• ALIENated said on Nov 07, 2009....

  But will the Senate OK it? I doubt it after the uproar that comes about during the next couple of days.

• D6fer said on Nov 07, 2009....

  They are clearly not listening to the people......it may be too late......these radicals that have control of our congress and white house are on a kamikaze mission hell bent on bringing in socialism.
  

• andycox said on Nov 08, 2009....

  So, D6fer, how exactly does your health care bill constitute 'socialism'? And what have you to say to the 46.3 million of your fellow-Americans who lack insurance cover? Just interested.

• Twylarants said on Nov 08, 2009....

  Then cover the uninsured and leave the rest of us alone.

• beyondtheveil said on Nov 08, 2009....

  I commented on alien's post that I have no idea what the bill says - and can't find out. 

• ALIENated said on Nov 08, 2009....

  This legislation is not likely to help those 46 million.

  http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJU5kC3UDPaw

  And it makes things more complicated. Insurance has complicated the healthcare system. It needs to be simplified and prices need to be controlled and that is about all, not further complicated by the injection of thousands of beurocrats and more government agencies thrown into the system. Democrats are just trying to create more government jobs for thier drones, the people who vote for them. This is simply the culmination of the mess FDR started and people like LBJ helped along with things like Medicaid. You would think that Medicaid would have taught us a lesson, but Democrats are incapable of learning from the past, so they are destined to make the same mistakes over and over.

• sheltercrow said on Nov 08, 2009....

  Since when is a law that forces people to purchase something from a capitalist market system socialist?
  
  Call it what it is. A good old fashion corporate monopoly marketed as 'good for all.' Boss Tweed, grifter extraordinaire, would envy such a deal.

• curmudgeon said on Nov 08, 2009....

  andy - many of the 46 million (a number that in itself may be suspect) might not even want insurance. They may want to make a calculated risk on the basis of their youth and relative health and wait until they are in career positions that fully cover them. there is not one iota of evidence to support the notion that these folks are the ones responsible for escalating medical costs, yet these are the folks obama and company wish to bully into buying insurance.
  
  young voters in america need to know that by electing this cretin, they have guaranteed themselves an inability to garner any wealth whatsoever over the coming decades. they are the ones who, taking low-paying positions in order to climb the career ladder, will now have to shell out some extra 15% of their total discretionary spending from their own meager incomes to pay for other people's health insurance. moreover, as they climb the ladder, the larger a chunk the government will take out! for those who don't climb, well, they will have to satisfy themselves on instant noodles and hot dogs well out of their college years. guess what, mom and dad, the kids are coming to live with you until they're forty, thanks to good ol' barry and his merry band of leftist mules! this law is hardly fair and may in the end not even pass constitutional muster.
  
  The good news is that if the Republicans win back the House and/or Senate in 2010, this whole new crappy legislation can and likely will be either repealed or be effectively repealed through shortages in funding the law's enforcement.
  
  Unemployment is at 10% and here are the libs forcing people to spend more on insurance they may not even want or feel they need.
  

• stopmediabias said on Nov 09, 2009....

  It is not 46 million it is more like 12 million and uninsured does not mean totally without healthcare. 

  I think it will be a miracle if this gets through the Senate because once the outcry comes from this Saturday night debacle a lot of these Senators are going to be looking at New Jersery and Virginia and thinking about 2010.

  This bill is a disaster and if it does get passed then the era of Obama liberalism is going to be shortlived because it creates over 100 new government agencies, in the long run is going to raise taxes on everyone who pays them, and it forces people to buy insurance or get fined.  Worst of all it forces private companies to do things that will either hurt them or put them out of business.

  This bill wasn't about healthcare, this bill is a powergrab.  These libs see the power of raising money for schools in campaigns.  People love to hear a politician talk about dumping vast sums of money into "education."  Next they will be dumping vast sums into healthcare.   

• bloc said 12 days ago....

  most polls show that a majority of people are for reform and are for something like medicare for all.

• sheltercrow said 12 days ago....

  curmudgeon: How disingenuous. Your head is stuck so far up your GOP ass you relieve us all of the history of republican years! There is little difference between your zombie banter and alien's idiocy except his excessive commie hyperbole.

• ALIENated said 12 days ago....

