, bart - what happened to the Republican proposals that Obama made a big deal about including in the final legislation?

Oh, that's right - the Republicans participated in the president's little dog-and-pony show, the president went out and talked about using their ideas, and your 'non-partisan' Democrats in the legislature didn't include a single one.

Funny how it's always the other side that doesn't want to 'compromise'. I'm not a big fan of Coulter, but she hit the nail on the head with a recent statement about that: A man goes to the doctor with a fever. The Democrats want to cut off both arms and both legs; the Republicans want to give him two aspirin. The Democrats accuse the Republicans of not compromising because they won't agree to cut off one arm and one leg.

BTW, bart - maybe you'd like to answer the question none of your liberal friends seem to want to tackel? What, exactly, was 'historic' about this bill, and what is it going to do to fix the healthcare problems in the United States? What did you 'win', exactly?

ferrislives 4 years, 9 months ago

headdoctor (anonymous) says: "Most of the concern involves the way it was passed and how votes were traded for in the form of kick backs that would be unfair to the rest of the citizens as well as forcing people to have coverage.

I agree with that headdoctor, but where do you think the Dems learned it from. Bush used several different tactics (especially executive orders) to do all sorts of things so that he didn't have to go through Congress as he should have. I didn't hear much complaining from the GOP'ers then. I've always thought the practice of overriding the congressional process to be slimy, regardless of what party does that. The GOP would have a better leg to stand on with me if they had attempted to stop the practice when they were in power.

Jay Keffer 4 years, 9 months ago

Two questions - for all taxpayers making $50K/year or more. As a result of this legislation:

1) Will their taxes go up or down?

2) Will their healthcare costs go up or down?

3) A bit harder to answer, so speculate: Will there be more people choosing to be doctors, or less?

Serious replies only. ☺

headdoctor 4 years, 9 months ago

ferrislives (anonymous) says… where do you think the Dems learned it from. Bush used several different tactics (especially executive orders) to do all sorts of things so that he didn't have to go through Congress as he should have. I didn't hear much complaining from the GOP'ers then. I've always thought the practice of overriding the congressional process to be slimy, regardless of what party does that. The GOP would have a better leg to stand on with me if they had attempted to stop the practice when they were in power.


Agreed, for the most part. In general Congress across the board have pulled out some slimy rules and made changes that are questionable. The Executive Orders have been used way to often and not for the purposes originally intended. As far as a leg to stand on, this isn't any different than the GOP whining about Socialism all the time running to the Socialist trough to feed themselves.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

Liberty_One (anonymous) says… "100% wrong. The supply of money doubled, interest rates were held to almost 0%. The number of new regulations that were added to the books was the most in the history of the United States. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Bush intervened in the market more than any US president."

Wow, talk about revisionist history. You must've read that out of a Texas textbook. They pursued an aggressive deregulatory path. Remember the California energy fiasco circa 2001 and the hands-off role FERC played while crimes were committed? How about Enron? Or the Wall Street/financial industry lack of oversight that led to overleveraged assets? Or the lax attitude toward any regulation of overpriced real estate and derivatives.

Funny that you mention interest rates, since the Fed was the only backstop for it all, but they had no teeth. In fact, the low interest rates, mainly targeted to control inflationary pressures of a rising market, were a contributor.Combined with lax regulations, hedge funds and other speculators borrowed money at very appealingly low rates to buyout companies in corporate-raider strategies and mortgages were repackaged into other financial instruments that avoided oversight policies and it backfired when traded issues began to decline. And where is the double supply of money you speak of now? Answer: a good portion of it was speculation that evaporated.

notajayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"Do I really have to explain it to you? Again? What are you, brain-damaged?"

porch_person (anonymous) says… "Your rage is going to get some more of your posts removed. I'm not the one employing invective. You are. It speaks volumes." March 6, 2010 at 8:41 p.m. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/mar/02/other-nations-make-universal-care-work/#c1172794

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"Denying that "mortality" is an outcome is another."

porch_person (anonymous) says… "Our health care system doesn't "drive" our infant mortality rate" March 5, 2010 at 5:18 p.m. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/mar/02/other-nations-make-universal-care-work/#c1171690

Gee, this is easy - I just have to quote YOU to show how "smart" you are, porch.

