WHY? Try to "repeal" the health bill?

1. 60

   qwarkposted 13 years ago

   what a waste of time!
   It will never be "repealed."
   Read it damnit! All 2000+ pages and make, in bi-partisan manner, the necessary changes that will improve it!
   Qwark

   replyreport
   1. 60

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The only way to "improve" it is to get rid of it! It's a job killing disaster of a bill that is driving up the cost of care!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Lady:
         lol I'm sure you have studied all 2000+ pages of it and know exactly what yer talking about. Sure!
         Hey I own a bridge crossing the Sahara desert. I guarantee ya, the fishing is outstanding! Wanna buy it!
         lololol...:
         Qwark

         replyreport
      2. 60

         William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Job killing?  Explain how, and prove it. 
         
         On the contrary, it's helping small business cover their employees:
         
         http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/ … obamacare/
         
         

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Forbes??? That's not a commie leftie pinko organization....

            replyreport
            1. 60

               William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I know, Doug, I had to force myself to post it.  Being the America hater that I am, it just felt so wrong to post something from the business press.

               replyreport
         2. 61

            Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            WRW, you're wasting your breath asking lady to prove any of her rediculous claims. She simply ignores you and gets right back to making more of them. I am coming to the conclusion that she actually believes everything she says while having no way to prove even one statement.  She once  told me that she quit reading one forum post I made at about 1/3 of the way thru it. She thought I was bashing Fox News when I accused them of lying to the American people. I had posted a link to an article listing the top 10 outright lies Fuax News had aired and promoted. I asked her to prove even one of them wrong and stated I would publish a personal apology hub.  No response, no attempt to support her claims. Nothing is about all she has to offer anyone capable of doing any research at all. It seems that she assumes no one in this country attempts to verify any claims she feels like making. Or, perhaps she just afraid of admitting to one mistake as this would cause the entire house of cards that is her belief system, to fall.

            replyreport
         3. 60

            Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Fox News simply has to declare it to make it true.  Have you lernt nuthin' frum da fur an balunced meadya?

            replyreport
      3. 60

         Santi Lioposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Lady Love,
         
         Listen to yourself.. You are a walking talking regurgitation of republican talking points.. If you did any research at all, you'd see that independent boards have actually verified that it will create jobs..
         
         But throw the Jobs issue aside for the moment... This is what republicans want us to do, argue about the jobs it will create or destroy, rather than the millions of people it'll help..
         
         You republicans should be ashamed of yourselves.. But you're too prideful and indoctrinated to come to any sort of intelligent conclusion of your own, so you'll just keep parroting the talking points I'm sure..
         
         Santi,

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Santi, lady gets that speech every time she opens her keyboard. It doesn't sink in, it never makes it past the FAux News Filter she received for free with her subscription to Newsmax Magazine. It halts in it's tracks, any statement that either,  makes any kind of sense at all or, is based on truth, before it enters your limited zone of awareness. It's like a set of mental blinders that protects the faithful from being forced to think.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Santi Lioposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Well put stump,
               
               So then whats the plan? That's the million dollar question i suppose.

               replyreport
         2. 92

            habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Please don't paint all Republicans with the same broad brush!

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Habee, you and other moderate Republicans, or RINOs as you are now labeled, have been ordered to the back by the teabaggers. Your votes are welcome, but please don't try to participate. Tea Party philosophy , can now correctly be labeled Republican.

               replyreport
               1. 92

                  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Sad, Ron. Looks like we'll have to start our own party. How 'bout the Coffee Klatch?? lol

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I had never once voted for a Democrat, nationally or locally before 2010.  The Republicans have made a deal with the devil that will ultimately destroy their party.  The American voters may temporarily fall for such nonsense as:  corporate control is freedom, assault rifles lead to greater safety, and health care is only for the wealthy, but they always rebound and get it right eventually.

                     replyreport
                     1. 92

                        habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        I've voted D, R, and I - locally and nationally.

                        replyreport
                  2. 60

                     Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     There already is such a group - No Labels.  Pragmatists who realize both Republicans and Democrats are long on rhetoric and short on answers.

                     replyreport
               2. 57

                  C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Well I don't think it's that bad Ron. I actually think Harry Reid is right. If the government reigns in spending and the economy improves, the Tea Party will dispurse.

                  replyreport
   2. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The US House of Representatives will 'consider' repeal of the Health Care Law.  Breaking rules on debate, almost before the ink is dry on those new rules, House GOP leadership will ram the vote through without allowing debate. This is a dog and pony show for the Tea Party, because there is no chance the Senate will even discuss repeal.
      