  Most Democracies fail once people figure out they can vote themselves things like "free" healthcare. I would agree that most want reform, but this Democrat / Socialist pile of crap is not it. It is simply a 2000 page mumbo jumbo power grab, as SMB says. Most everyone has figured that out. Even sensible Democrats are beginning to figure that out. The question is: are they willing to give up their seats to back it? I figure it is planned to fail by just enough that they can say the messiah tried, but the evil Republicans thwarted his efforts. Whether it passes or fails, Democrats / Socialists have shown their hand (power grabbing loonies) once again. The liberal way is a losing proposition and Socialism is an even worse proposition. If the government wants to do something, I say ban all health insurance and impose wage and price controls. Train qualified doctors and nurses for free to make sure enough get in the biz. The savings in administrative bullcrap would probably be phenominal. No more doctor liability insurance either. If a doctor fucks up, the patient gets a reasonable settlement and the doctor is expelled. And stop trying to control us with bigger and bigger government. Stop trying to create more government jobs in order to buy votes for your party. Wake up guys and smell the coffee. Why would you trust a bigger and bigger Democrat-run government any more than you would trust a bigger and bigger Republican-run government. The key part of that phrase is bigger and bigger government, which is not good no matter who is in the driver's seat. You know good and well that you only agree with either party on a handful of issues, not all.

• sheltercrow said 12 days ago....

  ALIENated: There is one thing that is always missing from all your's, stopmediabias's and curmudgeon's comments. Credible, verifiable facts that support your assertions.
  
  Till then you three are simply the local loonies that give the site color.

• ALIENated said 12 days ago....

  Did anyone hear that? It sounded like bull crap hitting the floor. I suppose I am just hearing things.

• robbo203 said 12 days ago....

  6fer said 7 days ago....

  They are clearly not listening to the people......it may be too late......these radicals that have control of our congress and white house are on a kamikaze mission hell bent on bringing in socialism.
  
  Yes I too would like to know what the hell all his has got to do with socialism.  Socialism has got nohing to do wih the state running our lives.  That is state capitalism. Socialists want a society wihout a state and wihout a market.  Anything less has got bugger all to do with socialism.  The democrats are just a bunch of reformists who want to run capitalism in one particular way as opposed to another.  The reality is that modern capitalism cannot possibly be run without significant regulatory state intervention despite what the neoliberal neanderthals claim.  But this is a problem for the pro-capitalists to grapple with, not genuine socialists.  We want something that goes way beyond the limited and cramping vision of a state run capitalism.
  

• sheltercrow said 11 days ago....

  Here is an example of how our resident wing-nut's 'socialism/communism' works. From 'In House, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists:’
  
  
  In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.
  
  Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.
  
  E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.
  
  The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms, were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.
  
  Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.
  
  
  Corporate 'socialism/communism' is certainly working for Genentech.
  
  Corporations of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!

• stopmediabias said 11 days ago....

  rob-We here in America see the government stepping further into places they don't belong as stepping closer to other failed socialisms around the world.  It may not fit into the garden variety definition of socialism but that is how we see it.  We want less government and believe the problems with our healthcare system can be fixed better with less government. 

  If any halfwit Democrat or Republican say they want this then the polls are not asking the right questions.  They should be asking questions like: Do you want to pay higher taxes, long waits, asking some government agency a question about your healthcare, private industries run out of business, etc etc etc

• Twylarants said 10 days ago....

  It's the big picture conservatives object to, not the definition of socialism or the particular kind of socialist Obama is.
  It's not the idea of health care for everyone, it's the hidden agenda...not so hidden, actually...at the core of it.
  Here's a paragraph from an interesting article I came across:
  

  Make Health Care your flagship policy issue and build your entire organizing strategy around it.

  In November of 2007, SEIU held a joint public session , “High Road Health Care Charrette“, at their headquarters in Washington, D.C.  A collaborative effort of SEIU, the Sloan Foundation’s Industry Studies Program, and the Center on Wisconsin Strategy (also a partner of Green for All and the Apollo Alliance), the joint session was a discussion on restructuring the health care industry to move more of the private insurance market functions into the government sector, arguing that doing so would increase productivity and drive down cost.  But by productivity and cost, SEIU meant their own – increasing the government and health care sectors adds more SEIU members, and transfers the expense of their health and retirement benefits from their own books to the state and federal government instead.

