Cleo's Mom

Really? You are not on the side of the insurance companies? Your posts here certainly tell a different story. -You defend their obscene profits and premium increases. -You support their right to only cover healthy people and deny those with pre-existing conditions. -You say that the money we pay them is theirs to do as they please and it is none of our business. -You claim that they pay for your illnesses and don't drop you when you get sick - both are not true. Over and over again you have sided with the insurance companies in this debate but I have never heard you say one word of support for our government.

I am not gullible at all. I am a very well educated person who does her homework about things. The CBO is a non-partisan goverment agency that congress always uses to score the cost of bills. As I have said time and time again, if the facts don't support your wrong opinion then you reject them. If the CBO report had said the healthcare bill would increase the deficit then you would be all over it like flies on ___ well, you get the picture.

If you thought that decisions made by the Texas State Board of Education don't affect you, think again. Led by far-right ideologues, the Texas SBOE recently gave preliminary approval to a plan that would radically change what children across the country learn in history class. The ultra-conservative majority on the board (none of whom are experts in any academic discipline and many of whom are explicitly anti-science) took the curricula proposed by teachers and made over a hundred changes to "correct" the perceived left-wing bias. But it gets worse. Since Texas is one of the largest textbook markets in the country, material written to cater to the Texas curricula will find its way into textbooks across the country unless textbook publishers take a stand. We can't allow a small group of extreme ideologues on the Texas State Board of Education to re-write history. Click here to tell textbook publishers to stand up to the Texas Taliban. Children who use textbooks conforming to the new standards will not learn anything about the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson or his thoughts on the separation of church and state. When they learn about the Civil War, they'll have to study Jefferson Davis' inaugural address alongside Abraham Lincoln's. And when they study the civil rights movement they'll have to learn about the "unintended consequences" of Great Society programs, affirmative action and Title IX. Oh — and Joe McCarthy was right all along no matter what historians actually say about it. It's outrageous. Education will fail if we can't teach our children history. We can't let these far-right ideologues co-opt our educational system. Click here to tell the textbook publishers: Don't let the Texas Taliban rewrite history. Thank you for standing up for the American educational system. LiAnna Davis, Campaign Manager CREDO Action from Working Assets

BREAKING: CBO ON HEALTHCARE OUT! And its GOOD NEWS - BREAKING: CBO ON HEALTHCARE OUT! And its GOOD NEWS Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 06:31:18 AM PDT I got this from Politico about 5 minutes ago and thought this would be great to get out there.... The Congressional Budget Office has determined that the health reform plan will cost $940 billion over 10 years, but will trim the federal deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years and $1.2 trillion in the second ten years, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said. 30 million uninsured get insurance AND it reduces the deficit. A win-win.

So true and especially relevant at this time of the year. :cursing:

Go to this website to see what the healthcare bill will do for your congressional district: www.energycommerce.house.gov and click on "Benefit of healthcare reform district by district". Here's my district's benefits: Improve coverage for 456,000 residents with health insurance.  Give tax credits and other assistance to up to 142,000 families and 14,400 small businesses to help them afford coverage.  Improve Medicare for 130,000 beneficiaries, including closing the donut hole.  Guarantee that 5,100 residents with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage.  Protect 1,000 families from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs.  Allow 39,000 young adults to obtain coverage on their parents’ insurance plans.  Reduce the cost of uncompensated care for hospitals and other health care providers by $35 million annually. Of course my congressman is a member of the party of no and while voting in lockstep with all of bush's agenda, will vote no on this.

Is that how my thread about the hypocrisy of republicans got locked?

Again, this healthcare is paid for, won't increase the deficit and will actually reduce it.

