Patrick.net

Healthcare reform done deal!

By Vicente   Follow   Sun, 21 Mar 2010, 9:17pm   10,156 views   91 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 52-91 of 91     Last »     See most liked comments

1. elliemae Follow Befriend (25) 413 threads 6,976 comments Saint George, UT elliemae's website

   52   9:27pm Mon 22 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   wcalleallegre says I think there will be funding for the murder of unborn babies. This is a giant step toward statism and slavery. Playing on emotions certainly hasn't helped so far. You're wasting your breath. Remember that it doesn't matter if it passed 100% or as a grandstanding opportunity for idiots to spout their hatred of anything with which they disagree - it passed.

2. Bitcoins arent the future? Follow Befriend (1) 20 threads 174 comments Beverly Hills, CA

   53   10:14pm Mon 22 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   alright, so I've read through the posts, and I'm pretty sure that not one of us fully understands whats going on in the 2500 page bill. I see a lot of 'neener neener neener' from the dems, and a lot of 'Im going to tell you I told you so' from the repubs. Truth is, its law, we're in it now. and as they say "we can fix it later", which means big interests may have lost a battle or two today but they will win the war, because one step at a time they will be able to tweak this law into one of the most profitable extortion rackets around. I'll probably be dead by then. From what I can find, it turns out this bill is equivalent social security II. The young are on the hook for the old, and its going to cost a lot more than they say. Its no secret that denying things like pre-existing conditions are BS. But are we really on the hook to pay the bill for some jackass who smokes rat poison cut meth? I think that if we are on the hook to pay for these morons, we might care a little more about fixing our society to the point that these people might want to do something fun & less damaging... and I'm not talking about alcohol

3. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

   54   10:32pm Mon 22 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   rileybryan says The young are on the hook for the old And it's a shame that the young never get old, nor do they know and care for anybody old! Who needs old people anyway? But are we really on the hook to pay the bill for some jackass who smokes rat poison cut meth? Or skaters. I hate them. I wish they'd stay off my lawn. The deal is simply the status quo isn't working, and this is the most progressive policy we can get given the various moving parts (even counting the teabagger noise machine). The way to fix the insurance overhead problem is to more highly regulate the industry, like Canada, Japan, Switzerland, etc etc do. Unfortunately, for 30-40% of this country, government is a "ima reachin' for my gun" word.

4. waterbaby Follow Befriend 2 threads 53 comments

   55   10:48pm Mon 22 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Vicente says Vincente, Iwog...thanks, I appreciate your sensibilities. :) Btw....the GOP under the guise of the VFW of Virginia put out fully erroneous info about HCR's negative affect on TriCare Military Insurance. It began this way: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/22/85751/1717 From Tammy Duckworth: Tammy Duckworth is the Assistant Secretary of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs for the Department of Veterans Affairs http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/18/...our-troops-rest Putting the Concerns of Our Veterans and Our Troops to Rest http://vetvoice.com/tag.do?tag=TRICARE Cabinet Secretaries Say STFU on TRICARE/VA Fear-mongering by: Richard Allen Smith Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:41:40 AM EDT I just wanted to let others know in case they 'hear the rumor'. Now for some ice. :)

5. Bitcoins arent the future? Follow Befriend (1) 20 threads 174 comments Beverly Hills, CA

   56   11:17pm Mon 22 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   @Iwog, >I hear this a lot, but it still makes me shake my head. What the house passed today is the Senate bill >which passed IN DECEMBER!!! Clusterfox broadcasts DAILY that Democrats haven’t even had the >chance to read the bill. I never said the dems never read the policy. I essentially said that I have not read the policy, and neither have you. I'm so sorry I didn't have the time to read 2500 pages of confusing medical policy, but I barely made it through "The Stand", and that was only half as long and a heck of a lot more interesting. I'm betting 99.9% of the US got their perception of this whole thing from a 20 second simplification given to us by a major media outlet, which either ingored the details, or completely worshipped / demonized the whole thing.