      The Congressional Budget Office had to do a financial impact estimate. Repeal will drive the deficit up by several hundred billion dollars, and leave 32 million people without health coverage who were in line to get it.
      A lose-lose proposition.
      
      The GOP claims that they have to respond tot eh popular will. Except that according to a VERY recent poll by ABC, there is not a majority EVEN AMONG REPUBLICANS supporting repeal.  Check it out - I don't make stuff up. (No, I did not mention you,, Lady Love.)
      
      http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/16/raw-f … -suggests/

      replyreport
      1. 60

         qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Correct Doug!

         replyreport
      2. 60

         teamrnposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         No pointing the fingers and blame game, here, but attempts to find some common ground. "Repeal will drive the deficit up by several hundred billion dollars, and leave 32 million people without health coverage who were in line to get it."
         
         According to HHS and Gallup, 1/6 of Americans are uninsured= 50M. Roughly 22% of them are the "nothing's going to happen to me, I'm invincible" crowd, so subtract 11M=39M. 12M are eligible for SCHIP but haven't enrolled=27M. Then there are the 10M who are illegals or non-citizens=17M. 17M is a far cry from 32M; yet even 17M is too high a figure, but one we can work with.
         
         The question is how can we work with 17 M uninsured v. @50?
         
         Something else you said struck a chord. "Except that according to a VERY recent poll by ABC..." Network polls give facts that the network want you to believe. And ABC is decidedly leftist. Look at HHS info or Independent studies.
         
         I'm curious though, as to how repealing the bill would drive up the deficit. I think enacting it would drive up the deficit even more.
         
         You also mention a Dog and Pony Show. What about the trotting of ANA reps and AMA reps out, saying that they endorse the HC bill? Thing is less than 5% of nurses belong to ANA and less than 30% if physicians belong to the AMA. Hardly a representative, scientific sample. Now that was a Dog and Pony show of royal proportions!
         
         Why don't we have some honest, discussion and dialog as to how to solve this problem. From what I read in some posts, people who are agin' the HR 3200 (I think that's it) would just as soon the single mother of 5 who has breast cancer: DIE. Nothing could be further from the truth. We all want the same thing [insurance for  her and her family] but disagree about how to get there.

         replyreport
   3. 61

      logic,commonsenseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The biggest problem with it, is that no one really knows what is really in it.  By the time we find out, it will be too late!  Needs to be gone through with a fine tooth comb and then it needs to be rewritten so normal people can understand it!

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Taking that a little farther Logic, gets you to the fact that very few of our elected officials know what they are voting for. They are simply voting the way they are told to vote. It's not that hard to provide healthcare to the cirizens of a country. There are many examples of this being done around the world. Are they all perfect systems? No, not buy a long shot in some cases. How ever the one thing that needs to change is the integrity of our elected officials. It is amazing the number of things other countries are capable of accomplishing. It is disgusting that our elected officials come right out and state that no one should want their government involved with their healthcare based on how bad a job they do on everything else theyt attempt. Rather than do their job they come out and tell us that it's better if we dont make them screw this up anymore than it already is. I find it to be incredible that Americans are stupid enough to accept this crap and for continuing to vote the same crooks in office. How would your day go if you went to work and your boss told you to build a box. You proceeded to tell your boss that although you were hired as a carpenter he/she didn't want you to actually do the job you were hired to do? I suppose you would be given your job for life right then and there.

         replyreport
   4. 57

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Two words. Political Pandering. Two more. Wishfull thinking. Reduce spending was the mandate from the voter. The newly elected are going to do this as symbolic gesture. It makes the statement: Message sent, message recieved.

      replyreport
2. 59

   TLMinutposted 13 years ago

   I admit I haven't read it all. I haven't even read enough to count I guess, most of the time I spent was finding it to read and then saving it on my computer. What I've heard is that one stipulation (or provision) is that insurance companies are required to use at least 80% of their income on actual health care instead of administrative costs as opposed to the less than 65% used now.
   
