Republican Senator in Massachusetts?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

True. I also think its an indication that most voters want a middle ground. Heck of a result when you consider how long dems held that seat

Today is a great day and I am so thrilled there are 41 Red's in the Senate now.

Also, a very liberal dem in the house (dont know name) said "maybe we should think about taking a step back, passing through a jobs bill that has some health reform attached to lower costs"

If this hypothetical "jobs" bill has some tort reform in it, elimination of pre-existing conditions, language stating that you cant drop someone for getting sick, and opens up competition over state lines.... AND costs less than 50 billion or so (which is still insanily high).. then I'm all for it!!

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

If health care reform passes and makes it a right for Americans,
the case will be made that your rights are "granted to you by your government".

...and provided for you by your fellow citizens, who therefore have less rights than the recipients...so much for the "universal" health care coverage.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by joeydb

...and provided for you by your fellow citizens, who therefore have less rights than the recipients...so much for the "universal" health care coverage.

yea but the guy who jogs by the nearby McDonalds every morning and sees the customers super-sizing and the workers on smoke break can feel good he and other health conscious people are, for a large part, subsidizing those who are not. Only a bleeding heart idiot would think that is fair.

The reasoning by Obama & Co. of taxing 'Cadillac insurance plans' is a sure tip off this administration cares more about insuring all rather than having good insurance.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

That is a very true statement you just made. Im thinking if the economy and unemployment aren't fixed between now and November I would hate to be a Democrat up for election. They will feel the wrath of the voters.

Because McCain-Palin would have "fixed the economy and jobs" in that time?

[Nascar1966]

O'Dumbass knows his reform bill is in trouble now. Funny he is telling his fellow Democrats dont jam the bill down the Republicans. Wonder what O'Dumbass thinks about Pelosi's remark that the bill will get passed one way or another. I guess that means Senator elect Brown will probably have to wait an enormous amount of time to get seated. If it was Coakley who won she would already be seated. Cant wait for November to get here. We shall see who has the power. Especially waiting for November 2012 to get here. Im sure everyone would say that if it was the other way the same thing would happen. Everyone is entitled to thier freedom of speech. This is what makes this a great country to live in.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Riot

Because McCain-Palin would have "fixed the economy and jobs" in that time?

Im pretty confident they would do a better job than the inexperienced O'Dumbass is doing. To go from being a 1st term Senator to President is a huge step.

[Nascar1966]

I feel sorry for people on Social Security and Military Vets like myself. Why you ask this is the first time in many years the above aren't getting a Cost of Living Allowance raise. Yet he wastes taxpayer's money to try to get the Olympics to Chicago which I am happy to see him miserably fail at. Seems like every time he butts his nose into to something failure occurs. Here are some examples of his failure:

Coakley losing the Senator election.
Republicans winning Governor races in New Jersey and Virginia.

Coakley's lose is an example of what happens when you take something for granted. She figured she was going to win because a Republicans hasn't won in over 30 years in the state of Massachusetts. Wake up missy people are already sick and tired of the Democrats lies and deception.

People might says the Republicans suck but at least Bush gave COLA raises.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

True. I also think its an indication that most voters want a middle ground. Heck of a result when you consider how long dems held that seat

Funny you bring that up, as the talk today is the ultra-liberals wanting Washington to know "this is a referendum on your lack of aggression when we voted you in for change", while the right is saying, "it's economics".

But the folks in Mass are saying it was all just local politics, she wasn't liked nor endorsed by the Dem party in Mass, the machine didn't rev up the call centers for her, etc.

Unfortunately no exit polls this election to shed more accurate light.

As an aside: we've put with with alot regarding our politicians. Nixon, Haldeman, Ehrlichmann and their lying over Watergate. Clinton and his wandering pants zipper. The entire "C Street" Christians need to takeover government crew.

I cannot vote for a politician, however, who says, laughing, in public, "We can do that!" to a suggestion that his opponent get a curling iron shoved up her azz.

It's one thing to find out after you elect them that your politicians are ugly on a moral level. It's another to have them be proud of it and flaunt it as a reason for you to vote for them. I find it quite scary when voters deliberately choose that.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I keep seeing things about demographics and "old conservative white men" posted here.

This is what I don't understand: why would that matter?

It matters from the strictly political analysis of party makeups, voter predictions - census type stuff. There are very well-known trends there, and changes are significant.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Funny you bring that up, as the talk today is the ultra-liberals wanting Washington to know "this is a referendum on your lack of aggression when we voted you in for change", while the right is saying, "it's economics".