6. MarkInSF Follow Befriend 14 threads 1,118 comments

   57   11:27pm Mon 22 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Troy says But are we really on the hook to pay the bill for some jackass who smokes rat poison cut meth? Or skaters. I hate them. I wish they’d stay off my lawn. Not to mention we already do pay for their emergency room care if they are uninsured. Then you've got jackasses that don't eat an optimal diet (extremely few people do) or exercise enough causing diseases like cancer, cardio-vascular disease, diabetes, kidney failure, . And people drive cars, ride motorcycles, ski, live in homes with dangerous stairs, live in areas with lots of particulates that cause serious lung problems, work in hospitals, go fight wars. And the worst jackasses of all: those that decide to get old. Now if only I could find a way not to pay for their health care, since I know I will never be needing any.

7. Bitcoins arent the future? Follow Befriend (1) 20 threads 174 comments Beverly Hills, CA

   58   11:41pm Mon 22 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   @Troy "The young are on the hook for the old" -your reply-> And it’s a shame that the young never get old, nor do they know and care for anybody old! Who needs old people anyway? You are awfully defensive here, why? I never made any statement for/against this, it was merely a supporting fact that it was similar to social security. This is a great deal for those who get to start using it without paying into it, and it sounds decent for the rest of us. "Or skaters." Indeed. Now have a full industry based on skating: kid goes to gov't built skate park, breaks leg in routine fashion, goes to hospital on gov't money, repeat. Sounds like a great way to siphon money off the middle class via breaking childrens bones. We would all save a lot of $$ if gov't supported laser tag instead. And no, I don't view skaters as nearly the waste as people who smoke rat poison for fun; one is sport, and one is intentionally putting poison into yourself and expecting everybody else to pay to fix your liver damage. they are not even close to the same ballpark, or cost level, or intent.

8. MarkInSF Follow Befriend 14 threads 1,118 comments

   59   12:05am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   rileybryan says supporting fact that it was similar to social security. Not really. SS is more like medicare, which is essentially a transfer payment from adults to elderly to provide for their health care, or public education which provides investment in children at the expense of adults, though of course schools are largely run by government. This bill is more like mandating everybody have auto insurance, because no matter now good a driver you think you are, shit happens and can often be remedied in a meaningful way, but is very expensive. It not really a transfer to the elderly since we already have medicare. Unless of course you're willing to just say "You get sick or injured and you don't have insurance? Fuck you. I won't pay a dime. Go be a cripple or die." Which opponents of this bill still won't admit is their official position.

9. Kevin Follow Befriend 40 threads 2,652 comments

   60   1:01am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   rileybryan says alright, so I’ve read through the posts, and I’m pretty sure that not one of us fully understands whats going on in the 2500 page bill. Speak for yourself. Certainly few (if any) of us have read every detail, but I'd venture to say that anyone with two brain cells to rub together has at least a high level understanding of the most significant portions of the bill. The 'nobody has read it, nobody understands it' line is bullshit GOP spew. Seriously, if you don't know what's in the bill by now (what was just passed is essentially the same as what passed in December, modulo some small amendments), then you're just being willfully ignorant. From what I can find, it turns out this bill is equivalent social security II. The young are on the hook for the old, Oh, shit, now young people have to pay money to provide some sort of MEDIcal CARE to old people? OH MY GOD THIS IS SO NEW AND HORRIBLE! and its going to cost a lot more than they say. And you know this because...? Its no secret that denying things like pre-existing conditions are BS. But are we really on the hook to pay the bill for some jackass who smokes rat poison cut meth? I'm pretty sure that those people will die and nobody will pay for their health care. Health care costs don't come from rat poison smoking jackasses. They mostly come from old people who are dying and throw hundreds of thousands of dollars at trying to stay alive. We're already paying for those old people. Nothing is changing that. What we can change is all of the waste that goes into the system -- from unnecessary testing to missed preventative care that leads to emergency care to the pure waste that is insurance industry "overhead" (one could argue that the entire insurance industry is "overhead", but that's another debate). I think that if we are on the hook to pay for these morons, we might care a little more about fixing our society to the point that these people might want to do something fun & less damaging… and I’m not talking about alcohol Maybe we should make it illegal to smoke meth! The main purpose of this bill is to make sure that catastrophic medical situations don't destroy people's finances. Of course, that's what INSURANCE was supposed to be for originally, but at some point the insurance companies decided that it was more profitable to be a health care middleman than it was to be an insurance provider. Personally, I wish we went back to insurance being for catastrophic things and for people to pay for the routine out of pocket (and, like food banks and public housing, for poor people to get the routine things for free or very cheap). The only way to accomplish that would be to bar non-catastrophic medical insurance. Unfortunately doing that would never be allowed by the powerful "insurance" interests who would immediately claim that government was trying to take over an important american institution or some other such nonsense.

10. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,606 comments

    61   3:15am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Paralithodes says Were they saying that it would cut Medicare too much because a) they support Medicare despite some the contradiction in position, b) because it skews the advertised Federal cost of the health care bill by reducing Federal expenditures for Medicare while states would have to pick up that tab as part of an unfunded/underfunded mandate, or c) some combination of above plus maybe even some other variables? I vote for (c), despite that it might require some nuance. You forgot choice d) because it was a scare tactic that might work on seniors

11. Paralithodes Follow Befriend 1 threads 530 comments

    62   3:59am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Kevin says What we can change is all of the waste that goes into the system — from unnecessary testing... Unnecessary testing as determined by whom? If it is determined by the doctor, is there anything in the bill that further protects health professionals (doctors, etc.) from being sued for not conducting certain tests when the outcome of the case was not favorable?

12. Paralithodes Follow Befriend 1 threads 530 comments

    63   4:04am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   Kevin says Personally, I wish we went back to insurance being for catastrophic things and for people to pay for the routine out of pocket (and, like food banks and public housing, for poor people to get the routine things for free or very cheap). The only way to accomplish that would be to bar non-catastrophic medical insurance. Unfortunately doing that would never be allowed by the powerful “insurance” interests who would immediately claim that government was trying to take over an important american institution or some other such nonsense. Another way to do it would be to allow insurance companies to sell various policies across state lines just like they can with life insurance, etc. That way if you are a resident of CA and you like a catastrophic policy sold by a company in DE, complying with the laws in DE for health insurance policies, you could. I'm not sure if the idea of baring non-catastrophic medical insurance puts you to the right of conservatives or to the left of liberals, but your "nonsense" about the "insurance" interests is just that: You miss that by barring an industry from selling a product/service, you would be barring individuals from the choice of purchasing that product/service.

13. Paralithodes Follow Befriend 1 threads 530 comments

    64   4:09am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   tatupu70 says You forgot choice d) because it was a scare tactic that might work on seniors I'll include that in my choice (c), which includes other variables. I take it you argue that the Republicans had zero legitimate concerns or points regarding the impact/relation of the bill to Medicare? I'm just trying to get beyond the nuance thing.... I just don't get the nuance of claiming one side doesn't understand nuance while simultaneously ignoring nuance.

14. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,606 comments

    65   5:02am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Paralithodes says tatupu70 says You forgot choice d) because it was a scare tactic that might work on seniors I’ll include that in my choice (c), which includes other variables. I take it you argue that the Republicans had zero legitimate concerns or points regarding the impact/relation of the bill to Medicare? I’m just trying to get beyond the nuance thing…. I just don’t get the nuance of claiming one side doesn’t understand nuance while simultaneously ignoring nuance. I think they probably had some legitimate concerns, but I don't think they worked in a constructive way to help shape the bill and fix those concerns. Instead they did everything possible to kill any health care bill, thereby assuring that what would be left was flawed.

15. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,606 comments

    66   5:12am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Paralithodes says Yes. If the “coverage” was hypothetically “dominated by reports” of “some” demonstrators doing these , real non-hypothetical things that actually occured (along with bomb threats, throwing feces and urine, etc. at RNC 2004), then I wonder how you would react to someone attempting to paint the entire demonstration by the actions of those few. Given your responses above, perhaps I should *assume* that your objection to painting everyone due to those few was actually a belief that it was OK if it was only a couple or a few… Or perhaps I should assume that you need a reading comprehension lesson? I think the most reasonable assumption, however, is that you are smart enough to know exactly the method by which you are arguing, even if you were fooled by the wording of that article (many rational people would be). The wording of the article? Huh? Are you impying that the article made it up? I can post several other sources if you'd like. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34832.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34790.html It happened.

