PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Democrats furious at insurance companies interpretation of new law


Taco John
03-29-2010, 12:34 AM
What a bunch of dopes...


Coverage Now for Sick Children? Check Fine Print
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: March 28, 2010


WASHINGTON — Just days after President Obama signed the new health care law, insurance companies are already arguing that, at least for now, they do not have to provide one of the benefits that the president calls a centerpiece of the law: coverage for certain children with pre-existing conditions.

Mr. Obama, speaking at a health care rally in northern Virginia on March 19, said, “Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.”

The authors of the law say they meant to ban all forms of discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions like asthma, diabetes, birth defects, orthopedic problems, leukemia, cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease. The goal, they say, was to provide those youngsters with access to insurance and to a full range of benefits once they are in a health plan.

To insurance companies, the language of the law is not so clear.

Insurers agree that if they provide insurance for a child, they must cover pre-existing conditions. But, they say, the law does not require them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the “availability of coverage” for all until 2014.

William G. Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies, said: “The fine print differs from the larger political message. If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost.”

Congressional Democrats were furious when they learned that some insurers disagreed with their interpretation of the law.

“The concept that insurance companies would even seek to deny children coverage exemplifies why we fought for this reform,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the Senate commerce committee, said: “The ink has not yet dried on the health care reform bill, and already some deplorable health insurance companies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous.”

The issue is one of many that federal officials are tackling as they prepare to carry out the law, with a huge stream of new rules, official guidance and brochures to educate the public. Their decisions will have major practical implications.

Insurers say they often limit coverage of pre-existing conditions under policies sold in the individual insurance market. Thus, for example, an insurer might cover a family of four, including a child with a heart defect, but exclude treatment of that condition from the policy.

The new law says that health plans and insurers offering individual or group coverage “may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion with respect to such plan or coverage” for children under 19, starting in “plan years” that begin on or after Sept. 23, 2010.

But, insurers say, until 2014, the law does not require them to write insurance at all for the child or the family. In the language of insurance, the law does not include a “guaranteed issue” requirement before then.

Consumer advocates worry that instead of refusing to cover treatment for a specific pre-existing condition, an insurer might simply deny coverage for the child or the family.

“If you have a sick kid, the individual insurance market will continue to be a scary place,” said Karen L. Pollitz, a research professor at the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University.

Experts at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners share that concern.

“I would like to see the kids covered,” said Sandy Praeger, the insurance commissioner of Kansas. “But without guaranteed issue of insurance, I am not sure companies will be required to take children under 19.”

A White House spokesman said the administration planned to issue regulations setting forth its view that “the term ‘pre-existing’ applies to both a child’s access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in a plan.” But lawyers said the rules could be challenged in court if they went beyond the law or were inconsistent with it.

Starting in January 2014, health plans will be required to accept everyone who applies for coverage.

Until then, people with pre-existing conditions could seek coverage in high-risk insurance pools run by states or by the secretary of health and human services. The new law provides $5 billion to help pay claims filed by people in those pools.

Federal officials will need to write rules or guidance to address a number of concerns. The issues to be resolved include defining the “essential health benefits” that must be offered by all insurers; deciding which dependents are entitled to stay on their parents’ insurance; determining who qualifies for a “hardship exemption” from the requirement to have insurance; and deciding who is eligible for a new long-term care insurance program.

As originally conceived, most of the new federal requirements would have taken effect at the same time, in three or four years. The requirements for people to carry insurance, for employers to offer it and for insurers to accept all applicants were tied together.

But as criticism of their proposal grew, Democrats wanted to show that the legislation would produce immediate, tangible benefits. So they accelerated the ban on “pre-existing condition exclusions” for children.

Consumers will soon gain several other protections. By July 1, the health secretary must establish a Web site where people can identify “affordable health insurance coverage options.” The site is supposed to provide information about premiums, co-payments and the share of premium revenue that goes to administrative costs and profits, rather than medical care.

In addition, within six months, health plans must have “an effective appeals process,” so consumers can challenge decisions on coverage and claims.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/health/policy/29health.html

Taco John
03-29-2010, 12:41 AM
A White House spokesman said the administration planned to issue regulations setting forth its view that “the term ‘pre-existing’ applies to both a child’s access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in a plan.”


Planned to issue regulations? LOL!

Obama thinks that he can just sit at his desk and write regulations?

What a piece of crap this administration and these Democrats have unilaterally hung around our necks. Embarassing!

Shaid
03-29-2010, 12:44 AM
If they don't want people misinterpreting it, write the law clearer.

Ebolapox
03-29-2010, 12:48 AM
jesus tapdancing christ!

2bikemike
03-29-2010, 12:57 AM
If they don't want people misinterpreting it, write the law clearer.

I think Law Makers typically try to cover all the bases in the writing of law which in turn just muddies the water so nobody freaking understands it.

We have so many regulations in my line of work that its very onerous to interpret and comply so its extremely likely your going to end up with an NOV. (Notice of Violation)

orange
03-29-2010, 01:15 AM
Planned to issue regulations? LOL!

Obama thinks that he can just sit at his desk and write regulations?


They ALWAYS issue regulations! LOL in spades at you! You're just bound to be outraged at everything!

Try learning about how your government actually works:

Federal Regulations
The Laws Behind the Acts of Congress
By Robert Longley, About.com Guide

Federal regulations are the actual enforceable laws authorized by major legislation enacted by Congress. The Clean Air Act, the Food and Drug Act, the Civil Rights Act are all examples of landmark legislation requiring months, even years of highly publicized planning, debate, compromise and reconciliation in Congress. Yet the work of creating the vast and ever-growing volumes of federal regulations, the real laws behind the acts, happens largely unnoticed in the offices of the government agencies rather than the halls of Congress....

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/fedregulations.htm

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#home

stevieray
03-29-2010, 08:37 AM
Enter Cass Sunstein -regulatory czar..who wrote a book about FDR's 2nd bill of rights, and why it's needed more than ever.

bkkcoh
03-29-2010, 08:48 AM
If they don't want people misinterpreting it, write the law clearer.

Then they wouldn't have ever been able to pass it, there would have been too much opposition. They have to have vague wording so that it is up to interpretation of the lawyers and court for the laws they create.

Garcia Bronco
03-29-2010, 09:10 AM
Well government got involved, and as expected...it's more fucked up than ever.

BigRedChief
03-29-2010, 09:45 AM
A White House spokesman said the administration planned to issue regulations setting forth its view that “the term ‘pre-existing’ applies to both a child’s access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in a plan.”


Planned to issue regulations? LOL!

Obama thinks that he can just sit at his desk and write regulations?

What a piece of crap this administration and these Democrats have unilaterally hung around our necks. Embarassing!
No matter your opinion in this legislation, the intent was to have children with pre-exsisting conditions covered this year. This is not trying to add some new regulation into the bill. Everyone who voted for or against this bill thought pre-exsisting conditions were covered for children this year. There was no decption.

Insurance companies are just up to their old tricks of trying to not cover or pay out a dime unless they are forced too. This is just legal BS by the the teams of lawyers that insurance companies pay to avoid coverage that will cost them money. It's about friggin time that Americans come first, not big corporations with deep pockets and lawyers.

BucEyedPea
03-29-2010, 09:48 AM
Enter Cass Sunstein -regulatory czar..who wrote a book about FDR's 2nd bill of rights, and why it's needed more than ever.

Yeah, that was his economic Bill of Rights but he died before he could implement. ( He would have needed an Amendment which wouldn't have been easy.) But his wife Eleanor wrote them in to the UN Charter. The whole second half of it is communism. Right to a job, right to a living wage, right to democracy ( socialism really) and a right to well just keep reading....it's all positive rights none of them natural or inalienable which means they can be taken away.

banyon
03-29-2010, 09:52 AM
A White House spokesman said the administration planned to issue regulations setting forth its view that “the term ‘pre-existing’ applies to both a child’s access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in a plan.”


Planned to issue regulations? LOL!

Obama thinks that he can just sit at his desk and write regulations?

What a piece of crap this administration and these Democrats have unilaterally hung around our necks. Embarassing!

So, now you're upset that the legislation doesn't go far enough in coverage? I thought you didn't think the government should be involved at all? You should be celebrating that these sick kids won't get insurance coverage, shouldn't you? Could you focus your outrage a bit for us?

Taco John
03-29-2010, 10:03 AM
So, now you're upset that the legislation doesn't go far enough in coverage? I thought you didn't think the government should be involved at all? You should be celebrating that these sick kids won't get insurance coverage, shouldn't you? Could you focus your outrage a bit for us?

What gave you the impression that I'm upset that this thing doesn't go far enough in coverage? I'm laughing at the foolish democrats who were counting on this stuff for November, and now have a fight on their hands just to implement their first step.

My outrage is that this stuff got unilaterally forced on us against the will of the American people. I give you too much credit. Someone with ability to retain information would be able to know this without the confusion that you suffer.

HC_Chief
03-29-2010, 10:10 AM
What gave you the impression that I'm upset that this thing doesn't go far enough in coverage? I'm laughing at the foolish democrats who were counting on this stuff for November, and now have a fight on their hands just to implement their first step.

