jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (46 posts)

Sen Sanders Reveals Dems Health Care Agenda

  1. lady_love158 profile image60
    lady_love158posted 5 years ago

    http://nation.foxnews.com/health-care/2 … -companies
    There it is in his own words... get rid of the insurance companies. Sanders is an avowed socialist and is reflecting the desire of Obama and the democrats to lead America down that road.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Its about time one of those socialists the democrats keep electing admitted what the real goal was.

      And they wonder why we call them socialists.

    2. 59
      C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You know he's not totally wrong here. Most people don't need insurance and shouldn't get caught in the trap of paying 2 to 5 thousand dollars on something they don't need. If the average worker simply saved the money they paid into health insurance prior to age 35 they would have a VERY healthy health savings account. Of course his reasons are different from mine and yours.

    3. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, you mustn't entertain anything that may result in you paying less tax and give less profit to the gnomes. I love you republicans, you'll do anything in your power to make others rich at your expense, real Ragged trousered philanthropists:)

    4. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      YAY!! get rid of them like bad rubbish! Who needs them? NO BODY, that's who. Opportunists who bleed off death.....sayonara.

      We needs healthcare for the people, not the bottom line!

    5. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yup.  Most of the Dems want to cut out the middleman in everything and go directly to them being the authority on everything.

    6. Ralph Deeds profile image67
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Senator Sanders doesn't have a whole lot of influence on the Democratic Party's agenda.

      1. lady_love158 profile image60
        lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oh really? Who does he caucus with? LOL

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Bernie is a socialist who ran as an independent and who caucuses with the Democrats. Caucasing with the Dems doesn't mean he has much, if any, influence on the party's agenda. You're a veritable fountain of disinformation.

          1. lady_love158 profile image60
            lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Ok so Bernie is just an ornament and doesn do anything or have any influence... but where did I say he does? What I sad was he reflects the views of the democrats on where they want to go with health care and everything else for that matter,  total government control over every aspect of our lives.

  2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago

    Among the sh&* load of things you got wrong here is the fact that this Senator is not a Democrat.

    Please follow this link before posting again, it'll help to keep you from embarrassing yourself further.

    http://www.improve-reading-skills.com/

    1. 59
      C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      HEY WAIT A MINUTE! YOUR SUPPOSED TO TYPE "CARP" AND PUT UP A PICTURE!

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        http://familyfun.go.com/assets/cms/recipes/fish-food-cupcakes-recipe-photo-420-FF0800CUPCKA03.jpg

        Sorry, my bad.

        1. 59
          C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Thats a good one! THANKS.

        2. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          (snickers) haha

          oh no that's not a Snickers, it's a cupcake!   With a fishy in it....
          Even sugary cupcakes can't disguise that fishy CARP smell!  lol

    2. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You'd do well to practice your own reading skills... where in my post did I say Sanders was a democrat? I just love it when libs talk! LOL

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Where in my post did I say I was repling to you?  Who are these libs you speak of?

  3. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    The healthcare law does not eliminate the "middlemen" (insurance companies). It simply requires them to follow certain guidelines which they should have been following all along.

    1. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What health care law? You mean the one that's unconstitutional?

  4. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    The one that a few judges in red states who are in bed with the Republicans and insurance industry have declared to be unconstitutional?
    Yes, that one.

    1. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      LOL! Obama has a record of lawlessness... this isn't the first federal judge's ruling he's ignored. As far as I'm concerned, he's in contempt of court and should be jailed!

      Now what makes you think the judges is in bed with the insurance companies?

      From The Hill:

      "It is time for progressives, consumers, workers, populists and anyone who supports affordable healthcare to ask: Was the fix in from the beginning through a secret deal between the White House and insurance companies to kill the public option?

      I don’t know, but I do know that a secret deal with Big Pharma was made in similar fashion."

      http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/h … -companies

      So who is really in bed with the insurance companies?

  5. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Why are you quoting articles from 2009?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      the bill is unconstitutional.

      I cite:

      Article 1 sections 8-10, the Tenth Amendment, and the Federalist #41.

      I await your rebuttal.

