House GOP pens 230-page health bill draft

I believe you could make insurance $1 a month and some still won't buy it because of deductibles co-pays etc.

I'm also hearing that the proposed "Public Option's" rate will be as high as the current market place.

the question is what about the uninsured and the under insured?

Firstly, as of this moment, their plan is not online to download or at least the search engines haven't caught up with the posting.

There is text of what the bill will look like here. (GOP house site)
It combines many previous GOP proposals into one bill.

If is as the spokes person says, then there's nothing "new" in their health care proposal that hasn't already been presented in the form of an amendment or previous bill before the house.

"As Leader Boehner has made clear, our proposal will focus on the No. 1 concern of the American people — reducing health care costs, and we do it at a price tag our nation can afford," said spokeswoman Antonia Ferrier, though Republicans have not said how much their bill would cost.

Talks of savings are premature until the costs get published and vetted.

Mac, it's my understanding that the current house proposal doesn't insure them either.

I haven't seen this bill but the Republicans often talk of offering tax breaks to cover anyone putting money in a personal medical savings account. So for the folks in question, about being able to afford coverage, they would technically be getting the price tag paid for by the government.

o for the folks in question, about being able to afford coverage, they would technically be getting the price tag paid for by the government.

from the Centrist Leaders Unveil Medical Rights and Reform Act, labeled the Medical Rights & Reform Act (Kirk-Dent Health Care Reform Bill, introduced June 16, 2009):

Expands Health Insurance Coverage

The bill also expands access to Americans without health insurance by: providing greater incentives to small businesses to cover their employees; encouraging state-centered insurance markets reforms; giving low-income families the option to use public funds to purchase private health insurance plans; enhancing Health Savings Accounts; allowing young adults to remain dependents on their parent's plan; and expanding rural health care programs.

Key words stick out here:
- Option
- Public Funded
- Private Health Insurance plans

Why not just appreciate the public option for what is then? The difference is they will fund the same insurers using tax payer dollars, without providing competition.

That's why it almost has to be non-profit organizations like how Germany does there. 200+ private insurance companies.. non-profit, yet still compete against each other for clients to keep them going. This keeps the price down and is a win win situation for everyone. As long as you have for-profit insurance companies.. your always going to have abuse.. because they are going to put profit above health. Morals kind of go out the window in a way. Proof of this is how bad my former insurance company Pacific Care been screwing me and my family. Literally a battle and a half to get them to do what they are SUPPOSE to do anyways. Always looking for a way out of paying for something. I'm flipping sick of it. I'd rather pay higher taxes and have a system like Germany that works and not have to worry about stuff, then have a broken, messed up system that we currently have today. I mean yes.. there are some good companies out there. I loved my Blue Cross / Shield insurance when I worked for Fred Meyers. Zero problems.. but there are to many out there that suck. I've been laid off a year.. no insurance.. medical bills months and months behind.. and now my former insurance has gone back to doctors.. and are asking for their money back. I dunno what to do. File bankruptcy if it gets to bad? This would NEVER happen in some other countries. Germany / Swiss for example. Even France and UK this wouldn't even happen.

The debate that health care is too expensive is just for us common folk. What the government wants is control over us. They don't really want to help us. We are a necessary evil. If the could, they would get rid of all of us. But guess what? Without us, they have no money!

If the government wanted for us to have health care, it could be done with a one page bill. It could say something like this, "All American citizens are entitled to health care. If you make this amount of money, this is how much it will cost. There will be committees who will decide who and how much gets covered."

What could be easier than this? But, you get the government involved and you get a 2000 page monstrousity. You will need a lawyer everytime you go to the doctor to see what is and isn't covered.

no, what the government really wants is more control over us!

Not to mention the people with pre-existing conditions that are flat out denied. I know Bob "stop the liberal crap and just let them die. Or let them go to the ER. It is free anyway."

I know guys who are landscapers making Mexican wages who can pay for health insurance

Good for them. Do they have pre-existing conditions? Do they have children? Are they pregnant? Are they elderly? Were they disabled on the job?

Oh Bob, isn't it time to take off your blinders and maybe try to think just a tad more outside of what's directly in front of you? It's not always so cut and dry. But hey, you got yours and that's what matters, right?

"thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"... but only as long as you don't have to help

"thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"...

Funny, how does that include a poor performing government as a middleman? "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself . . . by paying Caesear?"

Good for them. Do they have pre-existing conditions? Do they have children? Are they pregnant? Are they elderly? Were they disabled on the job?

Good point, let's look at addressing insurance for them.

How many people without heatlh insurance drive new vehicles, have flat panel tvs, have cable, have luxuries like that? I'm just curious.

Here is a more detailed investigation of the so called "uninsured".

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/20/the-myth-of-the-46-million

If you back out the illegals from the 46 million number which bipartisan organizations have said is conservatively 10 million. That leaves 36 million. It is my suspicion that at least some of that 36 million already qualify for government programs, but don't take advantage of it.

In 2007, 17.6 million of the uninsured had annual incomes of more than $50,000 and 9.1 million earned more than $75,000. The census figure also shows that 18.3 million of the uninsured were under 34. It is also my suspicion that some of the people in that group don't think they need health care. Just adding those two numbers together gives you 35.9 million.

Obviously the economy was better in 2007, so the numbers are probably different now. But the point is there ARE NOT 46 million uninsured people in this country because THEY CAN'T get insurance or cannot afford insurance.

I'm also hearing that the proposed "Public Option's" rate will be as high as the current market place.

Since it won't be subsidized and it will be a dumping ground for people who can't get insurance otherwise, it might even end up being more expensive than private insurance.

I'm in favor of a public option. I'm in favor of a national single payer plan that your employer could offer you or you could buy into as a member of the public. Heck, I'm in favor of transitioning to a system like Canada has.

The pessimist in me is afraid that this public option has become a red herring of sorts. It is so weak and will be available to so few people that it will accomplish very little. While we are obsessing over the public option, the health care industry is still walking away with the rest of the store.

That's my fear.

Are they pregnant?

Why would any responsible person get pregnant if they cannot afford to properly care for the child.

That would require some semblance of personal responsibility, and the left doesn't support that idea! She is only a victim of her circumstances! Right....

Poor people aren't immune from contraception failure.

Prophat247, I don't understand that logic about the number of uninsured.

17.6 million of the uninsured had annual incomes of more than $50,000

18.3 million of the uninsured were under 34

Just adding those two numbers together gives you 35.9 million.

First of all, you cannot simply add those numbers together, since there is obviously some level of overlap. Second of all, what does age and income greater than 50k have to do with buying insurance? I can't imagine supporting a family on 50k where I live, much less affording to pay 20% of that for insurance. And it doesn't take into account people with pre-existing conditions who are simply denied any level of insurance.

So this logic makes no sense to me. I totally accept that there are people that freely choose not to have insurance. But that is not a valid way to calculate them.

And even if the number was 20 million, that is still way too many people dying, or going bankrupt, or going to the ER at our expense due to lack of basic medical insurance

sendlo you are correct. I made a mistake.

And even if the number was 20 million, that is still way too many people dying, or going bankrupt, or going to the ER at our expense due to lack of basic medical insurance

Instead of going to the ER at our expense, the left is proposing that they go to the doctor at our expense.

Instead of going to the ER at our expense, the left is proposing that they go to the doctor at our expense.