My outrage is that this stuff got unilaterally forced on us against the will of the American people. I give you too much credit. Someone with ability to retain information would be able to know this without the confusion that you suffer.

See bolded + "...and apparently forced by people who failed to actually READ the bill"

Mr. Kotter
03-29-2010, 10:26 AM
Yet some idiots still wonder why most Americans think healthcare needs to be fixed...even if we may disagree about precisely "how" to fix everything. Well, at least it's no longer profits ahead of healthcare.

The devil is in the details, no doubt; but at least it's moving forward. Much to the chagrin of these poor, poor health insurance companiess. Wah.

banyon
03-29-2010, 10:35 AM
What gave you the impression that I'm upset that this thing doesn't go far enough in coverage? I'm laughing at the foolish democrats who were counting on this stuff for November, and now have a fight on their hands just to implement their first step.

My outrage is that this stuff got unilaterally forced on us against the will of the American people. I give you too much credit. Someone with ability to retain information would be able to know this without the confusion that you suffer.

Unilaterallly forced? It was voted on by elected representatives. That's how the system works. I thought you were fond of the Constitution and understood how it worked.

morphius
03-29-2010, 10:37 AM
This is what happens when you pass a giant, confusing mess of a law. Peliosi is getting her wish, now that they have passed it they can now figure out what is in it, and of course what they thought was in it was wrong. Color me shocked. Luckily lawyers should make a ton off of this mess.

banyon
03-29-2010, 10:39 AM
This is what happens when you pass a giant, confusing mess of a law. Peliosi is getting her wish, now that they have passed it they can now figure out what is in it, and of course what they thought was in it was wrong. Color me shocked. Luckily lawyers should make a ton off of this mess.

Even Taco's article states that even if the coverage isn't presently guaranteed, it will be by 2014.

mlyonsd
03-29-2010, 10:42 AM
If all they needed were regulations why pass a stupid bill in the first place?

I wonder how many other unintended consequences will jump up and bite us from this POS pile legislation.

Yeah pat yourselves on the back democrats. You're too stupid to realize what's in store for you in a few months.

mlyonsd
03-29-2010, 10:43 AM
Even Taco's article states that even if the coverage isn't presently guaranteed, it will be by 2014.

Then every democrat and media outlet shouldn't have been touting childres with pre-existing conditions would all be covered in as little as 6 months.

Either blatant stupidity or blatant lying. You decide.

Mr. Kotter
03-29-2010, 10:46 AM
Then every democrat and media outlet shouldn't have been touting childres with pre-existing conditions would all be covered in as little as 6 months.

Either blatant stupidity or blatant lying. You decide.


How about the blatant attempts by teabaggers and healthcare companie whiners and their pals to demonize and demagogue the issue? Sour grapes, ya know? :shrug:

acesn8s
03-29-2010, 10:46 AM
They didn't know what the bill contained until they passed it. Well, here is the first thing that the bill contains (or doesn't contain) that they didn't know about.

Move on. Let's find out what is next. :sulk:

patteeu
03-29-2010, 11:02 AM
They ALWAYS issue regulations! LOL in spades at you! You're just bound to be outraged at everything!

Try learning about how your government actually works:

Federal Regulations
The Laws Behind the Acts of Congress
By Robert Longley, About.com Guide

Federal regulations are the actual enforceable laws authorized by major legislation enacted by Congress. The Clean Air Act, the Food and Drug Act, the Civil Rights Act are all examples of landmark legislation requiring months, even years of highly publicized planning, debate, compromise and reconciliation in Congress. Yet the work of creating the vast and ever-growing volumes of federal regulations, the real laws behind the acts, happens largely unnoticed in the offices of the government agencies rather than the halls of Congress....

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/fedregulations.htm

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#home

Regulations can't be used to reverse the law.

mlyonsd
03-29-2010, 11:05 AM
How about the blatant attempts by teabaggers and healthcare companie whiners and their pals to demonize and demagogue the issue? Sour grapes, ya know? :shrug:

What does that have to do with anything?

patteeu
03-29-2010, 11:05 AM
No matter your opinion in this legislation, the intent was to have children with pre-exsisting conditions covered this year. This is not trying to add some new regulation into the bill. Everyone who voted for or against this bill thought pre-exsisting conditions were covered for children this year. There was no decption.

Insurance companies are just up to their old tricks of trying to not cover or pay out a dime unless they are forced too. This is just legal BS by the the teams of lawyers that insurance companies pay to avoid coverage that will cost them money. It's about friggin time that Americans come first, not big corporations with deep pockets and lawyers.

The intent doesn't matter when the language is unambiguous. This isn't about deception, it's about incompetence.

fan4ever
03-29-2010, 11:08 AM
If all they needed were regulations why pass a stupid bill in the first place?

I wonder how many other unintended consequences will jump up and bite us from this POS pile legislation.

Yeah pat yourselves on the back democrats. You're too stupid to realize what's in store for you in a few months.

What would make anyone think that the politicians we have in Washington, on either side of the aisle, have the brains or commitment to put forth a bill that wouldn't have tons of unintentioned negative consequences for years to come? Remember last year when they issued checks to some of the people on unemployment to offer a little extra financial relief...and got a number of the people who received these checks kicked off their unemployment benefits? Those are the geniuses we have in Washington.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 11:12 AM
Even Taco's article states that even if the coverage isn't presently guaranteed, it will be by 2014.

Tell that to the poor children who die between now and then because they couldn't get coverage for their pre-existing condition.

Even more heartbreaking, tell that to the poor children who die between now and then because the coverage they could have had for everything but their pre-existing condition will not be offered due to the new law.

ObamaCare makes things worse for these kids for the next 3 years, not better.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 11:13 AM
How about the blatant attempts by teabaggers and healthcare companie whiners and their pals to demonize and demagogue the issue? Sour grapes, ya know? :shrug:

I'm counting this as one vote for blatant stupidity.

banyon
03-29-2010, 11:20 AM
Tell that to the poor children who die between now and then because they couldn't get coverage for their pre-existing condition.

Even more heartbreaking, tell that to the poor children who die between now and then because the coverage they could have had for everything but their pre-existing condition will not be offered due to the new law.

ObamaCare makes things worse for these kids for the next 3 years, not better.

The pre-existing coverage not being offered is not due to the new law. It's the choice of the insurance companies and the status quo that you fought so hard for.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 11:26 AM
The pre-existing coverage not being offered is not due to the new law. It's the choice of the insurance companies and the status quo that you fought so hard for.

No, the law forces the insurance companies to discontinue their practice of extending the coverage they have been willing to extend. It's absolutely due to the new law. Poor kids.

petegz28
03-29-2010, 11:31 AM
Even Taco's article states that even if the coverage isn't presently guaranteed, it will be by 2014.

That is beside the point. Obama and Co. are going around saying this law was to be enacted ASAP. They didn't even read their own fucking bill. Now they are pissed to be made out as liars.

petegz28
03-29-2010, 11:33 AM
The pre-existing coverage not being offered is not due to the new law. It's the choice of the insurance companies and the status quo that you fought so hard for.

Wrong again.

Garcia Bronco
03-29-2010, 11:33 AM
If all they needed were regulations why pass a stupid bill in the first place?

I wonder how many other unintended consequences will jump up and bite us from this POS pile legislation.

Yeah pat yourselves on the back democrats. You're too stupid to realize what's in store for you in a few months.

I said this about 1 billion times over the past year.

Garcia Bronco
03-29-2010, 11:34 AM
Regulations can't be used to reverse the law.

I would laugh at the President and his regulations, then move to have him impeached for breaking the law.

petegz28
03-29-2010, 11:34 AM
I said this about 1 billion times over the past year.

We all did. But some were so drunk with power and wanting their way that they did anything, said anything and passed anything they could just to say "they won".

morphius
03-29-2010, 11:36 AM
Even Taco's article states that even if the coverage isn't presently guaranteed, it will be by 2014.
Point being what? The Democrats sat behind closed doors, wrote this by themselves and couldn't even get their main talking points into the bill correctly.

petegz28
03-29-2010, 11:37 AM
Point being what? The Democrats sat behind closed doors, wrote this by themselves and couldn't even get their main talking points into the bill correctly.

ROFL

:thumb:

ROFL

banyon
03-29-2010, 11:53 AM
Wrong again.

How so?

orange
03-29-2010, 11:58 AM
The intent doesn't matter when the language is unambiguous. This isn't about deception, it's about incompetence.

They already knew about this. It's still in the Bill because the normal procedure was short-circuited.

UPDATE 3/25 9:47 PM
It wasn't easy and it wasn't pretty, but the congressional debate over comprehensive health care reform ended Thursday night with Democrats routing a united Republican opposition.

...

In the short term, Congress will make more fixes to the bill now that it has become law. Because the Massachusetts special election of Republican Scott Brown cut the regular process short and detoured Democrats into reconciliation, the party was limited in changes that it could make.

"One, we're going to examine the things we would like to see corrected, but we're going to prioritize it in terms of what is most easily accomplishable," Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) told HuffPost after the vote.