  And here's the site, if you want to read more.
  

  
  

• curmudgeon said 10 days ago....

  Shelter - I may indeed be all the things you say, but at least I am not a brainless serial linker. Moreover, I do not see how anyone could consider one who wishes government to do everything for him from funding his retirement to wiping his ass in a hospital as possessing even a modicum of intelligence and independent thought.
  
  Robbo - if you have any links to your vision of socialism, I'd love to read them. How is your definition of socialism different from, say, anarchism?
  

• sheltercrow said 10 days ago....

  curmudgeon: I the real world, as concerns evidence, there is a concept that involves 'susceptible of verification.' If you intentionally fling out an assertion in a debate that is not susceptible of verification it is merely an uninformed opinion of a 'brainless' zombie.
  
  You my friend, however articulate you may be, are, more often than not, a brainless zombie.

• sheltercrow said 10 days ago....

  Twylarants: Before the launching of Big Government, Andrew Breitbart's highest profile venue was as an editor for the Drudge Report. Breitbart described himself as "Matt Drudge’s bitch."
  
  Enough said?

• stopmediabias said 10 days ago....

  Now I want everyone to please check out the Drudge Report, which is a compilation of different news stories from different news sources.  Matt Drudge happens to be a conservative but the posted stories range all over the politcal spectrum.

  Andrew Breitbart, also a conservative has a similar website as Drudge, which posts different news stories from all over the politcal spectrum.

  Skittlecrow discredits the Drudge Report when it is not a conservative site or thinktank or any such thing, it is just a mix of different stories.  I have even asked him to go to the Drudge Report and see for himself but he won't because it is easier to whine about conservatives then to actually address the point Twylarants was making. 

  Skittle has this anything nutty leftwing must be good and anything even remotely leaning to the right must be the scourge of the world, attitude.

  List all the problems with our healthcare system then put Obama-care right next to it and honestly ask the question, is this the best solution?

• sheltercrow said 10 days ago....

  stopmediabias: I can see no reason whatever to patronize a website that does not fact-check it's content.
  
  I fully understand why the Drudge Report - the Internet version of the National Enquirer - is one of your favorite sources.
  
  It allows you claim a source when you broadcast your idiotic world view. No matter that the source is, in fact, a useless Internet broad sheet which itself claims not to be involved in actual journalism.

• Twylarants said 10 days ago....

  And?  You're saying none of the story about SEIU is true? None of it? Nothing reported by Drudge and Breitbart is ever true, they just make it all up?
  Nothing reported by any conservative columnist or written by any conservative blogger anywhere, on the Internet, in newspapers, on radio and tv, is true, yet every link you provide should be taken as gospel?
  So, pretty much, only you know exactly what's going on in this country, yeah?
  Huh. Well, I'll be damned. Good to know.
  

• sheltercrow said 10 days ago....

  An interesting view of Andrew Breitbart from James Edwards that holds no punches...
  
  
  The conservative blogosphere is abuzz today over The Next Big Thing – the new website, Big Hollywood, which just launched. It’s going to be the voice of “conservative” Hollywood types, as well as those who write about it. It was founded by Andrew Breitbart, who refers to himself as “the bitch” of homosexual “conservative” Matt Drudge. And to give you an idea of just how “conservative” Andrew Breitbart is, he’s the guy who designed and set up HuffingtonPost.com, the most popular far left liberal website on the internet. I’m sure he was paid well for designing the website, and what are principles when it comes to cold hard cash? He also runs Breitbart News and Breitbart TV, two websites which link to “conservative” news stories and videos. He says his new site has “the modest goal of changing Hollywood.”
  
  Yeah, sure it does.
  
  I just spent some time perusing Big Hollywood, and if it were a movie, it would be a straight to video release starring Carrot Top and Gary Coleman. The goal isn’t to change Hollywood. It’s to get a lot of traffic and keep conservatives spinning their wheels by pretending to be about changing Hollywood, while being scrupulously careful to never do anything that would remotely disturb the powers that be in Hollywood, let alone bring about any change.

• Twylarants said 10 days ago....

  Ok, that clears it up. Breitbart is trying to make money.
  I now see the error of my conservative ways.
  

