Not much more to say than this...

[Guest]

"The finale of the health-care debate couldn't be more fitting. House Democrats are considering passing an exotic parliamentary rule relieving them of the burden of voting for the underlying bill, which will be "deemed" passed.

So a bill sold under blatantly false pretenses and passed in the Senate on the strength of indefensible deals would become law in a final flourish of deceptive high-handedness. How appropriate for what would be the worst piece of federal domestic legislation since the fascistic, recovery-impairing National Recovery Act of 1933 or the Prohibition disaster of 1920."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/16/health_care_deception_gets_uglier__uglier_104781.h tml


This is ugly stuff. As bad as the Republican party is with politics, the Democrats seem hell bent on making them look like the most honorable party there is !!!

[Guest]

I will not pay my federal income tax due for 2009.....hence not being held accountable as do our so called representatives in Washington.

btk

[Guest]

I am deeming that in the November election the Republicans have won control of the House and Senate.

Therefore there will be no need to vote in November.

Of course I am just "Deeming"

[Guest]

I know it's been used many times in the past for a variety of things. Right or wrong, if other can use it, I think it is fair for me to use to make my point. I'm not going to go into a lengthy explanation about how these things work, but

:1rotfl:


:boom:

there it is. Smilies for all. I deem you guys as fun-knee.

[Guest]

"The finale of the health-care debate couldn't be more fitting. House Democrats are considering passing an exotic parliamentary rule relieving them of the burden of voting for the underlying bill, which will be "deemed" passed.

So a bill sold under blatantly false pretenses and passed in the Senate on the strength of indefensible deals would become law in a final flourish of deceptive high-handedness.

[How appropriate for what would be the worst piece of federal domestic legislation since the fascistic, recovery-impairing National Recovery Act of 1933 or the Prohibition disaster of 1920."


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/16/health_care_deception_gets_uglier__uglier_104781.h tml


This is ugly stuff. As bad as the Republican party is with politics, the Democrats seem hell bent on making them look like the most honorable party there is !!!

The "deceptive high-handedness" wouldn't be the label the Republicans give the process. That would be embarrassing because they have used the same procedure almost one hundred times. Instead, they call it the "Slaughter Solution", named after that feisty old congresswoman from upstate NY who will not give up on a health care reform.


I really do think it's amazing that folks can have such diametrically opposing views. I believe the currently proposed law, (which successfully drops the outrageous 'Cornhusker Kickback'), is as monumentally important as social security, veteran's benefits laws and the 14th amendment. All make it possible for the unlucky and disadvantaged to obtain some level of financial or legal subsistence.
No, I'm not happy that Louisiana may get an extra 300 mil, but 30 million people can obtain non-emergency health care, there will be some controls on insurance companies, especially protecting people from being arbitrarily denied coverage, and some of the costs will be borne by those who can most afford it. Despite the fact that they vote the negative bloc the Republicans do not deny we need to do this. They just want to do it when they feel good and ready.


With all the posturing and drama about the Slaughter Solution, some pundits are even saying that to finalize health care reform this way would be political suicide for the Democrats in November. While I think it's almost certain Americans will do what they always do and resoundingly reelect incumbents, maybe getting rid of all the incumbents would be the best possible result of using the Slaughter Solution.

[Guest]

Need to do what? From what I understand nobody knows what is in the bill. If this passes I think it will put us beyond the point of no return. This will be the entitlement that breaks the camel's back.
Why are we even wasting out time when the economy is in the dumps and millions are out of work?

Where are our priorities?

[Guest]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011367936_walgreens18m.html

Walgreens…maybe most of you are not in or involved with Medicaid, however the issue is the action is derived from reduced payments to the provider….a sound, whether we like it or not, we will soon hear more often, affecting us all. When the Obamanightmare care goes into effect, where do you think the first savings will come from? Reduced reimbursements because that is easy to do. The abuse savings…:1rotfl::1rotfl:….your kidding right?

btk

[Guest]

The "deceptive high-handedness" wouldn't be the label the Republicans give the process. That would be embarrassing because they have used the same procedure almost one hundred times. Instead, they call it the "Slaughter Solution", named after that feisty old congresswoman from upstate NY who will not give up on a health care reform.


I really do think it's amazing that folks can have such diametrically opposing views. I believe the currently proposed law, (which successfully drops the outrageous 'Cornhusker Kickback'), is as monumentally important as social security, veteran's benefits laws and the 14th amendment. All make it possible for the unlucky and disadvantaged to obtain some level of financial or legal subsistence.
No, I'm not happy that Louisiana may get an extra 300 mil, but 30 million people can obtain non-emergency health care, there will be some controls on insurance companies, especially protecting people from being arbitrarily denied coverage, and some of the costs will be borne by those who can most afford it. Despite the fact that they vote the negative bloc the Republicans do not deny we need to do this. They just want to do it when they feel good and ready.


With all the posturing and drama about the Slaughter Solution, some pundits are even saying that to finalize health care reform this way would be political suicide for the Democrats in November. While I think it's almost certain Americans will do what they always do and resoundingly reelect incumbents, maybe getting rid of all the incumbents would be the best possible result of using the Slaughter Solution.