Due to loose legislative language, Obama's signature promise -- that children will be able to obtain insurance regardless of preexisting conditions, immediately upon signing -- is lacking and will need to fixed, along with other loopholes that will be fixed by Congress.


This is not an illustration of incompetence - rather an illustration of the consequences of obstructionism.

petegz28
03-29-2010, 12:00 PM
How so?

How can you say the pre-existing coverage not being offered AFTER the bill was passed is not due to the new law? Didn't Obama and Co. say the new law would require such this year for children?

petegz28
03-29-2010, 12:01 PM
They already knew about this. It's still in the Bill because the normal procedure was short-circuited.

UPDATE 3/25 9:47 PM
It wasn't easy and it wasn't pretty, but the congressional debate over comprehensive health care reform ended Thursday night with Democrats routing a united Republican opposition.

...

In the short term, Congress will make more fixes to the bill now that it has become law. Because the Massachusetts special election of Republican Scott Brown cut the regular process short and detoured Democrats into reconciliation, the party was limited in changes that it could make.

"One, we're going to examine the things we would like to see corrected, but we're going to prioritize it in terms of what is most easily accomplishable," Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) told HuffPost after the vote.

Due to loose legislative language, Obama's signature promise -- that children will be able to obtain insurance regardless of preexisting conditions, immediately upon signing -- is lacking and will need to fixed, along with other loopholes that will be fixed by Congress.


This is not an illustration of incompetence - rather an illustration of the consequences of obstructionism.

In other words, what Obama and Co. said was in the bill wasn't in the bill.

mlyonsd
03-29-2010, 12:02 PM
Ah. The ole dog ate my homework excuse.

I'm betting we're about to see that working on serveral here from the left.

Garcia Bronco
03-29-2010, 12:04 PM
Covering pre-existing conditions is a slippery slope from an individual perspective. Most likely it';ll bankrupt the Insruance companies and maybe that's the plan, but you can't just whole sale cover everybody for anything. If I owned an insurance provider I would just stop covering children altogether.

Saul Good
03-29-2010, 12:06 PM
They already knew about this. It's still in the Bill because the normal procedure was short-circuited.

UPDATE 3/25 9:47 PM
It wasn't easy and it wasn't pretty, but the congressional debate over comprehensive health care reform ended Thursday night with Democrats routing a united Republican opposition.

...

In the short term, Congress will make more fixes to the bill now that it has become law. Because the Massachusetts special election of Republican Scott Brown cut the regular process short and detoured Democrats into reconciliation, the party was limited in changes that it could make.

"One, we're going to examine the things we would like to see corrected, but we're going to prioritize it in terms of what is most easily accomplishable," Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) told HuffPost after the vote.

Due to loose legislative language, Obama's signature promise -- that children will be able to obtain insurance regardless of preexisting conditions, immediately upon signing -- is lacking and will need to fixed, along with other loopholes that will be fixed by Congress.


This is not an illustration of incompetence - rather an illustration of the consequences of obstructionism.

So you admit that Rockefeller was full of shit when he said, “The ink has not yet dried on the health care reform bill, and already some deplorable health insurance companies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous.” After all, this was known all along.

I guess trial lawyers are trying to duck away from buying food and clothing for orphans, too. They should do it even though there's no law saying they have to. Rockefeller needs to publicly denounce them.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 12:06 PM
They already knew about this. It's still in the Bill because the normal procedure was short-circuited.

UPDATE 3/25 9:47 PM
It wasn't easy and it wasn't pretty, but the congressional debate over comprehensive health care reform ended Thursday night with Democrats routing a united Republican opposition.

...

In the short term, Congress will make more fixes to the bill now that it has become law. Because the Massachusetts special election of Republican Scott Brown cut the regular process short and detoured Democrats into reconciliation, the party was limited in changes that it could make.

"One, we're going to examine the things we would like to see corrected, but we're going to prioritize it in terms of what is most easily accomplishable," Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) told HuffPost after the vote.

Due to loose legislative language, Obama's signature promise -- that children will be able to obtain insurance regardless of preexisting conditions, immediately upon signing -- is lacking and will need to fixed, along with other loopholes that will be fixed by Congress.


This is not an illustration of incompetence - rather an illustration of the consequences of obstructionism.

Your story is inconsistent with the story told in the OP article. In that article, quoted democrats are furious at insurance companies' interpretations of the existing law not furious that Republicans somehow prevented them from writing a competent law.

BigRedChief
03-29-2010, 12:07 PM
Covering pre-existing conditions is a slippery slope from an individual perspective. Most likely it';ll bankrupt the Insruance companies :LOL:yeah thats why the stock of the insurance companies are up since the bill passed. Investors are putting money into companies that are going to go bankrupt.

Saul Good
03-29-2010, 12:08 PM
Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.

Obama lied. Children died.

BigChiefFan
03-29-2010, 12:10 PM
"Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the Senate commerce committee"


Enough said. It's a friggin' Rockefeller, Does anyway honestly believe they give a flyin' shit about the little guy? Hell no.

Taco John
03-29-2010, 12:10 PM
:LOL:yeah thats why the stock of the insurance companies are up since the bill passed. Investors are putting money into companies that are going to go bankrupt.

Let them drive the price up. It'll make more money for those of us looking to short them.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 12:14 PM
:LOL:yeah thats why the stock of the insurance companies are up since the bill passed. Investors are putting money into companies that are going to go bankrupt.

Perhaps the stock is going up because callous investors expect the companies to start rejecting sickly kids with pre-existing conditions altogether instead of taking a partial risk with a policy containing cutouts. Poor kids.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 12:15 PM
Obama lied. Children died.

How can anyone continue to support that monster? :shrug:

orange
03-29-2010, 12:21 PM
So you admit that Rockefeller was full of shit when he said, “The ink has not yet dried on the health care reform bill, and already some deplorable health insurance companies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous.” After all, this was known all along.

Your story is inconsistent with the story told in the OP article. In that article, quoted democrats are furious at insurance companies' interpretations of the existing law not furious that Republicans somehow prevented them from writing a competent law.

I suspect that there is considerable disagreement over the details. I bet if you ask a dozen politicians about anything they theoretically agree on, you'll get a dozen different answers.

But then Limbaugh will do his show and the Republicans will now all bleat in harmony.

Furthermore, that NYTimes article may have been published today, but that doesn't mean all the interviews were this morning. There was already a thread here last week about this matter from some other source. Nor is every word from each interview in the actual article. The overall gist of the NYT piece is completely consistent with the "fixing the loopholes" thrust of the other article.

NYT: "A White House spokesman said the administration planned to issue regulations setting forth its view that “the term ‘pre-existing’ applies to both a child’s access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in a plan.” But lawyers said the rules could be challenged in court if they went beyond the law or were inconsistent with it." This doesn't preclude Congress doing something as well. Is there a passage in there I'm missing that says Congress won't act on this?

petegz28
03-29-2010, 12:24 PM
I suspect that there is considerable disagreement over the details. I bet if you ask a dozen politicians about anything they theoretically agree on, you'll get a dozen different answers.

But then Limbaugh will do his show and the Republicans will now all bleat in harmony.

Furthermore, that NYTimes article may have been published today, but that doesn't mean all the interviews were this morning. There was already a thread here last week about this matter from some other source. Nor is every word from each interview in the actual article. The overall gist of the NYT piece is completely consistent with the "fixing the loopholes" thrust of the other article.

You should sell used cars

Saul Good
03-29-2010, 12:25 PM
How can anyone continue to support that monster? :shrug:

At least the progressives can re-purpose their signs and protest materials. How eco-forward of them.

petegz28
03-29-2010, 12:27 PM
ORange, the funny part about you is you defended the CBO score of the bill and dismissed the fact they said once the "doctor fix" was passed it would send us into the red. And now here you are trying to include separate bills into one overall answer.

Amazing.

Mr. Kotter
03-29-2010, 12:36 PM
There is an easy solution to this:

Put this issue to a vote of Congress on it's own then....make those opposed to extending care, now, to children with pre-existing conditions put themselves on the record as "yay" or "nay" on that issue alone. Then watch the fur fly in November. Heh.


"My opponent voted to deny children with pre-existing conditions immediate coverage."

:)

orange
03-29-2010, 12:38 PM
ORange, the funny part about you is you defended the CBO score of the bill and dismissed the fact they said once the "doctor fix" was passed it would send us into the red. And now here you are trying to include separate bills into one overall answer.

Amazing.

The "doctor fix" was not and is not in the Bill. It is a separate matter. When they bring it up, they'll have to look for other funding for it - Obama signs Pay-Go law but also raises federal debt ceiling; 02/13/10; President Barack Obama on Saturday congratulated Congress for restoring a requirement that the federal government spend only what it can afford — a day after authorizing $1.9 trillion more federal debt. - or pass it with a supermajority.

It's amazing that you can't understand that incredibly simple fact.

petegz28
03-29-2010, 12:39 PM
The "doctor fix" was not and is not in the Bill. It is a separate matter.

Neither was the pre-existing child condition enforement for this year....apparently. ROFL

And BTW...where did we get the money for the latest $117 bil Jobs bill???? Mr, Paygo never really said, did he?

