Sign In
Register
Help
Start a new topic
Add Reply
What if the Federal Government goes broke from this? Why don't they setup a market exchange and regulate it?
Universal Health Care for America Public Option, Co-Op, Single Payer, or Tort Reform?
MultiQuote#302 Mountain Honey
Posted 03 November 2009 - 07:02 AM
You all are right. The government is failing to cut the cost of health care inflation. They rather put in a new system that will cost billions than enacting tort reform and removing the antitrust system.
No one would stop removing antitrust protection. No one would stop helping those with pre-existing conditions. No one would stop putting limits to lawsuits.
But, Democrats want more.
No one would stop removing antitrust protection. No one would stop helping those with pre-existing conditions. No one would stop putting limits to lawsuits.
But, Democrats want more.
#303 Stephanie Valle
Posted 03 November 2009 - 08:19 AM
Congressman Phil Gingrey and his staff delivered copies of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 1,990 page health care reform bill that she introduced last week. Their latest plan is a government takeover of health care that will raise taxes, increase our national debt, and put government bureaucrats between patients and their doctors. You can also view the bill online at:
http://docs.house.go.../111_ahcaa.pdf.
Congressman Gingrey released the following statement about delivering the bill:
"I have spent the last 10 months trying to share my perspective, as a physician with over 30 years of experience, with my Democratic counterparts. My constituents and millions of Americans across the country have also spent the last 10 months trying to make their voices heard by the President and the Democratic Majority. This bill proves that the Democrats just don't care what practicing physicians — and the American public — think.
"I want my constituents to have the opportunity to read this legislation and decide for themselves. In the bill text, they will find the word 'tax' 214 times and orders 42 separate studies, in addition to Medicare cuts, public funding for abortion, and a $1 trillion cost."
Copies of the bill were delivered to the Cobb County Public Library (266 Roswell Street, Marietta, GA), Rome Floyd County Library (205 Riverside Parkway, Rome, GA), and Bartow County Library (429 West Main Street, Cartersville, GA).
http://docs.house.go.../111_ahcaa.pdf.
Congressman Gingrey released the following statement about delivering the bill:
"I have spent the last 10 months trying to share my perspective, as a physician with over 30 years of experience, with my Democratic counterparts. My constituents and millions of Americans across the country have also spent the last 10 months trying to make their voices heard by the President and the Democratic Majority. This bill proves that the Democrats just don't care what practicing physicians — and the American public — think.
"I want my constituents to have the opportunity to read this legislation and decide for themselves. In the bill text, they will find the word 'tax' 214 times and orders 42 separate studies, in addition to Medicare cuts, public funding for abortion, and a $1 trillion cost."
Copies of the bill were delivered to the Cobb County Public Library (266 Roswell Street, Marietta, GA), Rome Floyd County Library (205 Riverside Parkway, Rome, GA), and Bartow County Library (429 West Main Street, Cartersville, GA).
#304 Soldier of God
Posted 03 November 2009 - 10:12 AM
H.R. 3692 will allow taxpayer dollars to be used for administering abortions.
Page 110
(
ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED. — The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
Page 148
SEC. 259. NONDISCRIMINATION ON ABORTION AND RESPECT FOR RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.
Page 182
18 (d) NO DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF PROVISION OF ABORTION. — No Exchange participating health
benefits plan may discriminate against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
Page 110
(
ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED. — The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.Page 148
SEC. 259. NONDISCRIMINATION ON ABORTION AND RESPECT FOR RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.
Page 182
18 (d) NO DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF PROVISION OF ABORTION. — No Exchange participating health
benefits plan may discriminate against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
#305 Michelle Begnoche
Posted 03 November 2009 - 10:17 AM
U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) released the following statement regarding H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, which was made public.
"I am still in the process of reading H.R. 3962, but I am pleased to see the bill includes a negotiated rate for Medicare reimbursement and shifts how reimbursements are determined to focus on the quality of care rather than utilization. Both of these provisions will benefit rural health care providers in the First District and across the nation. Also, by repealing anti-trust exemptions for the health insurance industry we will finally bring real competition to the industry, helping to lower costs for consumers. However, language in the bill still does not do enough to prevent federal funding from going to abortion services. I am disappointed the Capps Amendment has remained intact in H.R. 3962, mandating abortion services for the first time in our nation’s history. I will continue to work with leadership to find satisfactory language on this issue. Questions remain on several other sections of the bill, including the catastrophic coverage proposal, but I am pleased with the progress I have seen in H.R. 3962 so far. As I read the bill more in-depth over the next few days I will continue to make the needs of Northern Michigan my first priority."