   The other thing is that people will be required to buy health insurance. That makes me furious though I suppose it's because emergency rooms are required by law to treat anyone regardless of ability to pay. They don't though so I do NOT want to be required to give my money to some inept, overbloated bureaucracy that may eventually be legally allowed to insist I "benefit" from procedures and drugs I'd rather not have. If someone's in a terrible accident and wouldn't be treated without health care, it would be awful - what would happen, would they be left screaming and begging on the hospital grounds? I'm not sure what would work but more legal theft is probably not the answer.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Imagine if the government told YOU how much of your money you were allowed to keep!
      
      Again, where does it end with these people? They aren't for freedom or fairness, they are for FORCE and oppression!

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         What specific part of this health care bill is oppressing you?

         replyreport
      2. 60

         Paul Wingertposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Lady spends too much time listening to Limbaugh and the other BS artist on FOX Noise aka The Republican Fundraising Network.

         replyreport
   2. 60

      qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      TL:
      The only correct way to do it is for both parties to study it, debate every line of it, cut those areas that are harmful, keep those that are helpful and create a bill from the leftovers that is a win win for all of us.
      Forget repealing the whole thing and spend the next couple years bickering and fighting over a new one.
      It will not be repealed!
      So stop wasting time and get to work, in concert, to make this one a good one!
      Qwark

      replyreport
      1. 92

         habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I fully agree, Qwark!

         replyreport
         1. 60

            megs11237posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I agree as well.
            
            It is important not to follow just populist rhetoric from either side and remember what you will happen with a complete repeal of the bill.
            
            For instance what about pre existing conditions???
            
            Here is a fact for you from an actual case:
            
            If you one day get cancer after paying to have the same health insurance for 10 years with your employer- what they can do without health care reform is go back into your chart determine you had athlete's foot that you forgot to mention when signing up for your plan and call it a pre existing and boot you off the plan when you need it most.
            
            Or if you become a living donor for a relative who may DIE then you risk being unable to obtain health insurance in the future because you now have a pre existing condition.
            
            Why should that be allowed? You think you get a refund after all those years of paying into your plan??
            
            I agree I hate the mandate and the burden on small employers but they can be fixed. What I don't want is to be unable to get health insurance when I switch jobs because I have benign tumor or asthma.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

               "For instance what about pre existing conditions???"
               
               Tell me say your house is on fire and you realize you don't have insurance, should you be able to go to the insurance company and buy a fire policy? Should they be FORCED to have to sell you one?
               
               This isn't about health care reform or lowering cost. This is about FORCE taking from one and GIVING to another. If you're really honest about it, you must admit, that isn't right!
               
               There's NO WAY such a policy will cost LESS!

               replyreport
               1. 92

                  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  LaLo, do you think all the parts of the HC law are bad?

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I don't believe the Federal Government has the power under the constitution to regulate health care at all! MA has universal health care and nothing prevents any other state from adopting it. What I can see is the federal government under the commerce clause insuring that states are not passing regulations that prevent or impeded insurance companies in other states from selling their products across state lines.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Lady Lies - I assume from your post that the government has no 'right' under the Constitution to provide for seniors any universal health care. Under your logic (and with LL I use the word 'logic' somewhat loosely) under your logic there is no legal basis for Medicare. You will lose half the Tea Party with that program.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           That's right! Nor is there authority for social security! The first step towards enslavement, oppression and socialism. Medicare was the second step, health care the next... each new entitlement the federal government justifies under the commerce clause is another step closer toward socialism and the eventual collapse of our society and the destruction of the American idea. But hey, that's what you lefties want right?

                           replyreport
                     2. 0

                        Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Lady - you are filling the columns with ignorant rhetoric, line by line party bumper stickers. If you allow insurance companies to sell across state lines, the price goes up and the product goes down. Let's look at two examples. Health care in Joplin, MO is cheap, because the income is low there. When you allow people from Dallas, TX to buy health care coverage from the company in Joplin, MO, because it is so cheap, then the costs increase due to demand. NOW, people in Joplin can't afford their health care. It is simple economics.
                        Secondly, look at what happened to credit cards. In the 80s, SD told Citibank that if they moved their headquarters there, then they could write the state credit card regulations, which they did. They wrote a bill so absolutely nuts that all of the credit card companies moved there.