BigRedChief
03-29-2010, 12:41 PM
There is an easy solution to this:

Put this issue to a vote of Congress on it's own then....make those opposed to extending care, now, to children with pre-existing conditions put themselves on the record as "yay" or "nay" on that issue alone. Then watch the fur fly in November. Heh.


"My opponent voted to deny children with pre-existing conditions immediate coverage."

:)
Right up there with voted to provide free viagra to child molesters.

petegz28
03-29-2010, 12:41 PM
There is an easy solution to this:

Put this issue to a vote of Congress on it's own then....make those opposed to extending care, now, to children with pre-existing conditions put themselves on the record as "yay" or "nay" on that issue alone. Then watch the fur fly in November. Heh.


"My opponent voted to deny children with pre-existing conditions immediate coverage."

:)

Well, considering just about every Dem passed a bill that lacked the law to provide "children with pre-existing conditions immediate coverage"......

petegz28
03-29-2010, 12:41 PM
Right up there with voted to provide free viagra to child molesters.

Again, a Repub amendment to disallow such was turned down by the Dems in the Senate.

Mr. Kotter
03-29-2010, 12:42 PM
Well, considering just about every Dem passed a bill that lacked the law to provide "children with pre-existing conditions immediate coverage"......


An oversight; put everyone on record. Again. Clearly this time. Heh.

:)

petegz28
03-29-2010, 12:44 PM
An oversight; put everyone on record. Again. Clearly this time. Heh.

:)

Oversight? Perhaps. Maybe if they actually read the ****ing bill or during one of the many closed-door meetings someone actually ensured it was in the bill it wouldn't be, heh?

Until then, Obama lied. It was not in the bill like he and many Dems said it was.

How may other ****ing oversights might there be????

It's scary when a large pillar of the bill gets "overlooked" by the same people whowrote the bill and kept screaming it was there.

Mr. Kotter
03-29-2010, 12:46 PM
Oversight? Perhaps. Maybe if they actually read the ****ing bill or during one of the many closed-door meetings someone actually ensured it was in the bill it wouldn't be, heh?

Until then, Obama lied. It was not in the bill like he and many Dems said it was.

How may other ****ing oversights might there be????

It's scary when a large pillar of the bill gets "overlooked" by the same people whowrote the bill and kept screaming it was there.

Either way. Put it to a new vote. I, for one, would love to see it. Heh.

Every time we discover something similar. Put Congress on record for that issue, up or down.

I dare them.

:)

banyon
03-29-2010, 12:46 PM
How can you say the pre-existing coverage not being offered AFTER the bill was passed is not due to the new law? Didn't Obama and Co. say the new law would require such this year for children?

Because the law didn't affect it either way. That was the case before the bill, and now according to these critics, it will be the case until 2014. The situation of kids not getting coverage existed prior to the bill, do you not understand that?

petegz28
03-29-2010, 12:47 PM
Because the law didn't affect it either way. That was the case before the bill, and now according to these critics, it will be the case until 2014. The situation of kids not getting coverage existed prior to the bill, do you not understand that?

You mean the lack of the law???

banyon
03-29-2010, 12:49 PM
You mean the lack of the law???

No, I don't.

petegz28
03-29-2010, 12:50 PM
No, I don't.

Then you're wrong.

banyon
03-29-2010, 12:51 PM
Then you're wrong.

Great point.


Somehow.


Come back to me after you calmly reread my posts.

orange
03-29-2010, 12:51 PM
And BTW...where did we get the money for the latest $117 bil Jobs bill???? Mr, Paygo never really said, did he?

You mean the $17 bil Jobs bill? They didn't pay for it. It's a STIMULUS. Deficit spending. That's the whole point.

And it passed by a supermajority. The Senate passed the Porkulus II today by 68-29 — with support from 11 Republicans - Michelle Malkin. If you can't trust MM, who can you trust?

petegz28
03-29-2010, 12:53 PM
You mean the $17 bil Jobs bill? They didn't pay for it. It's a STIMULUS. Deficit spending. That's the whole point.

And it passed by a supermajority. The Senate passed the Porkulus II today by 68-29 — with support from 11 Republicans - Michelle Malkin. If you can't trust MM, who can you trust?

So much for PayGo. heh? LMAO

Obama signs Pay-Go law but also raises federal debt ceiling; 02/13/10; President Barack Obama on Saturday congratulated Congress for restoring a requirement that the federal government spend only what it can afford — a day after authorizing $1.9 trillion more federal debt


LMAO

Chief Henry
03-29-2010, 12:53 PM
Lawyers will be making hay from this bill for the next 20 some years.

petegz28
03-29-2010, 12:54 PM
Great point.


Somehow.


Come back to me after you calmly reread my posts.

If the passed law does not include immediate coverage then it is only logical to think that the reason there is no immediate coverage is due to the lack of the law.

Or were you expecting isnurance companies to change of their own free will?

petegz28
03-29-2010, 12:54 PM
Lawyers will be making hay from this bill for the next 20 some years.

Follow the $!

banyon
03-29-2010, 12:56 PM
If the passed law does not include immediate coverage then it is only logical to think that the reason there is no immediate coverage is due to the lack of the law.

Or were you expecting isnurance companies to change of their own free will?

Well, yes the lack of the law allows the situation to continue, but it doesn't cause the situation. The situation prexisted the bill.

The situation is due to the choices of how insurance companies want to conduct their business.

orange
03-29-2010, 12:57 PM
So much for PayGo. heh? LMAO

PayGo always allowed supermajorities to bypass it. ALWAYS.

Almost as long as you not knowing a blessed thing about Congress.

petegz28
03-29-2010, 12:59 PM
PayGo always allowed supermajorities to bypass it. ALWAYS.

Almost as long as you not knowing a blessed thing about Congress.

In other words, it's a facade and hollow talking point. Got it.

Thanks for re-iterating my point.

Garcia Bronco
03-29-2010, 01:05 PM
:LOL:yeah thats why the stock of the insurance companies are up since the bill passed. Investors are putting money into companies that are going to go bankrupt.

They haven't covered a damn thing yet.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 01:51 PM
Because the law didn't affect it either way. That was the case before the bill, and now according to these critics, it will be the case until 2014. The situation of kids not getting coverage existed prior to the bill, do you not understand that?

As I already mentioned, the law does affect it. Those kids with pre-existing conditions would have gotten coverage for everything but those conditions prior to this law but will now get no coverage at all. Poor kids.

Mr. Kotter
03-29-2010, 01:56 PM
As I already mentioned, the law does affect it. Those kids with pre-existing conditions would have gotten coverage for everything but those conditions prior to this law but will now get no coverage at all. Poor kids.

Gosh, guess we'll have to close that questionable loophole with a public option. :)

RJ
03-29-2010, 01:59 PM
The free market will sort this out.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 02:41 PM
Gosh, guess we'll have to close that questionable loophole with a public option. :)

It's not a loophole, it's an unintended consequence of the type about which conservatives warned you and yours. The issue isn't whether or not to "close" it, it's that democrats were so incompetent/dishonest that they passed it while either lying about it or being misinformed about it in the first place.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 02:43 PM
Speaking of which, I have a question for BigRedChief. Is this a case of Obama lying to the American people? Afterall, surely it's easier to know what's in a piece of legislation that's printed in black and white than it is to sort through mountains of ambiguous, incomplete and conflicting intelligence on Iraqi WMD.

petegz28
03-29-2010, 02:44 PM
It's not a loophole, it's an unintended consequence of the type about which conservatives warned you and yours. The issue isn't whether or not to "close" it, it's that democrats were so incompetent/dishonest that they passed it while either lying about it or being misinformed about it in the first place.

Guess reading the bill before you vote on it has some merit?

petegz28
03-29-2010, 02:45 PM
Speaking of which, I have a question for BigRedChief. Is this a case of Obama lying to the American people? Afterall, surely it's easier to know what's in a piece of legislation that's printed in black and white than it is to sort through mountains of ambiguous, incomplete and conflicting intelligence on Iraqi WMD.

Sadaam had no WMD's. He said so. Isn't that good enough? He used them all on the Kurds.

mlyonsd
03-29-2010, 02:47 PM
Speaking of which, I have a question for BigRedChief. Is this a case of Obama lying to the American people? Afterall, surely it's easier to know what's in a piece of legislation that's printed in black and white than it is to sort through mountains of ambiguous, incomplete and conflicting intelligence on Iraqi WMD.

Imagine if this issue would have come up the day before the vote was taken. It wreaks of incompetency/dishonesty so bad there wouldn't have been a vote.

Every democrat that paraded out in front of a camera touting the bill either lied or was grossly ignorant.

And if orange's quote from the NYT's is correct I'd call it blatant all out lying.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 02:59 PM
Imagine if this issue would have come up the day before the vote was taken. It wreaks of incompetency/dishonesty so bad there wouldn't have been a vote.

Every democrat that paraded out in front of a camera touting the bill either lied or was grossly ignorant.

And if orange's quote from the NYT's is correct I'd call it blatant all out lying.

I'd guess that a few of the ones who were most intimately familiar with the bill were lying (like maybe Pelosi and Reid) and the rest who were either out of the inner loop or disinterested in the details were grossly ignorant (like Obama). In any event, there is one group of clear losers. Poor kids.