This healthcare bill will reduce the deficit. The CBO has scored it. It will tax cadillac plans and reduce the waste in medicare without affecting benefits. I would have preferred a tax on those making over $250,000 but that's something that might be changed in the future. At first you were opposed to this bill because of the public option, then that was removed. Now you are opposed because you don't want to pay for someone else's premiums. Do you have a cadillac plan? If not, it won't affect you. If your plan is through your employer, then you keep it. And employers will have more choices on the insurance exchange to select from and their will be tax breaks for them for providing it. Many things were passed - pushed through - in the bush administration that raised our deficit - and we are all paying for it. But somehow a healthcare plan that REDUCES the deficit is a problem? No way. The time is now, and it WILL pass.

Pattygreen, your arguements are flawed. I made the point that police, fire and public education are available to all regardless of how much they pay in taxes or even IF they pay no taxes. You said we all pay because we all use them. I have never used the fire department and those who don't have kids never use the schools. BUT, I do believe that we should pay for these things, even if we don't use them because it is part of living in a civilized society and we all benefit from public education and police and fire services. But taking your arguement that we all pay for things that we might use - can be argued then that we should all pay for health care that we might use. Just like those who don't have kids pay for public schools for those who do. We all benefit when we have everyone covered by health insurance. We have healthier people. Less missed worked. More productivity. You say education is for everyone that's why everyone pays into it. Well, just substitute healthcare for the word education. Makes sense to me. You use irrational arguments for people who don't have healthcare. They lack common sense and practicality: -get a better job (like everyone is trying to get a worse job). -find an employer who provides health insurance (without healthcare reform many employers are finding it hard to do so). -go to the ER. The ER is not for chronic conditions like diabetes, asthma, chronic heart problems, etc.. -purchase catastrophic insurance and pay out of pocket for everything else. People cannot afford this. -put aside $25/week. These people don't have $25 dollars a week. You keep making the argument that you shouldn't pay for someone else's healthcare. Well, guess what? You do. And so do I. Let's just say that you pay for your healthcare policy and it costs you $15,000 a year and you've been paying this much for 20 years. That $300,000 you have put into insurance. And let's say that you never have a major illness. Just small things. Now, another person over here has the same plan and pays the same amount but gets cancer and has to have surgery, chemo, radiation and other medication. This runs into 7 figures. Who do you think is subsidizing this? You are. And all the other healthier people. So quit saying we shouldn't pay for the healthcare of other people. The healthier people are paying for the sicker people now - all of whom have insurance. What you don't want to do is to help pay for those who don't have insurance. Just let them die, or get a better job. But you apparently don't mind subsidizing the sick people on insurance, because you do. We all do.

Because use of tobacco and alcohol is a CHOICE and I am not going to shed a tear over those who willingly and knowingly take part in an activity that is known to cause death or disease. My priorities are perfect where they are and I am right in their order. And I think the anti-tobacco forces have done a great job against the tobacco industry. And with education. Fewer people smoke. Non-smokers rightfully demand not to be exposed to second hand smoke. Smokers are now piranhas. Not welcome where they used to be (restaurants, workplaces, etc). Thankfully. And lawsuits against the tobacco industry have been successful in many cases. Now it's time to take on the big health insurance industry. And we will win in the end. It's going to happen.

On any given night in America, anywhere from 700,000 to 2 million people are homeless, according to estimates of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty from 1996. According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, 1.35 million U.S. children are homeless on any given night; this survey was done in 2000. This number was at 3.5 million in 2007. According to estimates from 1998, death rate is 1529 per 100,000 every year. You do the math... I guess we're not doing as good of a job as you think. And this data is over 10 years old. With the current economic conditions and foreclosures, I am sure the numbers are worse.