Hey, this is getting too serious, we need a laugh - why don't you tell us all about how private insurers are providing the public option, porch.

(laughter)

itwasthedukes 4 years, 9 months ago

This is how liberty dies, with thundering applause?

David Albertson 4 years, 9 months ago

Hey Dems, listen to all these GOP clowns crying like little girls. Doom, gloom and tears. What a pathetic bunch of lemmings............Yes we can. Yes we did. Yes we will do it again. Here comes the immigration debate. What do you think the G NO P will do this time? Stonewall? Filibuster? Mislead? All of the above? History will repeat itself.

David Albertson 4 years, 9 months ago

I'm thinking about buying stock in Kleenex.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

Liberty_One (anonymous) says… "Actually the energy crisis is a great example of the Bush administration enforcing harmful regulations."

You fail. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californ... From the link - "The California electricity crisis (also known as the Western U.S. Energy Crisis) of 2000 and 2001 was a situation where California had an artificial shortage of electricity.

The crisis was a result of price manipulation by energy company Enron, that was involved in economic withholding and inflated price bidding in California’s spot markets."

and, to the point: "As the FERC report concluded, market manipulation was only possible as a result of the complex market design produced by the process of partial deregulation. Manipulation strategies were known to energy traders under names such as "Fat Boy", "Death Star", "Forney Perpetual Loop", "Ricochet", "Ping Pong", "Black Widow", "Big Foot", "Red Congo", "Cong Catcher" and "Get Shorty".[5] Some of these have been extensively investigated and described in reports."

and, "Deregulation did not encourage new producers to create more power and drive down prices. Instead, with increasing demand for electricity, the producers of energy charged more for electricity. The producers used moments of spike energy production to inflate the price of energy. In January 2001, energy producers began shutting down plants to increase prices"

In this case, W was not necessarily the purveyor of the deregulation, but was responsible for not ordering FERC to investigate.

Nearing the completion of his first term, the NYT declared: "President Bush's administration has imposed lower regulatory cost burdens on the economy than any president since the government began keeping records back in 1987."

The fact that a regulation was enacted fails to recognize that the effect was to deregulate or soften the regulation. No amount of spinning from you can change that fact. Don't get me wrong, deregulation can be a good thing. But you also have to consider the factors that might drive a need for regulation, and the negative impact of removing them. Just ask the electricity rate payers in CA where their $9B went.

And more concerning Bush-era OSHA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/28/AR2008122802124.html?hpid=topnews

In his own words 4/262004 - regarding broadband: "Clear out the underbrush of regulation and we'll get the spread of broadband technology and America will be better for it"

Whether the government encouraged overleveraging as you claim due to inaction or otherwise still amounts to a lack of oversight. Any other characterization of it is pure spin.

gravitykills 4 years, 9 months ago

Since my health care will now be covered if I'm unemployed, I really need to consider my options.

How does the mortgage payoff thing work again? If I default on my home loan, the government will force the bank to renegotiate? My lender should negotiate to near zero if I'm not employed, shouldn’t they? or, surely it would spin back to the government for a pay-off.

So, I can have my house, family health care (paid in full by all you working people), and live off unemployment (which should be more than I take home now with 'no house payment'). This bill is looking better and better. And they say this country was built by hard working Americans... thank you grandpa!

georgeofwesternkansas 4 years, 9 months ago

This bill is NOT Health Care reform, it is Health Insurance reform. People are stupid to think that anything will change.

gravitykills 4 years, 9 months ago

George, I hope you're right that little will change, let's say at a doctor's visit. And we will continue to pay premiums with little change, but your taxes will go through the roof. $900 billion.... are you kiddin' me? That's a change I can't afford.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

"Was Bush governor of California too?"

He was the President at the time and could have prompted FERC into action. Nothing was done despite repeated, urgent calls for intervention. I happened to live in a state that had already been deregulated at that time. Maybe you were too young to remember.

BTW, the wiki entry you conveniently dismiss out of hand has citations if you care to examine them. I chose it because it is a) accurate and b) a fairly comprehensive summary. It also contains excerpts and links to the FERC investigations that occurred later. If you have other reputable sources that refute it, please post them. I'm sure there are still many people that would love to hear what really happened to their money.

The rest of your last post is pure imagination on your part. In comparison, I was a taxpayer, voter, and elected public official at that time.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

BTW, L1, if you actually wade through the FERC documents, there are a couple items that are CYA spin in them. I challenge you to identify which parts they are.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

Pilgrim2 (anonymous) says… "And if I refuse to pay the fine?"

Maybe you missed the part of the debate referring to additional IRS personnel. You'll get to know them. Getting a refund this year? Not any more. Want a hunting or fising license this year? It will cost you the normal fee +.

"And just what precedent is there for the government to force you to purchase something you do not want? And where do you find the justification for such a requirement in the Constitution?"

It will likely face court challenge, but here are some things to consider:

The commerce clause of the Constitution Sunshine Anthracite Coal, Co. v. Adkins (SCOTUS 1940)

and more here: http://www.justice.gov/olc/1stlady.htm

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

Pilgrim2 (anonymous) says…

"And if I still refuse to pay the $700 portion of my "tax" assessment?"

What part of "IRS personnel" did you not understand?

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

Pilgrim2 (anonymous) says… "And what will the IRS personnel do if I refuse to pay the fine portion of my "tax" assessment?"

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to just not pay it and find out for the rest of us who are also dying to know. Please report your findings to us. Thanks in advance for your hard work and sacrifice for the body of knowledge.

beatrice 4 years, 9 months ago

Pilgrim2, now I understand George Bush senior -- "Know new taxes." Boy, did we.

Of course, these current Republicans "know" how to obstruct, avoid, lie, and pander to the pharmies and the insurance companies. They sure "know" how to do that.

By the way, saw your Teaparty people playing the fools over the weekend. You must be proud or their blatant racism and bigotry, you betcha!

independant1 4 years, 9 months ago

The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is the Democrat is a cannibal they have to live off each other, while the Republicans, why, they live off the Democrats. (Will Rogers)

independant1 4 years, 9 months ago

touche

Chaotic action is preferable to orderly inaction. (Will Rogers)

independant1 4 years, 9 months ago

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. (Emma Goldman)

scott3460 4 years, 9 months ago

Teabaggers, birchers, right wing loons, get ready for 2 years of exploitive fundraising. Much like the guns and abortion issues, the republican party will ride this fund raising opportunity to the hilt for at least 2 years and deliver to you absolutely nothing.

Mike Ford 4 years, 9 months ago

to barry penders and shewmon, if you get sick you can ride in a WAAAAAAAMBULANCE!!!

notajayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"You * do* realize that you selected passages from a thread where you were losing your cool, don't you?"

I chose that thread specifically for the numerous examples of your evasion, porchfinkeling, blatant ignorance, and outright lying. I stand by every word on that thread - especially yours. You have never - ever - given any data to back up your contention that other countries have better outcomes than we do except for your mindless recitation of the infant mortality figures - which you, yourself (I posted the quote, and the link, above) said are not driven by the healthcare system.

On the thread you try to (laugh) off, you were asked at least a hundred times to back up your claims by answering some direct, simple questions - and you failed to answer a single one. All your posts are still there, demonstrating your utter incapability to understand the issue.

If nothing else renders your posts as completely devoid of reality, you are the only person in the country either too delusional, too stupid, or too dishonest to realize there is no public option in the legislation (and those three are not mutually exclusive). You are nothing more than a bad joke on these message boards, and you are the only person who believes you have ever posted anything with the slightest credibility.

Go ahead, porch - use your usual tactic when someone points out what a buffoon you are - complain once again to the moderators and beg them to remove the post. If that fails, run away from the thread, and re-post your same drivel on another in the hope that nobody saw how badly you were proven wrong on this one.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

Sorry your buddy W couldn't provide any relief for your little computer fiasco in 2003, L1. Somehow I don't think he would have been the right one to help you with that problem, anyway.

I provided more than just the FERC/CA crisis as evidence of his deregulatory, free market positions, including his own words. Funny how you don't seem to have an answer for those but still cling to the belief that he was pro-regulatory. I will admit that he broke with that policy position in that he was willing to use eminent domain for construction of power facilities, but that was a rare break when put in perspective.

Also sorry you seem to be a bit frustrated at not being able to work the little citations link thingies at the bottom of the wiki page. You probably wouldn't have used them anyway. It's obvious you didn't since he in fact does receive mention in them and elsewhere.

notajayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"Nice try but I'm not giving you "do-overs". I told you I wasn't giving you "do-overs" on that thread as well. Stop begging. It's unseemly."

You actually have to answer the question once to provide a "do-over", buffoon.

Hmmm, speaking of "do-overs", I have to share this one with the folks at home:

March 21, 2010 at 11:31 p.m. porch_person (anonymous) says… "Garfinkeling is losing an argument and denying that it ever happened / asking for 'do-overs"."

But, on March 6, 2010 at 11:48 a.m. porch_person (anonymous) says… "Denying the existence and meaning of communication which has already occurred is garfinkeling."

Congratulations, porch! You've successfully garfinkeled the meaning of the word "garfinkeling"! Now THAT takes talent - perhaps why the term "porchfinkeling" was coined.

Run away now, porch, and never forget - we're (laugh)ing AT you, not with you.

notajayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

a_flock_of_jayhawks;

Whenever someone criticizes the bailouts on these threads, the liberals are quick to pounce and point out that it was Bush who started them. Is THAT what you consider 'laissez-faire'?

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

@notajayhawk

Maybe some might. And if that's who is responsible for the policy, then I would agree unless there was something obviously contrary. I happen to believe that the bailouts, by and large, were necessary, but they were necessary due to the previous lack of oversight and policy. So, you could definitely call that a laissez-faire approach to the matter as far as what led up to it. We now know that the Administration was receiving warnings concerning extremely low capitalization at Lehman in 2007 and that their response was that it will correct itself - pretty laissez-faire if you ask any reasonable person. It sure did correct, but that's what regulatory protections should be designed to prevent or at least minimize. If you are going to promote a policy that increases home ownership, which I think is a good thing, then you may need some market controls and oversight to prevent fraud and abuses from manifesting. When I heard Bush publicly announce the initiative, my thoughts were "that's a good thing, but how is this going to ultimately shake out when combined with a full-bore free market approach, the kind that he was known well as promoting as Governor and also as President?" The rest is history.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

In fairness, Lehman also committed fraud by taking short-term loans to beef up their quarterly reports but calling them asset sales. There are already laws in place regarding those actions, so it was an enforcement matter for the Administration. Lehman hid it, but regulators and auditors (Ernst & Young) didn't question it.

notajayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"You just posted two descriptions of garfinkeling that I made that are very similar"

Oh, yeah, why, they're almost identical - to any porch_person who doesn't know there's a difference between 33 and 46.

(laughter)

[Note: Another of my favorite porchyisms is his constant recitation of the infant mortality figures, with the U.N saying we're 33rd, and the CIA saying we're 46th - and that both figures are accurate!]

independant1 4 years, 9 months ago

People's minds are changed through observation and not through argument. (Will Rogers)

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

Well, L1, you're in luck. A quote from today's financial news regarding today's oil prices:

"The Bush administration opposed increasing CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards, and basically adhered to a free-market vehicle efficiency stance."

Yep, sure sounds like a pro-regulation position to us (NOT). The proof everywhere is overwhelmingly against your argument if you choose to look and listen.

notajayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"Thanks for posting the links so that people can review it."

It was my pleasure, child. But I doubt anyone will have to click on it - there isn't a single member of these message boards that isn't already familiar with your (laugh)able posts.

And I guess this means we STILL won't see you try to answer any of the questions. You'll just keep being a (laugh)ing troll.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

The quote infers that he let them stand unchanged. Besides, the quote is very clearly the opposite of what you've been saying. You're merely looking for semantic cover.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

"The quote makes a conclusion that isn't substantiated. If CAFE standards are still on the books and being enforced, then Bush is not adhering to a free-market stance."

HAHAHAHAHAHA! You keep lying to yourself with that one. You're disagreeing with a financial analyst on that one, not just me or the evidence I've furnished, and probably someone I dare say has a bit more knowledge of it than you do.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

Pilgrim2 (anonymous) says… "And what will the IRS personnel do if I refuse to pay the fine portion of my "tax" assessment?"

then answers their own question with: "If you don't already know how the IRS operates, you must be willfully ignorant."

Are there two Pilgrim2's around here? Maybe a little senility or schizophrenia? Looney, indeed.

Others may wish to tune in and watch you argue with yourself. I've had my laugh, thank you, and moved on to more entertaining subjects.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says… "The nauseating signing ceremony is underway now. I think I'm going to throw up. The room full of libs are just as happy as they can be. Sickening."

Feeling ill, Tom? It's OK, you just might be able to afford the remedy. Get well soon, sir.

notajayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

porch_person (anonymous) says…

"That's right. I'm not giving you "do-overs". You lost. Get over it."

Hmmm, which of the porch_troll's own posts can I find that's appropriate here - oh, I know!

March 2, 2010 at 11:07 p.m. porch_person (anonymous) says… "I'll take "look it up" as "I have no reference to back up my claims". I'm not obliged to support your arguments." http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/mar/02/other-nations-make-universal-care-work/#c1167735

Or maybe this one:

March 3, 2010 at 1:53 a.m. porch_person (anonymous) says… "presenting a medical fact isn't an argument until you can show how it applies to your argument. Create a causal connection, back it up with data conclusively showing that this is the reason [why healthcare "outcomes" in other countries are better]. You haven't done that. All you've done is show that you can look up a medical fact. Whoopee!!" http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/mar/02/other-nations-make-universal-care-work/#c1167802

[Content in brackets being the question I have been asking porch for several months, and he has never answered.]

Or how about this one? Off topic a little, but hey, it's time for a little more humor - another of my favorite porchyisms:

March 4, 2010 at 10:24 p.m. porch_person (anonymous) says… "You want the qualifiers to refute the data, not qualify the data. There is a difference. They don't do that. You're being dishonest. Either that or you don't know what "qualify" means." http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/mar/02/other-nations-make-universal-care-work/#c1170709

We don't want qualifiers to qualify the data. And to top it off, you add that I don't know what qualify means!

Thanks for the memories, porch. Laughter really is the best medicine.

[Countdown to more porchfinkeling in 5, 4, 3 ...]

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

Just saying, Pilgrim2. The brightest minds on both sides of the issue are focusing on the commerce clause as the main issue. There are opinions, including SCOTUS decisions (cited in my previous posts) that contain relevant precedent, although the current SCOTUS composition may depart from them if recent decisions are any indicator of possible outcomes.

You asked and I offered up what I feel is the best nickel answer available for your consideration.

notajayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

And in other news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100323/ap_on_re_us/us_health_overhaul_lawsuit

"13 attorneys general sue over health care overhaul"

"TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Attorneys general from 13 states sued the federal government Tuesday, claiming the landmark health care overhaul is unconstitutional just seven minutes after President Barack Obama signed it into law.

"Some states are considering separate lawsuits — Virginia filed its own Tuesday — and still others may join the multistate suit."

