 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Republican response to Health Reform
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: mousethief Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:19 AM "back when they had the support of some Republicans and saved lives." They never had the support of some Republicans. The Republicans en masse declared from the start that this bill would be Obama's "Waterloo." Not at any time did any of them support the president regarding this bill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: CarolC Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:14 AM You can't use only this thread as an indication of whether or not people have criticized and/or condemned the Democrats who didn't support the reform bills. This thread didn't exist during the discussions when we would have been doing that. This thread was started after the bill passed, and it's really just about Boehner's response to the new law (and what some creative people did with that response). We did our condemning back when we were trying to get the bills passed. Now we are celebrating (and campaigning against Democrats and Republicans who opposed the bill). So your argument is specious because you're making accusations based on only a small amount of evidence, while ignoring the rest, which is extremely dishonest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Stephen L. Rich Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:07 AM Their response is simple: Only Communists don't want everybody to get sick and die. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:01 AM "If you haven't seen it, it's because you have ignored it just so you could make that specious accusation" I looked for it in this thread. I could not find it just like I said. Your accusation is specious. All I found was support for Democrats. I didn't see the ones that voted against singled out and demonized. "The Democrats have tried to save people. The Republicans have not." Therefore all of "the Democrats" get a pass and all of "the Republicans are to blame for anything wrong. And again "the Democrats" had a clear majority and they could have passed a bill a lot sooner, a lot easier, back when they had the support of some Republicans and saved lives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Amos Date: 30 Mar 10 - 11:21 PM It is possible that some choices or tactics done differently would have hastened the passage, Sawz, I don't know. But I think you are trying to reframe things in a rather desperate effort. The vast majority of the opposition to the health care bill came from the Republican side of the aisle. If you want a replay, go look it up yourself. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: CarolC Date: 30 Mar 10 - 10:13 PM However, there's absolutely no reason why all Democrats should be held responsible for what only a small number of them did or didn't do. So a very small number of Democrats get my condemnation for their opposition to health care reform, ALL of the Republicans have earned my condemnation for their opposition to health care reform, and the majority of Democrats get my praise for having supported it. Among those who get my praise for supporting health care reform, there are several who earned criticism from me for watering it down and not supporting a public option. Piece of news for you, Sawzaw. Democrats are not a Borg collective. Each of them is either praised or criticized for what they do or don't do. They don't get praised or criticized collectively for what some of them do or don't do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: CarolC Date: 30 Mar 10 - 10:08 PM I've criticized them plenty, Sawzaw, and so have a lot of other people. If you haven't seen it, it's because you have ignored it just so you could make that specious accusation. I've even told you during the last couple of days some of the things I said to my representative. And beyond what I already told you, I told my Democratic representative that if my husband were to die because of lack of access to health care if the bill didn't pass, I would hold him personally responsible and I would regard him as a murderer. You really need to either pay attention, or leave off those kinds of incredibly dishonest accusations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Jack the Sailor Date: 30 Mar 10 - 09:59 PM Sawzaw, We, Carol and I, have promised our Democrat, Rep. Mike McIntyre (N.C.) that we would campaign against it the Next time we campaign for Obama or against a Republican. There isn't much more we can do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 30 Mar 10 - 09:59 PM "This is a lie, Sawzaw. I've said plenty." You didn't hold them accountable for people dying because they did not have health insurance. I haven't found any criticism of Democrats at all, not that I can see in this thread. All I see is kudos like "Democrats could look pretty good in the fall." Yeah, If they can take all the un necessary deaths that happened under their watch and blame them on Republicans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 30 Mar 10 - 09:40 PM Amos: When did this opposition begin? If they could pass the bill recently with even more opposition, why couldn't they have done it way back at the beginning. It would have been even easier then but the Democrats bickered while opposition increased and people died. How can you blame the delay in passing a bill on the minority? Here is a list of the 34 democrats that voted against the bill: Rep. John Adler (N.J.) Rep. Jason Altmire (Pa.) Rep. Michael Arcuri (N.Y.) Rep. John Barrow (Ga.) Rep. Marion Berry (Ark.) Rep. Dan Boren (Okla.) Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.) Rep. Bobby Bright (Ala.) Rep. Ben Chandler (Ky.) Rep. Travis Childers (Miss.) Rep. Artur Davis (Ala.) Rep. Lincoln Davis (Tenn.) Rep. Chet Edwards (Texas) Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.) Rep. Tim Holden (Pa.) Rep. Larry Kissell (N.C.) Rep. Frank Kratovil (Md.) Rep. Dan Lipinski (Ill.) Rep. Stephen Lynch (Mass.) Rep. Jim Marshall (Ga.) Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah) Rep. Mike McIntyre (N.C.) Rep. Mike McMahon (N.Y.) Rep. Charlie Melancon (La.) Rep. Walt Minnick (Idaho) Rep. Glenn Nye (Va.) Rep. Collin Peterson (Minn.) Rep. Mike Ross (Ark.) Rep. Heath Shuler (N.C.) Rep. Ike Skelton (Mo.) Rep. Zack Space (Ohio) Rep. John Tanner (Tenn.) Rep. Gene Taylor (Miss.) Rep. Harry Teague (N.M.) So where is the condemnation of the Democrats that voted against health care reform? Does the double standard give them a pass as usual? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Big Mick Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:12 PM I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Your post seems to imply that I am applying a double standard, when the point I am making is that there should not be a double standard. What was good enough for your boys should be good enough for our side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: CarolC Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:09 PM I think it should be pointed out for DougR (in case he is not informed about this), that the vast majority of the health care bill was not passed through the process of reconciliation. Most of it was passed by a clear majority of the House and a super majority in the Senate. Only a very, very small portion of it was passed through reconciliation, and that was a separate bill, not the bill that Obama signed into law on Tuesday. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: DougR Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:08 PM Mick: you make my point. Both the Republicans and Democrats us the same strategy to block legislation, or to approve appointees. Do you know how many judges Bush appointed who were blocked by the Democrats from receiving up or down votes? Lots. If the rules are to apply to the Republicans, as you propose, they should also be applied to the Democrats. That's only fair. As to controlling a caucus, well, that's up to the party's leadership isn't it? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: CarolC Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:02 PM Because typical of your double standard, you say nothing while the Dems diddled around with their own infighting except to blame it on Republicans. This is a lie, Sawzaw. I've said plenty. But since the majority of Democrats worked hard to get the bill passed, and ALL of the Republicans worked hard to prevent it from being passed, the Republicans clearly bear most of the blame for the deaths of the people who died while it was being hashed out. This is what I have consistently said, and it happens to be the truth. If even just a small handful of Republicans had been willing to vote for the bill, it would have passed a long, long time ago, and many lives would have been saved. ALL of the Republicans are responsible for those deaths, and a very small number of Democrats are responsible for those deaths. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Big Mick Date: 29 Mar 10 - 03:51 PM Doug R, I would expect Republicans to react the same way. In fact I believe Democrats need to take a lesson from Republicans on the issue of cloture, or more broadly, how one acts within their caucus. If a Dem feels they have to vote against an issue, on the basis of belief or interaction with their constituents, that is fair enough. I am not talking about forcing elected officials to vote for an issue they don't believe in. What I am talking about is a procedural issue. I can guarantee you that when Cheney was in power, any Repub that voted against invoking cloture to allow an up or down vote on an issue, would have found their office in a bathroom so far in the basement of the Senate Office Building that they would need a mule train to get out. That is part of being a part of a caucus. The Dems need to use the same leverage. I expect Repubs to be against what our President is trying to accomplish. They have stated that is their intent. But Dems who vote against their caucus are literally playing politics on the Republican side. They are entitled to vote up or down on the issue as they see fit. But to subvert the will of the majority on the use of a procedure is to side with the opposition. The Majority Leader should "encourage" them appropriately. May not be nice, but that is how it works. As to doing it when the Dems are the minority, hell I watched the Cheney gang do it. That is why it is so laughable to see the Repubs acting outraged that reconcilliation was used. We learned it watching your boys do it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Mar 10 - 03:04 PM People have died. People will die. Resources are finite. The Democrats have tried to save people. The Republicans have not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Amos Date: 29 Mar 10 - 03:01 PM Oh, come on, man. You are completely overlooking the dedicated, loud obstructionism being run up against their every move forward. Why so oblivious, Sawz? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 29 Mar 10 - 02:40 PM "How so, Sawzaw?" Because typical of your double standard, you say nothing while the Dems diddled around with their own infighting except to blame it on Republicans. Then when they finally get their shit somewhat together after a year, with bribes, threats and arm twisting, the final bill they rammed through delays things even more an you claim that it is better than nothing. It could have been even better. Can you say no one has died because of a lack of health care insurance since the Democrats have been hashing out a bill? If not you are in the clear. If people have died, you are giving Democrats a pass at the expense of the dead people. They did have the majority. There was nothing blocking them except for internal differences of opinion and maybe lobbyists who Obama said were not going to run the government any more. we will tell the Washington lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded this campaign, they won't work in my White House, and they won't drown out the voices of the American people when I'm President. The Democrats had the ball and they fumbled. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Mar 10 - 08:54 PM >>What the hell, Sawzaw, as long as you've got yours, screw the rest. Isn't that right mate?<< If it were just self interest it would be easier to accept. But it is very very unlikely that Sawzaw would be better off with the old status Quo. Most people wouldn't be. Who is guaranteed of a job with Health Benefits until like DougR they can suck off the government teat which they ironically despise? Above and beyond that, The US in not competitive with other countries for skilled labor. Because of the lack of a Health Care system, it is cheaper to build cars in most every other industrialized country. It is certainly cheaper to have older experienced workers. Sawzaw is obviously not aware of the spiraling costs. The 53% of the electorate that voted for Obama is saving people like Sawzaw from their own ignorance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Mar 10 - 06:37 PM But please pdq, where does it say anything about opinion polls in your Constitution, and about a duty to do what they say? You have elections to decide that kind of thing. In between elections what people tell pollsters can move around all over the place, partly maybe because they know that it doesn't make any difference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 Mar 10 - 06:03 PM ""I have been very critical of all of the members of the House and Senate who have stood in the way of health care reform. Including my own Democratic representative, whom I have promised I will campaign against the next time he comes up in a primary. Remember, I am one of the people who could die for lack of access to health insurance if health care reform didn't pass, so this isn't theoretical for me as it appears to be for you."" Damn right Carol, and in addition, perhaps Sawzaw will tell us whether he is critical of the repubs who could have reformed healthcare over at least the last eight years (but in reality many more than that), and instead fulfilled their duty as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Parasitic Insurance Industry by blocking every attempt.? Think of the 45,000 lives that could have been saved in each of the years of the Bush presidency. 360,000 dead, from lack of access to healthcare, since Bush took office for the first term, and Sawzaw has the nerve to complain about six months lead time to set up the new scheme. If he and his kind had their way, there would be no reform at all......EVER!! But hey! What the hell, Sawzaw, as long as you've got yours, screw the rest. Isn't that right mate? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: beeliner Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:48 PM It looks like you have some good questions there. Hope your research proves fuitful and you find all those answers. Well, pdq, I asked you because as chief bloviator (or perhaps bloviatrix) here you seem to have all the answers. I do know this. Several years ago I had my eyes 'done' (cataracts removed). As you know, in such cases they normally only do one eye at a time, starting with the worse one. About two years later I went back to have the other one done, as it had worsened in the meantime. A day or two after the operation, I went back for a follow-up, and happened to look over the receptionist's shoulder at her computer screen as she checked me in, and I saw that my HMO had not even paid for the first one yet, two years after the fact. She made no mention of it, and later I was told that the doctor was probably a partner in the HMO so, in a sense, he had not paid himself and no doubt some adjustment in that direction would be made