BigRedChief
03-29-2010, 03:02 PM
Speaking of which, I have a question for BigRedChief. Is this a case of Obama lying to the American people? Afterall, surely it's easier to know what's in a piece of legislation that's printed in black and white than it is to sort through mountains of ambiguous, incomplete and conflicting intelligence on Iraqi WMD.Define lying?:)

orange
03-29-2010, 03:10 PM
Imagine if this issue would have come up the day before the vote was taken. It wreaks of incompetency/dishonesty so bad there wouldn't have been a vote.

Every democrat that paraded out in front of a camera touting the bill either lied or was grossly ignorant.

And if orange's quote from the NYT's is correct I'd call it blatant all out lying.

Why didn't the Republicans bring it up? Since it was "so bad there wouldn't have been a vote." Seems like your boys BLEW a golden opportunity, there. They must not have read the Bill.

... Or ...

Perhaps this COULDN'T come up because of the reconciliation rules. Maybe even it did come up but was ruled out by the parliamentarian.

Inspector
03-29-2010, 03:13 PM
The free market will sort this out.

OK, that made me laugh.

ROFL

banyon
03-29-2010, 03:15 PM
It's not a loophole, it's an unintended consequence of the type about which conservatives warned you and yours. The issue isn't whether or not to "close" it, it's that democrats were so incompetent/dishonest that they passed it while either lying about it or being misinformed about it in the first place.

Which Republicans were pointing this out? Or did they not read the bill either?

patteeu
03-29-2010, 03:15 PM
Define lying?:)

Go ahead and use the same definition you use when you claim that the Bush administration lied us into war. :)

BigRedChief
03-29-2010, 03:18 PM
Go ahead and use the same definition you use when you claim that the Bush administration lied us into war. :)ROFL

patteeu
03-29-2010, 03:19 PM
Why didn't the Republicans bring it up? Since it was "so bad there wouldn't have been a vote." Seems like your boys BLEW a golden opportunity, there. They must not have read the Bill.

... Or ...

Perhaps this COULDN'T come up because of the reconciliation rules. Maybe even it did come up but was ruled out by the parliamentarian.

Republicans were honest with the American people that the bill hadn't been read and fully understood by the people who were going to vote on it. Here's just one example:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hvvT9o_Wt_s&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hvvT9o_Wt_s&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

googlegoogle
03-29-2010, 03:20 PM
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the Senate commerce committee! Break out a check!

patteeu
03-29-2010, 03:21 PM
Which Republicans were pointing this out? Or did they not read the bill either?

The Republicans weren't given an adequate opportunity to read and understand the bill. They had even less chance to do so than some democrats (who at least were involved in putting it together). So no, they hadn't read it either. I don't see how that can possibly reflect poorly on them though. They weren't the ones who scheduled the vote.

mlyonsd
03-29-2010, 03:21 PM
Republicans were honest with the American people that the bill hadn't been read and fully understood by the people who were going to vote on it. Here's just one example:

<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/hvvT9o_Wt_s&hl=en_US&fs=1& width=480 height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>

Hurry up, lets have a Sunday vote before this huge pile of dog crap is exposed for what it is. We'll deal with it on Monday.

banyon
03-29-2010, 03:23 PM
The Republicans weren't given an adequate opportunity to read and understand the bill. They had even less chance to do so than some democrats (who at least were involved in putting it together). So no, they hadn't read it either. I don't see how that can possibly reflect poorly on them though. They weren't the ones who scheduled the vote.

What are they, illiterate?

patteeu
03-29-2010, 03:25 PM
What are they, illiterate?

Not that I know of. Why do you ask?

orange
03-29-2010, 03:34 PM
Republicans were honest with the American people that the bill hadn't been read and fully understood by the people who were going to vote on it. Here's just one example

So you agree your boys BLEW a golden opportunity to Kill The Bill. :doh!: The same Senate Bill that's been out there - PASSED - for 4(?) months. :doh!::doh!: How long would it have taken to "find (f4) pre-existing" in the Reconciliation Bill which PASSED the House Sunday (after being online for a week) but didn't PASS the Senate until Thursday? In fact, why didn't the Republicans in the Senate grab onto this bill-killer when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius addressed it last Tuesday http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_children_s_coverage ?

Are you on the AXE BOEHNER AND MCCONNELL bandwagon yet?

kcfanXIII
03-29-2010, 03:35 PM
How about the blatant attempts by teabaggers and healthcare companie whiners and their pals to demonize and demagogue the issue? Sour grapes, ya know? :shrug:

continue to ignore the problems and shout hate rhetoric at the opposition. do you have any other plays in your play book or are you the martyball of politics?

Brainiac
03-29-2010, 03:39 PM
It sounds like the libs aren't even reading what Patteu has written.

How you guys can have the balls to try and blame the Republicans for this is hilarious. The Republicans said all along that NOBODY has had time to read and fully understand this 2,000 page bill (or whatever the hell the final page count turned out to be).

Obama's happy. Now he can go down in history as the President who passed universal health care. The fact that it's a cluster fuck doesn't matter.

petegz28
03-29-2010, 03:43 PM
Why didn't the Republicans bring it up? Since it was "so bad there wouldn't have been a vote." Seems like your boys BLEW a golden opportunity, there. They must not have read the Bill.

... Or ...

Perhaps this COULDN'T come up because of the reconciliation rules. Maybe even it did come up but was ruled out by the parliamentarian.

Now it's the Repubs fault???? LMAO

kcfanXIII
03-29-2010, 03:44 PM
Which Republicans were pointing this out? Or did they not read the bill either?

how long will it take you guys to figure out that both parties suck, and to claim allegiance to either of them, is to contribute to the downfall of america?

orange
03-29-2010, 03:45 PM
The Republicans said all along that NOBODY has had time to read and fully understand this 2,000 page bill (or whatever the hell the final page count turned out to be).

In fact, why didn't the Republicans in the Senate grab onto this bill-killer when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius addressed it last Tuesday http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_children_s_coverage ?

Are you on the AXE BOEHNER AND MCCONNELL bandwagon yet?

When your whole line is that "nobody has read the Bill" you can't admit you read it, I guess. Even when it's all over the damn Internet.

Brainiac
03-29-2010, 03:46 PM
Here's a question for Orange:

You posted several links to the text of the bill over the last few weeks. How many pages of it did YOU read?

petegz28
03-29-2010, 03:46 PM
When your whole line is that "nobody has read the Bill" you can't admit you read it, I guess. Even when it's all over the damn Internet.

Orange....who ran around all over the country saying pre-existing conditions for kids would be accepted this year?

orange
03-29-2010, 03:47 PM
Now it's the Repubs fault???? LMAO

No, now it's trivial - just like it was then. It will be covered by some amendment attached to some non-controversial Bill passed later by unanimous consent.

Unless you think there's a Republican who's going to throw himself on this grenade for the insurance industry.

petegz28
03-29-2010, 03:48 PM
No, now it's trivial - just like it was then. It will be covered by some amendment attached to some non-controversial Bill passed later by unanimous consent.

Unless you think there's a Republican who's going to throw himself on this grenade for the insurance industry.

Ah, so the Dems said one thing, did another and now it's just "trivial".

:rolleyes:


ROFLROFLROFL

orange
03-29-2010, 03:48 PM
Here's a question for Orange:

You posted several links to the text of the bill over the last few weeks. How many pages of it did YOU read?

A dozen or so. I guess you won't be voting for me, then. :deevee:

orange
03-29-2010, 03:53 PM
... and now it's just "trivial".

No, not "now." It's always been trivial - in the sense that it's completely non-controversial. That's why no Republicans brought it up. They don't want to be seen openly denying children health care.

When I posted the question "why didn't Republicans bring this up" even though it was out there in the press, it was supposed to be a rhetorical question. I didn't expect anyone to actually give the "they were too stupid" defense. :shake:

I underestimated the mendacity here, I see.

petegz28
03-29-2010, 03:57 PM
No, not "now." It's always been trivial - in the sense that it's completely non-controversial. That's why no Republicans brought it up. They don't want to be seen openly denying children health care.

When I posted the question "why didn't Republicans bring this up" even though it was out there in the press, it was supposed to be a rhetorical question. I didn't expect anyone to actually give the "they were too stupid" defense. :shake:

I underestimated the mendacity here, I see.

Well, while you sit here trying to foist the blame on the Repubs I will hold the people who wrote the bill and oh, yea, the dumbass who signed it without one of his major talking points being in it, accountable.

kcfanXIII
03-29-2010, 03:58 PM
No, not "now." It's always been trivial - in the sense that it's completely non-controversial. That's why no Republicans brought it up. They don't want to be seen openly denying children health care.

