Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 10 Mar '10 22:10
    Ok this is a start. representative Jason Altmire (D) from Penn. Stating today, he will not vote yes until he sees more information on how we are going to pay for it. I will not go back to my constituents without a plan of how this will be paid for...
    This is for USA Paratrooper and terrior jack, who like to claim this is all being laid on us as right wing scare tactics, and that most Americans aren't smart enough to understand this bill. well I wonder how smart Mr. Altmire is? Apparently smart enough to know the figures from the CBO, do not tell the true story of expense.
    So, who wants to drop this bomb shell of a bill in to the laps of our children?
    Oh, I know someone will want a link, this is even better his phone number is 724-378-0928
    Jeez, and I was lead to believe by USA ParaTROOPER that only stupid people haven't figured that out? I guess some of us are in good company
  2. 10 Mar '10 22:35
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    Ok this is a start. representative Jason Altmire (D) from Penn. Stating today, he will not vote yes until he sees more information on how we are going to pay for it. I will not go back to my constituents without a plan of how this will be paid for...
    This is for USA Paratrooper and terrior jack, who like to claim this is all being laid on us as right win ...[text shortened]... OOPER that only stupid people haven't figured that out? I guess some of us are in good company
    Dead on arrival!!!


    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/10/senate-health-care-dead-arrival-say-pro-life-house-democrats/

    In addition to Stupak, several House lawmakers who had voted for the House bill are now on the record as nos for a Senate bill that lacks a ban on tax-funded abortion.

    Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois has gone on the record, saying, "Protecting the sanctity of life is a matter of principle."

    Other on-record nos are Reps. James Oberstar of Minnesota, Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania, Steve Driehaus of Ohio and Marion Berry of Arkansas.

    Rep. Joe Donnelly of Indiana is the latest to join them.

    "I would not vote for it," Donnelly told the Rochester Sentinel on Tuesday. "From my reading of it, it does permit federal funding for abortion related services, in the Senate bill as it stands today, and so that is a fatal flaw in my opinion."

    With seven new no votes, that's more than enough to kill the bill, and several more lawmakers with potential no votes are under immense pressure from both sides of the aisle. They include Reps. Brad Ellsworth Indiana, Jerry Costello of Illinois, Charlie Wilson and Tim Ryan of Ohio, Sanford Bishop of Georgia and and Richard Neal of Massachusetts.
  3. 10 Mar '10 23:10
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    [b]Dead on arrival!!!


    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/10/senate-health-care-dead-arrival-say-pro-life-house-democrats/

    In addition to Stupak, several House lawmakers who had voted for the House bill are now on the record as nos for a Senate bill that lacks a ban on tax-funded abortion.

    Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois ...[text shortened]... nd Tim Ryan of Ohio, Sanford Bishop of Georgia and and Richard Neal of Massachusetts.[/b][/b]
    Dead on arrival? Would you like to bet PayPal money that a comprehensive healthcare bill gets passed?

    Incidentally they're FOS. Neither the House nor the Senate bill spends $1 of tax payer money for abortions.

    Politifact rates it "Barely True" and when you read the details it's clear they're being extremely generous even with that.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/mar/09/parsing-abortion-health-care-bills/
  4. 11 Mar '10 00:27
    A reason why pro-life people should support healthcare reform.

    If a pregnant woman knows that she and her future child won't have affordable access to all the healthcare they need (including neonatal care and the birth itself), it would make it likelier that she'd have an abortion.

    Perhaps extra funding could be added to the bill to help fund a wide array of programs to help pregant women and mothers of newborn or newly adopted children, as well as fund research into figuring out a way that effectively dissuades teenagers from having sex.

    But I'd prefer that we instead have a whole separate debate on this topic. We could appoint Stupak to head a commission to develop a bunch of innovative ideas - with the focus being on finding ways to actually reduce the number of abortions that most Dems and GOPs can agree on.
  5. 11 Mar '10 00:30
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    [b]Dead on arrival!!!


    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/10/senate-health-care-dead-arrival-say-pro-life-house-democrats/

    In addition to Stupak, several House lawmakers who had voted for the House bill are now on the record as nos for a Senate bill that lacks a ban on tax-funded abortion.

    Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois ...[text shortened]... nd Tim Ryan of Ohio, Sanford Bishop of Georgia and and Richard Neal of Massachusetts.[/b][/b]
    Your point being, I assume, is that congress is full of selfish cowards who have no inclination to anything for the populace, just simply to be re-elected. For once I agree with you.
  6. 11 Mar '10 01:31
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Dead on arrival? Would you like to bet PayPal money that a comprehensive healthcare bill gets passed?

    Incidentally they're FOS. Neither the House nor the Senate bill spends $1 of tax payer money for abortions.