H.R. 3962 will be available 72 hours for review before further action is taken on the bill. Text of H.R. 3962 is available at http://docs.house.go...h/111_ahcaa.pdf or www.thomas.gov.
"I am still in the process of reading H.R. 3962, but I am pleased to see the bill includes a negotiated rate for Medicare reimbursement and shifts how reimbursements are determined to focus on the quality of care rather than utilization. Both of these provisions will benefit rural health care providers in the First District and across the nation. Also, by repealing anti-trust exemptions for the health insurance industry we will finally bring real competition to the industry, helping to lower costs for consumers. However, language in the bill still does not do enough to prevent federal funding from going to abortion services. I am disappointed the Capps Amendment has remained intact in H.R. 3962, mandating abortion services for the first time in our nation’s history. I will continue to work with leadership to find satisfactory language on this issue. Questions remain on several other sections of the bill, including the catastrophic coverage proposal, but I am pleased with the progress I have seen in H.R. 3962 so far. As I read the bill more in-depth over the next few days I will continue to make the needs of Northern Michigan my first priority."
H.R. 3962 will be available 72 hours for review before further action is taken on the bill. Text of H.R. 3962 is available at http://docs.house.go...h/111_ahcaa.pdf or www.thomas.gov.
#306 Right to Life
Posted 03 November 2009 - 07:25 PM
H.R. 3962 would create a national federal agency health program, the "public option," and would explicitly authorize that federal agency program to pay for elective abortions. This federal agency program will pay for abortions with federal funds (which are the only kind of funds that federal agencies can spend).
Mr. Stupak and Mr. Pitts have proposed an amendment that would apply the long-established principles of the "Hyde Amendment" to the federal "public option" program, but Democratic leaders have made it clear that their Rule will not allow a floor vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. As long as language in H.R. 3962 authorizes the public option to pay for elective abortions, a vote in favor of a Rule that protects that language will be regarded by NRLC as the most important House roll call on direct government funding of abortion on demand since the House last voted directly on the Hyde Amendment in 1997.
In short, the record of each House member on whether a federal agency program should directly fund elective abortion (abortion on demand) will be defined by this roll call, possibly for many years to come.
Please take note: We anticipate that a "manager's amendment" will soon be unveiled that will make additional changes in the abortion language of the bill, but those changes will be cosmetic -- because Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Waxman, among others, clearly are committed to attempt to establish a federal "public option" that will fund elective abortions. Yet, as the Associated Press reported on October 23, Mr. Stupak's "stand-alone amendment during floor debate to include the Hyde amendment restrictions in the health overhaul bill . . . would be almost certain to prevail . . ." if a vote on the Stupak amendment were permitted. It is possible to prevent the new federal agency program from funding elective abortions -- but only if the Rule is first rejected.
To elaborate: Language on page 110 of H.R. 3962 (lines 1-7) explicitly says that "nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for . . . coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A)." The "services described in paragraph (4)(A)" are elective abortions (i.e., all abortions, abortions without any limitations whatever). The language makes it explicitly clear that this authority extends to the entire universe of elective abortions that would NOT be eligible for funding under the federal Medicaid program, because the Hyde Amendment currently strictly limits coverage of abortion under the Medicaid program. The Hyde Amendment will not apply to the "public option," as the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has confirmed -- which is why the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is necessary.
You may have read in news stories or elsewhere that H.R. 3962 contains language that would "segregate" federal funds away from the payments for abortions. Those references are inapplicable or nonsensical with respect to the "public option." These news stories are talking about an entirely different program, the "affordability credits" program. In past communications, we have discussed our objections to the "affordability credits" language, which currently allows this federal subsidy to help purchase private health plans that cover elective abortion, and those objections remain. But the problem with the "public option," which is the subject of this letter, is separate and distinct, and it would be equally acute even if the "affordability credit" program was not part of the bill. It is utterly impossible to "segregate" federal funds away from abortion within the "public option," because the "public option" will be a federal agency program that can spend only federal funds. Any claim that this federal program could expend "private" funds for abortions is absurd on its face -- a deception.