                        replyreport
                  2. 61

                     Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     The parts that might cost her income Habee. She makes her living selling medical supplies and I would venture to guess it's on a commission basis. I admit that this is a guess but it does explain why she wants to keep the cash cow alive and well.

                     replyreport
               2. 61

                  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I think the house fire is a bad comparison.
                  Better would be the auto-mobile breakdown insurance, you know the sort of thing I mean, you're half way home and your car breaks down due to a pre existing condition!
                  You call out the breakdown insurance company, saying, oh by the way, I'm not a member. No problem they say and sign you up before putting you back on the road.
                  
                  By the way, you still haven't commented on my observation that here in the UK we have state controlled Health Care and running along side that we have private health care as well. The competition keeps the private premiums a bit lower.
                  That is true freedom, not the half hearted thing that you call freedom.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     megs11237posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     touche

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        no, not "touche"!
                        
                        Holden overlooks the simple fact that "resources exist, and they need to be appropriated to their best usage".
                        
                        The only way for this "best usage" to be determined is to let people bid for them on the open market.
                        
                        Unfortunately, government merely steals its money from its populace, and thus never actually "bids" for the resources involved.
                        
                        Sure, GB has public health care - but it sure as heck ain't free, nor is it the best use of resources.
                        
                        Mandating public health care SEEMS good, but that's just because you're COMPLETELY ignoring what that money COULD be spent on instead.
                        
                        ... oh, and he's ignoring the fact that the money was taken from the people at the point of a gun and threat of jail time... that's called "theft" where I come from!

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Hey Rogers, Holden doesn't overlook anything. Stop reading things into my posts that aren't there and stop your offensive surmising.

                           replyreport
3. 78

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Nothing prevents any other state from adopting universal health care like Massachusetts has, eh? Except, perhaps, out of control insurance companies and lobbyists.     
   Insurance companies own the ball and the field. They make their own rules along with obscene amounts of profits (oops, I mean reserves...)
   The current system is the job killer. How can businesses absorb 25% premium increases, even shifting more of the cost to employees?
   How can we, as a country,refuse our citizens needed health care? The current system penalizes a big swath of citizens in the middle. If you are denied coverage (as is EASY to do) but get services you are charged a higher rate by the hospital. People are actually going BANKRUPT trying to pay their health care bills.
   Indigent people cannot be denied service at hospitals. Who do you think pays for their "free" care??
   
   http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie … rers_N.htm

   replyreport
4. 78

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   That's an excellent point, Doug. Why do people who argue against Universal Healthcare not view Medicare as universal healthcare for seniors? That's exactly what it is!
   As for preexisting conditions, we're not just talking about life-threatening conditions like cancer. We're talking about being rejected for health coverage for controllable conditions like high blood pressure, and even acne. Yes, ACNE!
   And let's not even talk about the ridiculous BMI. I'm sorry but a simplistic ratio of weight/height cannot hold true for every single body type.
   Anyway, I don't want to get into a rant. I'm pretty passionate about this subject.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      megs11237posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree but I have to rant.
      
      Not only that but after paying for health insurance and getting sick they can go back and decide suddenly that a broken toe was a pre existing condition and kick you off insurance - after you have already paid them. How is that freedom?
      
      Now I am sick, I have no insurance, no recourse, no money cuz I am sick and I can't work. And honestly at this point if Lady there had her way there would be no disability, no medicaid, no funding for shelters, so I would have freedom but at cost?? I would be sick and broke with no where to turn, screwed over for doing the right thing and working and paying a company who would eventually screw me over when I needed it the most.
      
      And are you ok turning a blind eye to this happening to others all in the name of freedom??
      
      Also it may be freedom of capitalism but it not freedom for the greater good

      replyreport
5. 81

   Rafiniposted 13 years ago

   I don't know enough to get into the debate too much, but I'll say this much:
   
   I thought this was a FREE country - how can the government presume to create a law telling ME how to spend my money??  I mean, seriously, will the health insurance premiums be pro-rated according to how much money I make?  Why should I be FORCED to 'purchase' health insurance if I don't want it or can't afford it? 
   
