Cleo's Mom

Health insurance mandates are a REPUBLICAN idea but of course as soon as it was proposed by a democratic, progressive president, then all the anti-Obama people were against it. Typical hypocrisy.

It's a long-established practice for medical providers such as hospitals and physicians to charge uninsured patients higher prices than patients with health coverage for the same care. (Insurers can negotiate cheaper prices through contracts and because of volume.) What the new study suggests, though, is that providers often pass along the cost of treating the uninsured to their insured patients. Its analysis found that families pay, on average, as much as $1,100 extra and individuals $410 extra in health-care premiums each year in order to cover the cost of treatment to uninsured patients who cannot afford to pay their bills. That amounts to as much as 8% higher premiums due to the lack of universal health care in the U.S. Read more: Do Your Premiums Help Cover the Uninsured? - TIME Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom Everyone who owns a car is "forced" to buy car insurance because to be without insurance would force the cost of an accident onto the rest of us. You may never have an accident in all your years of owning a car but you are still required to have insurance. Car insurance is to protect others. HI is to protect me only. Does my neighbor care if I can't pay my hospital bill because I didn't purchase health insurance? Or does anyone care that I have medical bills to pay? It effects noone but ME if I don't carry insurance. Not carrying car ins. effects the one you run into, therefore, it should be required by law. If you don't want to abide by the law of purchasing car ins., you don't have to own a car. You can walk or take the bus. You still don't get it, do you? If you don't have car insurance and you hit someone's car and you and the other person are hurt, each will require medical care and their car will have to be fixed/replaced and all this costs money - and the cost is passed on to the rest of us. Sometimes I think you don't live in the world the rest of us live in. But if you do want the privledge of owning a car, you are mandated to buy insurance. If you have a pulse, however, there is an almost 100% certainty that you will need healthcare at some point in your life. To be without healthcare would then shift your cost onto the rest of us. My daughter didn't have HC for a while there and when she went to the ER for stitches, the bill was sent to her, not you. Once, many years ago, when my husband was out of work and we had no HI, the hospital put a lean on OUR home till we paid it, not YOURS or anyone elses. The fact is, that we pay high premiums anyway. They will not go down because others will be mandated by law to purchase HI. We do pay high premiums for insurance because the insurance companies are greedy and they have no public option to compete. Additionally, when you get ER treatment and don't pay the hospital has to get the money somewhere, so the rest of us pay higher premiums. See the article above. I don't want to pay more for those who don't want to do the responsible thing and purchase health insurance. So, the government has mandated insurance before, in the form of car insurance. Plus, you can't get a mortgage unless you have homeowner's insurance. The bank requires it. The bank requires it for you to have a loan. They're not forcing you to buy it. If you don't want to purchase it in order for them to loan you money for a house, then save your money till you can buy it yourself. I wouldn't give you a loan either unless there was a reassurance that if anything happened to it I would be repaid. They are not the government forcing you to purchase anything you didn't want to buy. If you want healthcare, you need to pay for it. Period. And since there is a 100% chance you'll need healthcare at some point in your life, you should be required to have it. So there are many examples of times when we are mandated to buy insurance. It is only fair that all people share in the cost and not get a free ride. That's NOT fair at all. Why should I pay for YOUR Health insurance? Why should I pay more in yearly insurance premiums because some want a free ride?It's not your right! If it is, then it's your right to have food on your table and it's your right to not be homeless. And it's your right....etc. Why don't we all just pay for everything you need. Didn't someone on here just make a statement that nothing is free? Hmmm. Let me think who that was. Nothing IS free. You want HI? Purchase it!That's exactly what the government is saying. Since you WILL require healthcare at some point in your life, then you need to purchase it and not pass on that cost to other americans who are insured. And btw, the mandate is not a tax, the penalty is and they are enforced under different parts of the constitution. When Pres. Obama was talking about the mandate not being a tax, that was true.

Only those who want a free ride and expect the rest of us to pay for their healthcare would consider themselves "forced". And as for the mandate and penalty, like I said, both are provided for in the constitution.