• sheltercrow said 10 days ago....

  Twylarants: What I'm saying is, to repeat, I can see no reason whatever to patronize a website that does not fact-check it's content. Neither Breitbart nor Drudge cares what the actual content is. They care only about the traffic to their websites and how much revenue can be had with that traffic.
  
  Fools like stopmediabias bite for it every time hoping no one will catch on.
  
  It's always been puzzling why a user with the moniker 'stopmediabias' would deal in such shameless for-profit drivel. Until you realize the same 'stopmediabias' is nothing more than a republican shill looking to convince, with whatever garbage they can pass off, from any source.
  
  Et tu, Brute?
  

• curmudgeon said 10 days ago....

  Shelter - better a brainless zombie than a witless, multi-alt, profligate linker.

• curmudgeon said 10 days ago....

  It is fun trading barbs with you though, shelter! :-)

• Twylarants said 10 days ago....

  The purpose of reading is to glean information, unless you read fiction, right?  So you read, you process what you've read, and you form opinions. If you read simply to be convinced, what's the use?  Just go along with the opinion du jour.
  I'm 60.  I've been conservative and opinionated more years than I care to remember. Not much shocks me anymore except this President's grab for power.
  Making money form a website sounds like a good idea to me. As long as they continue supplying me with pertinent info, I'm good with it.
  
  

• sheltercrow said 10 days ago....

  curmudgeon: profligate? lol.
  
  As in 'completely given up to dissipation and licentiousness' or 'wildly extravagant.'

• sheltercrow said 10 days ago....

  Twylarants: I'm 55 and have no time to read the fiction passed off as fact on the Breitbart/Drudge garbage sites. Its a matter of time invested. If I had to fact-check all the crap Drudge and Breitbart posts I would have time for little else and would gain what?
  
  I leave the UFO scandal sheets to the tinfoil hat crowd. I leave it's Internet equivalent to the same fools.
  
  I find it amusing to read some posts here that repeat the fiction found on the Drudge/Breitbart et al. sites. It only proves that the market for tinfoil will always be strong.
  
  Drudge lies alone gets some 7,000,000 hits.

• Twylarants said 10 days ago....

  So how do you feel about SEIU's influence on Obama?

• sheltercrow said 10 days ago....

  D6fer: Here is something that will make you smile. Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

• sheltercrow said 10 days ago....

  Twylarants: SEIU's influence on Obama?
  
  Their influence is no more than any other group. The democrats have always had a ticket to all the union functions. But I think it's more a one-way street. SEIU loves Obama but my observations are that Obama is too much a centrist to make much of a difference in the lives of the rank-and-file of SEIU.
  
  Obama likes the money and support. But his policy initiatives have little real relevance to the SEIU.
  
  According to Marc Ambinder - 17 Sep 2007 - At SEIU, Obama "Rocked The House"
  
  
  he is a longtime friend of Chicago's SEIU Local 880 and worked closely with the union as an organizer and later as a state legislator.
  
  
  But consider the divergence...
  
  Obama Top Fundraiser on Wall Street - WaPo
  
  Hundreds of Taxpayers Converge on Goldman Sachs DC Headquarters - SEIU

• stopmediabias said 10 days ago....

  Shelter-You have never visited Drudge or you wouldn't say that.  You are making a mistake and you are making yourself look stupid.  Drudge doesn't lie or even offer an opinion, he only posts news sources from everywhere.  The AP, New York Times, Washington post, etc etc, there is no fact checking because he only reports the news by siting news stories.  But keep going you are just digging yourself a big hole.  Lets start fact checking some of your links :)

• ALIENated said 9 days ago....

  ... Obama is too much a centrist ...

  Yeah, skippycork needs more reason to look stupid. Anyone that thinks Obama is anywhere near the center has to have a screw loose (Bill Mayher comes to mind). The healthcare legislation is meant to buy votes from groups like the SEIU. If the government takes over healthcare, that will create thousands of jobs for SEIU members. Cash for clunkers was meant to buy auto union votes, but that backfired. People want Japanese and German cars. Not union-made crap heaps. That is the problem with Democrats / Socialists. They are too concerned with buying votes instead of doing what is good for the country in the long run. Always look for the vote-buying connection in anything Democrats do. Obama cannot even bring himself to say anything good about America, especially overseas. Ronald Reagan and George Bush could hardly go a few minutes without praising our country. Obama may have been born in America, but he sure does not act like it.