   I'd much rather spend my pitiful minimum wage earnings on HOUSING and FOOD and TRANSPORTATION - all of which I NEED in order to maintain my minimum wage job!!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Rafini - there's a LOT of misinformation out there. Here's a link to a  web site calculator that will give you an idea what your subsidy will be. If you are minimum wage, the subsidy will be substantial. You CAN afford it. That was an integral part of the plan.
      
      http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx
      
      There's a reason you are required to buy. If you are hospitalized and you don't have insurance, people with insurance pay higher premiums to offset your 'free' coverage. Nothing is actually free. Democrats know that. I'm glad you feel healthy enough to skip coverage - but my eldest daughter wound up in the hospital 3 days after her 18th birthday due to an accident involving an uninsured motorist. The bill came to a quarter of a million dollars. She lived and I'm a grandpa as of last year.
      
      Mandated coverage is not only affordable for you, it will make insurance cheaper for the rest of us also. Get back to us with what you learn about your estimated cost of insurance in 2014.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         well, I find it very interesting that the only options are for a single adult or a family of 4.  What if you're a family of 2 or 3?  Or 6?  Or 10?
         
         At minimum wage, as a single adult, the annual premium would be $6196 - $7435 with an annual gov't tax credit of $5704 - $6943 (which I'm sure would come AFTER the premiums had to be paid) and an annual Out Of Pocket expense of $2083 (this amount didn't change).
         
         This is for a single adult earning $15,600/yr.  For a family of 4, Medicaid. 
         
         I wonder where the single adult is supposed to live?  What are they supposed to eat?  How are they supposed to get and keep a job?   How are they supposed to go to school and earn a degree?  What are they supposed to wear - rags??

         replyreport
      2. 81

         Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Doug - I honestly don't understand how anyone can presume to claim $6196 - $7435 per year is affordable, with an additional $2083 OOP expenses. 
         
         I have to believe the government subsidy will exist due to some people not qualifying for the lower rates, otherwise why not set the rates at $492?  (which is the actual premium paid AFTER the gov't subsidy) 
         
         Oh, right...the government has to SPEND money they don't have in order to maintain Economic Health!
         
         (Am I the only one who doesn't understand how the Health Care Bill is supposed to be a good thing?)

         replyreport
         1. 60

            megs11237posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            No but the government will spend money when you have to go to the emergency room without health insurance. Actually everyone else will foot that bill because if you can't afford health care you can't afford a $10,000 bill a, unless you think freedom means letting you die if you choose to forgo health care and you need emergency services.
            
            I mean that is what people mean when they are talking about freedom without being hypocritical? Or is it that you are free to have the government foot the bill for your medical services that ineffectively because at least they are not telling you to buy insurance which they wouldn't be.
            
            It's a tax, just like we have in MA where I live as imperfect as it is and I do thing is should be sliding scale- What then is your solution for the people who go to the emergency room and don't have insurance- should they die or should they be treated? and if they can't pay should they go to jail, be sued, taxed??

            replyreport
   2. 60

      Christy Goffposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Food, housing, and transportation is important, but I've got to say, so is insurance.  Just going to the dentist for a wellness check up is $225 per person, I have 4 in my family.  With insurance, I only pay my premiums.  My daughter has to have glasses, I only pay $30 for the appointment and glasses.  If someone in my family gets sick, $20 to go to the doctor, and I get most of my meds for 4-10 dollars, I would hate to imagine what I would end up paying without insurance, or not going to a doctor until it was so severe that you end up in a hospital.  I don't want to be told what to spend my money on, but I don't see it as any different than having to have insurance on a vehicle.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Please tell me how a person earning minimum wage is supposed to maintain their health, at a cost of $2575 per year, (after a the tax credit) if they can't afford proper nutrition, clothing, or housing - including heat and electricity to store and prepare the small amount of unhealthy food they can barely afford to buy?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            And all of those costs are rising thanks to Obama's monetary policy, and his restriction on drilling for oil and his use of the EPA to rule by decree over the coal industry. His health care bill will be a drag on the economy as well forcing people who chose NOT to buy insurance into making the purchase. It was estimated that 30% of the 30 million uninsured made 50,000 dollars a year and decided they didn't need insurance. Most young people don't need insurance, but now we'll all be forced to provide it for them, a transfer of wealth from the old and sick to the young and healthy.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               megs11237posted 13 years agoin reply to this

               You can't be serious. "His use of the EPA to rule by decree over the coal industry"
               
               You mean the industry that doesn't protect the miners that work for them, or the ones that dump waste illegal, polluting groundwater. Does that mean you want to go back to acid rain?
               