Health insurance mandate began as a Republican idea In ’90s, GOP saw an alternative to Clinton plan By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar Associated Press / March 28, 2010 WASHINGTON — Republicans were for President Obama’s requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it. (What a shock! More hypocrisy) The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that has been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach. Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as “a personal responsibility principle’’ and Massachusetts’ newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama’s plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed. Republicans say Obama and the Democrats co-opted their original concept, minus a mechanism they proposed for controlling costs. More than a dozen GOP attorneys general are determined to challenge the requirement in federal court as unconstitutional. Starting in 2014, the new law will require nearly all Americans to have health insurance through an employer, a government program, or by buying it directly. That year, new insurance markets will open for business, health plans will be required to accept all applicants, and tax credits will start flowing to millions of people, helping them pay the premiums. Those without coverage will have to pay a penalty to the IRS, except in cases of financial hardship.(This is why it's considered a tax) Fines will vary by income and family size. For example, a single person making $45,000 would pay an extra $1,125 in taxes when the penalty is fully phased in, in 2016. Conservatives say that is unacceptable. Not long ago, many of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans — the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare. Most specialists agree some requirement is needed in a reformed system because health insurance does not work if people can put off joining the risk pool until they get sick. In the early 1970s, President Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore. “The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea,’’ said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits — two ideas that are now part of Obama’s law. Pauly’s paper was well-received — by the George H.W. Bush administration. “It could have been the basis for a bipartisan compromise, but it wasn’t,’’ said Pauly. “Because the Democrats were in favor, the Republicans more or less had to be against it.’’ Obama rejected a key part of Pauly’s proposal: doing away with the tax-free status of employer-sponsored health care and replacing it with a standard tax credit for all Americans. Romney’s success in Massachusetts with a bipartisan health plan that featured a mandate put the idea on the table for the 2008 presidential candidates. Brown, whose election to replace the late Democratic Edward M. Kennedy almost led to the collapse of Obama’s plan, said his opposition to the new law is over tax increases, Medicare cuts, and federal overreach on a matter that he says should be left up to states. Not so much the requirement, which he voted for as a state lawmaker. “In Massachusetts, it helped us deal with the very real problem of uncompensated care,’’ Brown said.

Everyone who owns a car is "forced" to buy car insurance because to be without insurance would force the cost of an accident onto the rest of us. You may never have an accident in all your years of owning a car but you are still required to have insurance. If you have a pulse, however, there is an almost 100% certainty that you will need healthcare at some point in your life. To be without healthcare would then shift your cost onto the rest of us. I don't want to pay more for those who don't want to do the responsible thing and purchase health insurance. So, the government has mandated insurance before, in the form of car insurance. Plus, you can't get a mortgage unless you have homeowner's insurance. The bank requires it. So there are many examples of times when we are mandated to buy insurance. It is only fair that all people share in the cost and not get a free ride. Didn't someone on here just make a statement that nothing is free? Hmmm. Let me think who that was. And btw, the mandate is not a tax, the penalty is and they are enforced under different parts of the constitution. When Pres. Obama was talking about the mandate not being a tax, that was true.

More republican hypocrisy: The state aid bill that congress will be voting on tomorrow has been vastly reduced, but it is paid for. This is money for teachers, police, firefighters and medicaid. Nonetheless, the republicans are opposed to it and refer to it as a bailout for "special interests". These are the same republicans who have no trouble supporting the extension of the tax cuts for the rich which is not paid for and which will have added 3 trillion to the deficit over it's ten year run and about $700 billion if extended.