Regardless of how much we pay in taxes from a lot to none, we are entitled to public education, fire and police service, municipal services, our streets getting paved, etc.. It is the same with healthcare. Access to it shouldn't depend on your ability to pay. There are those who are working, but don't get healthcare through their employers and don't qualify for medicaid. They don't have enough money to buy an independent healthcare policy. Plus they might have a pre-existing condition and be denied anyway. So, let's say they have diabetes or a chronic heart condition. These conditions, while life threatening over time, are not emergency conditions that require ER care. They require constant, vigilant care with a primary care physician. They can't afford healthcare and would be denied anyway. So overtime, the diabetic's sight goes bad, maybe blind. The kidneys are affected and perhaps start to shut down. Eventually, from lack of care, this person dies. AND THIS IS OKAY WITH YOU. AND YOU CALL YOURSELF PRO-LIFE? NO WAY ARE YOU PRO-LIFE. ANTI-ABORTION, YES. BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO CALL YOURSELF PRO-LIFE AND NEITHER DO OTHERS WHO SHARE YOUR VIEWPOINT ON THIS. BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD HEALTHCARE OR WOULD BE DENIED ANYWAY, IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU FOR 44,000 PEOPLE TO DIE EVERY YEAR. And don't start with your tobacco/alcohol deaths. Those who do either make that choice. They know the risks of death from both and I'm not going to shed a tear about those who deliberately kill themselves with alcohol and tobacco.

I did. My post #748. What part of it didn't you understand? Yes, healthcare, like free and public education, is a right for all people regardless of their ability to pay. Real, breathing, living people who have families and loved ones die every year because they don't have insurance. An independent Harvard study puts that number at about 44,000 per year. So here's my new bumper sticker: You can't be both pro-life and against healthcare reform.

ONLY one man was throwing money, the rest of the crowd was yelling at the man and calling him a communist. This video was played on mainstream media today by those who make a lot of money to produce news. I guess they are just overpaid jerks. I am sure that fox news never shows videos to support their "fair and balanced" news and right wing viewpoints.

The republican party has never done anything for the middle class in this country let alone the least among us. On healthcare: they stand with the greedy health insurance companies, not with the people. On financial reform: they stand with wall street and the big banks and against consumers. On jobs bills: they stand with corporate american and against working and unemployed people. On the Lilly Ledbetter Act (women's right to sue for being paid less than men) they stood with discriminating companies and against women. They are against feminists, gays, and women's right to choose. And as far as being moral - well that has been shot down by their many, many immoral and hypocritical behaviors and affairs. So, if you are an middle class person and you vote for republicans you are voting against you own self interests. Try paying your bills with anti-gay legislation or denying women the right to choose. This major economic collapse that almost became a depression, except for Pres. Obama's intervention, was the result of de-regulation of the financial industry starting with Reagan. After the great depression the regulations that were put in place worked very well for 50 years. Then Reagan came along, and with him de-regulation and we had 3 financial crises in the last 30 years because of it, this last one almost destroying our country. That's what republicans do for you. Palin asked "how's the hopey, change-y thing working for you?" I ask "How's the republican de-regulation working for your investments, stocks, retirement account, 401(k), your wages, buying power, etc..? For me, well, it's not working at all.

Here is a video of teabaggers showing their true colors. It is beyond disgusting. About 50 seconds into it you will see them shouting at a man with Parkinson's disease who supports and needs healthcare. They actually throw money at him: Dispatch Video | The Columbus Dispatch

Right now the healthcare industry is for profit. That is mistake number one. It should be not for profit. That's why we need a public option or single payer or medicare buy in. Secondly, the way that a person accesses healthcare is dependent on their ability to pay for it. So, the rich can afford healthcare while the poor can't. Mistake number two. Or a person who is lucky enough to be employed and have an employer who can afford to pay for healthcare can have access but those who work without healthcare can't. Mistake number three. Healthcare is a matter of life and death and therefore ought to be available to all. And affordable to all. Imagine if all education was for profit private education (a goal of the neocons, by the way) - then only the rich could afford to send their kids to school. The poor would be shut out. But we have access to free public education for all. That's the way healthcare should be. My taxes are spent on the military, on war, on corporate welfare. Lots of things I don't necessarily support. But that is how our government works. So, if the government uses some of my taxes to help someone afford healthcare, I am okay with that. Also, another lie about the healthcare reform is that Pres. Obama wants the government to takeover healthcare. Well, that actually happened a long time ago. Medicare, Medicaid and other government programs already pay for almost half of American healthcare, while private insurance pays for barely more than a third of healthcare, the rest being out of pocket.