16. Paralithodes Follow Befriend 1 threads 530 comments

    67   6:35am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   tatupu70 says The wording of the article? Huh? Are you impying that the article made it up? I can post several other sources if you’d like. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34832.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34790.html It happened. So, which is your point: that "some" demonstrators did such things and that reflects on the entire demonstration? Or that the the demonstration itself was dominated by such demonstrators? The latter is not supported by any of your articles, so we will go with the former. The wording of the article, if read carefully, states that the "COVERAGE... was dominated by REPORTS of..." NOT that the "demonstration was dominated by demonstrators doing... " Maybe we're stuck in this nuance thing again.... Therefore, to be consistent, my example was not hypothetical at all. Since the major anti-Iraq war protests were organized by actual socialist groups, all participants reflected a socialist (and anti-Israel/Pro-"Palestine" and anti-capitalist) extremist view. Since one group held a very large banner saying "we support our troops who shoot their officers" at one major protest (it may have been Code Pink but I do not recall), then all participants in that protest is guilty of that sentiment. Since some protestors at RNC 2004 threw feces or urine, or made bomb threats, this reflects upon the entire protest. BTW, here is an article refuting some of the complaints about the protests... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/22/tea-party-protesters-dispute-reports-slurs-spitting-dem-lawmakers/

17. Paralithodes Follow Befriend 1 threads 530 comments

    68   6:37am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   tatupu70 says I think they probably had some legitimate concerns, but I don’t think they worked in a constructive way to help shape the bill and fix those concerns. Instead they did everything possible to kill any health care bill, thereby assuring that what would be left was flawed. So, which is the actual propaganda and which is the truth: your statement above, or my response that the Democrats refused to work with the Republicans and consider their views from very early on in the debate/process unless the Republicans would be onboard with a "public option?" Maybe somewhere in between?

18. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,606 comments

    69   7:26am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Para-- You've completely missed my point re--the tea party protests. Someone earlier posted that bringing up race as a factor was ridiculous. I just was trying to remind him that race definitely appears to be part of the issue with some of these folks. I wasn't making any statement about the protesters or the Republican party in general. Although you are free to make that association if you'd like.

19. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,606 comments

    70   7:27am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Paralithodes says So, which is the actual propaganda and which is the truth: your statement above, or my response that the Democrats refused to work with the Republicans and consider their views from very early on in the debate/process unless the Republicans would be onboard with a “public option?” Maybe somewhere in between? My statement is the truth.

20. Bap33 Follow Befriend (3) 12 threads 3,094 comments

    71   9:42am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   Propaganda - working well on the dope-weakened minds of mush since 1965

21. graggmv Follow Befriend 1 comments

    72   9:57am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Respectfully speaking, the health care reform just engineered by the Office of the President and U.S. Congress was fully bought and paid for by the corporate interests (and their allies) which dominate the price/delivery of health care services in the United States. Become familiar with the fable "Brer Rabbit and the Rabbit Patch" - and you'll know all you need to know about the scam that just went down inside the beltway!

22. Paralithodes Follow Befriend 1 threads 530 comments

    73   10:05am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   tatupu70 says My statement is the truth. tatupu70 says You’ve completely missed my point re–the tea party protests. Someone earlier posted that bringing up race as a factor was ridiculous. I just was trying to remind him that race definitely appears to be part of the issue with some of these folks. I wasn’t making any statement about the protesters or the Republican party in general. Although you are free to make that association if you’d like. Perhaps you missed it, but you were responding to someone who was objecting to Patrick's broad-based assertion that racism was a major element for disagreement with the bill, not simply that it was allegedly an issue with only "some of these folks." "Some" of the folks may be racist, just like "some" of the folks who protested the Iraq war wanted troops to murder their officers, wanted Israel to be destroyed, etc. But "coverage... is dominated by reports.." of the former, while it was not of the latter. I understand that this has some really good propaganda value - it allows you the coverage to attempt to invalidate an entire movement based on some small elements, but if you are going to throw your support behind an obviously broad-based assertion, please at least have the honesty to acknowledge that you were in fact doing.

23. Paralithodes Follow Befriend 1 threads 530 comments

    74   10:05am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   tatupu70 says My statement is the truth. Cool, mine too!