EXCLUSIVE: POLL FINDS VOTERS TIE CORPORATE CORRUPTION OF WASHINGTON TO ECONOMIC CONCERNS - A poll of 9,600 voters in battleground states finds that a prime way for candidates to show voters that they plan to address the faltering economy is to take a stand against corporate control of the political process. 57% said that getting the economy going required taking on corporate lobbyists. 79% said it's important that a candidate commit to reducing the influence of corporations over elections, with 56% overall saying it's very important. 60% wanted Citizens United overturned and two-thirds wold be more likely to support a candidate who backs a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision. The poll was commissioned by MoveOn.org and done by SurveyUSA. The full story in HuffPost tomorrow morning. I second all of these. As an example, the anti-worker, anti-union Chamber of Commerce spent $144 million last year lobbying which is more than the collective salaries of all 535 members of congress.

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom That's the whole basis for everything you believe: punishment. Suffering the consequences for our own actions is how we grow. I suppose you never let your children suffer the consequences for their actions. You probably fixed all their mistakes and covered for their every wrong doing. In so doing you failed as a parent. The government is not our parent. That aside, how dare you speak about my parenting of which you know nothing. I am a very good parent. As was my late husband. As teachers we had high standards for both behavior and academic achievement for our children. Both are college educated, both married college educated people and all four have good jobs. There were consequences for their bad behavior. And they all turned out great. I guess the proof of my parenting is in the pudding. And I'll hold my kids and my parenting up against anyone's. I believe in allowing people to fail and learn from it. I believe in allowing consequences (both good and bad) to occur for the growth of individuals. I believe that manknd needs to be held accountable for their actions and choices in life. I do not take joy in witnessing the destruction of people due to their choices. It is very sad, actually, but it must happen for them to change and grow. To not allow it to happen is a disservice to an individual. Oh, don't get me wrong, I also believe in forgiveness and mercy and grace, but just because there is forgiveness, doesn't mean there is no consequence. I will help anyone who is sorry for what they've done and truly wants to change. I will offer a hand up to anybody. Even so, when you do wrong, you must endure the consequences for what you've done and learn from it. You should have suffered the consequences for your promiscuous pre-marital behavior and subsequent out of wedlock pregnancy but instead you turned to the government to support your "sins". It doesn't matter that you paid it back. The government programs were there when you needed them - something you want to deny to others. -Punish women for having sex by forcing births (No. allow unborn human beings to live because they have a right to) -Punish the unemployed for being lazy by denying benefits (No. deny benefits after a time of grace so that individuals will get up and get a job. There are no jobs. Didn't you just post a big long cut and paste about why they aren't hiring? Trying to have it both ways. Geez. My own brother has been collecting benefits and says "why should I work when I can stay home and get the funds directly deposited for doing nothing?" He wont even look for work until the benefits are near ready to dry up.) Then obviously his unemployment is enough for him to live off of. Not true for family men and women who have mortgages, car payments, food, utilities, etc.. to pay for. They can barely make it on unemployment.-Punish the single mom for having the baby by cutting aid (No. Motivate the single mom to work for her food. Nothing in life is free.) That's right. I forgot your unrealistic plan. Live in a $100/week apartment with roommates and work at at McDonald's (or Walmart) and go to school to be a CNA at night and I forget who's supposed to watch her kid or how she's going to get to and from school and work. I guess she'll have to find one of those magical apartments right near a bus line that goes to both. And paying for school? Well, again, the details are sketchy. -Punish the medicaid nursing home recipient because his/her family couldn't supply 24/7 skilled nursing care. (No. insist that families care for thier own aging parents and use nursing home care as a last resort unless you can pay for it yourself.) People cannot afford to give up a job to take care of an invalid parent even if they get their SS checks. Their homes are also not set up to handle the 24/7 needs of someone who requires nursing home care. Not to mention that they might not have the room. People in nursing homes require skilled care to care for a multitude of health issues. They need to be monitored and can't be left alone. This is not realistic in someone's home. Yeah, yeah, I know patty the great did it so everyone should be able to do it. You always criticize me for making sweeping generalizations about the tea party or republicans. But in this post you have made sweeping generalizations about the unemployed (they're not all like your brother) or those who put their parent in a nursing home, or single moms who need help. And on top of it, you believe that everything the government provides for people is the result of their bad behavior. (No. Everything that the government provides for people comes from the governments willingness to give a handout to them so that they will desire dependence upon them.) Did you desire a dependence on them when you got your handout? Oh, I know, you're the exception. I guess getting old and receiving SS and medicare is the "bad behavior" of not dying young. (No. people who recive SS and medicare are entitled to it because they paid into the program all their lives and expect a return on their investment) I guess unemployment benefits is the result of the bad behavior of getting laid off. No. That's the results from a president who makes horrible policies and encourages a socialized nation.You'll have to explain this one since unemployement compensation has been around a long time. The current unemployment is the continuation of the rising unemployment that started under bush when it went from 4% to 8.1% and we were losing 750,000 jobs a month when Obama took office and now have had 7 months of positive job growth. So, even for you this is a very strange and of course unsubstantiated claim. We've got to nip all this bad behavior in the bud. :thumbup: Because these are the big government entitlement programs. Everything else pales in comparison. True. But the minute some problem or disaster happens, even a man-made one, like the BP oil spill, or the wall street crash, those on the right yap "what is the government going to do about it?" That's because those are the exact things that the government is supposed to be there for. Disasters and defense and protection for its citizens. P.S. (They should have let wall street crash.) The government is supposed to be there for natural disasters and pay for the relief. For man-made (BP) disasters, the company should pay for all of it. I don't want my tax dollars to pay for BP's mistakes and lies. But when Obama got a $20 billion escrow account for BP to pay for their spill, republicans called it a shakedown and defended BP. But try to regulate a company like BP to prevent or address future catastrophies and the right again yaps "that's big government, it stifles job growth, blah, blah, blah". What total hypocrites.