Exactly. In a perfect world we would need neither. But at least preventative care at a doctor is cheaper, and it will free up the ERs for real emergencies. Pick your poison. We will have one or the other.

I still don't get it about 'conservatives' who claim to be valued christains (not) who are so worried about paying for someone else? But you don't mind paying for rich who can pay for self, do ya? One point is that cheney is a multi billionaire but we the taxpayer pay for his secretservice guys & his family...why he is rich enough to carry his own load. But like most rich they are all about the handout for themselves and have stooges like you fighting for their right to not carry their share of the load.

Exactly. In a perfect world we would need neither. But at least preventative care at a doctor is cheaper, and it will free up the ERs for real emergencies. Pick your poison. We will have one or the other.

Many studies have shown that the cost of preventative care isn't cost effective for large groups.

I still don't get it about 'conservatives' who claim to be valued christains (not) who are so worried about paying for someone else?

Yeah and I don't get liberals who claim to be "valued Christians (not)" but support a party that supports abortion, class warfare, tax warfare, race mongering, fear mongering, and hate mongering!

Conservatives would rather teach a man to fish, then give a man a fish and make him a slave to welfare programs. We believe in personal responsibility, not what's mine is yours, and yours is mine. Besides you probably don't have anything I'd want anways...

But you don't mind paying for rich who can pay for self, do ya? One point is that cheney is a multi billionaire but we the taxpayer pay for his secretservice guys & his family...why he is rich enough to carry his own load.

All the politicians are rich enough to pay for themselves. And are you suggesting that he should pay for his own secret service protection?

But like most rich they are all about the handout for themselves and have stooges like you fighting for their right to not carry their share of the load.

Your examples of handouts for the rich are their health care plan, and their use of secret service. Get a grip lady!

The only load I should be required to carry is mine, not yours, not anybody elses. If you want an education on taxes, please visit

http://247.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/03/3222247-who-really-pays-income-taxes-see-who-pays-what

before you accuse me of not carrying my load.

Speaking of stooges - to make the left's Socialism work, they need people like you who are uniformed and willing to kowtow to their class warfare, tax warfare misinformation, race/hate/fear mongering. And they need people like me to pay for it!

I still don't get it about 'conservatives' who claim to be valued christains (not) who are so worried about paying for someone else?

We would just rather be able to help people on an individual level, rather than giving our money to the government to hand out. Many Christians give large amounts of their income to charities that aid the poor, the homeless and the sick. Many volunteer their time. We take it as a matter of personal responsibility to meet the needs of others.

One point is that cheney is a multi billionaire but we the taxpayer pay for his secretservice guys & his family...why he is rich enough to carry his own load

It's part of the job. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, et. al. still have SS protection. Do you complain about them?

But like most rich they are all about the handout for themselves and have stooges like you fighting for their right to not carry their share of the load.

Just curious, but who pays your salary? I'm betting it's not a poor person.

Hi Prophat,

"Many studies have shown that the cost of preventative care isn't cost effective for large groups."

The New England Journal of Medicine (2008) doesn't quite agree.

Careful analysis of the costs and benefits of specific interventions, rather than broad generalizations, is critical.

Such analysis could identify not only cost-saving preventive measures but also preventive measures that deliver substantial health benefits relative to their net costs; this analysis could also identify treatments that are cost-saving or highly efficient (i.e., cost-effective).

In general, whether a particular preventive measure represents good value or poor value depends on factors such as the population targeted, with measures targeting higher-risk populations typically being the most efficient. In the case of screening, efficiency also depends on frequency (more frequent screening confers greater benefits but is less efficient). Third, as is the case for preventive measures, treatments can be relatively efficient or inefficient.

Oh and Prophat,

Conservatives would rather teach a man to fish, then give a man a fish and make him a slave to welfare programs.

Seems rather a waste of money...

Hi Fedup,

Many Christians give large amounts of their income to charities that aid the poor, the homeless and the sick. Many volunteer their time. We take it as a matter of personal responsibility to meet the needs of others.

It's not conservative vs. liberal. In fact, according to this:

May 19, 2009

Indeed, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' latest survey of consumer expenditure found that the poorest fifth of America's households contributed an average of 4.3 percent of their incomes to charitable organizations in 2007. The richest fifth gave at less than half that rate, 2.1 percent.

None of the middle fifths of America's households, in contrast, gave away as much as 3 percent of their incomes.

I also thought that the standard for Christians was 10%? I read often that America is a Christian-majority nation. This would indicate either that most Christians are not giving their standard or that America isn't really a Christian majority.

Meso, I wasn't making a comparison between conservativs and liberals; I was simply responding to the accusation that Christians aren't worried about the less fortunate.

I also thought that the standard for Christians was 10%? I read often that America is a Christian-majority nation. This would indicate either that most Christians are not giving their standard or that America isn't really a Christian majority.

Yes, Christians usually give a tenth (tithe) of their income to their local church, and some also give gifts to other charities. However, I would not presume to answer for every person in this nation who claims to be a Christian.

Many studies have shown that the cost of preventative care isn't cost effective for large groups.

You need to be specific about what you mean by preventative care, here, I think. It is not cost effective to screen, say, all women for breast cancer. It is, however, effective to give people with the flu a doctor visit instead of paying for these same people to be in the ER with pneumonia.

Preventative care is screening all women for breast cancer. Preventative care is not giving people with the flu a doctor visit. That's really not preventative care...

That's what I thought, but you mentioned preventative care after sendlo said something about getting a dr's visit before a trip to the ER is required. So it didn't make sense that you talked about oranges when others were talking about apples.

Let's start a health insurance to provide affordable health care. We will charge an annual premium of $1 per insured per year. This $1 will be used to cover our "administrative expenses" which basically will be the cost of billing and collecting the premium. We will not approve any payments for any medical services. The policy will be touted as an affordable, private option to those who do not currently have health care coverage. We will shout out how we came up with a better plan than the Democrats. Maybe we eventually will get a room next to Bernie (who also is as American as the rest of us). But, by golly, we would save taxpayers dollars.

I am all for taking the best of both.

Honestly, I think we need tort reform... so lets keep that. Incentives to states to drive down premiums... that sounds good too. And lets also keep a public option so that everyone has access to some level of affordable health care. Done and done.

Paul.. good neutral attitude. How could I ever have thought there just might be a alliterative option to anything other than what the house & Senate (GOP excluded) has written. Oh coarse it's flawless so what in the world was I thinking to actually think for a minute that I should have any say whatsoever as to how my income is to be spent. I'm glad you corrected my obviously selfish instincts. I was a fool to think there might be middle ground on this.

I agree with sendlo. I think both parties have something to bring to the table here, but both sides are so stubborn that it's becoming difficult to pass meaningful reform.

Thanks amswink. Now we just have to convince congress to grow up.

I think Congress members are afraid of 2010 elections. But I'm sure I'd rather vote for someone who compromises with the other party over one who won't budge because of party lines, etc.

hey guys were you around this past summer? Do you remember the crazies out there claiming that the health care was to kill granny?

Do you remember that grassley guy who sat for months with the special committee to write a bill who came out to the town halls and said point blank..yeah sat committee and we are gonna kill granny. Huh?

Did you read HR3200? Did ya? Where is the repub's website with the mere 250 pages so that I ?Where is it? Also each state has tort reform (limits of $250K)

Did you read HR3200? Did ya?