24. Liz Pendens Follow Befriend 24 threads 201 comments Sagaponack, NY

    75   10:16am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Paralithodes says So, which is your point: that “some” demonstrators did such things and that reflects on the entire demonstration? Or that the the demonstration itself was dominated by such demonstrators? The latter is not supported by any of your articles, so we will go with the former. ... “COVERAGE… was dominated by REPORTS of…” NOT that the “demonstration was dominated by demonstrators doing… ” Maybe we’re stuck in this nuance thing again…. Does it matter? When this kind of stuff happens, particularly when the protesters self describe themselves as an popular 'grassroots movement', it can't help but to reflect on the general group. Exacerbated when politicians they seem to support don't utter a word to condemn such hateful behavior: "A group of lowlifes at a Tea Party rally in Columbus, Ohio, last week taunted and humiliated a man who was sitting on the ground with a sign that said he had Parkinson’s disease. The disgusting behavior was captured on a widely circulated videotape. One of the Tea Party protesters leaned over the man and sneered: “If you’re looking for a handout, you’re in the wrong end of town.” Another threw money at the man, first one bill and then another, and said contemptuously, “I’ll pay for this guy. Here you go. Start a pot.” In Washington on Saturday, opponents of the health care legislation spit on a black congressman and shouted racial slurs at two others, including John Lewis, one of the great heroes of the civil rights movement. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, was taunted because he is gay. At some point, we have to decide as a country that we just can’t have this: We can’t allow ourselves to remain silent as foaming-at-the-mouth protesters scream the vilest of epithets at members of Congress — epithets that The Times will not allow me to repeat here." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/opinion/23herbert.html?src=me&ref=general We have sunk so, so low.

25. Vicente Follow Befriend (8) 203 threads 4,403 comments Davis, CA

    76   10:41am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Indeed it is unfair to judge the Tea Party by a few racists, when there are so MANY other reasons.....

26. AltonS Follow Befriend 55 comments Portland, OR

    77   10:42am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   tatupu70 says Para– You’ve completely missed my point re–the tea party protests. Someone earlier posted that bringing up race as a factor was ridiculous. I just was trying to remind him that race definitely appears to be part of the issue with some of these folks. I wasn’t making any statement about the protesters or the Republican party in general. Although you are free to make that association if you’d like. My point was that the media and many on the left make that association ALL THE DAMN TIME NOW. It is their main talking point, much like the socialist/commie line from Repubs. Sure, its an issue with some folks, tea party/conservative/dem/moonbat fringe of either side. They use that to brand the whole group all the time now. Oh, they're just all a bunch of silly redneck racists. The "right" (and independents/libertarians/anyone who isn't PC) has to watch what they say but "tea bagger" epithets are funny with a sly wink wink, tee hee its a sexual joke (with gay connotations). "Fag" is all hate mongering but "tea-bagger" isn't? This is the same deal with feminists. I 'm a sexist/misogynist/caveman for daring to disagree with any or all of their beliefs. Or look at all the flack folks on this forum and others like got over the last few years. Oh, you're a bunch of negative nellies, silly bubble bloggers! Go buy a house before you're priced out! You're all jealous that you can't afford to buy a house!

27. Bap33 Follow Befriend (3) 12 threads 3,094 comments

    78   10:43am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   "In Washington on Saturday, opponents of the health care legislation spit on a black congressman and shouted racial slurs at two others, including John Lewis, one of the great heroes of the civil rights movement. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, was taunted because he is gay." would you care to prove the actions: 1)were done by "opponents of health care" (geeese, the liberal media sure gives handy names to folks) 2)were done by "teabaggers" (geeeese, I guess gay slurs only work one way) 3)were not done by progressiveNAZIliberals acting as insiders trying to cause issue or 4)even happened at all All of us non-progressiveNAZIliberals still recall how the mass media followed the Bush AWOL story so well.