learn from their sins correct bad behavior consequences to endure This is why I will fight from having one brand of religion and one biblical interpretation from being the basis for our government policies. Our government isn't in the business of punishing people (non-criminals) for circumstances that they find themselves in. I want my government, we the people, to help people. Not withhold aid as a form of "teach them a lesson". :thumbup:

Well, said, BJean. And don't sell yourself short. You contribute a lot to this debate. We will not be able to turn this country around if the republicans gain control. We know how this story ends. We lived with it under bush. And continue to do so. It doesn't have a happy ending. We are living with the not-happily-ever after effects of their disasterous policies. With a legacy of failed policies you would think that there would be a modicum of mea culpa from the republicans but instead you see alarming hypocrisy and arrogance. And on top of it all, they are offering the same disasterous policies again. We have seen them stand in the way of moving this country forward. They have stood with wall street, big insurance, big oil and the wealthy and against the people of america. They have voted against unemployment extensions, small business bills and everything else. And yet, there are those, who haven't been paying attention, who think they have the answers. Just look at history. The republicans have never done one thing for the middle class. Everything the middle class enjoys came from democrats: social security, medicare, medicaid, minimum wage, unemployment, workplace safety, healthcare, financial regulation, civil rights, women's rights, disability rights...and the list goes on. Unless you are a CEO, to vote republican is against your own economic self interest.