No, I have a rather busy schedule. Did you?

Where is the repub's website with the mere 250 pages so that I ?Where is it?

This link to the official GOP website has a link to a summary of the bill (the full bill has not yet been posted, as it was just submitted yesterday). There are several links at the bottom of the page to various other GOP bills submitted since last spring.

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

Also each state has tort reform (limits of $250K)

Actually, not every state has tort reform, and limits vary by state.

Amazing...the GOP drafts a bill that is small enough to be read easily by everyone in congress, doesn't come with a $1.2 Trillion price tag, solves many problems that will help to reduce the overall cost of healthcare, and our buddy Steny dismisses it out of hand.

Exactly which problems does it fix? What are these incentives in the plan?

Perhaps he thinks that having almost 2,000 pages in the Dems' bill makes it "vastly superior". Perhaps he thinks that their price tag is "vastly superior".

The only reason that it is so big is because of all the concessions for, and over 150 amendments made by the GOP. Single payer would take fewer pages than the GOP's last budget proposal (14 pages).

What I don't understand is why we don't try to implement some cost-saving measures that don't cost the taxpayers billions of dollars first, and see if those help to make healthcare more affordable for all, rather than jumping headlong into crippling debt for a plan that will still leave millions uninsured?

Cost savings measures you want us to enforce on a private business? I thought you were against socialism. Single payer has been shown to save billions of dollars annually and cover all American citizens. It is the most efficient plan out there, yet the GOP has dismissed it out right with such fear words of SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM. //ooooh scary//.

Socialism is alive and well in the US, and when used properly, is of great benefit to US citizens. America is the great melting pot, if we find something that works better we use it. For healthcare, every other industrial country does it better, so it is time for the GOP to drop their fear mongering and help to give us the best healthcare coverage in the world instead of blocking it.

Sure would be interesting to know how much the insurance company paid to these people to have them keep on killing Americans.

Exactly which problems does it fix? What are these incentives in the plan?

From the article:

the Republican plan increases incentives for people to use health savings accounts, caps non-economic jury awards in medical malpractice cases at $250,000, provides various incentives to states with the aim of driving down premium costs and allows health insurance to be sold across state lines

Since I haven't yet read the bill, I would guess that "incentives" would mean tax breaks.

Cost savings measures you want us to enforce on a private business? I thought you were against socialism. Single payer has been shown to save billions of dollars annually and cover all American citizens. It is the most efficient plan out there, yet the GOP has dismissed it out right with such fear words of SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM. //ooooh scary//.

A) There's a difference between government regulation and taking over private enterprise.

B) In the countries where single payer (i.e. govt. run) healthcare is in place, many are operating in the red, and some are even starting to revert back to privatization. As we've never actually had a single payer plan in the US, it's a guessing game as to whether it will be cost-effective (let alone save "billions of dollars") - the only real comparison we can make is to our current Medicare/Medicaid system (which isn't exactly operating in the black).

C) While I agree that we have some socialist programs in our country, most on the right would rather have as little Federal govt. intrusion into our lives as possible, letting the free market (with regulations and oversight) work.

Since I haven't yet read the bill, I would guess that "incentives" would mean tax breaks.

So the government is giving you a tax break to give to the insurance company? Basically the government is paying the insurance company to do something that the government can do more efficiently? And you were upset when the government gave GM money?

A) There's a difference between government regulation and taking over private enterprise.

And the difference is defined by the GOP only if it suits their needs.

B) In the countries where single payer (i.e. govt. run) healthcare is in place, many are operating in the red, and some are even starting to revert back to privatization. As we've never actually had a single payer plan in the US, it's a guessing game as to whether it will be cost-effective (let alone save "billions of dollars") - the only real comparison we can make is to our current Medicare/Medicaid system (which isn't exactly operating in the black).

And yet they are all paying less per capita than we are with complete coverage.

C) While I agree that we have some socialist programs in our country, most on the right would rather have as little Federal govt. intrusion into our lives as possible, letting the free market (with regulations and oversight) work.

So I assume you are against the government telling a pregnant woman what she can and cannot do with her body? You are against police, fire, streets, NIH, NASA, social security, etc., etc., etc.

And yet they are all paying less per capita than we are with complete coverage.

Could you provide some links to back that up? Every study I've seen shows that most countries with government healthcare pay more than we do (adding up income tax, VAT/GST, etc.)

So I assume you are against the government telling a pregnant woman what she can and cannot do with her body?

No, I'm against the woman having the unfettered right to murder her unborn child. Slightly off-topic, however.

You are against police, fire, streets, NIH, NASA, social security, etc., etc., etc.

I said little government, not none. And police, fire, streets (except the Fed. Hwy. system, obviously) are all state/local entities, which are paid for largely by property taxes, which are collected on a fair scale. Social Security is going broke; it won't exist by the time I'm old enough to collect. I would much rather keep my money and invest it where I see fit. Even hiding it under my mattress would give me a higher ROI than giving it to SS.

fedupwithliberals,

Could you provide some links to back that up?

The numbers are for spending on health care not all taxes.

http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/0910/world-health/flash.html

Curious, I realize that the US spends more per capita on healthcare than other countries. There are many reasons:

1. the US is the one doing the majority of research and we foot the bill
2. we pay our doctors 3 to 4 times as much as some other countries (i.e. Great Britain pays roughly $55K a year to its doctors)
3. Consumers are not directly involved, leaving insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid to pay whatever prices doctors and hospitals demand (or they simply deny treatment). If I had to pay out of pocket for, say, my migraine medication, I would not pay $285 for 9 pills. If no one was willing to pay those prices, demand would drop, and prices would come down (basic supply and demand principles).

However, what I was asking for were statistics regarding the amount of taxes people in other countries pay (i.e. income, VAT/GST) to fund their healthcare programs. From the studies I've seen, we pay lower overall taxes than other countries who have socialized medicine.

Thank you for a calm rational response!

And now for my rebuttal...

the US is the one doing the majority of research and we foot the bill

I don't believe research dollars are included in those numbers, just the expenditures for care. Could be wrong, but don't believe so.we pay our doctors 3 to 4 times as much as some other countries (i.e. Great Britain pays roughly $55K a year to its doctors)

we pay our doctors 3 to 4 times as much as some other countries (i.e. Great Britain pays roughly $55K a year to its doctors)

Here's a comparison of physician salaries and US doctors are payed more than anyone else. Not sure how significant that is unless we look at cost of living comparisons by country and how education costs are addressed (one of the usual rationale for high salaries). General Physician Salaries - International Comparison

Consumers are not directly involved, leaving insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid to pay whatever prices doctors and hospitals demand (or they simply deny treatment). If I had to pay out of pocket for, say, my migraine medication, I would not pay $285 for 9 pills. If no one was willing to pay those prices, demand would drop, and prices would come down (basic supply and demand principles).

In theory, yes. However, medical care doesn't follow the usual supply/demand theories. When you need medical care, you frequently don't have time to shop around. I myself fainted last Wed evening and by Sat morning was at home with a brand spankin new pacemaker. I certainly wasn't going to shop around between the two local hospitals when my heart was stopping that night. Haven't seen the bills yet, but we have great insurance and fortunately, my wife and I both bring home good pay checks and have money in the bank.

It could be a fair comparison, but I think you're confusing how the expenditures are funded with what's being spent. In looking at the expenditures, it doesn't really matter where the money comes from. We spend more and get less than any other country, period, regardless of how it's paid for.

Thanks for the civil response (a welcome change here on NV!) A couple of things:

I don't believe research dollars are included in those numbers, just the expenditures for care.

The cost of research is passed on to anyone who uses the technology (i.e. doctors, hospitals, pharmacies), who then pass the costs on to consumers/insurance companies.

Not sure how significant that is unless we look at cost of living comparisons by country and how education costs are addressed (one of the usual rationale for high salaries).

Yes, physicians here are paid much higher wages than in other countries; after a decade of schooling, I would want to make more than $55K a year too (even if the government picked up the tab for the schooling). My husband made that with an AA degree that didn't relate to his field.

However, medical care doesn't follow the usual supply/demand theories. When you need medical care, you frequently don't have time to shop around.

Sorry to hear about your health problems - I hope you're feeling better!) While I realize that medical care isn't the same as buying a new car or a pair of shoes, the principle is somewhat the same. If insurance companies were forced to compete for my business (like auto insurance), I would be able to select the one that had the best coverage for the best price. In order for that to happen, they would in turn need to negotiate the best prices for procedures and medications (or not cover things like prescriptions, allowing the free market to bring those prices down).

We spend more and get less than any other country, period, regardless of how it's paid for.

The expenditures in other countries are lower, possibly because the costs of treatment are lower (including doctor salaries). However, the citizens are still taxed at higher rates to cover their "free" healthcare (in some countries, the combined taxes are in excess of 60% of income).

In addition, if you compare mortality rates across the board, yes, ours are higher, mainly because of lifestyle choices (i.e. obesity & sedentary lifestyles); in other countries instances of death due to various types of cancer, for example, are higher than ours because people are not always able to get prompt treatment.

fedup,

Yes, I'm feeling much better, thank you.

We can probably go back and forth on this ad-naseum, but I doubt I'm going to change your mind. And, I know you're not going to change mine.

Yes, 'the principle is somewhat the same'. However, it's not actually the same. Principle and reality are not the same and no amount of wishing it were so will make it so.

Only if you live in a large metropolitan area will you have access to more than two hospitals. And, in reality, your insurance company has already limited your choices for you, unless you're independently wealthy. So, without the elimination of preferred provider networks, choice will never enter into the health care system nor be a factor in lowering costs. So, all this talk about the free-market driving down the cost of health care is pure fantasy.

What will drive down the cost of health care is to remove the profit motive. That doesn't mean companies and doctors can't make a decent living, it just means the motive for operation is service (health outcomes) and not profit for shareholders. For examples of this, think about Credit Unions and cooperatives. Very competitive and successful, but operating with a very different mission than profit, but must make a reasonable profit to be a viable enterprise.

Congratulations on picking the one measure the US is first, survival rates for cancer. It's certainly worth investigating why we do so well there and so poorly in every other measure, including the most important, mortality. Related to mortality, I heard one explanation from a Brit. He said it's not uncommon for patrons in a pub to chastise an obese person for consuming what might contribute to their obesity and potential increase health care costs. They do this because they know they're all in it together. None of this 'everyone for themselves' crap I see many conservatives espousing here.

Peace and Health,
G

But aren’t you the people who are against teaching sex education to teens?

Pwned. Well said.

What does the pro-choice/pro-life argument have to do with healthcare reform, other than not wanting federal dollars used for elective abortions? Where does anyone on this post (or in the article) mention sex education? No one here is arguing to outlaw abortion; you are still free to go out and get one - as long as you're willing to pay for it, and not make the taxpayers foot the bill.

A true American-1318751

Think of this. Finances are one of the main reasons why abortions are considered. If you force these women to have these babies, do not complain that your tax dollars are going towards their welfare checks.

RIGHT ON!!!!!

A t A,

Only 3% of abortions are done because of medical reasons. The 97% is because they don't want the baby. Pro-Lifers are trying to save the baby you and so many others are just so willing to throw away. They are looking out for the babie's rights.

It looks like sex education and abstinence isn't working. You have to be smart enough to use birth control and disease prevention methods for them to work. We don't cover the part about being smart enough.

To address the subject of this article, people don't want to pay for abortions in the health care bill either!

RLWellman,

Would you be willing to pay for real sex education?

If so, I'd be willing to give up public funding of elective abortions.

C G, I fail to understand why you think it is your right to have me pay for your abortion.

If it is a legal medical procedure, why do you presume you can intercede in what should be a decision between a patient, their family, and their doctor?

But, you didn't answer my question. Would you be willing to pay for sex education instead of abortions?

You didn't answer my question. Why do you think it is your right to have me pay for you abortion?

You're presming my position based on my question, and that would be a mistake.

As soon as you answer my question, I'll answer yours.

fedupwithliberals,

You obviously do not get the point I am trying to make. Either way you will be paying for it. You can pay for it one time or you can pay for it for the next eighteen years. Which one is it?

RLWellman,

Show me the facts that say 97% do not want the baby? You are a man. You will never know how a woman feels being faced with the fact that she has to make an extremely hard choice that she must live with for the rest of her life.

RLWellman/fedupwithliberals,

In regards to sex education, just because it is not in this article or in the chat does mean it does not have connection to the topic. You republicans do not want sex education taught in school. Kids are with hormones are stupid. If this is not allowed in the health bill, may I add none of you wanted the health bill the first place, many of these young women will not have the option to terminate this pregnancy. They will be forced to have a child that they may not be able to raise. It is not an easy thing to just give up a baby for adoption. A baby that you carried for 9 months. They most likely will keep the baby, drop out of school, and go on welfare. Then we get to hear all of you whine your tired of paying for their mistakes. Some teens live in violent homes and cannot go to their parents for help. Most parents have a hard time even talking with their children about sex. Most teens do not even know the trouble they can get themselves into. That is why it is important to educated them and keep the option open to have an abortion federally funded.

Either way you will be paying for it. You can pay for it one time or you can pay for it for the next eighteen years. Which one is it?

Option #3 - let a loving couple adopt the baby and take care of the expense of raising it.

You republicans do not want sex education taught in school.

Really? Could you show me where in the Republican platform it states that we're against sex education?

If this is not allowed in the health bill, may I add none of you wanted the health bill the first place, many of these young women will not have the option to terminate this pregnancy.

Wrong again. They will still have the option; they will have to pay for it out-of-pocket as has been the case for a while now. BTW, we do want a health bill, just not the one the Dems are pushing.

They will be forced to have a child that they may not be able to raise. It is not an easy thing to just give up a baby for adoption. A baby that you carried for 9 months. They most likely will keep the baby, drop out of school, and go on welfare. Then we get to hear all of you whine your tired of paying for their mistakes.

Again, they still have the option to abort. It's still legal. I know several people who chose to put their baby up for adoption, and they are at peace with their choice. While yes, it's an emotional choice, so is the choice to kill your unborn child. I have several friends who carry emotional scars years later from making the choice to end their pregnancy.

That is why it is important to educated them and keep the option open to have an abortion federally funded.

I have no problem educating them. And again, abortion is legal. You have the legal right to kill as many unwanted babies as you want, but by law you must pay for it yourself.

However, just as you have the legal right to an abortion, I have a Constitutional right to not have to pay for it with my tax dollars.

Adoption might be a great option, if people were adopting children. Statistics show that adoption is on the decline.

We know one thing with certainty on the basis of historical statistics. Adoptions were rare, even at the height of their popularity, around 1970. What is paradoxical is that adoptions have become rarer during the past several decades, just they have become more visible. A total of approximately 125,000 children have been adopted annually in the United States in recent years, a sharp drop since the century-long high point of 175,000 adoptions in 1970.

http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/topics/adoptionstatistics.htm

The best course of action is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Adoption might be a great option, if people were adopting children. Statistics show that adoption is on the decline.

Perhaps if it weren't so expensive (around $20,000), more families might have the option. When we were having trouble conceiving, we looked into adoption, but there was no way we could afford it. I would much rather see federal aid for adoptions than for abortions.

The best course of action is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Yes, through education and birth control; abortion should be a last resort, and one not funded by taxpayers.

fedupwithliberals,

I am not saying that abortions will not be legal. What I am getting at is that if it is not federally funded, an you have a teenage girl who does not work nor does the father, even if they do work it is most likely at min wage, how can they afford to pay for the abortion? They can't. If they wait to save the money then it might be too late to terminate, thus having to keep the baby and possibly going on welfare were you end up paying for it. You are using your opinions vs the realities at hand. I am getting the idea you are pretty well off and do not know what it is like working at minimum wage. It costs about $650 to $700 dollars or more to get an abortion. Let's assume that you work at minimum wage. Right now I think it is $7.25 federally. Lets say this is a teenage girl and teenage boy we are talking about. The girl does not work and the boy does. He works after school from 5-9PM on the weekdays. That is 4 hours a day. He works 2 days a week. Sat. & Sun he works 1-6pm that is 5 hours each day. There are approx 4 weeks in a month. 4 hrs @ $7.25 is $29 x 2 days is $58 x 4 weeks is $232. 5 hrs @ $7.25 is $36.25 x 2 days is $72.50 x 4 weeks is $290. He makes a total of $522 a month. He most likely gets paid every two weeks so each pay check is about $261 before tax. Net is probably $230 x 2 is $460. This is assuming he has a set schedule and does not use his money for a car payment or food. The girl is probably 6 weeks when they found out and it is going to take 6 additional weeks to come up with the money by that time it will be a 12 week pregnancy where the fetus is full developed and resembles a baby. She then has to get a surgical abortion because she passed the 8 weeks to have a medical abortion. Surgical abortions cost more, which adds more time to the development to come up with the money. By that time the fetus is about 18 weeks. The time where you can determine what the sex is through ultrasound. She then is at more risk of having complications vs the medical abortion. I rather pay for this teen to get an abortion early on vs later on when the baby is already formed. I rather pay for an abortion than pay towards welfare for 18 years of this kids life.

This scenario is assuming on kid has a job. What if neither do? Do not sit here and tell me your options. Look at the reality. It sucks to have to terminate a pregnancy. But the reality is everyone has a different situation and a different reason to terminate a pregnancy. Pro-lifer's may not ever make abortions illegal, but they will sure try and make it difficult to get them and that is exactly what you are doing by trying to get it out of the health bill.

FYI- Pro-choice people are for pro-life, but they focus on your personal right to make that decision. GOD gave everyone free will. It is your choice on how you use it. Your decision is between GOD and you and no one else should have a say in it.

fedupwithliberals,

From NBC's Katie Primm and Mark Murray
By the way, as has been pointed out, Palin backed abstinence-only education during her 2006 gubernatorial race. In an Eagle Forum Alaska questionnaire, Palin gave this response to the following question:

Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

*** UPDATE *** NBC's Abby Livingston adds that a McCain spokesperson in May 2007 said the Arizona Republican supported abstinence-only education, too. "Sen. McCain believes the correct policy for educating young children on this subject is to promote abstinence as the only safe and responsible alternative. To do otherwise is to send a mixed signal to children that, on the one hand they should not be sexually active, but on the other here is the way to go about it. As any parent knows, ambiguity and equivocation leads to problems when it comes to teaching children right from wrong. Sen. McCain believes that there are many negative forces in today’s society that promote irresponsible and dangerous behavior to our children. The public education system should not join this chorus of moral equivocation and ambiguity.”

Madison — Democrats tried to pass a bill Tuesday that would require schools that teach sex education to instruct students about birth control, but Republicans blocked final passage of the measure.

Republicans offered amendments - rejected by Democrats - that would have required schools to teach students about fetal development and the potential for criminal charges against underage students for having sex.

I am getting the idea you are pretty well off and do not know what it is like working at minimum wage.

Nice try. I'm solidly middle class after working my way up (over many years) from minimum wage. I grew up eating government cheese. I understand what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck, barely scraping by.

I rather pay for this teen to get an abortion early on vs later on when the baby is already formed. I rather pay for an abortion than pay towards welfare for 18 years of this kids life.

I would rather the parents be involved in this situation; however, I realize that's not always the case. There are still thousands of people out there who would love to adopt that baby, but are unable to come up with the $20K plus.

This scenario is assuming on kid has a job. What if neither do? Do not sit here and tell me your options. Look at the reality. It sucks to have to terminate a pregnancy. But the reality is everyone has a different situation and a different reason to terminate a pregnancy.

Again, if we're talking about teenagers, where are the parents? This is a medical procedure, and at least in some states, the parents must still give consent. If they choose to consent, they can help pay. If they choose not to consent, they can help either put the baby up for adoption or help raise it.

FYI- Pro-choice people are for pro-life, but they focus on your personal right to make that decision. GOD gave everyone free will. It is your choice on how you use it.

It seems to me that the pro-choice crowd is only pro-life when it comes to the mother, and not the unborn child. And yes, God did give us free will - we just have to deal with the consequences of those choices.

Your decision is between GOD and you and no one else should have a say in it.

Then that should include the taxpayers you're asking to pay for it.

Republicans offered amendments - rejected by Democrats - that would have required schools to teach students about fetal development and the potential for criminal charges against underage students for having sex.

I'm not familiar with that legislative work, or laws against underage students having sex (other than statutory rape laws). However, I'm not opposed to students being taught fetal development (it is science, after all); in fact, I learned about it when I was in high school. What is wrong with teenagers understanding how a human baby develops?

Exactly Jan. There are a lot of people in that situation. But unless you have been there, or have the ability to empathize, you just don't see it.

I wish the conservatives against the bill could just spend a little time in their shoes. No insurance, and no chance to get it.

So, throw in a pre-existing condition clause and you'd vote for this bill?

Honestly, I would have to see the whole thing, but maybe. I still don't know if it will go far enough to bring costs down. According to the CBO tort reform will only reduce costs by half a percent. But it is a step in the right direction.

While I agree, the pre-existing condition clause is a big miss, most miss the point of tort reform. It's a huge barrier for new competition entering the workplace. The patient base required to pay for these premiums keeps small business doctors working in corporate PCs. While the bottom line isn't impacted right away; long term, you'll see a lot more neighborhood clinics driving costs down.

We absolutely need the preX clause. Spending across state lines will do nothing unless the conglomerates are broken up under the antitrust laws. No body should be forced to carry insurance if they don't want it, but it should be affordable to those who do. Malpractice tort reform is a red herring, but whatever, if it makes you feel better...

The pharmacidicals, medical suppliers and the care givers are going to have to contribute to lowering costs too. One of the local hospitals (run by the Catholic Church) recently started double billing for services; once for the Docs and once for the Nurses. They started it with Medicare patients, because they were less likely to catch on to the practice and complain. Plus they also give the director a multi-million dollar salary, but because they are clergy it goes right back to the church. Non-profit my ass...

I realize there needs to be some sort of reform in which insurance companies can't deny coverage on a whim, or go back 10 years in your medical history.

However, the problem with forcing insurance companies to insure anyone and everyone is that some people would decide not to carry insurance until they contract a serious illness. It's kinda like auto insurance...you don't wait until after the accident to get it.

fed - BINGO!

the problem with forcing insurance companies to insure anyone and everyone

I believe it is the insurance companies that want everyone be insured in order cover the costs of insuring those with a preX.

crap double post

I believe it is the insurance companies that want everyone be insured in order cover the costs of insuring those with a preX.

I agree that if everyone were insured, the premiums would help cover those with a preX; however, my point was that there will be those who choose not to get coverage until after they find out they have a major medical condition.

And I'm not overly keen on government mandated coverage.

my point was that there will be those who choose not to get coverage until after they find out they have a major medical condition.

Yeah, sorry, I got that when I reread it. I was trying to multitask and my reading comprehension suffered...lol.

Maybe a manditory waiting period on previously uncovered people? They do that with group insurance all the time.

Or charge them more but cannot refuse them insurance and CANNOT cancel cancel them. Those mandatory waiting periods are sometimes up to three years. Also how can they without a doubt decide what is related to what you had and what you may have now.

Jan,

The new health care bill won't take affect for three years. This won't help the cause now either.

No one’s ever 100% happy with what taxes pay for (since everyone has different values), but the money has to go somewhere (as long as we pay taxes).

The Constitution specifically spells out that the Federal government is to "provide for the common defense", i.e. military. That's one of the few roles the government was originally intended to fill. In other words, it's one of the basic tenets of our form of government.

Agreeably, abortion should have been left out of this bill (so the U.S. public doesn't feel guilty), but parts of the new bill can always be protested later (as wars are).

After the bill is passed, it's a little late to protest. If people feel strongly about an issue (i.e. abortion), they can make the most impact by being part of the process, not waiting until it's a done deal.

I guess you think attacking a country that didn't attack us and posed no imminent danger was a defensive move?

CG, Which country are you referring to?

I guess you think attacking a country that didn't attack us and posed no imminent danger was a defensive move?

Paula's point was that she's against war, period (theoretically?) and therefore doesn't want her tax dollars paying for it. I simply pointed out that the military is one of the few things the government should be paying for. It's a fact that the Constitution provides for a government run military. Period.

I'm not trying to make this into a "should we or shouldn't we" argument about (presumably) Iraq; We elect people who make the call whether or not to go to war; it's not up to us as individuals to make that decision. We can voice opposition, and we can vote.

RLWellman

CG, Which country are you referring to?

Where have you been for the last 8 years?

What country was not involved in 911 and posed no immediate threat to the US?

....wait for it....Iraq!

C G, I wasn't sure if you meant Iraq, Iran, or Afghan.

OK. Afghanistan was harboring the folks that were directly involved with attacking us, so I think that's a different situation than Iraq.

C G, GWB spent tons of money that he shouldn't have, but why does that make it okay for BHO to spend even more?

What's the alternative? Would you have him just stop, cold turkey?

That was what the Republicans claimed would be disasterous. What other option does he have given the hand he was dealt?

I was thinking the same thing. It's as though this bill just has to be better because there's less of that pesky thing called reading.

any law that the people can't understand is a bad law. (i'm paraphrasing someone there) 1990 pages of legalese is bad law. hell 250 pages of legalese is bad law.

How about a bi-partism bill? These last two elections in Virginia and New Jersey so the the country is getting tired of what the dems are doing. How about a bipartism bill? How about a bill that isn't 2000 pages long and can only be understood by a lawyer?

The only part of the country tired of what the Dems are doing is the Republican losing part.

I'm very happy with what the Dems are doing and only wish the Republicans would either start participating in our Democracy or sit down, shut up, and get out of the way.

Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people doing it.
~Chinese Proverb

I'm glad you are happy with the dems running our country into bankruptcy. I'm also tired of all the whining that the liberal left is doing. As far as I'm concerned, you can put all the dems and repubs in a barrel and run them all over the falls.

Now, the dems have enough votes to vote in this health care reform. They do not need any help from the repubs. However, the don't have the nerve to sign this in affect, without having someone else to blame when things go wrong.

You don't go in a room, lock the door and write a bill without any help from repubs or indepens, and then want them to sign onto it. However, this is what the dems did. This country is made up of different parties. They all pay taxes, or most of them. When the dems are making laws without bi-partism, only part of the country is getting represented. Obviously this doesn't make any difference to you, but it does to those who pay taxes without representation.

If you are going to go alone, grow a pair and go alone. American Conservative Proverb

Man, you certainly have a skewed sense of reality.

Who was it that put us in the economic situation we're in? GWB

Who was it that wiped out a budget surplus and turned it into a deficit quicker than you can say no-bid contract? GWB

Who was it that doled out $700B with no strings or accountability attached? GWB

The only whining that's been going on from liberals has been in regard to the Republican whining about everything the Democrats are doing.

When exactly did the Republicans under GWB display any bi-partisanship? Can you give me a single example (other than the vote for war, in which they all voted for revenge)?

C G, How soon you forget that congress and the senate were controlled by the dems the last two years of GWB reign. He tried to put safeguards in, but the dems said no.

The first 700 billion dollar stimulis bill. BHO was on the senate when that bill was created. He helped write it and told GWB to sign it after he was elected but not in office yet. Remember? GWB did not write the bill, but BHO had a hand in it.

Remember the 2nd stimulis bill? 890 billion dollars with no strings attached, and this was even after the complaints about the first bill not having any safeguards in it.

So if GWB didn't push bi-partism, BHO isn't either? Like I said before, how old are we? Of course this means he is a flat out liar than, because he said he was going to work across the aisle when he was campaigning. Just one of many lies.

I believe you are the one with the skewed sense of reallity!

Your recollection of events is different than mine. Do you have evidence to support your statements?

As for how old we are, I find it incredibly disengenuous for Republicans to have suddenly found they're not in kindergarten any more, when their club isn't as big and they can't just bully everyone around.

The Republicans used crayons and only small words. And most of the pages have pictures for Republicans who can't follow along. Of course many of the pictures are of Hitler.

JB,

It's funny you should bring up Hitler. Obviously, if you read the proposed dems bill, you would see it gives the government more control over the American citizens. How about a bi-partism bill? Wasn't it BHO who said he was going to cross over the aisle and work with everyone? Where is this happening? Being bi-partism doesn't mean the dems writing the bill and handing it to the repubs to sign.

Being bi-partisan actually requires the Republicans to participate legitimately. To date, very few of them have been willing to do that.

If you'd like, I'd be happy to go use the google to find Republican amendments to the bills currently on the table. Something that would be much easier than finding Democratic amendments to Republican bills during the last administration.

Like I said, when the dems go in a room and lock a door and write a bill by themselves, don't expect the repubs and indepens. to sign on. Grow a pair and sign it yourself!

The Republican priorities are such that they DID build plenty of prisons. They mandated that prison sentences be served in full even when parole boards want to parole prisoners. The cost of mandated prison sentences is enormous. Can you imagine how much better it would be to have good affordable health care rather than lock so many people in prisons for such a long time?

But I think you should be OK with this bill. Since you don't have a job, you won't be required to buy health insurance. And if you are a Republican you can ask your Congressman to kill an option for public health insurance. Then you won't have insurance either. So you don't really have to worry about paying for health insurance or having health insurance. But if you are really intent on going to prison, why not just create a ruckus at your next tea party and get yourself arrested?

I say let's start a national health care lottery, then all those folks who play the lottery will pay for the rest of us!

JB, How about if we just got rid of all the prisons? Think of all the money we could save. We could do like arab countries. If you steal, you get a hand cut off. The money we save on prisons could be spent on health care.

Because the Repubs don't want to be associated with the Democrat bill if/when it passes.

Why didn't they participate in crafting the current health care bills, and discuss adding the new items they offer in this bill?

New items? These are the same ideas they've been trying to discuss all along!

I don't think the Republicans will be associated with solving any of the problems that the conservative Bush administration caused, whether it's Bush's doubling of the national debt, the lack of regulation that caused the bankruptcies of the financial institutions, the lack of maintenance for the infrastructure, or his totally ignoring the plight of Americans who can't get affordable health insurance.

Republicans will do nothing but obstruct progress in America.

same ideas they've been trying to discuss

It's too bad they didn't actually discuss them. The Republicans refused to work with the Democrats. They wanted to kill the Democrats bills, to kill health care reform. They would not discuss adding their own items to the Democrats bills. Now they are still trying to kill the Democrats bills, but at the same time they want to introduce their own new bill -- something they created with only Republican input?

What kind of stunt is this? Get real!

I don't think the Republicans will be associated with solving any of the problems that the conservative Bush administration caused, whether it's Bush's doubling of the national debt, the lack of regulation that caused the bankruptcies of the financial institutions, the lack of maintenance for the infrastructure, or his totally ignoring the plight of Americans who can't get affordable health insurance.

Except for the last phrase, what does anything Bush did (or didn't do) have to do with the current healthcare debate? And as I recall, Bush did try to push through reforms (i.e. tort reform, portability, tax credits), but the Dems shot him down.

Bush didn't push for a health care reform bill. But he wanted to force people to buy private health insurance -- without addressing the abuses of the health insurance companies like denial because of pre-existing conditions, denial of coverage for some groups of people, and raising rates when people get sick and actually need their insurance benefits.

Bush's version of health care reform was to take more money from people and give it to the insurance companies, and allow the abuses to stay. That's the Republican way!

Bush didn't push for a health care reform bill. But he wanted to force people to buy private health insurance -- without addressing the abuses of the health insurance companies like denial because of pre-existing conditions, denial of coverage for some groups of people, and raising rates when people get sick and actually need their insurance benefits.

Bush's version of health care reform was to take more money from people and give it to the insurance companies, and allow the abuses to stay. That's the Republican way!

That's disingenous and you know it.

It's too bad they didn't actually discuss them. The Republicans refused to work with the Democrats.

If you recall, they were physically locked out of meetings.

They wanted to kill the Democrats bills,

Yes, to an extent...they were trying to prevent Dems from pushing through a government run healthcare system, something their constituents were very vocally opposing.

to kill health care reform.

No, they were trying to reform the system using methods that wouldn't bankrupt the country. And spare me the argument that "Bush spent..." This isn't about Bush any more. It hasn't been for almost a year.

I didn't say Bush was exactly the most straightforward and honest politician. But he was the most conservative, and tries to take as much money from everyday people as he could and give it to the rich.

dems shot down many repub amendments and you want to blame the repubs for not joining the deabte? when the majority pushes the minority aside you don't blame the minority.

this is like when the repubs had total control. did you blame the dems when the repubs rammed stuff through and shut out the dems? please hold the parties to the same standard or realize that your hypocrisy makes your arguements much less forceful.

What kind of stunt is this?

good question Joe.

It's called grandstanding and the repubs are experts at it. See how the timing is? See how they are hitting on all the hot topics? No new ideas, just the same old rehashed stuff that has been debunked time and time again.

Kind of reminds me of their last budget proposal. The one with no numbers!

It's too bad the Republicans tried to obstruct the bill rather than addressing costs. Now it's too late. They not only hurt themselves, they hurt their constituents. They said in effect "Even if I'm in the minority now, if I can't have the bill my way, I won't contribute anything at all". That was so immature, and America is worse off for it.

Wait, so opposition to a Big Government plan hurts contituents?

You can label health care reform "big government" but that doesn't change the fact that we need health care reform. Conservative extremist buzz words are useless when it come to fixing real world problems. Intelligent people know that as a society we need government for certain things.

If you want "small government" and "lower taxes" go to the country that should be your ideal -- Somalia. See how well they are doing with their "small government".

Why do we need health care reform? I'm not debating, I'm asking what you believe. And how does the Plan do that? It's hideously complex, costs a lot of money, and doesn't cover everyone, right?

Joe, then you can go to Cuba.

It's too bad the Republicans tried to obstruct the bill rather than addressing costs

It's too bad the Democrats couldn't get anything passed, even when they didn't need the Republicans to pass it.

And as I recall, Reps have been discussing these ideas from the beginning, but the Dems were pushing so hard for a govt. run system they didn't want to hear anything Reps were suggesting.

The fact is that a bill in some form will get passed. It probably will get passed despite any help from the "party of NO". Americans will be grateful, and Republicans will look like... well, something on the sidewalk that is soft and squishy.

Why don't Republicans help America? Why the hatred, bigotry and selfishness? At least they are in the minority. And with an approval rating of 20%, the Republicans will remain an irrelevant minority.

Joe -

Sounds like you described Obummer on the bottom of your shoe. Just for humors' sake, watch this. I am very confident you won't believe it because it doesn't fall in line with the company talking points

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9GMKK_fWKg

Why don't Republicans help America?

Why do Democrats want to tax the rich at exhorbitant rates to pay for everything in America? Why do they want to turn us into another France? Why do they want to weaken our national defense? Why do they devalue the life of the unborn?

Why the hatred, bigotry and selfishness?

Why the intolerance of anyone's view but your own? Why throw the race card every time someone disagrees with you? Why is it selfish to want to keep the bulk of what you earn, rather than give it to the government to squander on inefficient programs that don't take care of those they claim to help?

At least they are in the minority. And with an approval rating of 20%, the Republicans will remain an irrelevant minority.

As recent polls have shown, the country is leaning center-right. Even if the Republican party has low approval ratings, the pendulum will swing back to the right, as it always does. Then it will swing left, as it always does. As a nation, we tend to stay away from extremes, and as one party shifts further toward its extreme, the voters will surely pull it back to the center. And you may want to be careful about calling the other side "irrelevant"; you may soon be in the minority position again (as you were for several years prior to this administration).

As recent polls have shown, the country is leaning center-right

Live in your own fantasy land. But the Republicans have such low popularity that they are almost reviled. Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the party and tells Michael Steele, the so-called chairman of the party what to think and do for petes sake. The base of the GOP is mostly old white people and they are dying off every day. About 70 to 80% of new young voters are strongly against Republicans and are very much for Obama, the Democrats, and for building America up again after the damage caused by the Bush administration.