    2. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      UGH! That's when Obama struck deals with big pharma and the insurance companies in drafting the health care law! I'm beginning to understand why you're a lib now! LOL

  6. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    It's not for me to determine if it is unconstitutional or not.
    It will need to be heard by court of appeals and maybe, maybe go to the Supreme Court.

    1. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      OMG!!! LOL! Of course it's not for you to determine, or Obama for that matter but the determination has already been made! Obama MUST comply or be held in contempt! He can appeal but unless he is granted a stay the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

  7. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    For every judge who determines it is unconstitutional there are three who say it IS constitutional.
    It will go to appeal and if needed on to the Supreme Court.
    So don't count your chickens quite yet.

    From the WSJ
    By Katherine Hobson
    The judge hearing the highest-profile case to challenge the new health-care overhaul law ruled today that the law is unconstitutional, the WSJ reports.

    Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the individual mandate “is outside Congress’ Commerce Clause power” and isn’t covered by the Necessary and Proper Clause. And, he said, the individual mandate is so intertwined with the rest of the law that the whole thing is “void.” ( Here’s the ruling.)

    Whether or not implementation of the law will be affected will likely be decided on appeal, the paper says. The judge ruled that one slice of the law, the expansion of Medicaid, isn’t unconstitutional.

    For more coverage, check out the WSJ Law Blog’s main story and its post pulling out key excerpts from the judge’s opinion.

    And here’s the White House’s initial response, via its blog. It calls the ruling “well out of the mainstream of judicial opinion,” noting that two federal judges have upheld the law. (Another judge in Virginia found that the individual mandate and its related provisions were unconstitutional, but not the law as a whole.)

    The Justice Department will appeal today’s ruling, a spokeswoman tells the WSJ

    1. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You can read the judge's ruling here:

      http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/31/judge … full-text/

      Absent a stay pending appeal, the Judges ruling stands!

  8. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    The judge's ruling will not stand under appeal.

    1. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Right now, there is no appeal or any compliance with the judges ruling. The ruling will stand on appeal which could be fast tracked right to the supreme court if Obama wanted to like he did for AZ SB1070 immigration bill, and save tax payers the money of defending the bill in the various circuit courts, but he won't because he KNOWS the law won't stand with this Supreme court, so he'll stall... but for now NO ONE need comply as the law has been struck down!

  9. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    That statement is about as defensible as your claim of 16.1% unemployment in America, LaLo.
    Which, btw, I notice you have not bothered to rebut.... ahem!

    1. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Rebut? It's published in B&W on the bureau of Labor statistics site which I linked right there! Your problem is you don't want to know the truth because your liberal ideals will crumble under the weight of it forced to confront your long held beliefs that for so long have kept you secure and comfortable in your being... Ha! Time to wake up and smell the java honey! LOL

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If memory serves there have been four federal court rulings, two ruling the law Constitutional, one ruling parts of it unconstitutional and one ruling that the law en toto is unconstitutional. Ultimately the issue will be resolved by the Supreme Court.

        1. lady_love158 profile image60
          lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So why doesn't Obama just fast track it? He keeps telling us he doesn't want to revisit the fights of the last 2 years but he could put this behind us tomorrow and yet he wont... why??? Because he KNOWS he'll lose as he should!

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You'll have to ask Obama why he doesn't fast track it. You're entitled to your opinion. The Supreme Court would be making a big mistake if it overturned such a historic, major piece of legislation. In my opinion, such a decision would undermine the credibility of the court which is already on quite shaky ground as a result of flagrant conflicts by Scalia, Thomas and Alito. None of them attended the State of the Union address this year but they've been speaking to Tea Party events. And at the State of the Union last year, Alito did everything but give President Obama the finger. Very childish and inappropriate.