Mitchell Bard</H2>Writer and Filmmaker Posted: August 8, 2010 01:52 PM Krugman's Takedown of Ryan Demonstrates How Conservatives Are at War With the Middle Class Conservatives routinely paint Barack Obama as a socialist looking to redistribute wealth in the United States. (Or worse, as Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) reported that tea party leaders, during a meeting, espoused paranoid delusions of a totalitarian takeover of the U.S. by Obama.) This charge is cynical and outrageous, not just because it is false and a naked attempt to use fear mongering to drum up votes, but because there is actually a group of Americans actively engaged in wealth redistribution, and they have been for quite some time. Who are these people looking to move massive amounts of assets from one subsection of Americans to another? The conservatives themselves. Beginning with the Reagan administration, and reaching its fullest realization during the presidency of George W. Bush, conservatives have systematically been acting to redistribute wealth from the middle class upward. The result has been the steady decay of the middle class, and it's all a result of conservative policies, specifically involving taxes and deregulation. Bush successfully pushed through accelerated deregulation and massive tax cuts for the highest earners. The result was that while the wealthiest Americans saw substantial income gains, real income for the middle class was static (and far below the robust growth of the middle class during the Clinton administration). And when, in the absence of regulation, Wall Street's reckless bets nearly brought ruin to the financial industry, the result was a massive recession that severely hit the lower, working and middle classes. As I lamented last month, middle and working class Americans have every right to be angry now, but that anger shouldn't be directed at the Democrats in November, but at the Republicans, whose policies created the economic mess the country finds itself in. Which is why I was so happy to see Paul Krugman's annihilation of the economic plan advanced by the so-called "intellectual" star of the Republican party, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Krugman exposed Ryan's plan for what it is, a replay of the Bush economic policies, only this time on steroids: A massive tax break for the wealthiest five percent of Americans that would cost the country $4 trillion over the next ten years, a tax increase for the other 95 percent of Americans, and monumental cuts in government spending that would cause catastrophic pain for the lower, working and middle classes (while having little effect on the wealthy, the primary beneficiaries of Ryan's plan). Oh, and Ryan's plan would add to the deficit, pushing it far beyond the current projections for 2020. (Of course, Ryan is touting the savings of his spending cuts without accounting for the costs of his tax cuts for the rich.) I thought Krugman's exposure of the realities of the Ryan plan provided a solid summing up of current Republican ideology. On the surface, Ryan appears more reasonable than the more vocal leaders of his party. He tends to avoid the outrageous pronouncements of his fellow conservatives (think Sarah Palin, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and his talk of "velvet revolution," Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN) and House Minority Leader John Boehner, not to mention the lies and vitriol spouted by pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, as well as the consistent national security fear-mongering of Newt Gingrich, and the out-and-out insanity on parade daily in the media, like the recent charge by Colorado gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes that his Democratic opponent encouraged bike use as mayor of Denver as part of a plan to convert the city into a "United Nations community," not to mention the possible Queen of the wackos, Nevada GOP senate candidate Sharron Angle, including her claim that the press should ask the questions she wants to answer.). Ryan is the young, normal-looking and sounding face Republicans would like to send out in front of the public, but, as Krugman comprehensively laid out, his policies are no more mainstream or plausible than those of his more obviously extreme colleagues. No, Ryan, just like the others, is completely dedicated to policies that empower corporations and transfer wealth upward, at the expense of the middle class. In short, Ryan and the rest of the conservatives are at war with lower, working and middle class Americans. The Republicans would like to frame the November midterm elections as a matchup between a socialist party looking to redistribute wealth and engineer a government takeover of the private sector (the Democrats) v. a party defending traditional American values of free market, capitalist economics (the Republicans). Such a framing of the two parties is a Republican fantasy, as accurate as the charge that President Obama was not born in the United States (which, according to a recent CNN poll, nearly two in five Republicans believe to be true). But one look at the reality of the Bush years and the behavior of Republicans during the Obama administration paints a very different picture. On issue after issue, the Republicans have sided against the middle class, whether it was opposing financial regulation (even after GOP-touted deregulation resulted in the near financial collapse that plunged the country into deep recession), pushing for an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, opposing any kind of job-creating stimulus (that didn't involve more tax cuts for the rich), opposing and delaying the extension of unemployment benefits to those out of work (and painting the unemployed as lazy), opposing state aid that would preserve the jobs of teachers, police officers and firefighters (even though it would decrease the deficit), opposing health care reform (except to protect private insurance companies), and even opposing aid to workers sickened by the toxic fumes at Ground Zero after the 9/11 attacks. The smoking gun of GOP dedication to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class (and the revelation that the party's supposed fanatical opposition to deficits is a facade) came when one Republican after another lined up to back Sen. John Kyl's position that it was okay to add to the deficit for tax cuts for high earners (something even conservative stalwart Alan Greenspan could not support). The GOP record of the last ten years demonstrates that, in reality, the election in November will pose a choice between Democrats who support a free market capitalist economy, but with protections to prevent against its excesses (thus protecting lower, working and middle class Americans), and Republicans at war with the middle class, advocating policies that further their suffering while benefiting Wall Street, corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Conservatives are right when they say that there are those in Washington looking to redistribute wealth. It's just that it's their party that is all for the redistributing. huffington post And these are the people some want to elect more of? Yikes!!!