• Twylarants said 9 days ago....

  "..hide your healthcare & say your prayers cuz amnesty's coming next year..here comes amnesty here comes amnesty..." EVERYBODY SING!!!

• ALIENated said 9 days ago....

  Yep, that is the next big push to buy more votes. The question is, why are hispanic Americans willing to sell their votes for favors going to criminals? I suppose there is something to be said for all the illegals receiving amnesty and then repaying Democrats with their votes.

• sheltercrow said 9 days ago....

  stopmediabias: You are a fool. You can fact-check any of my links any time you like and you know it. I welcome the idea.
  
  As for Drudge 'there is no fact checking' because he doesn't bite the hand that feeds.

• sheltercrow said 9 days ago....

  ALIENated: Anyone who doesn't know Obama is a centrist is living in a dream world.

• sheltercrow said 9 days ago....

  Twylarants: Here is another article you and the tinfoil twins can ignore:
  
  Beck uses blatant distortions to smear SEIU as violent organization of "thugs"
  
  There's more to ignore here.

• stopmediabias said 9 days ago....

  Shelternuts-You are retarded aren't you?  Drudge posts news sources from nearly every news agency in the mainstream media from the New York Times to MSNBC.  Like I said, go to Drudge and read the long list of links that he posts his news stories from.  The only single thing you can say about Drudge is he does occasionally post misleading headlines but he does that against both Republicans and Democrats and I have found several examples of the AP and other news sources posting misleading headlines.

  ROFL!!!  You then post a "news story" from Media matters, a ultra leftwing nutcase site.  I am thinking you are either 14 or just plain retarded, or maybe both?

• sheltercrow said 9 days ago....

  stopmediabias: These interaction always seem to devolve into you defending the integrity of your primary source, a hopeless sidetrack, instead of your real problem as being a shameless republican shill.
  
  There is nothing to be gained by engaging in a sham debate with a shill.
  
  I leave you to your tinfoil collective.

• stopmediabias said 8 days ago....

  Shelter- Thank you, now I can say.........checkmate.

  And if I was a shameless Republican shill would I agree with legalizing Marijuana and be against the death penalty? 

• Twylarants said 8 days ago....

  Tinfoil what? Are you talking about conspiracy theorists?  Like the 9/11 truthers?  Yeah, I don't think so.  It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to figure out Obama's agenda, just someone with common sense. He's pretty transparent.

• ALIENated said 8 days ago....

  Is that what Obama meant by transparency?

  Wow, I am in a dream world where passing a humongous Socialist healthcare bill is centrist. la la la la la la la do dah do dah

  Shinglecow is so very, very ass toot.

• bloc said 7 days ago....

  @alien
  
  
  "Most Democracies fail once people figure out they can vote themselves things like "free" healthcare."
  
  
  This is very true, but it applies to both sides. Right now people are voting for "free" benefits while also voting for "lower taxes". We can debate where in this spectrum america should be, but I think we all have to get serious about the unsustainability of our current course. 
  
  
  Let's not forget that it was only a few years ago when Republicans were increasing spending while cutting taxes, and they controlled the whole government just as the democrats do now.

• D6fer said 7 days ago....

  bloc.....why not reduce bureaucracy? How much do you think is lost to that?

• stopmediabias said 7 days ago....

  Why can't they just pass healthcare reform?  Why do we have these massive bills that try push abortion on people, increase the size of government, and risk another disasterous Canadian style socialism.  If these Democrats just solve the current problems we have they could stay in power for decades, instead they are trying to create another education-esque soundbite and even if they succeed they are going to fail because Americans don't want what they are selling.

  And why do these people pass bills the same way they put Jesus on trial?

• ALIENated said 6 days ago....