But the folks in Mass are saying it was all just local politics, she wasn't liked nor endorsed by the Dem party in Mass, the machine didn't rev up the call centers for her, etc.

Unfortunately no exit polls this election to shed more accurate light.

As an aside: we've put with with alot regarding our politicians. Nixon, Haldeman, Ehrlichmann and their lying over Watergate. Clinton and his wandering pants zipper. The entire "C Street" Christians need to takeover government crew.

I cannot vote for a politician, however, who says, laughing, in public, "We can do that!" to a suggestion that his opponent get a curling iron shoved up her azz.

It's one thing to find out after you elect them that your politicians are ugly on a moral level. It's another to have them be proud of it and flaunt it as a reason for you to vote for them. I find it quite scary when voters deliberately choose that.

OMG you could make a rape sound romantic. BTW I'd rather vote for a guy shoving a curling iron up a socialist azz than one who makes fun of pickup trucks or thinks Schilling is a Yankees fan and obviously so did the people of Mass, so be scared. This was largely a vote against everything Obama but I hope like you he thinks this was a 'local thing' and becomes even more forceful wasting even more money. Maybe really roll the dice and admit he is planning on giving amnesty to illegals thus including them in the health care plan.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Im pretty confident they would do a better job than the inexperienced O'Dumbass is doing. To go from being a 1st term Senator to President is a huge step.

What do you think McCain would have done? "Cut taxes"? Well, Obama cut your payroll taxes already last spring. "Cut taxes more to create jobs"? See what happened to unemployment numbers when Reagan cut taxes to create jobs during his recession - those numberes skyrocketed (the concepts in "Reaganomics" was a pretty big failure in retrospect)

The GOP is currently gearing up to fight hard for tax cuts - the taxes that are going to be imposed on bank bonus money, as payback for TARP funding, as per the law that was passed when the banks got the money.

The GOP, fighting for free market capitalism.

What specifically do you think should have been done differently, had the GOP been in charge this past year, starting with the Bush bailouts and initial stimulus?

[Riot]

See ? With the progressives, it's not about being anti-Republican.
It's about making the stupid citizens go along with their agenda.
"Because we progressives know what's best for you. "

I find the above disparate, because to me, it's most obviously the far (far extreme) right that is trying desperately to impose their opinion of "how the world should be" on everyone else, especially their religion and morals. Vocally, nastily, and with overt violence, lies and deep hypocrisy.

[Riot]

If health care reform passes and makes it a right for Americans,
the case will be made that your rights are "granted to you by your government".

Originally Posted by joeydb

...and provided for you by your fellow citizens, who therefore have less rights than the recipients...so much for the "universal" health care coverage.

Huh? Everyone in America already has, and has had, "the right" to health care. There is no "granting of a new Constitutional right" in healthcare reform.

The "fellow citizens" in America already pay for everyone's healthcare via Medicad, the hard costs you are charged if you visit an ER and you are uninsured, and your insurance premiums if you are insured.

What healthcare reform is about is cost containment and improvement of the level of care all citizens receive.

Edit: and yeah, our rights are indeed "granted by our Government", within our Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. And our government - usually - defends our intrinsic rights as citizens within this country.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

What healthcare reform is about is cost containment and improvement of the level of care all citizens receive.
.

That's why the plan calls for taxing 'Cadilac policies'?
Give me a break, healthcare reform has nothing to do with either cost containment or improvement and everything to do with control as in who gets what care and what they will pay for it. Ten years from now I expect people to be asking 'blackmarket bypass' or 'regular'?

[Riot]

That's why the plan calls for taxing 'Cadilac policies'?

Those are policies that not alot of people have, Dell. The ultra-expensive, super high-end, low deductable policies. And the "cadillac" part deals not with "improved care" (more care, better care) rather just giving the same care as other policies for a lower deductable type of thing, improve coverage for age, etc.

I'm not in favor of that, btw. But the other major way to pay, public option, was eliminated in the Senate bill.

Give me a break, healtcare reform has nothing to do with either cost containment or improvement and everything to do with control as in who gets what care and what they will pay for it. Ten years from now I expect people to be asking 'blackmarket bypass' or 'regular'?

Yeah, "who gets what" care is important - all people should get treated for their diabetes on a regular basis, rather than just getting treatment in the ER when they need an amputation or they go ketoacidotic.

And yes, "what they will pay for it" - cost containment is a huge deal. The problem is the Senate bill was stripped down to fairly useless crap. The House bill is better.