As NRLC documented in a memorandum published September 7, all of the funds spent by the "public option" will be federal funds. An October 9 memorandum from the Congressional Research Service reaches parallel conclusions.
In particular, the so-called "premiums" that will be paid to the government by citizens who enroll in this government program become federal funds when the government assumes control of them. Under H.R. 3962, abortionists will perform abortions and will be paid with funds drawn on a U.S. Treasury account (created on page 215 of the bill). This will be direct federal government funding of abortion, a complete break from the policy that has long governed Medicaid and other federal government health programs.
(Of course it is entirely irrelevant whether the Department of Health and Human Services hires contractors to administer various aspects of the program. We mention this only because Congresswoman Capps suggested, in a recent "Dear Colleague" letter, that because the program may utilize contractors, the government would not really be paying for abortions. This makes about as much sense as arguing that the government will not be paying for abortions if the payments are transmitted across the Internet. Medicare also uses contractors -- but no one doubts that medical services are being paid for with federal funds.)
Others may have directed your attention to page 246 of H.R. 3962, which contains a paragraph caption that reads, "Prohibition of Use of Public Funds for Abortion Coverage." Do not be fooled. A paragraph caption has no legal effect whatever. The operative bill language that immediately follows the paragraph caption states simply, "An affordability credit may not be used for payment for services described in section 222(d)(4)(A)" [i.e., elective abortions]. But an "affordability credit" is only one type of federal funding. The language on page 246 does not restrict the use of all other types of federal funds to pay directly for elective abortions -- and the use of other types of federal funds is explicitly authorized by the "nothing in this Act shall be construed" clause on page 110.
To summarize: H.R. 3962 contains explicit language saying that "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing" the "public option" from paying for all elective abortions. The public option will be a federal agency program, and when it pays for abortions, it will use federal funds, which are the only kind of funds that a federal agency can spend. As NRLC's congressional scorecard will clearly explain, a vote for a Rule that protects abortion coverage in the public option will be a position-defining vote in favor of establishing a federal government program to directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds.
Mr. Stupak and Mr. Pitts have proposed an amendment that would apply the long-established principles of the "Hyde Amendment" to the federal "public option" program, but Democratic leaders have made it clear that their Rule will not allow a floor vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. As long as language in H.R. 3962 authorizes the public option to pay for elective abortions, a vote in favor of a Rule that protects that language will be regarded by NRLC as the most important House roll call on direct government funding of abortion on demand since the House last voted directly on the Hyde Amendment in 1997.
In short, the record of each House member on whether a federal agency program should directly fund elective abortion (abortion on demand) will be defined by this roll call, possibly for many years to come.
Please take note: We anticipate that a "manager's amendment" will soon be unveiled that will make additional changes in the abortion language of the bill, but those changes will be cosmetic -- because Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Waxman, among others, clearly are committed to attempt to establish a federal "public option" that will fund elective abortions. Yet, as the Associated Press reported on October 23, Mr. Stupak's "stand-alone amendment during floor debate to include the Hyde amendment restrictions in the health overhaul bill . . . would be almost certain to prevail . . ." if a vote on the Stupak amendment were permitted. It is possible to prevent the new federal agency program from funding elective abortions -- but only if the Rule is first rejected.
To elaborate: Language on page 110 of H.R. 3962 (lines 1-7) explicitly says that "nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for . . . coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A)." The "services described in paragraph (4)(A)" are elective abortions (i.e., all abortions, abortions without any limitations whatever). The language makes it explicitly clear that this authority extends to the entire universe of elective abortions that would NOT be eligible for funding under the federal Medicaid program, because the Hyde Amendment currently strictly limits coverage of abortion under the Medicaid program. The Hyde Amendment will not apply to the "public option," as the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has confirmed -- which is why the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is necessary.
You may have read in news stories or elsewhere that H.R. 3962 contains language that would "segregate" federal funds away from the payments for abortions. Those references are inapplicable or nonsensical with respect to the "public option." These news stories are talking about an entirely different program, the "affordability credits" program. In past communications, we have discussed our objections to the "affordability credits" language, which currently allows this federal subsidy to help purchase private health plans that cover elective abortion, and those objections remain. But the problem with the "public option," which is the subject of this letter, is separate and distinct, and it would be equally acute even if the "affordability credit" program was not part of the bill. It is utterly impossible to "segregate" federal funds away from abortion within the "public option," because the "public option" will be a federal agency program that can spend only federal funds. Any claim that this federal program could expend "private" funds for abortions is absurd on its face -- a deception.