  The problem is, we are now in a pissing contest between Democrats / Socialists and Republicans. D / S are now more into socialism than liberalism and Republicans are straying into liberalism (McCain is a perfect example). I really cannot accept the Bush Administration as a good example of a Republican administration because of the influence of the 9/11 attacks and the war on terrorists. I think it actually addled Dubya a bit. He was so taken aback by the attacks and the loss of American life on our own soil, he went off the deep end in his response. Besides, how is the war in Afghanistan any different than the war in Iraq except that we got rid of a horrible dictator in the process? The Reagan Administration is a much better example to me. But, to be realistic, too far to the left (see the USSR) OR too far to the right (see Nazi Germany) is not a good thing. We need some government involvement, but Obama is trying to enslave us to bigger and bigger government. As SMB says, they are not trying to reform, they are trying to pass their liberal agenda while they can. I would prefer the do-nothing nature of the Bush Administration to the Big Brotheresque nature of the Obama Administration so far. And you can bet your ass the healthcare legislation (IF it passes) is just the beginning. You know it and I know it. I have to question anyone's intelligence that is falling for all this crap. We are selling our freedom for the promise of "free" healthcare. We have a generation or two of citizens that barely made it through high school, people who barely know any history. People who are being told the holocost did not happen and other such garbage. I suppose it is difficult for people like that to recognize when a dictator is rising to power. But that is what is happening. The same things are happening now that have happened before. It is not to late to stop it, but time is running out.

• bloc said 6 days ago....

  smb and alien are living in some bizarro world. For example, canada is a single payer system, the democrats took single payer off the table by themselves at the very outset of this effort. This is a clear contradiction of both Alien and SMB's comments.
  
  
  @d6
  I'm not sure what you mean specifically.

• ALIENated said 6 days ago....

  Look at the forest man, not the trees. You, like most Democrats / Socialists just want your team to win at any cost. Try hard to understand what the Obama Administration is all about. We are not discussing whether Obama garbles his words, is maintaining an illegal war in Afghanistan (fuck Afghanistan), or won the presidency because of some hanging chads. We are talking about destroying our country. They must be laughing their asses off around the White House. We are like lambs being led to slaughter, as naive as the Jews headed toward the "showers". I guarantee you that, if this healthcare legislation passes, all our heads will be swimming by this time next year because of the other crap they attempt to pass. The only way Democrats / Socialists can ever get into office is to buy people's votes. They spend all their time doing just that at the expense of those who have to pay for it ... one way or the other. Consequently, our whole country suffers because of it.

• D6fer said 6 days ago....

  I mean don't you think that bureaucracy absorbs more dollars than is needed to fund most things?
  
  Rather than constantly taking more of people money, why not reduce the size and scope of the fed and free up those dollars lost to the black hole in Washington?
  

• stopmediabias said 5 days ago....

  bloc-How the fuck would you know?  Have you read either of the bills in the House or the Senate?  NO!  NO-ONE HAS!!!  Because they are a close to 4,000 pages combined! 

  If the American people knew exactly what was happening here would anybody that is not a freeloader actually want this?  Require private companies to do things that is ultimately going to destroy their business?  Are you serious?

  This era of Liberal nutcases in power is going to be very shortlived if they actually can lie and cheat and bribe to get this garbage passed.

• ALIENated said 5 days ago....

  Well, all Democrats / Socialists and Independents just voted for the Senate version debate to procede. All the Republicans voted against it. Get the vasoline ready.

• bloc said 4 days ago....

  "Require private companies to do things that is ultimately going to destroy their business?"
  
  
  Most americans rightly want to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions. I hope conservatives argue that we shouldn't do this.
  
  
  @d6
  as institutions get bigger they naturally lose some efficiency, and gain some in other areas. This is true of private companies as well. This isn't a reason to avoid not have government. 

• D6fer said 4 days ago....

  @bloc
  no, but it is a good reason to shrink it, and to transfer power to sate and local governments where accountability is generally higher.
  

• ALIENated said 4 days ago....

  I heard the other day why insurance companies do not cover pre-existing conditions, and it makes a lot of sense. If they did, no one would buy insurance. They would just wait until they are diagnosed with some disease and then get insurance. The only way that will work is if we are all forced to buy insurance, which is what the plan to do. And insurance companies will go broke covering major diseased people. All that will be left eventually is the government option. The government will then control your health care. I would love to be around when all this comes home to people like bloc. People who wrongly think the Democrats / Socialists are the good guys. They may think they are the good guys, but they are not, I assure you. Liberals think everything can be legislated to the point that there is no problem. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The more government gets involved, the worse things get. It never ceases to marvel me that the same people who were totally paranoid about the government this time last year now think the government is going to solve all their problems. If that was true, all our problems would have been solved long ago. FDR thought he was solving all our problems with social security. LBJ thought he was going to solve all our problems with Medicare. Jimmy Carter just had his head up his ass. Clinton had his mind in the gutter. The same kind of people who now think they are going to solve all our problems. Wake up you morons.