When I posted the question "why didn't Republicans bring this up" even though it was out there in the press, it was supposed to be a rhetorical question. I didn't expect anyone to actually give the "they were too stupid" defense. :shake:

I underestimated the mendacity here, I see.

so instead of the obamacare, wouldn't have been easier to pass one law covering pre existing conditions, and pass this thing one part at a time? it would eliminate a lot of fear mongering (from both sides) and allow the american people to see what changes are being made, one step at a time.

petegz28
03-29-2010, 04:01 PM
Well, the fact the kiddies with pre-existing conditions aren't getting accepted this year, contrary to what Dear Leader said 1000 times, just proves that Obama cared little for what was actually in the bill. He just wanted his name on it. He signed a bill into law that didn't even have what he kept claiming it had. Perhaps he and his staff can't read????

vailpass
03-29-2010, 04:14 PM
Heh. obama supporters have done nothing but make excuses for him since the day he took office. It is so hard to believe that otherwise intelligent members on this board are comfortable being led by the likes of Pelosi and obama.

Taco John
03-29-2010, 04:21 PM
Heh. obama supporters have done nothing but make excuses for him since the day he took office. It is so hard to believe that otherwise intelligent members on this board are comfortable being led by the likes of Pelosi and obama.


The part that I have a hard time understanding is how they can sit there and witness their ideals being warped by corporations towards the corporations' best interests, and still remain supportive. I mean, it's one thing to go along with it and think "the ends justify the means" when you're truly doing something that benefits the people. But to do it in a circumstance where the people are being corralled against their will in order to provide a boost for the insurance industry - I don't understand how their principles are served by that. This isn't even progressivism anymore. It's straight up fascism.

But I guess enough of them are fooled into believing that giving this kind of power to insurance corporations through enshrinement of law is actually progressive. More power to them.

HonestChieffan
03-29-2010, 04:24 PM
Well, while you sit here trying to foist the blame on the Repubs I will hold the people who wrote the bill and oh, yea, the dumbass who signed it without one of his major talking points being in it, accountable.

The O will be held accountable. As will the morons who passed this POS bill. Those who continue to support him are so far out of touch they wont be helped at this point.

BigRedChief
03-29-2010, 04:31 PM
Those who continue to support him are so far out of touch they wont be helped at this point.More demonizing and marginlizing.:shake:

patteeu
03-29-2010, 04:40 PM
So you agree your boys BLEW a golden opportunity to Kill The Bill. :doh!: The same Senate Bill that's been out there - PASSED - for 4(?) months. :doh!::doh!: How long would it have taken to "find (f4) pre-existing" in the Reconciliation Bill which PASSED the House Sunday (after being online for a week) but didn't PASS the Senate until Thursday?

Are you on the AXE BOEHNER AND MCCONNELL bandwagon yet?

You make a decent point, but with legislation that was constantly in flux and with Republicans being locked out of the process they were never in as good a position to know the bill as well as the democrats who were creating it. Whether they blew an opportunity to block it or not, this is just the beginning of the ways in which this law won't end up living up to the deceits and distortions of it's democrat proponents.

HonestChieffan
03-29-2010, 04:41 PM
Not demons. Who said demons. Marginalizing? no, the numbers bear out the margins. As your peers continue to pull away there are numerically fewer and fewer who continue to buy into the crap Obama is selling.

Sadly its a proud old democrat party that is being destroyed in the process.

vailpass
03-29-2010, 05:06 PM
More demonizing and marginlizing.:shake:

And racism, don't forget that one. Anyone who disagrees with the current "administration" is a demonizing, marginializing racist.
And and ad hominem slinging hypocrite.

orange
03-29-2010, 05:53 PM
so instead of the obamacare, wouldn't have been easier to pass one law covering pre existing conditions, and pass this thing one part at a time? it would eliminate a lot of fear mongering (from both sides) and allow the american people to see what changes are being made, one step at a time.

A good question. The problem is you have to finance that (pre-existing conditions) somehow. That means either a big tax or mandates or dumping it directly on the insurance companies. Whichever way, the controversy's there. There was no avoiding it.

This thing was done as one big Bill because that's the only way to get it done. The dozens of dominos approach doesn't work.

kcfanXIII
03-29-2010, 06:57 PM
A good question. The problem is you have to finance that (pre-existing conditions) somehow. That means either a big tax or mandates or dumping it directly on the insurance companies. Whichever way, the controversy's there. There was no avoiding it.

This thing was done as one big Bill because that's the only way to get it done. The dozens of dominos approach doesn't work.

the funding is the problem with this whole fucking bill. that and handing over the running of health care to a group of people, who couldn't navigate out of a paper sack without discussing it in a committee first.

Saul Good
03-29-2010, 07:49 PM
A good question. The problem is you have to finance that (pre-existing conditions) somehow. That means either a big tax or mandates or dumping it directly on the insurance companies. Whichever way, the controversy's there. There was no avoiding it.

So money was no object when it came to bribing Ben and Mary, but it wasn't economically feasible to mandate coverage for children in a bill designed to overhaul health care? Just damn.

alnorth
03-30-2010, 08:08 AM
Didn't read the thread. I'm very suspicious. Not of the insurance companies, I assume their interpretation is correct or they wouldn't be sticking their neck out like this.

I'm suspicious that the Democrats who wrote that particular provision didn't know for sure what they were doing. Maybe they thought this was a win-win, either the insurance companies decide to ignore their "mistake" and just go ahead and write the policies. OR, they will seize on the "mistake", continue to refuse to write policies for sick children for 4 more years, thus sparking outrage at the insurance companies instead of the Democrats, giving them ammunition against health insurers to point to why the bill will be good in 2014.

I'm not saying that's what happened when they were drafting the bill, I'm just suspicious, because I think in a perverse way, this is very welcome news for those who voted yes.

orange
03-30-2010, 08:40 AM
Insurance industry agrees to fix kids coverage gap
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, AP
4 hours ago

WASHINGTON — If you can't beat them, join them.

After nearly a year battling President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats over the health care overhaul, the insurance industry says it won't block the administration's efforts to fix a potentially embarrassing glitch in the new law.

In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the industry's top lobbyist said Monday insurers will accept new regulations to dispel uncertainty over a much-publicized guarantee that children with medical problems can get coverage starting this year.

Quick resolution of the doubts was a win for Obama — and a sign that the industry has no stomach for another war of words with a president who deftly used double-digit rate hikes by the companies to revive his sweeping health care legislation from near collapse in Congress.

"Health plans recognize the significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition," Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, said in a letter to Sebelius. Ignagni said that the industry will "fully comply" with the regulations, expected within weeks.

The industry still has plenty of other objections to the new health care law, including concerns that it will raise premiums and skepticism that it will achieve its stated aim of covering 95 percent of eligible Americans.

On coverage for kids, however, there will be no quibbling. Ignagni's letter to the administration followed a sternly worded missive from Sebelius to the industry earlier in the day. The administration's top health care official forcefully tried to put an end to questions about the law's intent and wording.

"Health insurance reform is designed to prevent any child from being denied coverage because he or she has a pre-existing condition," Sebelius wrote to Ignagni. "Now is not the time to search for nonexistent loopholes that preserve a broken system."

Sebelius specified that a child with a pre-existing medical problem may not be denied access to parents' coverage under the new law. Furthermore, insurers will not be able to insure a child but exclude treatments for a particular medical problem.

"The term 'pre-existing condition exclusion' applies to both a child's access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in the plan," Sebelius wrote. The new protections will be available starting in September, she said.

The fine print of the law was less than completely clear on whether kids with health problems were guaranteed coverage starting this year — as Obama had repeatedly claimed in extolling the legislation that he signed last week.

If the problem had persisted, some parents and their children may have had to wait a long time for coverage. The law's broad ban on denying coverage to any person on account of a health condition doesn't take effect until 2014.

The problem on the issue of covering kids was that the law could also be interpreted in a more limited way.

Narrowly read, it seemed to say that if an insurance company accepts a particular child, it cannot write a policy for a child that excludes coverage for a given condition. For example, if the child has asthma, the insurer cannot exclude inhalers and respiratory care from coverage, as sometimes happens now.

But that meant the company could still turn down the child altogether.

Indeed, House and Senate staffers on two committees that wrote the legislation said last week it stopped short of an ironclad guarantee. House leaders later issued a statement saying their intent in writing the legislation was to provide full protection.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20100329/US.Health.Overhaul.Children_s.Coverage/

BigRedChief
03-30-2010, 08:41 AM
Insurance industry agrees to fix kids coverage gap
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, AP
4 hours ago

WASHINGTON — If you can't beat them, join them.

After nearly a year battling President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats over the health care overhaul, the insurance industry says it won't block the administration's efforts to fix a potentially embarrassing glitch in the new law.

In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the industry's top lobbyist said Monday insurers will accept new regulations to dispel uncertainty over a much-publicized guarantee that children with medical problems can get coverage starting this year.

Quick resolution of the doubts was a win for Obama — and a sign that the industry has no stomach for another war of words with a president who deftly used double-digit rate hikes by the companies to revive his sweeping health care legislation from near collapse in Congress.

"Health plans recognize the significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition," Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, said in a letter to Sebelius. Ignagni said that the industry will "fully comply" with the regulations, expected within weeks.

The industry still has plenty of other objections to the new health care law, including concerns that it will raise premiums and skepticism that it will achieve its stated aim of covering 95 percent of eligible Americans.