            1. lady_love158 profile image60
              lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I wasn't asking Obama I was asking you why you think it isn't being fast tracked. In any case if the law is found unconstitutional as it surely must be if one is going to interpret the constitution and previous case law properly and without political leaning it certainly wouldn't undermine the court. If course liberals and leftist radicals like Obama would think differently they view anything that goes against their socialist agenda as undermining.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
                Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Why would you think I would know why the case isn't being "fast-tracked." I don't even know what you mean by "fast tracked." My guess is that Obama isn't in a hurry to get the case to the Supreme Court. I think he would prefer the case wait until more of the health reform program is up and running so that the public will have a better understanding of how it benefits them and the country.

                1. lady_love158 profile image60
                  lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I would think you would have an opinion... perhaps you're waiting for the NYT to publish it? LOL

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
                    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Your ending nearly every post with LOL is getting a bit tiresome.

  10. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago

    If you listen to the interview, you hear a strong States Rights argument from Bernie. He's FOR the existing law (with flaws) but would like the individual STATES to be able to go to a medicare-for-all system. IN ANY STATE that chose to go that route, the insurance companies would be out of business, and the taxpayer would save about 20%  on the total cost of health care which is what the sponges in the insurance industry soak up. But for those of you who scream 'STATES RIGHTS' - that's what Bernie was advocating.

  11. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Don't forget, Thomas hid his wife's income for 6 years (?)...while she worked as a big-wig at some Tea-Party group.
    Golly--isn't that as bad as big, bad Rangle?

    And yet....not a word, a PEEP from anybody.

    And FYI: Obama is not Bush. Being a Unitary Executive is not his thing. He prefers to share power.
    You know---like the FF's intended?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      True. Thomas is a lying sack of sh*t.

  12. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    I just heard one benefit on the tv today....about catheters! Thanks to the new law, the elderly will get more of them for cost than before. Preventing them from re-using and re-using them due to the expense. And preventing un-necesssary infections and undue pain. Nice!

    And, in fact, if you are right Ralph, Obama is being his usual "wise as a serpent" among wolves here.
    Of course he doesn't want to fast-track it. He wants people to see the benefits for themselves.

    And actually--I see why the Righty's are pushing for fast-tracking!
    They don't want people to realize what a good thing this is!

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Catheters" for all. I find that a comforting thought, especially if they're applied by a nurse that looks like Natalie Portman.

  13. Ralph Deeds profile image67
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    My opinion coincides with Carl Levin's opinion on health care issues.

    Dear Ralph,

    Last week, one of the Senate's first significant votes of the year was on an attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the health insurance reform that became law last year. Some opponents said the new law amounts to a "government takeover" of health care. Some said it violates the Constitution. Others said it will cut the benefits on which Medicare recipients depend, or will explode the deficit.

    If such a law existed, I'd want to repeal it too. Thankfully, the Affordable Care Act does none of those things.

    This law is not a government takeover of the health care system; it strengthens and protects our existing private health insurance system. The independent fact checkers at PolitiFact.com called the claim that government would take over the system their Lie of the Year.

    The new law does not violate the Constitution. Opponents claim that the law violates the Constitution because it requires citizens to purchase insurance. Under their arguments, many other programs, including Medicare, would also violate the Constitution.

    This law does not reduce care for Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, most Medicare recipients already enjoy expanded benefits under the Affordable Care Act. The law strengthens Medicare by beginning to rein in the enormous costs that threaten to swamp the system in coming years, and it does so by encouraging efficiency and reducing waste and abuse.

    The Affordable Care Act does not explode the deficit. The independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that repeal of the Affordable Care Act would increase the deficit by $143 billion over the first decade, and by significantly more in the years to follow.

    Here's what the Affordable Care Act does, in fact, do.

    This law protects Americans from abuses by insurance companies, such as denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions or gender. It requires that coverage include preventive care at no out-of-pocket cost. It limits the unilateral power of insurance companies to arbitrarily impose annual or lifetime coverage limits. And insurance companies will be prevented from rescinding coverage when patients need it most – when they get sick.

    This law is sensible, moderate reform that in the coming years will make health insurance more affordable and secure for those who have it today, and make affordable coverage available for millions of Americans who are now without it. It was good for all of us that this important law's opponents failed in their efforts to repeal it.

    Sincerely,



    Carl Levin

  14. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Hmmm, I'll take Sean Connery! smile

 
working