• stopmediabias said 4 days ago....

   bloc-
  "Most americans rightly want to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions. I hope conservatives argue that we shouldn't do this."

  
  Insurance is designed to indemnify (make whole) in the case of unforseen circumstances with the use of pooling resouces.  If 100 people all pay a tiny amount and 5 of those people develop lung cancer the insurance company has enough money to make a profit and cover those 5 people.

   

  If insurance companies are forced to take everyone how can they stay in business?  Look at life insurance.  If they are forced to cover people that are one footstep into the grave and cannot deny them there is no way they can stay in business and the only thing the government is doing with this is hurting private enterprise. 

   

  Every form of insurance there are exceptions where people cannot qualify and forcing private companies into something that is ultimate going to either hurt them or put them out of business is stupid and dangerous.   

• Twylarants said 3 days ago....

  This link takes Alien's "Look at the forest man, not the trees" a step or two further.  The big picture is far more disturbing than it's little parts.
  Obama is prepared to stop at nothing to implement the Cloward-Piven Strategy and liberals are more than ready to take everything it offers regardless of who pays for it. Who said "If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's support"?
  

• bloc said 3 days ago....

  "If insurance companies are forced to take everyone how can they stay in business?"
  
  
  This is a good question. Other countries that cover all citizens pay a lot less per person then we do, and we have millions uninsured. Clearly it's possible. 
  
  
  I also want to make sure it's clear what smb is saying. He, and the republicans in general, believe that insurance companies should be able to deny coverage due to preexisting conditions. Let's be clear about this and let the American people make an informed choice as to which direction they prefer.

• stopmediabias said 3 days ago....

  Bloc-Lets be clear.  A pre-existing condition is a condition that existed before the person sought coverage.  Insurance is designed specifically for unforseen circumstances. 

  Example:  I go and get health insurance and then a year later I discover I have heart issues that cost thousands of dollars in tests and office visits.  Being everyday Americans don't have thousands at a moments notice insurance covers this based on the fact my insurance company collects money from 100 people based on the fact that 5 of those people are going to have heart problems.

  You are stating my insurance company is suppose to cover someone who all ready has a heart condition before they even buy the insurance and the company is suppose to cover it.  So instead of 100 people paying and 5 getting sick, 100 sick people are going to be asking for coverage? 

  Does that make any logical sense?

  And other countries pound their citizens with taxes and people have to wait 18 weeks to see a doctor for a procedure. 

  You yourself don't even trust the government now you are going to hand over your healthcare decisions to them?

• Twylarants said 2 days ago....

  Something interesting here:
  

  The Senate healthcare bill has numerous flaws – but you needn’t know the details to know that it erodes freedom, restricts your ability to care for your family according to your wishes, costs trillions of dollars, increases taxes, increases premiums and is so massive that it is impossible to comprehend fully. In fact, the 2074 page behemoth in the Senate is an interesting study in word choices that tell you all you need to know about the bill. See below for a list of select words – and I am not the only one to do such a review (I noticed, e.g., Lee DeCovnick over at American Thinker from yesterday here).

  The word “shall” appears 3607 times, but “freedom” only twice. The word “penalty” and its various forms 163 times, but “liberty” doesn’t appear at all. The word “require” and its forms 1025 times, but the “Constitution” is absent both literally and figuratively. The word tax and its forms appears 183 times, fee 234 times, and “Internal Revenue” 104 times. Other words like apply, rule, culture, diverse, enforce, provide, authority - all words that appear repeatedly, while a word like “own” appears only 11 times. See the full list below. It is quite telling.

• javadewd said 1 day ago....

  Yes, let's be clear how bloc is basically bastardizing the idea behind pre-existing conditions, shall we?
  