               BTW we are already force to provide for them and at a greater cost.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  megs11237posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Lady, please think about what you are suggesting when you suggest Coal companies free reign or any big business for that matter.
                  
                  Here is an example of the Coal Industry's idea of what it should do:
                  
                  http://washingtonindependent.com/2515/d … s-downside
                  
                  Please read about Merle Wertman who know suffers from a rare form of cancer along with 131 near his hometown.
                  
                  While although it is hard to have compassion and empathy for the injustices of those who are so far removed from our daily lives, these people deserve to be protected from companies whose only God is profit at all cost.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     megs11237posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Also please read about Rhonda's mother in law Joan who after working for the same company for 10 years( so not looking for freebies but doing the right thing) was dropped from her health insurance- when she being treated for breast cancer her insurance upped the cost so the company told them they fired her. The she was denied COBRA because she had a pre existing condition. Funny she wasn't even fired.
                     
                     At least with "Obamacare" she could have paid Cobra and she wouldn't have been turned away at the doctors office. There are thousands more of these. People who are not welfare mothers, or illegal immigrants who do the right thing and get screwed over.
                     
                     These are real people that are hurt by our system, it is not right to allow them to die when they should be getting the insurance coverage they paid for.
                     
                     http://breastcanceraware.net/forum/arch … -4253.html

                     replyreport
         2. 59

            BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Maybe they should stop trying to live on minimum wage and either get a better paying job or a second job to make ends meet.,
            
            Man, I love this entitlement mentality.....

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Rafiniposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Apparently, Billy, you don't realize that not everyone can get a better paying job and not everyone is able to take on a second job either. 
               
               Entitlement?  Really?  Do we really want to go there??

               replyreport
6. 92

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   I still have mixed feelings about the HC bill, although I really like parts of it. I guess one of my biggest complaints is that the darn thing is so complicated and so l o n g. I wish the Repubs and the Dems had agreed to simplify it for all of us - instead of the Repub's show of repealing it to appeal to their uber-conservative base.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The original wright brothers plane was none too elegant. It was refined to something much simpler and efficient. Wilbur and Orville had to get the damn thing off the ground FIRST so the funds would be available for a more perfect version.
      
      We had to pass what we had, including warts, so we could refine it later.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         "We had to pass what we had, including warts, so we could refine it later."
         
         Dude, that is a great Nancy Pelosi impression....."We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it!"
         
         Such brilliance....

         replyreport
7. 78

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Source please.
   I do not doubt that some of the 37 million uninsured in this country make $50K a year or more. Some of those may have decided they "didn't need" insurance. The majority, however, were more likely turned down for coverage. Or offered coverage at such an exorbitant rate that they had to turn it down because even at $50K a year they could not afford to pay $1500 a month in health premiums.
   
   As to most young people not needing insurance. Really? Do you have any children? If so, do they play sports? Do they ride bikes? Do they ride in the car with you or other parents?  Do they ever leave the house? Because if they do, they DO NEED health insurance. If a healthy child breaks a bone or gets in an accident or (God forbid) gets mononucleosis or other disease they DO NEED insurance.
   
   Your comment "a transfer of wealth from the old and sick to the young and healthy" speaks volumes. Not only does it belie a complete lack of compassion, it doesn't even make any sense! There is not "transfer of wealth." Old sick people don't LOSE anything.
   Where do you get your ideas? I really would like to know.

   replyreport
8. 0

   just_curiousposted 13 years ago

   I believe everyone deserves basic health care, but I'm for repealing it. I do not think any government has the right to tell it's citizens how to spend their money. If congress would stop kowtowing to corporate interests and, for once, consider the welfare of the american people; we could reform healthcare in a way that took care of those less fortunate and protected people from being mistreated by the insurance companies. But since we don't have private jets to fly them down for free vacations in Barbados, they don't give a hoot about what's in our best interest.

   replyreport
9. 61

   Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

   Here's how you repeal it:
   
   26 states stand up, united, and declare it unconstitutional, and then proceed to refuse to enforce it.
   
   http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2011/jan/19/ … ar-367677/
   
   Ta-da!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Seems like they tried that with segregation. And the Civil War for that matter.

      replyreport