28. Liz Pendens Follow Befriend 24 threads 201 comments Sagaponack, NY

    79   11:23am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Bap33 says would you care to prove the actions: 1)were done by “opponents of health care” (geeese, the liberal media sure gives handy names to folks) 2)were done by “teabaggers” (geeeese, I guess gay slurs only work one way) 3)were not done by progressiveNAZIliberals acting as insiders trying to cause issue or 4)even happened at all All of us non-progressiveNAZIliberals still recall how the mass media followed the Bush AWOL story so well. Not really, as I think it's pretty obvious that questioning if the WDC Capitol Police are in on a top-secret 'progressiveNAZIliberal' (whatever that is) conspiracy to stage/make up the accounts is pathetic. The below are some statements made by the AP and the Congressman's office. Why don't YOU do some research and expose the hoax? You'll be a HUGE non-progressiveNAZIliberal hero. "A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told reporters that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) had been spat on by a protestor. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a hero of the civil rights movement, was called a 'ni--er.' And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a "faggot," as protestors shouted at him with deliberately lisp-y screams. Frank, approached in the halls after the president's speech, shrugged off the incident. But Clyburn was downright incredulous, saying he had not witnessed such treatment since he was leading civil rights protests in South Carolina in the 1960s. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver's office released the following statement: For many of the members of the CBC, like John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver who worked in the civil rights movement, and for Mr. Frank who has struggled in the cause of equality, this is not the first time they have been spit on during turbulent times. This afternoon, the Congressman was walking into the Capitol to vote, when one protester spat on him. The Congressman would like to thank the US Capitol Police officer who quickly escorted the others Members and him into the Capitol, and defused the tense situation with professionalism and care. After all the Members were safe, a full report was taken and the matter was handled by the US Capitol Police. The man who spat on the Congressman was arrested, but the Congressman has chosen not to press charges. He has left the matter with the Capitol Police. " UPDATE 8:57 PM ET: The Associated Press reports that Capitol Police arrested the man who spit on Cleaver, but the Congressman won't press charges.

29. EBGuy Follow Befriend 4 threads 2,095 comments

    80   11:52am Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   This will certainly be an interesting half of year as we approach the midterm elections. About the only thing the Dems have to worry about at this point is rising health insurance premiums, as the GOP will blame it (wrongly) on the reform. I could already see the Dem talking points in a Pelosi interview last night, really, basic apple pie stuff -- no refusal for pre-existing conditions and dropping folks out of the system. The GOP will look silly campaigning against that. I was talking to someone recently whose wife couldn't change out of an existing plan because she'd been 'treated' for depression (very mild, not like she's manic) and his daughter (who is as healthy as my kids) also couldn't move because she had been admitted to a hospital within the last year. I must admit, the whole thing is rather shocking at this point as I was never a fan of the public option and leaned toward the Senate version. It took a total crisis for the far left to get off their high horses and knuckle down. I'm probably the only one who views this as an ideal outcome (be careful of what you wish for, as they say).

30. MarkInSF Follow Befriend 14 threads 1,118 comments

    81   12:10pm Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Paralithodes says tatupu70 says You forgot choice d) because it was a scare tactic that might work on seniors I’ll include that in my choice (c), which includes other variables. I take it you argue that the Republicans had zero legitimate concerns or points regarding the impact/relation of the bill to Medicare? I’m just trying to get beyond the nuance thing…. I just don’t get the nuance of claiming one side doesn’t understand nuance while simultaneously ignoring nuance. Point taken. I still hold that a lots of the opposition for the bill was from people that did not want to reduce entitlements under a single payer system.

31. michaelsch Follow Befriend 21 threads 581 comments South Pasadena, CA

    82   1:02pm Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Vicente says michaelsch says “Healthcare reform done deal!” - Yea, sure. http://dgsinclair.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c003953ef0120a64c3697970b-800wi Another “Mission accomplished”! The only outcome the GOP can achieve by digging in their heels further and fighting this to the bitter end will be like Custer deciding to stand and fight. They’d do best to cut their losses and move on. Probably they won’t. Truly the rhetoric of people like Rush have been their worst enemy. Unless you are a HARDCORE conservative that spends all day being angry and having it reinforced by FoxNews and AM radio, all this “Nazi” imagery just makes ‘em look like loons. The hardcore people in fact are not even a majority of Republican voters. But GOP leadership has become so VERY strident and unaccepting of any variation from rigid party line, that anyone who disagrees in the minutest detail is just a “RINO fool”. This was one of the things that led to my disaffection and change of party before last election. WORK HARDER NOT SMARTER…..wait that doesn’t sound right…. What I tried to say is: There is no healthcare reform done yet. In fact all we have is a health care coverage reform. Even narrower: it is a health insurance reform. This reform includes a huge number of measures, some of them may be good (IMO) some very bad. On top of this lots of them are probably even impossible. For example, I like the pressure on insurance companies to accept patients with "pre-existing conditions". However, they are very creative in rephrasing things and creating alternative reasons to deny coverage, so we probably won't get the intended effect. However, this reform does no improvement in the major problem of American healthcare system. The problem is that healthcare providers are preoccupied with coverage rather than care. Even more so with everybody around the providers, like IT, facility management, LAbs, Pharms, lawers, you name them. With central government subsidized care this problem is going to be much worse than even today. What happens right now is that major Healthcare companies are declaring and trying to get all possible certifications that demonstrate they are compliant with all applicable and inapplicable government regulations. Since this consumes all their resources they are actually neglecting patient care. On top of this, as soon as they are certified they are death scared of ant changes to their processes, equipment, software, etc. As the result, we gonna get more and more outdated and expensive care. The bottom line is: there is no healthcare reform in it, just another stimulus package, this time going to health insurance industry.