At least you have your "polls".

Live in your own fantasy land

I'm pretty much grounded in reality. If you read my post, I acknowledged that the Republican party has low approval ratings, but that a majority of people lean to the right.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx

At least you have your "polls".

Yes, I do (see the above link) and we'll have to see what the "exit polls" say in 2010. You may be in for a bit of a shock.

...or you might have to face reality. ;-)

Joe -

You want reality?? Go and check on the races taking place today. GOP is kicking your ass. Corzine is out!! Blomberg is lapping the libs. Virginia governor's race is all but over in favor of the GOP. Reality? Spin these results. I can hardly wait. Obummer....outta here in 2012!

F Pfarr, I agree. The dems will try and spin this into something else.

No spin required. Remember the old saying, all politics is local.

C G, The only two people who believe that are you and Gibbs.

You are right. That is why these people need to be removed from office. It might take awhile, but don't give up. If the new ones who replace them do the same thing, they need removed too.

Right now, it seems like all incumbants need removed and their health care and retirements taken away. We need someone in there who doesn't owe so many favors to people or companies.

Yes, and I'm sure there's nothing for the evil insurance industry in the umpteen pages of the Democrat plan.

An impartial word. THEY BOTH SUCK!

The Republican plan is a non-starter.

How much time and effort do you think the Republicans put into it? And why did they do it -- so Americans won't think they tried to obstruct health care reform? As if people don't see the news. Oh-oh, at 230 pages, it's longer than the Constitution! The tea-baggers won't be able to read it! LOL

JB, The dems have enough votes to pass this bill by themselves. Why won't they? Because they don't have the nerve to. They know they will be looking for new jobs starting next year.

The repubs are trying to obstruct health care reform? The dems lock themselves in a room, write the bill, and hand it to the repubs to sign. Would you sign something you didn't have a part in writing, or a part in correcting?

These two elections in Virginia and New Jersey show the majority of the country does not like the government is doing. If we do get a health care reform bill, it needs to be bi-partism. Not just a democratic written bill.

Why won't they? Because they don't have the nerve to.

Uh, no. Because they're actually trying to pass something the country can get behind. Not just ram crap through because they have the 'political capital'.

You conservatives really don't understand progressive liberals do you? We actually encourage debate and compromise. And, if you've noticed we don't all fall in lock-step with whatever our party puts out as the talking points of the day.

CG, Obviously you haven't been watching Nancy Pelosi. She could care less what the repubs want or do. She will be another one out of a job next year. I understand left liberals. They're a lot like communist. They do not care what the majority of the country wants, only what they want!

They don't want to just ram crap through? Excuse me! What do you call what they have they been doing the first 8-months of this administration? They tried to shove everything thing through so fast, no one had time to even read the bills.

CuriousG,

We actually encourage debate and compromise.

That's laughable at best! The Democrats locked the Republicans out of debate. How many times as Pres. Obama said that he wasn't willing to work with Republicans on the health care bill? How many partisan comments has Pelosi made? Harry Reid?

Prophat247,

Any real evidence to support that hypothesis? I seriously doubt it.

If you can't honestly say that Pelosi, Reid, and Pres. Obama have played partisan politics with the health care bill or any other bill for that matter, no amount of links will change your mind.

Cop out.

Insurance is like a myth.

Actually Richard, Health Insurance is a not a total myth. It works great for rich folks who would like a plazma TV in their rooms when recovering after boob and butt enhancement surgery.

Admit it Richard - you sir have a crush on Pelosi !!

I am married and I don't cheat' With men or women as some prefer sorry not only are you wrong but you made my wife laugh.

What does the GOP version do?

The GOP pseudo health care bill was created solely to give the appearance that the Republicans did something other than obstruct health care reform. This bill was never meant to be taken taken seriously or to have a chance of passing. It is there only so the Republicans can say "See, even though we didn't introduce any health care reform all those years we had the majority, now here is a bill. See how much we care?".

Isn't the point of healthcare reform to enable ALL Americans to get affordable coverages? Just being shorter does not make it viable. What does the GOP version do?

And just making it 4 times longer doesn't make it more viable either. The GOP version is attempting to lower the overall costs of healthcare to make it more affordable. The Dem's plan(s) will do nothing to bring the costs down, but will cost over a trillion dollars. Doesn't it make at least a little sense to try to cut costs first?

It's kind of like a family budget. When you realize your budget is tight, do you immediately declare bankruptcy, or do you start looking for areas to cut back? I feel like the Dems are ready to declare bankruptcy and start all over (only with a jumbo mortgage), rather than look at what can be fixed and improved.

Sure that makes perfect sense Fedup. So why in hell didn't they do it a long time ago???? It's too late for another quick fix now.

Nice to find a Republican that admits something is wrong with healthcare. Now to fix the problem. Tort reform, inter-state insurers, tax free health savings, high risk pools, don’t pay for abortions, all great ideas. All Republicans are for it, right? Let’s do it. Oh yeah. We haven’t actually seen the proposal yet. Hope nobody dies in the meantime.

You have to question why the Republicans waited 6-9 months into the discussion about health care reform to come up with a bill? The obvious reason is that they don't want to help people, they want to help the insurance company owners and executives who pay them.

But another reason might be because they didn't want to be questioned by their constituents during the August town hall meetings.

Instead, they used those meetings to tell their constituents that they would agree to try to hurt Americans -- to deny them affordable health insurance and to allow health insurance companies to continue the abusive practices that led to the outcry for health insurance reform in the first place. The low-class type of people who came to those meetings were there mostly to carry signs and shout down people anyway, they weren't really concerned with any issues or least of all, their fellow Americans.

The use of a Health Savings Account has no bearing unless you qualify by having a High Deductable Health Plan.

Are they proposing to change the rules so that anyone can have an HSA without the HDHP? We don't know, we can't read the freakin' thing yet?

You have to question why the Republicans waited 6-9 months into the discussion about health care reform to come up with a bill?

They didn't.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/17/news/economy/republican_health_care_bill/index.htm

Please note the date of the article: 6/17/09.

Instead, they used those meetings to tell their constituents that they would agree to try to hurt Americans

Puleeeze! Is it really necessary to paint anyone to the right of you as evil/selfish/racist/insert-favorite-rightwing-putdown-here?

The low-class type of people who came to those meetings were there mostly to carry signs and shout down people anyway, they weren't really concerned with any issues or least of all, their fellow Americans.

You mean the Americans who are concerned about a government takeover of yet another area of our lives? The ones who believe in small government and low taxes? The ones who believe that this administration is trying to unravel the very fiber of this nation? The elderly? The housewives? Those "low class types"?

"Government takeover" is a nonsense phrase. This type of nonsense needs to stop. Start speaking about real things instead of taking things that Glenn Beck has made up and repeating it.

"Government takeover" is a nonsense phrase. This type of nonsense needs to stop.

What would you call a single-payer system (something Obama is on record saying he would prefer)? It is a government-run system, hence the term "government takeover" of healthcare.

Start speaking about real things instead of taking things that Glenn Beck has made up and repeating it.

Sorry, I don't watch his show. I'm too busy working, raising a family and reading/studying.