As a scientist (I have a degree in biology) I support science and don't reject it just because it doesn't support a particular religious and/or political view: The oldest Homo sapiens Fossils push human emergence back to 195,000 years ago Geologist Frank Brown, dean of mines and Earth sciences at the University of Utah, crouches on Ethiopia's Kibish rock formation, where Brown and colleagues determined that fossilized bones of Homo sapiens were 195,000 years old -- the oldest fossils of the our species ever found. Credit: Ian McDougall, Australian National University Full size image available here When the bones of two early humans were found in 1967 near Kibish, Ethiopia, they were thought to be 130,000 years old. A few years ago, researchers found 154,000- to 160,000-year-old human bones at Herto, Ethiopia. Now, a new study of the 1967 fossil site indicates the earliest known members of our species, Homo sapiens, roamed Africa about 195,000 years ago. "It pushes back the beginning of anatomically modern humans," says geologist Frank Brown, a co-author of the study and dean of the University of Utah's College of Mines and Earth Sciences. The journal Nature is publishing the study in its Thursday Feb. 17, 2005, issue. Brown conducted the research with geologist and geochronologist Ian McDougall of Australian National University in Canberra, and anthropologist John Fleagle of New York state's Stony Brook University. The researchers dated mineral crystals in volcanic ash layers above and below layers of river sediments that contain the early human bones. They conclude the fossils are much older than a 104,000-year-old volcanic layer and very close in age to a 196,000-year-old layer, says Brown. "These are the oldest well-dated fossils of modern humans (Homo sapiens) currently known anywhere in the world," the scientists say in a summary of the study. This is what needs to be taught in schools.

The evidence behind the age of the earth and the age of fossils is fact. We have the scientific ability to measure that. Those who believe in creationism believe the earth is only as old as the current species of man has existed and there are museums that support creationism that show man living at the same time as dinosaurs. Simply not true and scientific FACT refutes that and makes those people look silly.

I know there are some states, like California, where they use the same textbooks throughout the state. Maybe Texas is like that. There are only a few textbook publishers left so they salivate at getting a state wide contract. Fortunately, my state is not like this. When I was a teacher, when it was time to purchase new books, the publishers would come and peddle their wares and the teachers would vote on their choice and of course the school board would have to approve it.

Pattygreen: If you open up public schools to the teaching of religion, then you have to open it up to the teaching of all religions, despite whatever selective historic data you provide to support your case. If christian religion were introduced in school only in a historic context along with the emergence of other religions in this country, I have no problem with that. But to teach and/or support only christian religion and their viewpoints, well, I have a big problem with that. If people want that choice, then they should send their kids to religious schools.

Public, tax-payer supported schools are NOT the place for children to learn about religion. That is up to the parents and religious institutions. If your child's learning of religion is dependent on the public schools, then as a parent you are not doing your job. Then of course you had to throw in that old fear factor (a big part of the extremist right wing's tactics) by invoking satan. If parents and religious institutions abdicate their responsibility to teach children religion, don't blame satan, blame them.

Much like the neocons who are trying to rewrite the history of the bush administration to say that 9/11 didn't happen under his watch, the neocons in texas are rewriting history in the school's curriculum to eliminate all the great things the liberals and progressives did for this country, for working people and the middle class and instead stack the deck in favor of the conservative movement, the contract with america, phyllis schlafly, the heritage foundation, the moral majority, the NRA and the religious right. :wub: They don't want the students to learn about unions, the ACLU, Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade, Moveon.org, Michael Moore, civil rights, worker's rights the women's movement, anti-discrimination laws, social security, medicare, etc..

Great reason to homeschool my kids if I lived there.