32. Vicente Follow Befriend (8) 203 threads 4,403 comments Davis, CA

    83   2:45pm Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   michaelsch says What I tried to say is: There is no healthcare reform done yet. I disagree. Pre-existing condition exclusion on it's own is a reform. I suppose it depends on what definition you use for "reform" but I am not a semanticist.

33. Vicente Follow Befriend (8) 203 threads 4,403 comments Davis, CA

    84   3:36pm Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Al Franken talking with his constituents about healthcare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCNs7Zpqo98&NR=1

34. Bap33 Follow Befriend (3) 12 threads 3,094 comments

    85   5:15pm Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   welp, I knew you could not find proof. Great try though. "I heard" ... lmao.

35. Done! Follow Befriend (4) 159 threads 2,826 comments

    86   7:36pm Tue 23 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   rileybryan says we’re in it now. and as they say “we can fix it later” ...and it's better than nothing. We can stop worrying about the kids, the Adults already are the beginning of the end. Our kids are going to inherit our half assed, mediocre, mulligan, do over, gullible mentaliy. Our kids, will have to fight amongst them selves though and figure out, who will craft our giterdone system that no body expect to work, in the future. Democracy is done. Welcome to Facism, Woo-oooo-Woo-oooooo HALT!!!! DO you have your Medi Corp I.D. Please stay put the Police are on their way! Halt and present your Medi Corp I.D. Woo-oooo-Woo-oooooo

36. michaelsch Follow Befriend 21 threads 581 comments South Pasadena, CA

    87   2:30pm Wed 24 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Vicente says I disagree. Pre-existing condition exclusion on it’s own is a reform. I suppose it depends on what definition you use for “reform” but I am not a semanticist. OK, ok, it looks like a significant reform. But it is a reform of health insurance not a reform of health care. I agree that this reform will allow more patients to see doctors more. However, it very likely will force doctors to see their patients much less, because they will be even more than today preoccupied with other stuff.

37. wcalleallegre Follow Befriend 46 comments

    88   9:16pm Wed 24 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   I know what is going to happen. 1. Cost overruns 2. Fraud 3. Additional coverage extended to groups 4. Rising deficits in the program 5. Lower payments to physicians 6. Lower payments to hospitals 7. Delays in payments 8. Rising taxes on the rich 9. Rationing by doctors, hospitals, government 10. Delays in treatment 11. More HMO care: assembly line medicine 12. A search for scapegoats Come back to this in 2016.

38. simchaland Follow Befriend (6) 10 threads 1,234 comments Oakland, CA

    89   9:32pm Wed 24 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Soylent Green The answer to all our health care woes.

39. elliemae Follow Befriend (25) 413 threads 6,976 comments Saint George, UT elliemae's website

    90   10:57pm Wed 24 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   wcalleallegre says 12. A search for scapegoats I'll start - I blame you. happy now?

40. Kevin Follow Befriend 40 threads 2,652 comments

    91   11:19pm Wed 24 Mar 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Paralithodes says You miss that by barring an industry from selling a product/service, you would be barring individuals from the choice of purchasing that product/service. Do you really want me to provide you with a list of things that you can not legally sell to other people? This is such a stupid argument I don't even know where to begin.

« First     « Previous comments