  I'm all for the stipulation that an insurance company should not be able to drop customers due to having been diagnosed for conditions. That speaks volumes about the integrity of an insurance company. I buy insurance when I'm healthy so that if I become "not healthy" I am covered. If insurance companies decide that me, Mr. Healthy, isn't worth insuring because I am diagnosed with cancer, diabetes, congestive heart failure, HIV or the common cold, then the executives of such companies should be taken out into the street and shot.
  
  I'm also for extending and if necessary subsidizing COBRA. Many of my small business clients do this a little differently. If they let somebody go, they will continue their health insurance so long as the former employee in question coughs up the regular standard premium for the monthly insurance as they did while they were hired. This in turn pushes the whole COBRA idea further out. So long as the insured doesn't miss a payment, they don't even have to deal with COBRA and if/when they find a job later, they don't have to make any more coverage payments once they land on their feet with other insurance at another job. Since most businesses aren't as nice as some of my clients, though, I believe that COBRA should be available for a longer stretch of time and to a point it shouldn't be three times the cost of what you were paying, but you'd have to honestly sit down and understand why it is what it is before you start waving your fist in rage.
  
  Some people -- I'll label them the "responsible" ones -- get health insurance that is independent of their jobs. They pay into it well, so that they don't have to worry whether or not they have a job this time tomorrow to pay for it. They get it to cover their spouses and families from the get-go, straight out of the gates, so that if they have a child born with any sort of health problem that they don't become stuck in their jobs forever in fear that they'll lose their coverage for their family.
  
  Since such ideas aren't nurtured anymore in American society, we have the "usual" ones : Get enough education to land a job that pays health insurance and work it every day until you lose it or retire. The idea of relying / leaning on, blaming or bastardizing employers (especially in a right-to-hire / right-to-fire state like Missouri) is unrealistic and reactionary at best. Since the dot-bust at the turn of the century, job security has become a fantasy at best. It's nobody's responsibility but your own to provide for your family and that includes health and life insurance.
  
  Employers are businesses and many for-profit businesses. If I can't turn a profit, I take my ball and go home. I'm not a fucking adult daycare for non-working shitheads and if I'm not making money then I am putting my own family at risk for the sake of a handful or more of people. To continue a business at such a stage would be illogical, non-beneficial and financially suicidal. I still have the words "this is no time for profit" ringing in my ears from the last crock of shit I heard out of a guy who made over $3M in book sales and somehow miraculously is running our country and wonder why people listen to and follow such a hypocrite when unenjoyment is beyond the 10% mark nationally.
  
  There should be a market for people who suddenly find themselves with pre-existing conditions yet for whatever innate reason do not have health coverage -- yet this market should be supplemental and separate from the existing insurance market -- so that people like my mother-in-law who has congestive heart failure and other ailments can get a decent price on those specific pharmaceuticals. For instance, let's say that someone just out of college contracts HIV (let's not haggle over how for a moment and muddy the argument) and it becomes full-blown AIDS and on top of that, it's debilitating. They can't work. They never had a job. They haven't put in to social security. Should the government swoop in at this point and subsidize this person's life until they die a wretched death? Oh, hell no. There are pharm companies out there that pay healthy people $2k/mo (better than most unemployment) to field-test their AIDS drugs! Just think of the bonus if they are cured!! Not only will the pharm corp get their FDA approval and sell their drugs to more fortunate folk who get quickly diagnosed, but they can perhaps even go out and get a fucking job. This is so win/win!!
  

• ALIENated said 1 day ago....

  Does that make any logical sense?

  Well, you just lost bloc. Logic makes him disappear. Logic confuses most liberals. They so want to demonize conservatives and Republicans, their eyes and ears close in the presence of logic. If everyone is forced to buy insurance, there will be no pre-existing conditions. Which is worse. Not covering pre-existing conditions or forcing everyone to buy insurance. Why are we so concerned about idionts that do not have insurance? If they do not insure themselves, fuck em. It is their own fault. I, and my family, have had health insurance one way or another all my adult life. And why are we so concerned about illegal immigrants one way or the other. THEY ARE ILLEGAL. THEY SHOULD NOT EVEN BE HERE.

Comment on "House Democrats screw America....Seal own fate for big 2010 loss"

Currently tagged	politics socialism Obama liberals powergrab Democrats (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously