ObamaCare...coming soon

Member logins have been temporarily disabled. Please try again later.
User Forum Topic
Submitted by meadandale on July 16, 2009 - 11:48am

Seems like modeling our system after the Canadians should be a great idea...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

Submitted by Zeitgeist on July 30, 2009 - 2:43pm.

Thanks for pointing that out. That provision would help, but it might just increase "free care" at the local ER. The next step is no subsidized housing for non- citizens, etc. We have a lot of homeless people that need assitance. Have you ever driven downtown late at night in certain areas and seen how many are sleeping on the sidewalk?

Submitted by GH on July 30, 2009 - 2:48pm.

As a self employed person I have to go out every three years or so and get a W2 job with a big company so I can get on COBRA, which is expensive, but affords far better coverage than I can get independently. What we need are large groups and choices creating REAL competition. The groups must and should be completely independent of the employer. An instance of an illness or injury should be covered for the duration of the illness or injury, provided the insured was covered at the onset regardless of if the insured is able to continue coverage. Far too many get injured, lose their jobs and then their insurance etc. The other problem we run into a lot is gouging, where a simple aspirin is charged at a rate of $5 each or prescription drugs cost $500+ a month where the same company sells to clients in Canada for a fraction of the cost. The other big issue, Cash clients are often charged many times more than insured clients, where Insurance should be reserved for ONLY catastrophic illness and regular care should be provided to ALL clients at the same rate. This would also go a long way to allowing smaller providers on the field.

Fines for not participating and reductions in existing coverage, higher taxes etc are not necessary IMO.

Submitted by SK in CV on July 30, 2009 - 3:02pm.

Overall, it would greatly reduce "free care" at the local ER. I don't know how it could possibly cause an increase. Universal coverage, except for some undocumented residents and those that choose to pay the penalty for not having coverage (again, I'm sure we agree on the "mandatory" elements of the plan), means that there wouldn't be any free care for the tens of thousands of currently uninsured that have income and assets in excess of federal poverty guidelines and are now eligible for medicaid (Medi-Cal here in San Diego). It would also "cover" some employed undocumented, with their employers picking up much of the premiums.

Before the current economic downturn, a high percentage of the downtown homeless were a result of the severe cutbacks over the last 25 years to CMH budgets. When my wife worked in mental health, she hated going downtown because she saw too many of her former patients, former residents of mental health facilities, whose funding was eliminated. Now with the Governors proposed plan for the state budget crisis, cuts in the already meager funding put her current patients at adult day health centers at risk for the same fate.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on July 30, 2009 - 10:10pm.

I am surprised they are not being sent to some camp in a cattle car in the Obama Health Care Plan. After all, he has no use for the elderly, so why keep the mentally ill. They cannot pay taxes and they are just taking up space. They are incurable. If you do not want to waste a pacemaker on someone who is elderly because it is not worth the cost of the surgery, how can you justify keeping the incurables around. Just asking.

Submitted by SK in CV on July 30, 2009 - 10:29pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
I am surprised they are not being sent to some camp in a cattle car in the Obama Health Care Plan. After all, he has no use for the elderly, so why keep the mentally ill. They cannot pay taxes and they are just taking up space. They are incurable. If you do not want to waste a pacemaker on someone who is elderly because it is not worth the cost of the surgery, how can you justify keeping the incurables around. Just asking.

I have no idea what any of this refers to. Medicare already exists for the elderly, that would not change. The current House plan doesn't address the elderly, with the exception of some refined definitions and expanded coverage under medicare. Other than financing problems which have been apparent since at least the early 80's, it is already a reasonably efficient functioning government plan.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on July 30, 2009 - 11:04pm.

July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/0...

Submitted by SK in CV on July 30, 2009 - 11:31pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php

No, he doesn't say that at all. This is exactly what he says:

"we can make sure some of the waste that exists in the system, that is not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests, or additional drugs that the evidence shows that is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn't going to help, maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer."

Nothing about not having a pacemaker installed. Nothing about not having medically indicated surgery. Just not wasting money with tests and drugs that don't improve care. What exactly is the problem with this statement?

Now I think medical professionals should make help patients make medical decisions, not insurance companies (who do it daily now with their treatment by spreadsheet) or the government. But I have heard no proposals regarding changes to medicare protocols regarding restricting reimbursed care. So all this is creating something where there is nothing.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on July 30, 2009 - 11:39pm.