Republican Leaders Boehner, Cantor Trash Workers Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:40:52 AM PDT House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner has a few choice words for all the teachers, cops, fire fighters, and other workers who will be able to stay on the job because the U.S. Senate this week was able to break the Republican filibuster on the jobs bill. He is calling these hard-working women and men: special interests. No different, apparently, from the special interests at the Wall Street banks, job-exporting corporations and big insurance companies Boehner and Republicans love to pal around with. And as for autoworkers, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has some choice words for you too. More on that below. Boehner says the jobs bill (the House is expected to pass it next week), which provides $26 billion in funding to bolster state budgets, including $10 billion to prevent massive teacher layoffs, is a "payoff" to unions and special interests. But unlike Boehner’s real special interests—see above—the assistance for the workers who toil to support their families and pay mortgages is about $725 billion short of the Bush Bank bailout. On top of that, it’s unlikely that any of the teachers or cops will be invited to play golf with Boehner at the tony country clubs where he’s hustled big-time donations from his bank buddies and corporate cronies for the Republican PAC Freedom Project. According to a Freedom Project spokesman, the golf outings have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from those special interest who shared 18 holes of golf and probably some 19th hole libations. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) says it is incredible that Republican Leader John Boehner disparagingly referred to those who teach our children, protect our homes, and keep our streets safe as "special interests." Washington Republicans are opposed to supporting our teachers, firefighters and policemen at home in order to protect corporate tax loopholes that promote the export of American jobs. The jobs bill that Boehner so adamantly trashed closes tax loopholes for multi-national corporations that send U.S. jobs overseas to help pay to keep American workers on the job. Maybe they’re Boehner’s golf partners. Cantor piled on by insulting the nation’s auto workers, 55,000 more of whom are working today because of the Obama administration’s financial rescue of the U.S. auto industry This week, President Obama made another visit to an auto plant where cars are coming off the assembly line because, writes Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen: The White House wants to emphasize good economic news where it can be found, and more importantly, it wants to remind the public that at a moment of crisis last year, Obama was right about the industry rescue and Republicans were wrong. That stuck in the craw of Cantor, who issued a statement asking, "Just who exactly is President Obama celebrating with?" How about the autoworkers who have jobs? As Benen writes: I know Eric Cantor isn't the sharpest crayon in the box. But the easiest, most basic form of patriotism is taking at least some pleasure when good things happen to your country. (Not the republicans. They don't want anything good to happen to the country less the democrats get the credit, which they deserve. Horrors!!) Sure, Republicans don't want to talk about this—in part because good news interferes with their election strategy, and in part because this progress wouldn't have happened if they were in charge last year. Indeed, if we'd listened to Cantor and his cohorts, the American auto industry would be left in shambles, hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost, and the backbone of American manufacturing would have been broken. At a moment of crisis, Republicans had it backwards. But that's no excuse for Cantor's petty partisanship. dailykos Standing up for big corporations and against american workers - well that's par for the course (pun intended) for republicans.

That's the whole basis for everything you believe: punishment. -Punish women for having sex by forcing births -Punish the unemployed for being lazy by denying benefits -Punish the single mom for having the baby by cutting aid -Punish the medicaid nursing home recipient because his/her family couldn't supply 24/7 skilled nursing care And on top of it, you believe that everything the government provides for people is the result of their bad behavior. I guess getting old and receiving SS and medicare is the "bad behavior" of not dying young. I guess unemployment benefits is the result of the bad behavior of getting laid off. We've got to nip all this bad behavior in the bud. :thumbup: Because these are the big government entitlement programs. Everything else pales in comparison. But the minute some problem or disaster happens, even a man-made one, like the BP oil spill, or the wall street crash, those on the right yap "what is the government going to do about it?" But try to regulate a company like BP to prevent or address future catastrophies and the right again yaps "that's big government, it stifles job growth, blah, blah, blah". What total hypocrites.

