Where was you at yesterday R13? I thought something had happened to ya since you wasnt on here...
Printable View
Where was you at yesterday R13? I thought something had happened to ya since you wasnt on here...
Naw man, was busy and laid low. I always thought that if I left, it'd be a consensus of "good riddance". I appreciate it though.
ABC News’ Rick Klein reports:
A Republican senator is calling for the White House to suspend a new project that asks members of the public to flag “fishy” claims about President Obama’s health care plans, arguing that it raises privacy concerns and will serve to chill free speech.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, is sending a letter to the White House today asking the president to “cease this program immediately” -- or to explain how Americans’ privacy will be protected if e-mails are forwarded to the White House as requested.
“I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed ‘fishy’ or otherwise inimical to the White House’s political interests,” Cornyn writes
“I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House. I suspect that you would have been leading the charge in condemning such a program -- and I would have been at your side denouncing such heavy-handed government action.”
Yesterday, White House director of new media Macon Phillips wrote a blog posting urging readers to flag questionable claims about health care proposals.
“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [email protected].”
Cornyn specifically asks whether those who quote the president’s past statements -- such as his 2003 statement that he was a “proponent” of single-payer care -- qualifies as “disinformation.” He also asks what actions the White House would take against those engaging in “fishy” speech.
^ This wouldn't be a problem if it was funded by the DNC or a private group, but the government has absolutely no business doing this.
Agreed on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotch
IF the WH is going to do anything like this, they should have said from the get-go that they want to know the complaints/claims out there so they can respond to each e-mail one-by-one so as to repudiate some of the out-there falsehoods some people are claiming (it's gonna kill your grandmother, govt run healthcare doesn't work--it's socialism, etc).
I agree that the WH should either come out and say something similar to that, and also ensure the privacy of those who do any type of reporting. If they can't do that, then discontinue the thing altogether.
Is this the same ones sending the letters to disrupt(purposely try to throw the speaker of track) at the healthcare rallies and town-hall meetings? With the total lies the opponents have thrown out, this isn't a bad idea. The claims get more ridiculous by the day. It's fine if someone disagrees, but to purposely lie is sickening. Wouldn't be half as bad if they had a plan or just wasn't opposing for the sake of opposing.
_______________________________________
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Seventh Republican to support Sotomayor - Blogs from CNN.com
i hope the guy didnt mean it as literal as it sounds.
i do think the public should be well informed and know exactly what is true and what isnt, but it isnt okay to ask people to forward that stuff to the WH email.
i think they should put out a full complete list of everything, put it in all the newspapers and broadcast it all over TV, but not ask citizens to send in false papers.
that would be the best way to let people know the truth and dispell the lies and rumors.
and it wasnt obama that asked people to do that, it was a press person.
but i would like to see a comprehensive essay listing all the important information about the health care plan.
Get the facts about the stability and security you get from health insurance reform | Health Insurance Reform Reality Check
From what I read, that's exactly what that is. ^^
That one isn't the "flag" site, but it takes those insane rumors about the plan and debunks them.
What do you think of John Flemings idea for Congress if the healthcare plan is passed?
I haven't heard it, what'd he say?
He is a former doctor who is pushing for fellow Congressmen and women who vote for Health Care Reform to abandon their current health care plan and take part in the new system to show how strongly they believe in it basically.
I'm not for that at all, switch just to prove a point? A little too far. I mean if you're happy with it, I don't know why they would switch over for no reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
Why not stand behind a product you create though?
If it were something that was required for everyone, but you're being the exemption, I could see that. You never hear Obama encourage people to switch just for the sake of it, it's an option that if you don't like, don't take it, but if you do then go for it.
But, shouldn't this be something that saves the taxpayers money as compared to their current plan, so being fiscally responsible, wouldn't it be the proper thing to do for your taxpayers to save their money and be a part of something you formed?
im with stripes.
if the new program is going to save money and it was designed by these congressmen, they should man up and join the new plans.
but they wont, because the rich are never supposed to feel like us common folk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R13
The only problem there is that the way it is written it is required. They have it worded just the way the mesiah wants it to be that no you don't have to sign up for it, that is until your current plan has any kind of change. Tell me an insurance policy ever that wasn't reviewed yearly and a rate change made either increase or decrease depending on the number of claims you have or new advancements in medicine. As soon as any change happens in your current plan if you use the "option" to keep you have to drop that plan and sign up on the government plan, how is that an option??
With Stripes, if the pogram they make and implement on the rest of us is so great then why wouldn't they discontinue their current program and use this one?????
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBeast
Question 1)
When the change in your current insurence occures (and I agree it will with in the 1st year) CAN you as an inviual opt for the "New" same coverage? (I was under the impression that you could but the problem would be the extra paperwork the employerr would incure that would push them toward makeing the Gov plan "There coverage Plan"
Not picking a fight with anyone just wanting to make sure that I understand the issue
Question 2) how (if at all) will dental and vision be covered? (For me they have been sort of add on coverages) would the Gov plan have these add on coverages and if not would employers that switch to the Gov plan be required to still offer that coverage to there employees?
That makes zero sense to me. There's no forcing anything if you have private, I haven't seen any proof of that...haven't even seen the claim for that from the opposition. I've heard some say that employers that offer insurance might switch to it because of the exchange that's being set up, but haven't seen anything with private.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBeast
Quote:
Originally Posted by R13
Bingo!!!!!
It is the Employers that could be preasured to switch..........That being said employers could pick up a differant provider between years now so take that for what it is worth.