Your last sentence about bypasses makes no sense at all, c'mon. There is healthcare rationing now in this country, that's for sure. The point is to eliminate it. Not start it up.

As an aside, there have been a couple reports from Haiti, people waking up post-surgery having had limbs amputated - and getting immediately upset asking "but how will I pay for it, I have no money"? They didn't seek care, they didn't expect to get medical care, as they didn't have money and that's the way it works there. There is little "free ER' in Haiti for the poor.

But we Americans, and French, and British, Canadians, etc - we don't let people die just because they don't have money. Well, most of us feel that way.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Your last sentence about bypasses makes no sense at all, c'mon. There is healthcare rationing now in this country, that's for sure. The point is to eliminate it. Not start it up.
.

so make a healthy person subsidize the insurance of a un-healthy or non-productive citizen so both can get into the same line for care? yea that sounds fair and a solution to eliminate it. BTW since you seem to be so familiar w/the bill what happens to the illegal who shows up at the ER since he's not included in the bill?

[Riot]

so make a healthy person subsidize the insurance of a un-healthy or non-productive citizen so both can get into the same line for care?

Dell, we do that now - if you don't have insurance, and go to the doctor or ER, you pay premium high price, your price is higher than those with insurance, and that covers the shortfall from everyone else. The prices set by the ER and docs are set to cover those patients without insurance reimbursement. The costs of everyone paying for the non-covered are now built into the system.

I would rather the low-income person buy inexpensive coverage themselves, and pay for it themselves, and get them off Medicaid, rather than have me subsidize them via Medicaid taxes and increased costs for me because they don't have insurance.

yea that sounds fair and a solution to eliminate it. BTW since you seem to be so familiar w/the bill what happens to the illegal who shows up at the ER since he's not included in the bill?

The exact same thing that happens now. He gets emergency only minimal overage and we pay for it. There is no provision for someone - including you or I - to have to show proof of American citizenship prior to receiving emergency medical treatment. We don't have to do that now, and we won't in the future.

The bills say specifically that illegal immigrants will NOT be able to buy into the government insurance pools (if any pools remains in the final bill, which I doubt). I don't know how they would check that, probably the very same way insurance companies now check for illegal aliens when those illegal aliens try and buy private insurance policies.

[Crown@club]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

yea but the guy who jogs by the nearby McDonalds every morning and sees the customers super-sizing and the workers on smoke break walks in is......

Bill Clinton!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Dell, we do that now - if you don't have insurance, and go to the doctor or ER, you pay premium high price, your price is higher than those with insurance, and that covers the shortfall from everyone else. The prices set by the ER and docs are set to cover those patients without insurance reimbursement. The costs of everyone paying for the non-covered are now built into the system.

I would rather the low-income person buy inexpensive coverage themselves, and pay for it themselves, and get them off Medicaid, rather than have me subsidize them via Medicaid taxes and increased costs for me because they don't have insurance.



The exact same thing that happens now. He gets emergency only minimal overage and we pay for it. There is no provision for someone - including you or I - to have to show proof of American citizenship prior to receiving emergency medical treatment. We don't have to do that now, and we won't in the future.

The bills say specifically that illegal immigrants will NOT be able to buy into the government insurance pools (if any pools remains in the final bill, which I doubt). I don't know how they would check that, probably the very same way insurance companies now check for illegal aliens when those illegal aliens try and buy private insurance policies.

so we're going to force legals to pay for insurance but illegals remain the same (you know go they go to the emergency room and we pay for it). That's worse than the health conscious paying for the 'don't give a crap' crowd.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Riot

Dell, we do that now - if you don't have insurance, and go to the doctor or ER, you pay premium high price, your price is higher than those with insurance, and that covers the shortfall from everyone else. The prices set by the ER and docs are set to cover those patients without insurance reimbursement. The costs of everyone paying for the non-covered are now built into the system.

I would rather the low-income person buy inexpensive coverage themselves, and pay for it themselves, and get them off Medicaid, rather than have me subsidize them via Medicaid taxes and increased costs for me because they don't have insurance.



The exact same thing that happens now. He gets emergency only minimal overage and we pay for it. There is no provision for someone - including you or I - to have to show proof of American citizenship prior to receiving emergency medical treatment. We don't have to do that now, and we won't in the future.

The bills say specifically that illegal immigrants will NOT be able to buy into the government insurance pools (if any pools remains in the final bill, which I doubt). I don't know how they would check that, probably the very same way insurance companies now check for illegal aliens when those illegal aliens try and buy private insurance policies.

We shouldn't pay for it. Problem solved. No care.