OK spinmeister, spin this:

On page 909 the bill states:

"In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds."

Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups", the Democrats' policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?

A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual's physical appearance or surname is no less a "badge of inferiority" than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats' racial preference program, all of the "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups" at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/r...

Submitted by SK in CV on July 30, 2009 - 11:56pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
OK spinmeister, spin this:

On page 909 the bill states:

"In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds."

Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups", the Democrats' policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?

A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual's physical appearance or surname is no less a "badge of inferiority" than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats' racial preference program, all of the "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups" at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html

LOL! That's really all you're left with? A problem with preferential grants to schools that serve minorities and the underpriveleged? Not preferential grants to minorities or the poor. But to the schools that serve them. Digging pretty deep to find objections. No reason to spin it. It is what it is, I have no problem with it.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on August 4, 2009 - 4:02pm.

Yes we can! Federal tax revenues plummeting

WASHINGTON – "The recession is starving the government of tax revenue, just as the president and Congress are piling a major expansion of health care and other programs on the nation's plate and struggling to find money to pay the tab."

"The numbers could hardly be more stark: Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year, the biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit balloons to a record $1.8 trillion."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_plummeting...

Submitted by Zeitgeist on August 4, 2009 - 6:16pm.

Newsflash- Abortion okayed by Church. Why not just use birth control?

"The overall impression given by Church leadership thus far is that universal health care coverage is so badly needed that they are not willing to endanger the legislation by protesting too loudly against abortion coverage."

Catholic Charities USA has received a five-year, 100 million dollar federal contract to aid in disaster relief throughout the United States. The contract is the charity’s first ever federal contract.

Proving everyone including large organizations have their price.
http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2009/...

Submitted by dbapig on August 7, 2009 - 10:22am.

We are doomed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/opinio...

More and more I see these. I have a feeling Obamacare won't pass. Even if it somehow happens, it will be watered down so much that it won't do much good.

I wonder if paddyoh and Rt.66 will start a 'movement' for reforming healthcare. It will only help US Auto companies be more competitive.

Where are you paddyoh?

Submitted by dbapig on August 7, 2009 - 10:25am.

Zeitgeist wrote:
That provision would help, but it might just increase "free care" at the local ER. The next step is no subsidized housing for non- citizens, etc. We have a lot of homeless people that need assitance. Have you ever driven downtown late at night in certain areas and seen how many are sleeping on the sidewalk?

Free care at ER - That's already happening, not because of illegals but because of UNINSURED people.

Subsidized housing for ILLEGALS? Please...

Submitted by Zeitgeist on August 7, 2009 - 1:59pm.

The illegals ARE uninsured. You just don't get it.

Submitted by Veritas on August 7, 2009 - 3:01pm.

Obama Care, The Next Generation: Time to go, Grampa.
by Pat Buchanan
Beneath this controversy lie conflicting concepts about life. To traditional Christians, God is the author of life and innocent life, be it of the unborn or terminally ill, may not be taken. Heroic means to keep the dying alive are not necessary, but to advance a natural death by assisting a suicide or euthanasia is a violation of the God’s commandment, Thou shalt not kill.

To secularists and atheists who believe life begins and ends here, however, the woman alone decides whether her unborn child lives, and the terminally ill and elderly, and those closest to them, have the final say as to when their lives shall end. As it would be cruel to let one’s cat or dog spend its last months or weeks in terrible pain, they argue, why would one allow one’s parents to endure such agony?

In the early 20th century, with the influence of Social Darwinism, the utilitarian concept that not all life is worth living or preserving prevailed. In Virginia and other states, sterilization laws were upheld by the Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said famously, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

In Weimar Germany, two professors published “The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life,” which advocated assisted suicide for the terminally ill and “empty shells of human beings.” Hitler’s Third Reich, marrying Social Darwinism to Aryan racial supremacy, carried the concepts to their logical if horrible conclusion.

Revulsion to Nazism led to revival of the Christian ideal of the sanctity of all human life and the moral obligation of all to defend it. But the utilitarian idea -- of the quality of life trumping the faith-based idea of the sanctity of life -- has made a strong comeback.

And the logic remains inexorable. If government intends to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs, and half of those costs are incurred in the last six months of life, and physician-counselors will be sent to the seriously ill to advise them of what costs will no longer be covered, and what their options are -- what do you think is going to be Option A?

Let's hope you make the right decision when it is your time to go....

Submitted by Arraya on August 7, 2009 - 3:17pm.

Who would Jesus cover?

Submitted by air_ogi on August 7, 2009 - 3:25pm.

Here is an article about healthcare reform opponents from the highly liberal Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage.

Submitted by SK in CV on August 7, 2009 - 3:36pm.

Veritas wrote:
Obama Care, The Next Generation: Time to go, Grampa.
by Pat Buchanan
Beneath this controversy lie conflicting concepts about life. To traditional Christians, God is the author of life and innocent life, be it of the unborn or terminally ill, may not be taken. Heroic means to keep the dying alive are not necessary, but to advance a natural death by assisting a suicide or euthanasia is a violation of the God’s commandment, Thou shalt not kill.

To secularists and atheists who believe life begins and ends here, however, the woman alone decides whether her unborn child lives, and the terminally ill and elderly, and those closest to them, have the final say as to when their lives shall end. As it would be cruel to let one’s cat or dog spend its last months or weeks in terrible pain, they argue, why would one allow one’s parents to endure such agony?

In the early 20th century, with the influence of Social Darwinism, the utilitarian concept that not all life is worth living or preserving prevailed. In Virginia and other states, sterilization laws were upheld by the Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said famously, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

In Weimar Germany, two professors published “The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life,” which advocated assisted suicide for the terminally ill and “empty shells of human beings.” Hitler’s Third Reich, marrying Social Darwinism to Aryan racial supremacy, carried the concepts to their logical if horrible conclusion.

Revulsion to Nazism led to revival of the Christian ideal of the sanctity of all human life and the moral obligation of all to defend it. But the utilitarian idea -- of the quality of life trumping the faith-based idea of the sanctity of life -- has made a strong comeback.

And the logic remains inexorable. If government intends to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs, and half of those costs are incurred in the last six months of life, and physician-counselors will be sent to the seriously ill to advise them of what costs will no longer be covered, and what their options are -- what do you think is going to be Option A?

Let's hope you make the right decision when it is your time to go....

Beautifully written by a racist fear monger. But it has nothing to do with any proposal now in congress. It is without basis. It is devoid of any conclusive truth.

Currently, the insurance companies constantly try to "bend the curve" of rising health care costs. They do this in order to increase profits. So the more important question is not whether you trust the government to make the right decision, but whether you trust an insurance company. Too many times, for too many people, that question has already been answered. With cancellations, with denials of claims, with death by spreadsheet. For the more than 40 million currently uninsured, the question is moot.

Submitted by dbapig on August 7, 2009 - 4:11pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
The illegals ARE uninsured. You just don't get it.

Yes illegals are uninsured. No denying. However so are many many US citizens.

Submitted by an on August 7, 2009 - 4:44pm.

dbapig wrote:

Yes illegals are uninsured. No denying. However so are many many US citizens.

What's the % of uninsured are US citizens vs illegals?

Submitted by SK in CV on August 7, 2009 - 5:09pm.

AN wrote:
dbapig wrote:

Yes illegals are uninsured. No denying. However so are many many US citizens.

What's the % of uninsured are US citizens vs illegals?

According to a Pew article a few months ago, there are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the US. Of that number roughly 7 million have no health insurance, out a total of 47 million without medical insurance. So approximately 15% of those without insurance are undocumented. Under the current house plan, undocumented residents would not be prohibited from buying insurance or receiving employer sponsored insurance benefits but would not be eligible for aid in doing so.

Submitted by afx114 on August 7, 2009 - 6:10pm.

Does anybody have any data on how many people stay in their current job simply because of their healthcare? How much does employer-provided healthcare hinder worker mobility? Would you personally be more likely to search for a different job if your healthcare was not tied to your current employer?

Submitted by SK in CV on August 7, 2009 - 6:47pm.

Somebody does.

afx114 wrote:
Does anybody have any data on how many people stay in their current job simply because of their healthcare? How much does employer-provided healthcare hinder worker mobility? Would you personally be more likely to search for a different job if your healthcare was not tied to your current employer?