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

Pilgrim2, First off, knock off the personal insults. I am an intelligent, reasonable person. Show a little respect and decency. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that your questions were legitimate. Apparently not. For the benefit of others, here's what I've read and heard.

The tax provision you are referring to is set to kick in 2014. It is an excise tax and, from what I have heard, will be part of filing individual federal income tax returns, where you will be required to furnish proof of essential health benefits coverage. For more about all of the tax-related provisions specific to the new law, see here:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/26037.html

For information regarding penalties and consequences, see here:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/26037.html


"Hopefully, taking the word of one of the authors of said clause, James Madison, into account, that's about to change."

That's not typically how court cases work. In spite of all your James Madison quotes (remember, he was just one of many in the mix), the bottom line is that if it isn't in the law or any interpretation of the law, such as precedent, it receives little or no deference in a court. So, the star-spangled dream you may have had is probably closer to fantasy than reality. It doesn't hurt to point out the words that founding fathers said, if for nothing more than to possibly understand history and context, but you and millions of others since the beginnings of our nation have continued a great debate about what they thought and may have intended then and what they would say or think now. The reality is that the court is the ultimate arbiter according to the Constitution.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

BTW, Pilgrim2, I never said there were no criminal penalties. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else and I challenge you to find anywhere that I stated that there were no criminal penalties. I think you owe me an apology for calling me a liar. It would be the right and decent thing to do.

purplesage 4 years, 9 months ago

Unbelivable arrognace once again is on display. The audacity of the Democrats to have a party and declare this event a great victory for the American people - when no Republicans voted for it and a majority of people in this nation opposed it - illustrates that the majority party is not representing the citizens who elected them.

L - i - b - e - r - a - l E - l - i - t - e

beatrice 4 years, 9 months ago

Forget Reagan, I think they should put Obama on the $50 bill.

notajayhawk 4 years, 9 months ago

Pilgrim2 (anonymous) says…

"Same thing poochie thought about the corporate campaign financing suit."

Or his blathering all last summer about Obama's 'rising' approval ratings.

Ah, well, recent posts by the porch have demonstrated he's not just posting out of stupidity, he just can't tell the truth. Time to relegate porch to the status of merrill, and just scroll past his posts. (Hey, but at least he earned BeO's "respect" on another thread, so he's got that going for him.)


And in still later news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_children_s_coverage_5

"Gap in health care law's protection for children"

WASHINGTON – Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.

Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.

One of the only parts of the bill that was supposed to have an immediate effect, and in almost 3,000 pages of legislation, they couldn't even get THAT right!

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 9 months ago

Pilgrim2 (anonymous) says… "For anyone reading this thread, that put you two in the same argumentative boat."

Talk about guilt by association. Problem is, there wasn't even any association beside the fact that we happened to be conversing about the same topic. I thought I was addressing your questions. And still no apology. I'll let that stand as a measure of your lack of decency and dignity.

As far as the amount of time required for implementation, one consideration is that it has been estimated that, despite the law being over 2,000 pages in length, around 15,000 or more pages of administrative documents will need to be put together, reviewed by various agencies affected and counsel, and promulgated. As one who is somewhat familiar with similar policy and directives processes, that's not a surprise. Now you know.

leepee 4 years, 8 months ago

What I find interesting about this is that so many of us who are either republican or democat and complain about both parties or the party that was voted for, will not vote for an independant. If there are more of us who voted for a candidate whose record reflects a better option for Americans (say, for instance, a constitutional independant), then perhaps the USA would see a better turn of events.....just an example.

What bothers me the most about this health care program is that one must have the insurance or risk paying a (yearly) fine from >$600. to approx $2700. I know that we are forced to pay for medicare, et. al., (and we know the direction where medicare, social security are headed) but I just don't like the fact that ANOTHER GOVERNMENT MANDATE has occured. It just seems too much like Totalitarinism and (arguably) Communism.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.