I am still wondering about Vision
Will there be some small businesses that choose the option in the Exchange? Yes, but the option is left to the employer completely and they aren't forced to do anything by the plan...the only thing "forcing" them to change it, is the outrageous costs..not the gov.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R13
What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:
??(a) TAX IMPOSED.?In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of?
(1) the taxpayer?s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .?
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:
1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.
2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.
3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.
Sounds like "forcing" coverage to me.
That was a cherry-picked line from it, I looked at it and read pages before. I'm thinking it has to do with the part of the bill that calls for a tax on individuals with adjusted gross income over $350,000.
So whats the feeling about this:
White House appears ready to drop 'public option' - Yahoo! News
Good- that keeps them from raising the prices on larger companies that pay the bills when the small guy files bankruptcy to get out of paying, comes along. We are already paying for ALL the small bizs- they jack the price up every year. The folks that don't have ins fall into this also. The "chicken little business" sky is falling is getting old. Time to carry their share.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBeast
I think it's bull**** if it is dropped, I like the public option. The co-ops would be okay, but not what I'd like to see. I'd be pretty ****ed, partisanship screwing us over IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
So, do you real blame one, or the other, or both?
I blame the Republicans for this campaign against it that's made it this huge isse., with no real plan of their own. And if the Dems give in it, I blame them for abandoning the plan. If it comes down to a useless effort, play politics, maybe what Carville suggested.
So basically the Pubs done a better job of filibustering than the Dems did backing/supporting their product? What was Carvilles comment?
What product? I haven't heard anything on their bill or their bill being better or if they have a bill...just the ones the dems are proposing is bad, that's it. This is it, think I found it....
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Carville: Dems should force GOP to filibuster health care reform - Blogs from CNN.com
That is if the bill with the option can't go through, use it against them in, since it's come down to political gain.
Dude that wasn't real hard to follow. Stripes was reffering to the dems not backing their own product.
I butchered the hell out of it, thought he said they also supported their product better. Dem's don't have the numbers in the Senate.
The first step is admiting there's a problem. :DQuote:
I butchered the hell out of it,
Blue Virginia: Mark Warner WILL NOT Vote Against Public Option
Looks like Warner will be backing the Healthcare Bill.
Figured it'd be a good idea to move this thread and the town-hall thread to the politics forum, figured they'll continue and no one wants them here. lol
WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Senate Finance Committee will vote on its long-awaited health care bill next Tuesday, Majority Leader Harry Reid announced on the Senate floor Thursday.
On Wednesday, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the amended version of the legislation would cost $829 billion over the next 10 years.
It would also reduce the deficit by over $80 billion, the office concluded.
The Finance Committee is the last of five congressional panels to consider health care legislation before debate begins in the full House and Senate. Committee members were waiting for the budget office's cost analysis before voting on their version of the bill.
The measure was initially drafted by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana, after months of negotiations with five other panel members — three Republicans and two Democrats. It represents the only proposal so far with the potential to attract any Republican support.
After the Finance Committee votes on its measure, the Democratic leadership in each chamber will meld together single, separate proposals for floor debate in coming weeks.
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Key health care vote set for next Tuesday - Blogs from CNN.com
___________________________________
WASHINGTON - Assaulting people because of their sexual orientation would become a U.S. hate crime in legislation the House is set to vote on Thursday.
The bill would significantly expand the hate crimes law enacted in the days after the assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968.
With the expected House passage and eventual approval by the Senate, federal prosecutors will for the first time be able to intervene in cases of violence perpetrated against gays based on their sexual orientation.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
Civil rights groups and their Democratic allies have been trying for decades to broaden the reach of hate crimes law. This time it appears they will succeed. The measure is attached to a must-pass $680 billion defense policy bill and President Barack Obama — unlike President George W. Bush — is a strong supporter.
"It's a very exciting day for us here in the Capitol," said the leader of the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, saying hate crimes legislation was on her agenda when she first entered Congress 22 years ago.
She said it has been 11 years since the gay college student Matthew Shepard, whose name is attached to the legislation, was murdered.
Many Republicans, normally stalwart supporters of defense bills, declared they would vote against it because of the addition of what they referred to as "thought crimes" legislation.
"The very idea that we would erode the freedoms for which our soldiers wear the uniform in a bill that is designed to provide resources those soldiers need to get the job done and come home safe is unconscionable," said Rep. Mike Pence, a member of the Republican leadership.
Video
Texas judge OK's gay divorce
Oct. 2: A Dallas, Texas, judge has OK'd the divorce of a gay couple, potentially opening the door for recognition of same-sex marriages in the state. KXAS's Ellen Goldberg reports.
NBC News Channel
Republican opponents were not assuaged by late changes in the bill to strengthen protections for religious speech and association — critics argued that pastors expressing beliefs about homosexuality could be prosecuted if their sermons were connected to later acts of violence against gays.
Supporters countered that prosecutions could occur only when bodily injury is involved, and no minister or protestor could be targeted for expressing opposition to homosexuality.
The bill also creates a new federal crime to penalize attacks against U.S. service members on account of their service.
Hate crimes legislation enacted after King's assassination defined hate crimes as those carried out on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. It also limits the scope of activities that would trigger federal involvement.
The proposed expansion would include crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It eases restrictions on federally protected activities.
The FBI says there are some 8,000 hate crimes reported around the country in a year. More than half of those are motivated by racial bias. Next most frequent are crimes based on religious bias at around 18 percent and sexual orientation at 16 percent.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33228688...-capitol_hill/