There was a good article in last week's USN&WP covering this issue. From that article:

Most workers—about 60 percent—get their health insurance through their employers, and as health premiums have spiraled, those benefits have become highly valuable to most. Nearly a quarter of top-performing employees said healthcare benefits were one of the top three reasons they would leave an employer, and two thirds said healthcare benefits were an important reason to stay with a company, according to a 2006 Watson Wyatt study. Last year, 78 percent of finance and accounting workers surveyed by the Mergis Group viewed healthcare benefits as "most crucial to retaining them."

http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/...

I looked for the actual Watson Wyatt study that the artical references, I couldn't find it.

Submitted by afx114 on August 7, 2009 - 8:12pm.

I wonder how much of a drag on our economy that creates. Seems like it stifles mobility (of the upward type) for those who would like to move on to better pastures. Do the career patterns of people in countries whose healthcare isn't tied to their jobs differ much? Seems like one less reason to stay at a company would force said company to work harder to retain their employees in the form of other compensation (vacation, work environment, perks, etc). Furthermore, how much money would businesses (both small and large alike) save if they didn't have to provide healthcare for their employees?

Submitted by Veritas on August 7, 2009 - 11:21pm.

Health Alert • Uninsured | Uninsured by Choice
Dec 13, 2006
by John Goodman

At least 44% of the uninsured are uninsured by choice, and the number could be much higher than that. An Urban Institute study found that:

* One in every four uninsured persons is eligible for Medicaid or SChip, but has not enrolled.
* One in five has a family income in excess of $58,000 and presumably can afford coverage.

http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/uninsur...

Submitted by sobmaz on August 8, 2009 - 10:15am.

Why do Republicans think we as a country are too stupid to insure all of our citizens and for less money? Why do Republicans let France shame us when they can insure all of their citizens for 9% of GDP while we only insure 80% of our citizens while paying 17% of GDP?

France rates #1 in overall health care while the Greatest Country on Earth rates #37.

Ofcourse due to the opposition Obama never persued the single payer option that could have saved this country hundreds of billions, instead he went after this more expensive system and even though it pretty much keeps the status quo Republicans have gone rabid.

If you have plenty of money the U.S. health care is #1 by far. Rush Limpbrain and Shaun Insanity both get #1 health care. They are deathly afraid their tax rate may go up so that a 25 year old single mother with cancer can get the proper care. Rush and Shaun are actually upset that insurance companies will no longer be able to deny or charge higher premiums for someone with a pre existing condition (and they are quite often at an economic disadvantage because of their illness). They equate it with good drivers and bad drivers and if everyone pays the same rate the good drivers will become sloppy drivers. (stupid huh?) How can anyone in their right mind equate car insurance with health insurance? Well, Rush and Shame are not in their right mind of course.

The best example of Republican thinking is this caller on a talk show. He said he was a "Minister" and a Republican. He said, "if people want health care they should go to school, get an education so they can't get the kind of job that provides health care".

For my fellow thinkers out there you will see the stupidity in that statement right away (education is always good) however the Ditto heads are saying "RIGHT ON".

Submitted by Zeitgeist on August 12, 2009 - 5:11pm.

"With the Republican party leaderless and in backbiting disarray following its destruction by the ideologically incoherent George W. Bush, Democrats are apparently eager to join the hara-kiri brigade. What looked like smooth coasting to the 2010 election has now become a nail-biter. Both major parties have become a rats' nest of hypocrisy and incompetence. That, combined with our stratospheric, near-criminal indebtedness to China (which could destroy the dollar overnight), should raise signal flags. Are we like late Rome, infatuated with past glories, ruled by a complacent, greedy elite, and hopelessly powerless to respond to changing conditions?"

"What does either party stand for these days? Republican politicians, with their endless scandals, are hardly exemplars of traditional moral values. Nor have they generated new ideas for healthcare, except for medical savings accounts, which would be pathetically inadequate in a major crisis for anyone earning at or below a median income."

"And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the "mob" -- a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech."

"But somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills. The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration's outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable "casual conversations" to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009...

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on August 12, 2009 - 7:04pm.

sobmaz wrote:
Why do Republicans think we as a country are too stupid to insure all of our citizens and for less money? Why do Republicans let France shame us when they can insure all of their citizens for 9% of GDP while we only insure 80% of our citizens while paying 17% of GDP?

France rates #1 in overall health care while the Greatest Country on Earth rates #37.