eventually. I don't know if this is common practice with HMO's, I thought perhaps you knew. Why could the insured not form similar co-ops, insuring themselves in much the same manner as the doctors? Sounds like a deal to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Bobert Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:36 PM Knee "jerk" = Sawz, Carol... That is is game here and it is all he knows... He more than likely is not a musican... He more than likely couldn't name one member of the Kingston Trio or ther Pozo Seco Singers without Googling them up... He is nothing bhut a highly loyal Republican lap-dog with no ability to think for himself... Plus, he makes these terribly outragious statements about what other say, that they didn't say and what they meant, which is is clueless and what all this means in the big picture for which again he is clueless... That is who he is... A real couch case... And now he has a new buddy here, icthy, who dispalys the same personality disorder... Oh well... It ain't boring... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: CarolC Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:20 PM Evidently CC doesn't care about how many people die because they don't have health insurance. How so, Sawzaw? Or is that just a knee-jerk attempt to reverse an argument that really can't be reversed? I have been very critical of all of the members of the House and Senate who have stood in the way of health care reform. Including my own Democratic representative, whom I have promised I will campaign against the next time he comes up in a primary. Remember, I am one of the people who could die for lack of access to health insurance if health care reform didn't pass, so this isn't theoretical for me as it appears to be for you. For me, it really is a matter of life and death. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:17 PM A year ago, the Republicans like Collins and Snow were pretending to act in a bipartisan manner so that they could delay the bill. Most of the delay has been in showing undeserved good will to lying Republicans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:13 PM Evidently CC doesn't care about how many people die because they don't have health insurance. If the Dems were so wonderful and concerned they could have passed a bill a year ago with their majority. They even had some Repubs on board then but their own internal struggles delayed the whole thing. Those kids could have been covered last September and lives saved. Democrats Vied while Kids Died. They could have been working on J O B S, Biden's 3 letter word, more people would be working now and they would have health insurance. How about the Dems that still voted against it? Are they evil like the Republicans who voted against it or do they get judged by a different standard? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: pdq Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:04 PM beeliner... It looks like you have some good questions there. Hope your research proves fuitful and you find all those answers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: beeliner Date: 28 Mar 10 - 04:48 PM pdq, just a few quick questions if you don't mind: The system you outline seems reasonable in some respects, but can you name some countries that are using it now, and how many such countries are there? How many with single payer? How many with free medical care for everyone? I don't know, I'm just asking. It is true that the 'health care entities', as you call them, I would call them 'the insurance parasites', have by their nature a 'duty to stay profitable'. Why do we need them? Why not eliminate the middle man? I won't question your stated profit margin for the HMO's. What is the average profit margin for ordinary health insurers? And is it true that most HMO's are co-ops, that is, owned by the doctors who are participating members? Once again, I was told that, I'm not certain that it's true. If you can answer those I might have some more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Mar 10 - 04:37 PM 3-5% is obscenely high considering it is other people's money. It's more like a gamblers vig than real profit. And don't forget that their are executive salaries, some up to 20 million a year do not come out of the profit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: pdq Date: 28 Mar 10 - 04:24 PM That would be set by the federal government. Same or perhaps slightly lower depending on ability to pay. The health care entities would then have to compensate by slight inceases in premiums for all non-assigned risk clients. They have a duty to stay profitable. The average profit margin for HMOs is 3-3.5%. Geogre Soros profit margin has averaged 20% since 1969 and he (and most of the investor-speculator class) produce nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: CarolC Date: 28 Mar 10 - 04:06 PM Under an "assigned risk pool" would those high risk people pay the same premiums as everyone else, or would their premiums be higher because of the risk? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: pdq Date: 28 Mar 10 - 03:58 PM You don't get how it works. The government would assign an equal number (say 3% of their total clients) to each health management entity. Cost of coverage to the other clients would go up somewhat, but no federal bureaucracy , just a reasonable number on new names for each companty to deal with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: CarolC Date: 28 Mar 10 - 03:47 PM I should rephrase that. They don't need to have high risk people to be viable, but they can't just have high risk people if they're going to be viable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: CarolC Date: 28 Mar 10 - 03:46 PM That idea wouldn't work because it wouldn't have any low risk people in it. All insurance pools need a combination of high risk and low risk people in them in order to be viable. It's simple economics, pdq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: pdq Date: 28 Mar 10 - 03:37 PM "Assigned risk is a term used to describe a person or company who cannot get insurance through normal means and is placed in an assigned risk pool of people whom insurers must cover. This term is seen most commonly in car insurance although it may also be used to refer to companies which cannot get workers' compensation insurance by other means. The purpose of this is to ensure that everyone can access insurance because this is deemed better for society as a whole than the alternative." People who were unable to get medical insurance do to pre-existing conditions (maybe other reasons) should have placed in an "assigned risk" pool and assigned to the various health coverage entities equally. Similar to a lottery. Everyone gets covered and there in minimal increase in the bloated federal bureaucracy. We did not need 2900 pages of legislation that no one person has read completely, even the people who wrote it. We had the Congressional "win one for the Gipper!" mentality with Obama as the star player. This is how bad legislation is passed, it seems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: CarolC Date: 28 Mar 10 - 02:49 PM Look at how many kids could die before Sep 23 and how many adults could die by 2014 due to lack of health insurance. Well, speaking as one who has no health care now, it's still a big improvement, because I would have to wait until 2021 before I would have access to proper health care if it hadn't been passed. And I guess you don't give a crap about all of the kids whose lives will be saved after September 23. Better to let them die than to pass a bill that won't save any kids before September 23. Right? That's how your math works? And it's just not true that people like us won't see any improvement until 2014. We will be eligible for a tax credit to help us buy insurance next year. Even if we can't get full medical coverage, if the tax credit will help us get catastrophic coverage, we'll still be better off than we are now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 28 Mar 10 - 02:48 PM "who have pre existing conditions and have been uninsured for at least six months will be eligible to enroll in this pool" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: DougR Date: 28 Mar 10 - 01:59 PM Mick: your chatisement of Democrats who did not vote for cloture to allow an up and down vote, would that same criticism apply when the Democrats are in the minority? (Not that I expect a reply) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: beeliner Date: 28 Mar 10 - 01:38 PM ONE doctor suggested that, eh? Geez Louise, it MUST be true! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: pdq Date: 28 Mar 10 - 01:22 PM "...they will love it and the shortage of doctors, nurses and medical facilities is going to magically go away." I heard one doctor suggest that by 2014, when the ObamaCare bill is fully functional, half of the doctors now practicing will have left and most will not have been replaced. Many will have taken an early retirenment because the overwork will have become impossible and the government regulation will have become intolerable. Good job there, Obama/Reid/Pelosi. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:54 PM Healthcare 101: What the bill means to you The rollout starts with children. Six months from the day the bill was signed (let's see ... that'll be Sept. 23, by our calculation), insurers will no longer be able to exclude children with preexisting conditions from being covered by their family policy. For current policies, that means insurers will have to rescind preexisting-condition exclusions. Insurers will not have to take the same steps for adults until Jan. 1, 2014. Why will it take so long? Because it will be years before the bill's mandate that individuals have health insurance takes effect. The mandate is expected to bring in tens of millions of new customers for insurance firms compensation for accepting customers with preexisting conditions, which can be expensive. The individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014 partly because it will take a long time to set up the state-run exchanges at which individuals and small-business employees will be able to comparison-shop for policies. The new reform law does create a temporary backup plan for those uninsured who have health problems. This Plan B is a short-term, national high-risk insurance pool. US citizens and legal immigrants who have preexisting conditions and have been uninsured for at least six months will be eligible to enroll in this