As NRLC documented in a memorandum published September 7, all of the funds spent by the "public option" will be federal funds. An October 9 memorandum from the Congressional Research Service reaches parallel conclusions.
In particular, the so-called "premiums" that will be paid to the government by citizens who enroll in this government program become federal funds when the government assumes control of them. Under H.R. 3962, abortionists will perform abortions and will be paid with funds drawn on a U.S. Treasury account (created on page 215 of the bill). This will be direct federal government funding of abortion, a complete break from the policy that has long governed Medicaid and other federal government health programs.
(Of course it is entirely irrelevant whether the Department of Health and Human Services hires contractors to administer various aspects of the program. We mention this only because Congresswoman Capps suggested, in a recent "Dear Colleague" letter, that because the program may utilize contractors, the government would not really be paying for abortions. This makes about as much sense as arguing that the government will not be paying for abortions if the payments are transmitted across the Internet. Medicare also uses contractors -- but no one doubts that medical services are being paid for with federal funds.)
Others may have directed your attention to page 246 of H.R. 3962, which contains a paragraph caption that reads, "Prohibition of Use of Public Funds for Abortion Coverage." Do not be fooled. A paragraph caption has no legal effect whatever. The operative bill language that immediately follows the paragraph caption states simply, "An affordability credit may not be used for payment for services described in section 222(d)(4)(A)" [i.e., elective abortions]. But an "affordability credit" is only one type of federal funding. The language on page 246 does not restrict the use of all other types of federal funds to pay directly for elective abortions -- and the use of other types of federal funds is explicitly authorized by the "nothing in this Act shall be construed" clause on page 110.
To summarize: H.R. 3962 contains explicit language saying that "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing" the "public option" from paying for all elective abortions. The public option will be a federal agency program, and when it pays for abortions, it will use federal funds, which are the only kind of funds that a federal agency can spend. As NRLC's congressional scorecard will clearly explain, a vote for a Rule that protects abortion coverage in the public option will be a position-defining vote in favor of establishing a federal government program to directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds.
#308 Human
Posted 04 November 2009 - 09:06 PM
Hey!!! Soldier of God; The people who are always advocating abortions; Should BE VERY HAPPY THAT THEIR PARENTS DID NOT PRACTICE WHAT THEY "Their kids" PREACHED.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soldier of God, on 03 November 2009 - 06:12 AM, said:
H.R. 3692 will allow taxpayer dollars to be used for administering abortions.
Page 110
( ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED. — The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
Page 148
SEC. 259. NONDISCRIMINATION ON ABORTION AND RESPECT FOR RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.
Page 182
18 (d) NO DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF PROVISION OF ABORTION. — No Exchange participating health
benefits plan may discriminate against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
Page 110
(
ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED. — The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.Page 148
SEC. 259. NONDISCRIMINATION ON ABORTION AND RESPECT FOR RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.
Page 182
18 (d) NO DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF PROVISION OF ABORTION. — No Exchange participating health
benefits plan may discriminate against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
#309 Cory Fritz
Posted 05 November 2009 - 09:43 AM
Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) today delivered remarks on the House floor outlining how Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) 1,990-page costly government takeover of health care – with a price tag of $1.3 trillion and counting – will increase premiums, raise taxes, and cut Medicare benefits for seniors. Boehner also highlighted the better solutions House Republicans are offering to make health care more accessible and affordable at a price our nation can afford. Following are video and the full text of Boehner’s remarks:
Quote
Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, the American people have said that the number one thing they’re concerned about with regard to health care is the cost of health care. And the Speaker’s 1,990-page government takeover of health care, raises the cost of insurance for America’s families and it will add to our already exploding debt. The cost of the Speaker’s bill is now at $1.3 trillion and counting. It’s a debt that’s going to be paid for by our kids and our grandkids. And to make matters worse, it will increase taxes, impose job-killing mandates and cut seniors’ Medicare benefits. There’s a better way.