Ofcourse due to the opposition Obama never persued the single payer option that could have saved this country hundreds of billions, instead he went after this more expensive system and even though it pretty much keeps the status quo Republicans have gone rabid.

If you have plenty of money the U.S. health care is #1 by far. Rush Limpbrain and Shaun Insanity both get #1 health care. They are deathly afraid their tax rate may go up so that a 25 year old single mother with cancer can get the proper care. Rush and Shaun are actually upset that insurance companies will no longer be able to deny or charge higher premiums for someone with a pre existing condition (and they are quite often at an economic disadvantage because of their illness). They equate it with good drivers and bad drivers and if everyone pays the same rate the good drivers will become sloppy drivers. (stupid huh?) How can anyone in their right mind equate car insurance with health insurance? Well, Rush and Shame are not in their right mind of course.

The best example of Republican thinking is this caller on a talk show. He said he was a "Minister" and a Republican. He said, "if people want health care they should go to school, get an education so they can't get the kind of job that provides health care".

For my fellow thinkers out there you will see the stupidity in that statement right away (education is always good) however the Ditto heads are saying "RIGHT ON".

Sob: And? What does how Republicans think matter one iota? Answer? It doesn't.

The Dems control the Presidency and Congress. They don't need a single GOP vote to pass Obamacare. So, why harp on Limbaugh and Hannity and what they think?

Same goes for the Pelosi squalling about the Town Hall meetings. So what if American citizens show up and are angry with their elected representatives. It's THEIR RIGHT. And, so what if they're rude? First Amendment still allows us to be rude, right?

All of this nonsense obscures the fact that the Dems have made a hash of healthcare reform (again) and, ironically, this time Big Pharma and Big Insurance were SUPPORTING the President, unlike Hillarycare back in the Clinton Administration.

Sob, you're carping about things that don't matter. Neither the citizenry nor the Republicans are in a position to affect the outcome of Obamacare, so why focus there? Shouldn't you be questioning why the Dems with a clear cut majority can't seem to pass this bill? Perhaps Obama's mandate isn't quite as strong as we've been led to believe?

Submitted by SK in CV on August 12, 2009 - 7:37pm.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook

All of this nonsense obscures the fact that the Dems have made a hash of healthcare reform (again) and, ironically, this time Big Pharma and Big Insurance were SUPPORTING the President, unlike Hillarycare back in the Clinton Administration.

[/quote]

Uh, no siree. Pharma had (past tense) a non-binding deal to not oppose reform. Insurance is fighting it tooth and nail, having spent millions in just the last few months. Who do you think invented the plan to disrupt the town hall meetings? The insurance companies have attempted (and may have succeeded) in buying the blue dog dems. They have billions in profits at stake. Their 467% increase in profits over the last 9 years are the reason we're even discussing it again.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on August 12, 2009 - 7:52pm.

SK in CV wrote:
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook

All of this nonsense obscures the fact that the Dems have made a hash of healthcare reform (again) and, ironically, this time Big Pharma and Big Insurance were SUPPORTING the President, unlike Hillarycare back in the Clinton Administration.

Uh, no siree. Pharma had (past tense) a non-binding deal to not oppose reform. Insurance is fighting it tooth and nail, having spent millions in just the last few months. Who do you think invented the plan to disrupt the town hall meetings? The insurance companies have attempted (and may have succeeded) in buying the blue dog dems. They have billions in profits at stake. Their 467% increase in profits over the last 9 years are the reason we're even discussing it again.[/quote]

SK: So Big Insurance "invented the plan" to disrupt the town hall meetings? And? How does this affect the vote on Obamacare? Last time I checked, citizens don't vote on legislation, legislators do.

The Dems control the White House and Congress and don't need a single GOP vote to pass this legislation.

As to Billy Tauzin's back room meeting with Obama, it isn't "past tense" yet. Certain Dems have said they won't honor the agreement, but that hasn't happened yet.

And, I've heard that Big Insurance has been contributing to advertisements SUPPORTING Obamacare, not opposing it. I could be wrong, and I would need to do some checking in order to assert that properly, but that is my understanding.

Again, so what if there were third parties out there "disrupting" town hall meetings? That has nothing to do with the passage of this legislation, any more than Limbaugh or Hannity yapping about it do.

The Dems completely control the destiny of this legislation, correct? Or do I have that wrong as well?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.