Companies have to make those signs and someone has to erect them - both providing jobs. So, yes, that's a good thing. Plus I want people to know how the stimulus has improved things. And it has. And I certainly support this use of my taxpayer dollars as opposed to corporate welfare.

And again, nice try, but read your quote again. You said: "this violence of which you speak is all in your head..." In other words, you didn't believe that ANY of the tea party was violent. It was all in my head you said. Ha!! I proved you wrong about that just like I have about so many things. I will clear up what I meant when I said that. "This violence that you speak of, (when you speak of the teapartiers as a whole), is all in your head." I have NEVER denied that there are a few in every group that make any group look bad by their stupid actions. So don't try to get out of what you said or try to explain it away or twist the words now. The proof is in your post. Period. Nice try, but I'm not going to let you backpedal now to get out of what you said. Like I said the proof is in your post and I will use it again and again when I feel it necessary and when you accuse me of calling you a racist. BTW, I am still waiting for you to provide those posts.

Wrong again. I am making the distinction between republicans and democrats. Because all the hateful, mean-spiritied talk is coming from right wing talk radio and tv and those in congress who vote no on bills to help struggling unemployed, for example. But maybe those lazy unemployed need to suffer the consequences for being unemployed in the first place and what better way than to deny benefits. That will teach them!!!

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths you will go to to defend indefensible positions of the right. He said "he hopes people have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby..". That is NOT just an ineloquent way of stating a position, that is saying he hopes people get AIDS. That babies get AIDS. Period. And AIDS can kill. Now, you call it what you want but I will call it for what it is: HATEFUL, VICIOUS, MEAN-SPIRITED and ANTI-LIFE. And if you want to continue to quote the bible, blah, blah, blah to defend this, then do so. I tell it like it is. And, btw, not a single other person voted against this bill, including his fellow republicans who cut a wide berth around him after his statement. But you, pattygreen, you stand with him. Also very telling.

There are plenty of hateful, mean spirited republicans and I have called them out on here when I discover them. AND I WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO. Too bad if you don't like it. I don't think Susan Collins is hateful, or Olympia Snowe. But there are plenty, like this republican in my previous post, John Kyl and many others like beck, limbaugh, colter and others. There's plenty of hate and mean-spiritedness from these people, like beck calling Pres. Obama a racist and making fun of his daughter. Or limbaugh saying he hopes Obama fails and cheering his loss of getting American to hold the Olympics. Cheering against america!! Or coulter saying "Gore is a fag". Most right wing republican talk is all about hate, mean-spriritedness, bashing and sinking to new lows. Michael Steele, RNC chair, said today that Nancy Pelosi will have to go to the back of the bus after November. Nice choice of words from someone who is lucky to still have a job considering his constant foot in mouth. And I notice that you never address what the republicans say or do but rather make your responses about me. Very telling. And again, nice try, but read your quote again. You said: "this violence of which you speak is all in your head..." In other words, you didn't believe that ANY of the tea party was violent. It was all in my head you said. Ha!! I proved you wrong about that just like I have about so many things. So don't try to get out of what you said or try to explain it away or twist the words now. The proof is in your post. Period.

Just when I thought I had heard all there was from hateful, mean-spirited republicans, I recently learned about the following. This is a republican state senator. UPDATED: State senator: HIV babies are punishment for promiscuous moms By Wendy Norris 2/25/09 4:25 PM State Sen. Dave Schultheis restated his opposition to a bill requiring HIV tests for pregnant women by claiming that infected babies would cause families to “see the negative consequences of that promiscuity.” The Colorado Springs Republican with a penchant for foot-in-mouth moments tells The Rocky Mountain News in a follow-up story to Wednesday’s Senate floor controversy: “What I’m hoping is that, yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that,” he said. “The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior.” Yes, Schultheis really said he is “hoping” people “have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby …” His home page is full of all the typical right-wing, conservative views on everything from abortion, to marriage, to sexuality. So while he considers himself pro-life and pro-family he hopes people have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby..and that HIV is punishment for being promiscuous (read: having sex). And once again, I ask - and these are the people some want to elect more of?