    Politifact rates it "Barely True" and when you read the details it's clear they're being extremely generous even with that.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/mar/09/parsing-abortion-health-care-bills/
    Do you even have hope of a vote before years end?
    I am still waiting for an explaination of how they get past patent on drugs to offer generic drugs for cheap??
  7. 11 Mar '10 01:38 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    Do you even have hope of a vote before years end?
    I am still waiting for an explaination of how they get past patent on drugs to offer generic drugs for cheap??
    Be patient w/ usap,

    He is in the middle of a progressive think tank right about now searching diligently for the proper response.
    Its gonna have something to do with "most of the american public is stupid."
  8. 11 Mar '10 01:41 / 1 edit
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal/titleiii
    Here's another one right from the President,, just for you trooper...Drs and Hospitals will be incentivized to keep care low for medicare patients... Please explain that word, as well as what they plan to do to incentivized, as his explaination falls short. As a matter of fact, you will find little to no explaination in Barrys plan he has posted on the WHITE HOUSE web site,, this is not your Politico site you seem enthrolled with, it is the Pres himself making these statements...
    Ya,, I'll go 100.00 on pay pal,, no problem. But I'd rather bet one of your rare coins?
  9. 11 Mar '10 01:42
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Be patient w/ usap,

    He is in the middle of a progressive think tank right about now searching diligently for the proper response.
    Its gonna have something to do with "most of the american public is stupid."
    well 44 % polled today approved of this bill, so he's right. 44% don't have a clue that they will leave their children in debt up to their ears.
  10. 11 Mar '10 01:45
    LMAO

    USArmyParatrooper = $$$$$$

  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    11 Mar '10 02:37
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    well 44 % polled today approved of this bill, so he's right. 44% don't have a clue that they will leave their children in debt up to their ears.
    Do you think that repeating over and over and over again a falsehood somehow makes it come true?

    Absent health care reform the amount people in the US spend on health care will continue to expand as it has in the last 15 years, far outstripping the pace of GNP and income growth. The hysterical right wing do nothings like yourself are setting the American people up for a major crash as those in California who now face insurance premiums raises of 39% found out earlier this year.
  12. 11 Mar '10 02:48
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal/titleiii
    Here's another one right from the President,, just for you trooper...Drs and Hospitals will be incentivized to keep care low for medicare patients... Please explain that word, as well as what they plan to do to incentivized, as his explaination falls short. As a matter of fact, you will find ...[text shortened]... s...
    Ya,, I'll go 100.00 on pay pal,, no problem. But I'd rather bet one of your rare coins?
    Holy smokes, are you serious? You might want to try clicking other supportive links, each of which goes into great detail. Also, your "copy and paste" had some made up stuff in it. Incentivized to "keep care low"? That's not on the page you posted.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal/titleiii/rewarding-highest-quality

    Title III. Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care
    Rewarding the Highest Quality of Care

    The Act rewards the highest quality of care for America’s seniors. It provides incentives for doctors, and hospitals that improve quality while providing for better coordination that helps to reduce harmful medical errors and healthcare-acquired infections.

    It will provide innovative payment reforms so providers are rewarded for the quality of care they provide, rather than just additional tests or treatments. And it rewards innovative practices where doctors and nurse practitioners provide more primary care that is coordinated with every doctor or specialist involved with a patient’s care.

    Doctors, nurses and hospitals throughout the country will be able to learn from these innovative practices to improve the quality of care for seniors throughout the Nation.
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    11 Mar '10 02:53
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    [Hugh Glass] your "copy and paste" had some made up stuff in it. Incentivized to "keep care low"? That's not on the page you posted.
    Ouch!
  14. 11 Mar '10 03:01
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Holy smokes, are you serious? You might want to try clicking other supportive links, each of which goes into great detail. Also, your "copy and paste" had some made up stuff in it. Incentivized to "keep care low"? That's not on the page you posted.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal/titleiii/rewarding-highest-quality

    [quo ...[text shortened]... ovative practices to improve the quality of care for seniors throughout the Nation.[/quote]
    if you follow the link to "closing the donut hole",

    In 2010 seniors who reach the “donut hole” will receive $250 to reduce the cost of their drug purchases. Over 8 million seniors hit this gap in Medicare coverage,

    That comes out to be $2,000,000,000

    Where does that come from?
  15. 11 Mar '10 03:07
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    if you follow the link to "closing the donut hole",

    [b]In 2010 seniors who reach the “donut hole” will receive $250 to reduce the cost of their drug purchases. Over 8 million seniors hit this gap in Medicare coverage,


    That comes out to be $2,000,000,000

    Where does that come from?[/b]
    http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/26/health-care-reform-simple-explanation-updated/

    • Cost for taxpayers: The plan doesn't come cheap. Covering millions of people who are now uninsured would cost billions more per year. Many different types of taxes have been proposed and rejected. Obama supports a plan to tax the most expensive health insurance plans, the so-called "Cadillac" tax, though in comparison with the Senate, the plan he favors would kick in later and affect higher priced plans. Obama would also increase Medicare-related payroll taxes for people who make more than $250,000 a year. There would be new taxes on prescription drug manufacturers, the makers of medical devices and indoor tanning salons. The Congressional Budget Office found that the Senate bill spends $871 billion over 10 years to expand coverage, but its new tax revenues and other cost reductions make up for it. Overall, the Senate plan would lower the federal budget deficit by $132 billion over 10 years, according to the CBO. Obama's plan has yet to be scored by the CBO, but Obama has said he would not support a plan that adds to the deficit.

    • Medicare. The bills would make many changes to how Medicare pays doctors and other health care providers. Taken as a whole, the new rules aim to pay doctors for good patient outcomes instead of paying them per procedure, also called "fee-for-service." The bills also would eliminate excess payments to the Medicare Advantage program, which typically offer seniors extra benefits beyond what traditional Medicare offers. An independent payment advisory board would make recommendations on reducing cost growth and improving the quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries. Their recommendations would take effect unless Congress overrules them.