Republicans have outlined a plan to lower costs and expand access at a price our nation can afford. This includes letting families buy health insurance across state lines, allowing small businesses to pool together and offer health insurance to their employees at much lower costs, just like big businesses and unions can today, giving states the tools to create innovative reforms that lower costs and ending junk lawsuits that contribute to high health care costs. Given all that’s at stake, the American people deserve to see the Republicans’ smart, fiscally responsible plans debated here on the House floor side-by-side with the Speaker’s 1,990-page bill. And I hope we will see that debate and a vote as soon as possible.
Republicans have outlined a plan to lower costs and expand access at a price our nation can afford. This includes letting families buy health insurance across state lines, allowing small businesses to pool together and offer health insurance to their employees at much lower costs, just like big businesses and unions can today, giving states the tools to create innovative reforms that lower costs and ending junk lawsuits that contribute to high health care costs. Given all that’s at stake, the American people deserve to see the Republicans’ smart, fiscally responsible plans debated here on the House floor side-by-side with the Speaker’s 1,990-page bill. And I hope we will see that debate and a vote as soon as possible.
#310 GOP
Posted 05 November 2009 - 09:49 AM
The link below takes you to the GOP version of the Health Care Bill
http://rules-republi...ative3962_9.pdf
Section-by-Section Summary of House GOP Health Care Bill (PDF - Courtesy House Ways & Means Committee Republicans)
http://republicans.w...ability_Act.pdf
http://rules-republi...ative3962_9.pdf
Section-by-Section Summary of House GOP Health Care Bill (PDF - Courtesy House Ways & Means Committee Republicans)
http://republicans.w...ability_Act.pdf
#311
Luke_Wilbur 
- Administrator
-
- Group: Illuminati
- Posts: 2,474
- Joined: 02-August 03
- Gender:Male
- Location:Washington, DC
- Interests:My family, DCpages, Photography, and my farm.
Posted 05 November 2009 - 05:11 PM
I think Congress might learn something by watching this video.
One of many...
Luke Wilbur
Photo Journalist
Washington DC City Pages
This District's First Online Community
Established in 1994
Free and Open to All
Luke Wilbur
Photo Journalist
Washington DC City Pages
This District's First Online Community
Established in 1994
Free and Open to All
#312
Luke_Wilbur
- Administrator
-
- Group: Illuminati
- Posts: 2,474
- Joined: 02-August 03
- Gender:Male
- Location:Washington, DC
- Interests:My family, DCpages, Photography, and my farm.
Posted 06 November 2009 - 10:10 PM
My friend Joe is developmentally disabled. Both of his parents recently died and he going to be put in a shelter. I realized he would not last long there so, Joe moved from Montgomery County to the District of Columbia to live with my family. Once he got his DC identification card he lost his Medicaid assistance. We thought he would just pick it back up. But, that does not appear to be the case.
The District has just denied Joe his disability money. They state that he is not developmentally disabled. Read the email I just received.
http://www.dcmessage...930&#entry34930
If our government has no compassion for the disabled now, then why would it change in the future?
I still remember how the Veteran soldiers were being treated in Walter Reed. Nothing changed until the media exposed it.
DC is a good representation of the future of health care. Think about it. The District is run by Congress. They live here and do nothing. Can you imagine the how this will work even 100 miles away. It is going to be a disaster.
I really love the idea, but experience proves to me that it can't be done without a complete overhaul of management.
I said my peace.
The District has just denied Joe his disability money. They state that he is not developmentally disabled. Read the email I just received.
http://www.dcmessage...930&#entry34930
If our government has no compassion for the disabled now, then why would it change in the future?
I still remember how the Veteran soldiers were being treated in Walter Reed. Nothing changed until the media exposed it.
DC is a good representation of the future of health care. Think about it. The District is run by Congress. They live here and do nothing. Can you imagine the how this will work even 100 miles away. It is going to be a disaster.
I really love the idea, but experience proves to me that it can't be done without a complete overhaul of management.
I said my peace.
One of many...