Nice try, but you made the sweeping statement that the violence/hatred/racism on the right was all in my head - thus denying that ANY on the right were hateful, racist or violent. And as far as what Pres. Obama is doing to our country - let's recap: -5 months of positive job growth. -stock market went from 6000 to 10,000 -healthcare abuses ended -healthcare for the uninsured -financial reform for the crooks on wall street -$20 billion from BP for the oil spill victims and clean up -Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -millions of jobs saved or created from stimulus bill -the auto bailout was a big success saving thousands of jobs (maybe a million if you count auxillary companies) But the party of no was against all of this. Including extending unemployment for those hurting and the small business bill that would have helped small business owners that they keep yapping about. But they didn't want democrats to get credit for it, so they voted against it. They don't care about this country or its people. They just care about getting elected. And these are who some people want to elect more of? :redface:

SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION RELEASES REPORT ON STATE OF ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM - Dan Froomkin: The new health care law has significantly improved the prognosis for Medicare, extending the life of its trust fund by 12 years until 2029, and thereby delaying any need for dramatic changes in benefits or revenues, according to a new report. The annual check-up from government actuaries overseeing the nation's two central safety-net programs also found that Social Security continues to be much less of a problem than Medicare, and will remain in strong financial shape at least through 2037.'The financial outlook for the Medicare program is substantially improved as a result of the far-reaching changes in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,' concludes the Medicare report -- although the trustees warned that the improvements depend on the successful implementation of the law." Another "nugget" of the healthcare reform.

Where did I say I admitted to hate? I said that I have never denied that there was hatred for bush on the left. It was you who was in denial and said that violence in the tea party was all in my head. from pattygreen (with reference to my posts about violence from the teaparty and right wing):"This 'violence' you speak of is in your head as well as every other liberal out there who would just 'love' to see it be true. Since it isn't true, they feel the need to make it up." Sounds like a sweeping denial of violence on the right to me!!! Make it up? I have proven it over and over. You are the denier in chief.

So, you can see that collectively these are more than a few nuggets. The current system allows insurance companies to DENY coverage to you or drop you if you get sick, something that you denied until I proved you wrong. The current system allows insurance companies to DENY coverage if you have a pre-existing condition. So, there is denying going on all the time NOW, but I guess that's okay. The real denial is yours - about all the insurance abuses taking place now, before this healthcare was passed that eliminates these abuses. You must be pro-insurance abuses.

For large employers, here are their nuggets: The Affordable Care Act controls costs and protects current plans Over 95% of employers with more than 50 employees offer health insurance. But since 2000, employer premiums have doubled. When employers pay more for insurance, they have less money to invest in the company and may be forced to pay lower wages or shift health care costs to their employees. The economic impact of America’s uninsured is also significant, costing our nation between $76 billion and $152 billion per year in lost productivity. The Affordable Care Act helps control costs in various ways even as it protects current plans. Job-based coverage that was in effect on March 23, 2010 is exempted from certain provisions in the Affordable Care Act. Employer-based plans that provide health insurance to retirees ages 55-64 will be able to get financial help paying for high-cost early retirees through the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program that starts in June 2010. This program is designed to lower the cost of premiums for all employees and reduce employer health costs. The Affordable Care Act tackles waste, fraud, and abuse and other drivers of health care costs, which will provide employers significant savings in the cost of employee care. By providing affordable coverage to all Americans, the Affordable Care Act will significantly reduce the hidden tax that currently adds $1,000 to the cost of every family policy to help pay for the costs of uncompensated care. The health law tax credits and the new employer responsibility policies will help level the playing field between different types of employers. More businesses will be able to offer affordable coverage.