On coverage for kids, however, there will be no quibbling. Ignagni's letter to the administration followed a sternly worded missive from Sebelius to the industry earlier in the day. The administration's top health care official forcefully tried to put an end to questions about the law's intent and wording.

"Health insurance reform is designed to prevent any child from being denied coverage because he or she has a pre-existing condition," Sebelius wrote to Ignagni. "Now is not the time to search for nonexistent loopholes that preserve a broken system."

Sebelius specified that a child with a pre-existing medical problem may not be denied access to parents' coverage under the new law. Furthermore, insurers will not be able to insure a child but exclude treatments for a particular medical problem.

"The term 'pre-existing condition exclusion' applies to both a child's access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in the plan," Sebelius wrote. The new protections will be available starting in September, she said.

The fine print of the law was less than completely clear on whether kids with health problems were guaranteed coverage starting this year — as Obama had repeatedly claimed in extolling the legislation that he signed last week.

If the problem had persisted, some parents and their children may have had to wait a long time for coverage. The law's broad ban on denying coverage to any person on account of a health condition doesn't take effect until 2014.

The problem on the issue of covering kids was that the law could also be interpreted in a more limited way.

Narrowly read, it seemed to say that if an insurance company accepts a particular child, it cannot write a policy for a child that excludes coverage for a given condition. For example, if the child has asthma, the insurer cannot exclude inhalers and respiratory care from coverage, as sometimes happens now.

But that meant the company could still turn down the child altogether.

Indeed, House and Senate staffers on two committees that wrote the legislation said last week it stopped short of an ironclad guarantee. House leaders later issued a statement saying their intent in writing the legislation was to provide full protection.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20100329/US.Health.Overhaul.Children_s.Coverage/
Holy crap, didn't see that coming. Salu to those evil insurance companies.:clap:

mlyonsd
03-30-2010, 08:47 AM
I'm suspicious that the Democrats who wrote that particular provision didn't know for sure what they were doing.

You pretty much could have stopped here and hit the nail on the head.

Mr. Kotter
03-30-2010, 09:32 AM
....they will seize on the "mistake", continue to refuse to write policies for sick children for 4 more years, thus sparking outrage at the insurance companies instead of the Democrats, giving them ammunition against health insurers to point to why the bill will be good in 2014

I'm not saying that's what happened when they were drafting the bill, I'm just suspicious, because I think in a perverse way, this is very welcome news for those who voted yes .


Yep. Pretty convenient way of working out....if you ask me. :)

You pretty much could have stopped here and hit the nail on the head.

Ironic then that the insurance companies are caving so quickly then....guess they understand the whole teabagging thing is not nearly as formidable as some seem to think. Heh.

CoMoChief
03-30-2010, 09:34 AM
I understand why ins companies are pissed. Obamacare is simply telling them they can now only make a certain set amount of money, unless they raise premiums across the board to make up for cost.

It's like auto ins. You get cancelled if you're considered high risk. Why? Because companies know that your high risk and chances of an accident happening far outweigh their chances of being able to make money off of you/your premium payments etc. These are businesses. They're private sectors that are set out to make profit. This is the same w/ healthcare. Now they're mandated by the fed govt that they can't deny anyone w/ pre-exsisting conditions (high risk patients). So what do you think is going to happen now? They are going to HAVE to pay out more because it will cost A LOT more to insure people that fall into this category so they will do the one of two things they can do to make up for these new costs they have to take in. They will cut jobs, or they will raise the cost of premiums across the board to make up for costs (which is more likely the scenario). What do you think auto companies like State Farm, Geico, Allstate, Nationwide etc would do if the govt told them they can no longer deny anyone insurance that wants to purchase it or cancel anyone that's high risk??? I can tell you the FIRST thing they will do is raise premium costs.


Why do you think they tried so hard to sneak this bill through, back door, overnight whatever you want to call it??? - And the Dems for the majority, didn't even know what the bill had in it.

Why do you think there were special favors in this bill, to get the fence riders to vote "yes"? They didn't want this bill anymore than the repubs, they know its filled with bullshit....but they're like a kid getting bribed with fucking candy.

When nothing (major) is coming into effect for 4 years....why didn't they just start from page 1 and start with what they all agreed on and go from there and negotiate/compromise. That's how bi-partisan works. Not "well here's the bill" support it or Fuck you, we'll try and pass it "How is" and you can kiss my ass. My way or the highway. Repubs wants reform just as much as the next guy. Why a 2700 page multi trillion dollar mess of a bill was rammed down American people's throats when they said "No" is beyond me.

Democrats followed BO off of a political cliff. Good for them.

mlyonsd
03-30-2010, 10:04 AM
Ironic then that the insurance companies are caving so quickly then....guess they understand the whole teabagging thing is not nearly as formidable as some seem to think. Heh.

Ironic you've associated yourself with idiots.

The Mad Crapper
03-30-2010, 10:08 AM
What a bunch of dopes...

O-bots?

Mr. Kotter
03-30-2010, 10:18 AM
Ironic you've associated yourself with idiots.

Ideologues have a difficult time relating to pragmatitic independents; and vice versa. Not ironic at all.

Taco John
03-30-2010, 10:33 AM
Ideologues have a difficult time relating to pragmatitic independents; and vice versa. Not ironic at all.


Indeed. It's hard to relate to people who have no moral compass.

Mr. Kotter
03-30-2010, 10:58 AM
Indeed. It's hard to relate to people who have no moral compass.

You confuse dogmatic devotion to ideologically rigid theory as a moral compass. How unfortunate.

mlyonsd
03-30-2010, 11:59 AM
You confuse dogmatic devotion to ideologically rigid theory as a moral compass. How unfortunate.
You think anyone that is against Obama's policies for fiscal reasons doesn't have a moral compass?

Mr. Kotter
03-30-2010, 12:02 PM
You think anyone that is against Obama's policies for fiscal reasons doesn't have a moral compass?

Not at all. I'm merely answering Taco's haranging of me, again, about my 'lack of a moral compass' because I don't worship at the alter of Lew Rockwell or have homoerotic dreams about Ron Paul as he does.

:shrug:

Taco John
03-30-2010, 12:12 PM
Not at all. I'm merely answering Taco's haranging of me, again, about my 'lack of a moral compass' because I don't worship at the alter of Lew Rockwell or have homoerotic dreams about Ron Paul as he does.

:shrug:

It wasn't because you don't worship at an altar. It was because you base your politics on your feelings, and whatever is easy, regardless of right or wrong.

Taco John
03-30-2010, 12:14 PM
You confuse dogmatic devotion to ideologically rigid theory as a moral compass. How unfortunate.

Not at all. I have no confusion about what constitutes stealing. When you take something that doesn't belong to you, that's rigidly called stealing. There's no ideology involved. Just simple recognition of the facts.

When you vote yourself goods or services that dont belong to you, you've got to take the resources from someone else. That's called stealing.

patteeu
03-30-2010, 12:22 PM
It wasn't because you don't worship at an altar. It was because you base your politics on your feelings, and whatever is easy, regardless of right or wrong.

Seconded.

Mr. Kotter
03-30-2010, 12:42 PM
It wasn't because you don't worship at an altar. It was because you base your politics on your feelings, and whatever is easy, regardless of right or wrong.

That's an ignorant opinion--and an inconsequential one at that, coming from someone who can't distinguish between fact and opinion, political theory and reality, or truth and misinformed judgements. You and other teabaggers will have some serious self reflection to do in the coming months, I suspect. Guess we will see.

Seconded.

Dittos, Rush.

patteeu
03-30-2010, 12:47 PM
Greed, envy and a sense that homosexuality is yucky drive Mr. Kotter.

Taco John
03-30-2010, 12:51 PM
Kotter, everybody knows that you're a political weathervane. You swung from being a Bush supporter to being an Obama supporter. Why even pretend that you have credibility in the eyes of anyone here? Wordy responses that force some form of faux-eloquence don't buy credibility.

dirk digler
03-30-2010, 12:52 PM
It wasn't because you don't worship at an altar. It was because you base your politics on your feelings, and whatever is easy, regardless of right or wrong.

Awesome.

Obama represents a new breed of politics that America is craving. The mantra right now against him coming from his opponents on both the left and the right is "we don't know anything about this guy." That's not going to be true for long. And what's more, what people lack in knowing about Obama, they more than make up for in knowing about Hillary.

The thing about Obama that will put him over the top is that he can speak towards nuance in ways that most politicians cant without tripping themselves up and miring themselves in a web of their own words.

Obama has a way of cutting that web down and bridging the gaps between both sides in a way similar to how Reagan was able to swing "Reagan Democrats," to see things in another light. I think when he really starts going, you're going to see the same phenomenon.

Ahh how sweet

I personally like Obama. For the first time since I became eligible to vote, I see a man who I genuinely believe in. Our politics might not mesh with eachother, but I at least know that he's going to consider all the nuances of a position before acting on them, instead of charging around like a bull in a china shop, while shattering American civil liberties in the process. I like his background. I like his brains. I like that he went to Harvard on merit, not because the silver spoon in his mouth happened to come with a free admission to the place.

Mostly I like him because he makes me feel good about America and what any American can accomplish if they set their mind to it.

Taco John
03-30-2010, 12:54 PM
I stand by my political analysis in the first quote, Dirk. In fact, I nailed it.

Regarding the second, I'm thankful that I was able to see through the phoney facade that others got trapped in so early in the game, despite my Bush fatigue.

Norman Einstein
03-30-2010, 12:56 PM
So, now you're upset that the legislation doesn't go far enough in coverage? I thought you didn't think the government should be involved at all? You should be celebrating that these sick kids won't get insurance coverage, shouldn't you? Could you focus your outrage a bit for us?

It's a good thing that you are so concerned for the country that you can only attack someone for pointing out that the democrats bill for health reform sucks swamp water. It's like a bunch of ****ing fry cooks got together and wrote the bill.

To all 535 voting members of the Legislature,
It is now official - you are ALL morons:

The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get
it right and it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it
right and it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right
and it is broke.

War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1
trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"
and they only want more.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get
it right and they are broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right
and it is broke.

The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on
foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24
billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to
get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our
throats while overspending our tax dollars AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO
BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??

dirk digler
03-30-2010, 12:58 PM
I stand by my political analysis in the first quote, Dirk. In fact, I nailed it.

Regarding the second, I'm thankful that I was able to see through the phoney facade that others got trapped in so early in the game.

That is why I said awesome. :)

It seems like you base your politics on feelings as well or you used to. And you should be the last person to criticize Kotter since you switched from Obama to Ron Paul.

Taco John
03-30-2010, 01:03 PM
That is why I said awesome. :)

It seems like you base your politics on feelings as well or you used to. And you should be the last person to criticize Kotter since you switched from Obama to Ron Paul.

There was no switch involved. Obama hadn't won my vote at the time, just my consideration. I still approve of the plan he had for Iraq that he was advocating in January of 2007, which at the time was my #1 issue. He, of course, changed his position as his take became politically inconvenient.

Everything I said about him was true at the time. Then, of course, as time wore on he started to reveal his issues, and what a phoney he really is. So while my first feelings on him were positive, I eventually had to yeild to the thinking part of my being. Also, Ron Paul had not announced his candidacy at that time, which he did a month later. I'd have never given Obama so much as consideration if I knew Paul was going to be in the race. But I was going to vote against the war either way - not based on "feelings," but rather based on the morality of it.

Mr. Kotter
03-30-2010, 01:09 PM
Kotter, everybody knows that you're a political weathervane. You swung from being a Bush supporter to being an Obama supporter. Why even pretend that you have credibility in the eyes of anyone here? Wordy responses that force some form of faux-eloquence don't buy credibility.

You see, that's one of the bigger differences between you and me. I support the office of the President, I respect the opinions of the American people regardless of how misguided as a group they are sometimes, and I trust that the Constitution and the institutions that have built this country will persevere. If that makes me a Bush and Obama supporter--because given the choices, they were best candidates for the job, so be it. If Ron Paul had won the presidency, I'd currently be a Paul supporter--reluctant and dubious perhaps, but a supporter nonetheless.

You and patty are zero-sum ideologues; it's all good on your side, all evil on the other. Either you win, or you lose. Life isn't that black and white, and neither is politics. You and other ideologues who run around like Chicken Little...at the drop of a hat, or when things don't go your way--you are what's wrong with political dialogue in this country. It's why politics have become so poisonous and divisive.

Fortunately most Americans simply shake their heads at you, point and laugh, and keep moving forward. And folks like the moonbats and the teabaggers keep making fools of themselves. It's entertaining at times, but nothing more...other than a whole lot of noise and wasted energy.

Taco John
03-30-2010, 01:11 PM
You see, that's one of the bigger differences between you and me. I support the office of the President, I respect the opinions of the American people regardless of how misguided as a group they are sometimes, and I trust that the Constitution and the institutions that have built this country will persevere. If that makes me a Bush and Obama supporter--because given the choices, they were best candidates for the job, so be it. If Ron Paul had won the presidency, I'd currently be a Paul supporter--reluctant and dubious perhaps, but a supporter nonetheless.

You and patty are zero-sum ideologues; it's all good on your side, all evil on the other. Either you win, or you lose. Life isn't that black and white, and neither is politics. You and other ideologues who run around like Chicken Little...at the drop of a hat, or when things don't go your way--you are what's wrong with political dialogue in this country. It's why politics have become so poisonous and divisive.

Fortunately most Americans simply shake their heads at you, point and laugh, and keep moving forward. And folks like the moonbats and the teabaggers keep making fools of themselves. It's entertaining at times, but nothing more...other than a whole lot of noise and wasted energy.

http://www.starkey-music.com/graphics2007/claptrap2FrontWeb.jpg

Knob turned to maximum...

Mr. Kotter
03-30-2010, 01:11 PM
Awesome.



Ahh how sweet


LMAO

Thanks for the laugh....for the nostalgic reminders, dirk. Heh.

:toast:

Mr. Kotter
03-30-2010, 01:12 PM
....

Knob turned to maximum...

You could just admit your wrong, or stupid. Or in this case both. It would save a little face for you. Heh.

LMAO

Taco John
03-30-2010, 01:13 PM
Hollowly saying that you support the constitution while advocating the theft of property of some in order to deliver goods and services to others is hardly impressive.

I'm aware that you support whatever is popular. I stated as much.

Mr. Kotter
03-30-2010, 01:13 PM
There was no switch involved. Obama hadn't won my vote at the time, just my consideration. I still approve of the plan he had for Iraq that he was advocating in January of 2007, which at the time was my #1 issue. He, of course, changed his position as his take became politically inconvenient.

Everything I said about him was true at the time. Then, of course, as time wore on he started to reveal his issues, and what a phoney he really is. So while my first feelings on him were positive, I eventually had to yeild to the thinking part of my being. Also, Ron Paul had not announced his candidacy at that time, which he did a month later. I'd have never given Obama so much as consideration if I knew Paul was going to be in the race. But I was going to vote against the war either way - not based on "feelings," but rather based on the morality of it.

http://www.starkey-music.com/graphics2007/claptrap2FrontWeb.jpg

Knob turned to maximum...

petegz28
03-30-2010, 01:31 PM
Just got my haircut. The gal that cuts my hair just told me her boss has already announced he will be dropping their health insurance. And the bonus is, they aren't getting any raises to compensate for the mandate that they have to buy insurance. That's a real economic winner right there, I tell you what!

mlyonsd
03-30-2010, 01:38 PM
You see, that's one of the bigger differences between you and me. I support the office of the President, I respect the opinions of the American people regardless of how misguided as a group they are sometimes, and I trust that the Constitution and the institutions that have built this country will persevere. If that makes me a Bush and Obama supporter--because given the choices, they were best candidates for the job, so be it. If Ron Paul had won the presidency, I'd currently be a Paul supporter--reluctant and dubious perhaps, but a supporter nonetheless.

You and patty are zero-sum ideologues; it's all good on your side, all evil on the other. Either you win, or you lose. Life isn't that black and white, and neither is politics. You and other ideologues who run around like Chicken Little...at the drop of a hat, or when things don't go your way--you are what's wrong with political dialogue in this country. It's why politics have become so poisonous and divisive.

Fortunately most Americans simply shake their heads at you, point and laugh, and keep moving forward. And folks like the moonbats and the teabaggers keep making fools of themselves. It's entertaining at times, but nothing more...other than a whole lot of noise and wasted energy.

Ah, the old 'holier than thou' attitude. Whatever helps you sleep.

dirk digler
03-30-2010, 02:07 PM
There was no switch involved. Obama hadn't won my vote at the time, just my consideration. I still approve of the plan he had for Iraq that he was advocating in January of 2007, which at the time was my #1 issue. He, of course, changed his position as his take became politically inconvenient.

Everything I said about him was true at the time. Then, of course, as time wore on he started to reveal his issues, and what a phoney he really is. So while my first feelings on him were positive, I eventually had to yeild to the thinking part of my being. Also, Ron Paul had not announced his candidacy at that time, which he did a month later. I'd have never given Obama so much as consideration if I knew Paul was going to be in the race. But I was going to vote against the war either way - not based on "feelings," but rather based on the morality of it.

Whatever you say TJ ;). You were slobbering all over his dick for a while then you started slobbering over Ron Paul. Sounds like you don't have that good of convictions.

Mr. Kotter
03-30-2010, 04:16 PM
Whatever you say TJ ;). You were slobbering all over his dick for a while then you started slobbering over Ron Paul. Sounds like you don't have that good of convictions.

One thing he's consistent about is his slobbering. Gotta give him some credit.

CoMoChief
03-30-2010, 04:32 PM
Just got my haircut. The gal that cuts my hair just told me her boss has already announced he will be dropping their health insurance. And the bonus is, they aren't getting any raises to compensate for the mandate that they have to buy insurance. That's a real economic winner right there, I tell you what!

But Suzy Smith, mother of 4, all with cancer, has to decide whether to sell her house, or to pay for all of her dying children health costs. (democrat sob story)

King_Chief_Fan
03-31-2010, 02:38 PM
No shit...they are furious.

Who knows what their intent was when they wrote it. I believe the insurance company took the literal writing and interpreted it correctly.
Oops, Dems goofed again.