Mandatory Healthcare?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Riot

The President? If speaking of healthcare reform, you might rather speak of your elected officials in Congress and the Senate.

Specifically the GOP which contributed less than nothing but obstruction to this whole process, the Democratic Senator from Nebraska who stalled the Senate bill all by himself to obtain pork for his state (he's a whore, and now we know how much he costs); and the Senator from Connecticut who works for the major insurance companies who have their head offices in his state - the state designed to be most user-friendly to insurance companies regarding lack of regulation.

Opportunistic Parasites:

1)Nebraska Hair Helmut

2)Lieberman(I Shill for Israel.) This individual acted the worst, because his actions had nothing to do with the feelings of the people in his state. The other two do at least come from states that are consistently a-s-s backwards.

3)Don't forget that crook from Louisiana. Miss Mary always gots a whole lotta cash in her drawas.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Opportunistic Parasites:

1)Nebraska Hair Helmut

2)Lieberman(I Shill for Israel.) This individual acted the worst, because his actions had nothing to do with the feelings of the people in his state. The other two do at least come from states that are consistently a-s-s backwards.

3)Don't forget that crook from Louisiana. Miss Mary always gots a whole lotta cash in her drawas.

olympia snow is a republican she offered a trigger plan program that would set off a public option if necessary , sadly the democrats voted that down

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by gales0678

olympia snow is a republican she offered a trigger plan program that would set off a public option if necessary , sadly the democrats voted that down

Oh, I'm certain that bitch had poor people's medical needs #1 on her list of priorities.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Oh, I'm certain that bitch had poor people's medical needs #1 on her list of priorities.

no more than harry reid cares about the 80 yr old that won't be able to get the operation anymore becuase there too old and it's too expensive

come on scuds if you beleive either party is fighting for the little guy here you are asleep at the wheel

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by gales0678

no more than harry reid cares about the 80 yr old that won't be able to get the operation anymore becuase there too old and it's too expensive

come on scuds if you beleive either party is fighting for the little guy here you are asleep at the wheel

Some Democrats are, but a lot aren't. No Republicans give a sht about the "little guy." They are just fine with healthcare staying f'd up, and families having to go bankrupt trying to pay doctors 300-400k a year etc. They are just not gunna vote for something that keeps insurance companies from riping people off. You can see no Republican Senators are voting for it, and it's not like any of them say they are real close to voting for it. They don't care about insurance companies turning down patients with previous conditions etc. They don't give a sht about that. They don't care about catastrophic conditions, and limits etc. 55 decent Dems(and 5 filthy whores) have to do it all.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Some Democrats are, but a lot aren't. No Republicans give a sht about the "little guy." They are just fine with healthcare staying f'd up, and families having to go bankrupt trying to pay doctors 300-400k a year etc. They are just not gunna vote for something that keeps insurance companies from riping people off. You can see no Republican Senators are voting for it, and it's not like any of them say they are real close to voting for it. They don't care about insurance companies turning down patients with previous conditions etc. They don't give a sht about that. They don't care about catastrophic conditions, and limits etc. 55 decent Dems(and 5 filthy whores) have to do it all.

why no tort reform in any of the bills scuds? who in wash protects the trial lawyers and there multi million dollara salaries yr ????

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by gales0678

why no tort reform in any of the bills scuds? who in wash protects the trial lawyers and there multi million dollara salaries yr ????

Vets don't have nearly the problem with that, and they still rip people off as much as humanly possible. I'd like to see tort reform, but you just ignored the fact your Republicans wouldn't vote to stop insurance companies from turning down people with previous conditions. Wouldn't stop insurance companies from getting rid of patients with conditions they didn't like. I can tell ya what would happen with tort reform. Doctors n' insurance companies would suck that money up like a cat does milk. There are 3 greedy parties here. Not just 1. All three need to be kept from ripn' people off. You've mentioned your favorite 1, but all 3 need to be fought. If you want tort reform, you better have a sure way to get the money savings to consumers. I just don't think Republicans, Doctors, or insurance companies are interested in doing that.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by gales0678

why no tort reform in any of the bills scuds? who in wash protects the trial lawyers and there multi million dollara salaries yr ????

Gales, there is tort reform in the House bill, a 100% GOP contribution.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

55 decent Dems(and 5 filthy whores) have to do it all.

Which is beyond absurd, considering how the Constitution structured voting in the Senate to be simple majority rule - which is supposed to account for the imbalance of both small population states and large population states having equal weight via 2 senators.

The fillibuster and 60-vote-for-everything games? The GOP needs to be slapped silly. Mitch McConnell just stood up there and lied this morning in his speech before the vote. But the Dems used it, too.