I am curious about something. Can you, at this time, tell us what part of this bill makes you believe that it is as "monumentally important" as others and MOST IMPORTANTLY since answering the first question would be difficult since what is in the bill is the big mystery, but more importantly, what this bill will do for health care costs which is what the big problem is right now ?

Thanks

[Guest]

The "deceptive high-handedness" wouldn't be the label the Republicans give the process. That would be embarrassing because they have used the same procedure almost one hundred times. Instead, they call it the "Slaughter Solution", named after that feisty old congresswoman from upstate NY who will not give up on a health care reform.


I really do think it's amazing that folks can have such diametrically opposing views. I believe the currently proposed law, (which successfully drops the outrageous 'Cornhusker Kickback'), is as monumentally important as social security, veteran's benefits laws and the 14th amendment. All make it possible for the unlucky and disadvantaged to obtain some level of financial or legal subsistence.
No, I'm not happy that Louisiana may get an extra 300 mil, but 30 million people can obtain non-emergency health care, there will be some controls on insurance companies, especially protecting people from being arbitrarily denied coverage, and some of the costs will be borne by those who can most afford it. Despite the fact that they vote the negative bloc the Republicans do not deny we need to do this. They just want to do it when they feel good and ready.


With all the posturing and drama about the Slaughter Solution, some pundits are even saying that to finalize health care reform this way would be political suicide for the Democrats in November. While I think it's almost certain Americans will do what they always do and resoundingly reelect incumbents, maybe getting rid of all the incumbents would be the best possible result of using the Slaughter Solution.

Your position is incredibly far out.

Name one time from the past when "deeming" was used for a bill that did not yet exist and nobody knew its cost and was a entitlement expenditure of this magnitude and full of bribes to get the votes.

For you to say it was used 100 times before shows you have little regard for the facts.

[Guest]

Your position is incredibly far out.

Name one time from the past when "deeming" was used for a bill that did not yet exist and nobody knew its cost and was a entitlement expenditure of this magnitude and full of bribes to get the votes.

For you to say it was used 100 times before shows you have little regard for the facts.

I simply said 'deeming' was used, not adding all the extra stuff you did.

This is the quote from the House Speaker in response to the firestorm of protest about using the 'slaughter solution': I didn't hear any of that ferocity when the Republicans used this, perhaps hundreds of times"

[Guest]

Clearly the health insurance industry has been demonized by the Obama administration and been in the crosshairs of 'reform'. I do not know what profit margins they operate under and knowing some facts here would be helpful. However (and here is the point of this post), no company can be 'forced' to sell or market a product... in this case health insurance. Just like no company can be forced to sell hurricaine or property ins. So, it is possible, that as this all unfolds over the next decade, companies such as Cigna, Aetna, Human etc may simply decide there is no profit incentive left in the health ins market and quit selling that product. Then what?

[Guest]

I am curious about something. Can you, at this time, tell us what part of this bill makes you believe that it is as "monumentally important" as others and MOST IMPORTANTLY since answering the first question would be difficult since what is in the bill is the big mystery, but more importantly, what this bill will do for health care costs which is what the big problem is right now ?

Thanks

The bill which is now near vote is not a mystery. This morning it contains the provisions I outlined above.

It is monumental for at least these reasons:
- as a civilized nation, our health care system is primitive, outrageously wasteful and unjust;
- after repeated efforts for many years Congress, frozen in their politics and special interests, might nevertheless make some real forward steps toward solving this problem;
- we will finally begin to get health care costs under control. All of the arguments about the proposed health care reform causing economic collapse can be countered by even more compelling data showing what will happen to health care costs and the economy if reform is not started.

Because the structure for beginning to regulate the insurance companies, shift a larger share of the costs to very high earning investors and earners, and control medicare abuse is fundamental to this bill, I believe we will see health care costs stabilize before the end of the decade, (not bad when some of the controls don't take effect until 2018). Within only a year or two, I believe the health care crisis will no longer be a the 'hot button' issue, and even some Republicans will begrudgingly admit that the costs are not what had been predicted or feared.

[Guest]

I simply said 'deeming' was used, not adding all the extra stuff you did.

This is the quote from the House Speaker in response to the firestorm of protest about using the 'slaughter solution': I didn't hear any of that ferocity when the Republicans used this, perhaps hundreds of times"

When you paint with a wide brush often you put a thin coat on the facts.

Facts are not what you want or believe them to be.

[Guest]

Your fact is that the Republicans have never used deeming.

Do I read you right?

[Guest]

Have Republicans ever tried to steal 1/6th of our economy?

What makes anybody think that our government can take on another bureaucracy.
Has the government ever run anything efficiently?

Our health care system is not "primitive." You want to see primitive then take a trip to the Left's idea of a great government CUBA.

[Guest]

I simply said 'deeming' was used, not adding all the extra stuff you did.

This is the quote from the House Speaker in response to the firestorm of protest about using the 'slaughter solution': I didn't hear any of that ferocity when the Republicans used this, perhaps hundreds of times"

If you are relying on a quote from the Speaker of the House being accurate, let alone truthful, I would like to talk to you about some beachfront property I have in Montana!

[Guest]

Your fact is that the Republicans have never used deeming.

Do I read you right?

Who said anything about Republicans. If you quote someone please do it accurately or not at all.