pool and receive subsidies to help them afford the premiums. Under the law, the premiums for this pool will be the same as would be charged for a standard population of people with varying risks. Maximum out-of-pocket cost sharing for enrollees will be $5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families, per year. This risk pool is supposed to be up and running within 90 days and then fade into the sunset on Jan. 1, 2014. But Sawz, Are you saying it will cost $500 to $1000 per month to join this new universal low cost government health care plan? Are you saying that there is nothing to keep health care costs down? Are you saying there is nothing to keep Insurance companies from raising their rates as their costs go up? Are you saying they are rubbing their hands together with glee in anticipation of the 30+ million new customers that will be forced to buy insurance and they can keep on making the same 8% profit? Say it ain't so Sawz. That would mean the holocaust continues while the Dems are whopping themselves on the back and declaring victory. Look at how many kids could die before Sep 23 and how many adults could die by 2014 due to lack of health insurance. Well just don't worry about it Sport 'cause once the American people find out what is in the bill, you know how it was kept from them, they will love it and the shortage of doctors, nurses and medical facilities is going to magically go away. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: artbrooks Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:46 PM Exactly the opposite, ANON.GUEST. This from Politifact.com: There is "a specific provision in the bill that would require lawmakers and their staff to buy health insurance through an exchange, a virtual market place where consumers can pick and choose among plans based on coverage and price. To our knowledge, members of Congress and their aides are the only people who are being forced to give up their employer's health care plan -- in this case, one administered by the federal government." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Amos Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:37 PM
The critical element left out, however, is how people feel about the specifics of the bill; I suspect a majority of those polled do not know what is in it. Also omitted is those who are against it because they wanted more from it, rather than opposing it for over-reaching. Another sample in a month will be very different, I predict. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:32 PM Guest, Obama said that "Anyone happy with their insurance would be able to keep it." Please tell us what part of that you don't understand so that we can explain it to you in smaller words. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:28 PM 1 in 5 children go hungry at night according to the USDA. Another bogus opinion attributed to the USDA and unproven. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: GUEST Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:21 PM The AP has just reported that the Health Care Bill actually exempts the house majority leadership. I am not kidding about this. For all of you liberals, what this means is that those who wrote the bill made themselves exempt from the bill. And you expect the rest of the country to believe that this is a good bill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: artbrooks Date: 27 Mar 10 - 10:04 PM Yep, yep. Like said a couple of days ago: "That polling took place on 3/19-3/21. This from the CNN article (I knew I saw that someplace!): Roughly one in five of respondents who said they opposed the bill did so because it was not liberal enough, and those people are unlikely to vote Republican. Take them out of the picture and opposition to the bill because it is too liberal is 43 percent. More recent surveys have a very different result." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: CarolC Date: 27 Mar 10 - 09:56 PM cross posted |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: CarolC Date: 27 Mar 10 - 09:55 PM pdq, the poll I posted is more recent than yours. And the poll I posted shows that a plurality of people like the new health care law. Your poll was conducted before the law was passed. My poll was conducted after the law was passed. So your poll has no more legitimacy than earlier polls that show a clear majority of people supporting health care reform. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Mar 10 - 09:53 PM "during the run-up" pdq, Obviously you are a good Republican, arguing against points no one has made. Supporters of the bill, including, myself and Carol and Big Mick on this forum have been saying that polls taken SINCE the passing of the bill have been favorable. Show me numbers like that in a month and we will have something to be concerned about. By the way, where were you when George W Bush was slapping the up to 80% of Americans in the face by ignoring public opinion? In 2004 I learned that the only poll that mattered was the vote. One would have thought that you had learned that in 2008. Obama's mandate was quite a bit larger than Bush's. Add that to the mandate in the House and the Senate and its pretty clear that NOT to keep the election promise would have been the real slap in the face. |