I think the Senate needs to change the house rules, and the one I like is that every three days, the votes required to break fillibuster lower. After three days, it doesn't take 60 to break, it takes only 59, then 58, etc.

Debate happens, but complete obstruction of our government - which is exactly what is happening now - is removed.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Which is beyond absurd, considering how the Constitution structured voting in the Senate to be simple majority rule - which is supposed to account for the imbalance of both small population states and large population states having equal weight via 2 senators.

The fillibuster and 60-vote-for-everything games? The GOP needs to be slapped silly. Mitch McConnell just stood up there and lied this morning in his speech before the vote. But the Dems used it, too.

I think the Senate needs to change the house rules, and the one I like is that every three days, the votes required to break fillibuster lower. After three days, it doesn't take 60 to break, it takes only 59, then 58, etc.

Debate happens, but complete obstruction of our government - which is exactly what is happening now - is removed.

What degree do you hold that makes you an expert on Congressional procedures also?

[Antitrust32]

I think its funny Riot didnt even say a word about RileyORiley's post yet she had a response to everyone else's.

She doesnt have an agenda

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I think its funny Riot didnt even say a word about RileyORiley's post yet she had a response to everyone else's.

She doesnt have an agenda

I think it's funny you think there's a connection

So please, explain how MA's being in arrears of it's states' matching Medicare payments to it's own facilities has anything at all to do with the federal government?

Or how the MA program, which differs completely from the federal healthcare reform act, is pertinent to the discussion?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

So please, explain how MA's being in arrears of it's states' matching Medicare payments to it's own facilities has anything at all to do with the federal government?

Or how the MA program, which differs completely from the federal healthcare reform act, is pertinent to the discussion?

The MA program has been used by the WH as an example of mandated insurance. (That would be considered a connection)

Massachusetts' example

White House budget director Peter Orszag says penalty size isn't the only factor in determining whether people buy coverage. He predicts the mandate will help create societal expectations that everyone gets health insurance, just as most people feel obligated to buckle their seat belts.

He points to Massachusetts, which in 2007 became the first state to require that most residents have insurance. Since then, the percentage of uninsured has declined to 4% from about 7%.

The Massachusetts penalty for failing to buy insurance this year is $1,068 — about half the cost of the lowest annual premium. About 96% of tax filers in the state in 2008 reported they had coverage; only 1% paid a penalty

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...nsurance_N.htm

[Riot]

The MA program has been used by the WH as an example of mandated insurance. (That would be considered a connection)

Yes, for costs/fines. But then go ahead explain how having mandatory insurance relates to MA's state treasury, and the inability to pay it's matching Medicare responsibilities? Is the state not having money directly due to having mandatory insurance? (could be, I don't know).

And is the mandatory program is funded with the same cost ratios and income as the Senate federal program (works the same, on the same scale) so is directly applicable?

To me the post sounded like a pretty broad, "government involvement in healthcare sucks, look at Canada" kind of thing to me. Too general, not directly applicable.

I think if you are trying to make the argument, "as MA goes, so will go the entire country" under either the House or Senate healthcare reform you'll need a little more detail.

So rather than some secret agenda that Antitrust suspects I have , I figured it was just a good point, what's to debate about it?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, for costs/fines. But then go ahead explain how having mandatory insurance relates to MA's state treasury, and the inability to pay it's matching Medicare responsibilities? Is the state not having money directly due to having mandatory insurance? (could be, I don't know).

And is the mandatory program is funded with the same cost ratios and income as the Senate federal program (works the same, on the same scale) so is directly applicable?

To me the post sounded like a pretty broad, "government involvement in healthcare sucks, look at Canada" kind of thing to me. Too general, not directly applicable.

I think if you are trying to make the argument, "as MA goes, so will go the entire country" under either the House or Senate healthcare reform you'll need a little more detail.

So rather than some secret agenda that Antitrust suspects I have , I figured it was just a good point, what's to debate about it?

You stated there is no connection. Obviously there is.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I think it's funny you think there's a connection

So please, explain how MA's being in arrears of it's states' matching Medicare payments to it's own facilities has anything at all to do with the federal government?

Or how the MA program, which differs completely from the federal healthcare reform act, is pertinent to the discussion?

And here I thought that this was what you said. Silly me.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

And here I thought that this was what you said. Silly me.

LOL - you just keep ignoring, don't you?

Merry Christmas to all my angry Libertarian and Teabagging friends here on Dee Tee, you patient Progressives, too, and especially my fellow Mods to the right. We'll all get health care reform for Christmas, which will apparently be the end of civilization as we know it, but try to enjoy the holidays and your families, anyway

GFY

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I think its funny Riot didnt even say a word about RileyORiley's post yet she had a response to everyone else's.

She doesnt have an agenda

I'm hoping Obama and his disciples ignore me too.