Luke Wilbur
Photo Journalist
Washington DC City Pages
This District's First Online Community
Established in 1994
Free and Open to All
Luke Wilbur
Photo Journalist
Washington DC City Pages
This District's First Online Community
Established in 1994
Free and Open to All
#313 Congressman Paul D. Tonko
Posted 10 November 2009 - 09:16 AM
Congressman Paul D. Tonko Floor Statement in support of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act November 7, 2009
November 7, 2009 11:54 PM
Thank you M. Speaker. I am here to speak in support of the Affordable Health Care for America Act, one of the most important pieces of legislation this body has considered since the passage of Medicare in 1965 and Social Security in 1935.
M. Speaker, every member of this body has been listening to her or his constituents, and they are saying that they are ready for health insurance reform; they need health insurance reform.
We listened when seniors said they wanted better care from their doctors and the donut hole eliminated. This bill does that.
We listened when young adults told us they were having trouble finding insurance and wanted to stay on their parents’ insurance until age twenty-seven. This bill does that.
We listened when the uninsured told us heartbreaking stories about going without needed health care and asked us to give them affordable, quality health insurance. This bill does that.
We listened when the insured told us they were paying too much for insurance and they needed more protections for their health insurance. This bill does that.
Our colleagues on the other side of the isle have not listened. They are offering a substitute bill that would not accomplish any of the things our constituents have asked for. Instead, they are offering a bill that does not end the discrimination based on preexisting conditions; does not reduce the number of uninsured Americans; does not offer assistance to those struggling to afford health insurance; does not repeal the anti-trust exemption for health insurers; and does not stop price gouging by insurance companies. Our bill does all these things and more.
M. Speaker, the Affordable Health Care for America Act not only brings quality health care within reach of tens of millions of Americans, it enhances the care that those with insurance and Medicare already receive. This bill is as much about the insured as it is about the uninsured. It is a monumental bill and I urge defeat of the Republican substitute and passage of H.R. 3962.
November 7, 2009 11:54 PM
Thank you M. Speaker. I am here to speak in support of the Affordable Health Care for America Act, one of the most important pieces of legislation this body has considered since the passage of Medicare in 1965 and Social Security in 1935.
M. Speaker, every member of this body has been listening to her or his constituents, and they are saying that they are ready for health insurance reform; they need health insurance reform.
We listened when seniors said they wanted better care from their doctors and the donut hole eliminated. This bill does that.
We listened when young adults told us they were having trouble finding insurance and wanted to stay on their parents’ insurance until age twenty-seven. This bill does that.
We listened when the uninsured told us heartbreaking stories about going without needed health care and asked us to give them affordable, quality health insurance. This bill does that.
We listened when the insured told us they were paying too much for insurance and they needed more protections for their health insurance. This bill does that.
Our colleagues on the other side of the isle have not listened. They are offering a substitute bill that would not accomplish any of the things our constituents have asked for. Instead, they are offering a bill that does not end the discrimination based on preexisting conditions; does not reduce the number of uninsured Americans; does not offer assistance to those struggling to afford health insurance; does not repeal the anti-trust exemption for health insurers; and does not stop price gouging by insurance companies. Our bill does all these things and more.
M. Speaker, the Affordable Health Care for America Act not only brings quality health care within reach of tens of millions of Americans, it enhances the care that those with insurance and Medicare already receive. This bill is as much about the insured as it is about the uninsured. It is a monumental bill and I urge defeat of the Republican substitute and passage of H.R. 3962.
#317 Republicans in 2012
Posted 10 November 2009 - 09:56 AM
The estimated premium of the pelosi plan for an individual earning 44k per year would be $5,000 per year! What a deal!! A family earning over $102,000 per year would pay $15,000 per year in premium!! But of course those who are much poorer would be eligible for a subsidy to help pay for the premium. If this is not a mssive re-distribution of wealth, I don't what is?
#318
BlingBling
- Friend
-
- Group: Council Member
- Posts: 184
- Joined: 19-September 06
Posted 10 November 2009 - 10:02 AM
The ONLY hope you folks in the Confederate Party have at this point is that you can somehow get one of the Politician's outside the Stupid South to buck their people and history.
#319 Samuel
Posted 15 November 2009 - 01:02 AM
No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion. If we seek to force, we but tear apart that which united is invincible. There is no way whereby our health care movement may assured sustained progress in determining its policies and its plans other than in sincere democratic deliberation until a unanimous decision is reached. This may seem a cumbrous slow method to the impatient. But, the impatient are more concerned for immediate triumph than for the education of constructive development.
DC Events Calendar
Recently Added Topics