:excited:...Distant Lover, has one of yours defected or at least developed a conscious? too old? mmm



the democrats are just that

 

I was aware that some Republicans blamed Jimmy Carter for the economic meltdown that began in December 2007. I never knew that Carter was also responsible for 9/11. Did he cause the Stock Market Crash of 1929? What about the bombing of Pearl Harbor? Oh yes, and there's the AIDS epidemic. Now it all becomes clear.

 

90% of what the government is involved with,in time has shown to be unsuccessful,costly and more than half the time,have no business being involved in it to begin with, now I know that you large government advocates are in total disagreement with that.

 

And most of those policies have a few unnecessary state and federal mandates attached to them that are not even neccessary to have in those policies, that add to the cost of the policy..........now that sounds like one hell of a reform idea.

 

Sources: House Health Bill Totals $1.2 Trillion


Democrats added billions in higher spending for public health, a reinsurance program to hold down retiree health costs, payments for preventive services and more


WASHINGTON -- The health care bill headed for a vote in the House this week costs $1.2 trillion or more over a decade, according to numerous Democratic officials and figures contained in an analysis by congressional budget experts, far higher than the $900 billion cited by President Barack Obama as a price tag for his reform plan.
While the Congressional Budget Office has put the cost of expanding coverage in the legislation at roughly $1 trillion, Democrats added billions more on higher spending for public health, a reinsurance program to hold down retiree health costs, payments for preventive services and more.
Many of the additions are designed to improve benefits or ease access to coverage in government programs. The officials who provided overall cost estimates did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has referred repeatedly to the bill's net cost of $894 billion over a decade for coverage.
Asked about the higher estimate, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said the measure not only insures 36 million more Americans, it provides critical health insurance reform in a way that is fiscally sound.
"It will not add one dime to the deficit. In fact, the CBO said last week that it will reduce the deficit both in the first 10 years and in the second 10 years," Daly said.
Democrats have been intent on passing legislation this year to implement Obama's call for expanded coverage for millions, curbs on industry abuses and provisions to slow the rate of growth of health care costs nationally.
"Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years," the president said in a nationally televised speech in early September.
Whatever the final cost of legislation, the calendar is working increasingly against the White House and Democrats. While a House vote is possible late this week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., may not be able to begin debate on the issue until the week before Thanksgiving. Additionally, the Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has hinted at efforts to extend the debate for weeks if not months, a timetable that could extend into 2010.
One casualty of the time crunch and threatened Republican delaying tactics may be formal House-Senate negotiations on a final compromise. An alternative is a less formal hurry-up final negotiation involving the White House and senior Democrats.
Pelosi and her lieutenants worked on last-minute changes in the measure to ease concerns among opponents of abortion and a contentious provision relating to illegal immigrants. Conservative Democrats have expressed concern about the cost of the bill, and an evening closed-door meeting gave the leadership its first chance to hear their response.
The bill includes an option for a government-run health plan.
The leadership can afford more than two dozen defections and still be assured of the votes to prevail on the bill, one of the most sweeping measures in recent years.
Republicans put the cost of the bill at nearly $1.3 trillion.
"Our goal is to make it as difficult as possible for" Democrats to pass it, House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said at a news conference. "We believe it is the wrong prescription."
One day after announcing Republicans would have an alternative measure, Boehner offered few details. He said it would omit one of the central provisions in Democratic bills -- a ban on the insurance industry's practice of denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. Instead, he said the Republicans would encourage creation of insurance pools for high-risk individuals and take other steps to ease their access to coverage.
Boehner also said Republicans would propose limits on medical malpractice lawsuits in what he said was an attempt to reduce the cost of coverage.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the third-ranking leader, said that Democrats looked at their bill as a way to advance universal coverage. In contrast, he said, Republicans "believe the real issue back home is cost" of insurance, and said their alternative would be designed to tackle it.
Democrats have made elimination of the industry's practice a linchpin of their drive to overhaul the health care system. The industry has said it would not fight the change, and an accompanying restriction on its ability to charge higher premiums for certain groups, as the legislation includes a requirement for individuals to purchase insurance. Lacking that, the industry says millions of relatively healthy individuals would refuse to pay for coverage until they became sick, and the cost of premiums would rise sharply for everyone else.
Republicans oppose any government requirements for individuals to purchase insurance or for businesses to provide coverage.
The Congressional Budget Office is seen by lawmakers as the arbiter of claims about the costs and effects of proposed legislation, and the agency has been under intense pressure in recent weeks to compete assessments on several bills circulating in House and Senate.
In a letter last week, the agency's director, Dr. Douglas Elmendorf, said the net cost of expanding coverage in the House measure was estimated at $894 billion over 10 years, a figure reflecting a gross total of $1 trillion in federal subsidies as well as other spending.
The letter contained no similar assessment for the balance of the legislation and it was not clear when or whether one would be forthcoming.
In a letter last week to Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., on the general subject of health care, Elmendorf cautioned that some provisions in legislation have elements that raise costs and elements that lower costs.
"Tabulating all of the aspects of the proposal that would, in isolation, increase federal outlays would be complicated and would require somewhat arbitrary judgments" about calculating overall costs, Elmendorf said.

 

You need to examine the working of most insurance companies, yes they sell policies, how else would they have the revenue to pay any claims. Have you ever looked at the balance sheet of an insurance company?

Do you think that a company, in any business, should be compelled to deliver more than they are contractually obligated to deliver? Do you honestly think that any public option insurance program will deliver benefits outside of the policy provisions?

We are in a situation where there are too few restrictions on the health care industry, why not correct these by reasonable means? Have you looked at the Republican health care plan, recently released?

 

Old peanut abandoned the Iranians and allowed the Ayatollah to ascend, giving a solid base to muslim extremism. He showed the Islamic fascists that America would back down. In the Islamic wars, just label Jimmuh as "Munich, 1938".

 

As opposition continues to rise....

Pelosi may get her wish - she's said she's willing to lose the House to get a public option. My prediction is she'll lose the House and get nothing.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php

As Lincoln said, you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Obama's "some of the time" is over.

 

Well, you also predicted that health care reform was dead, if I recall correctly. Nostradamus you ain't.

 

Don't be a fool. I'm not asking them to deliver more than they are contractually obligated to deliver. I'm asking them not to deliver LESS than they are contractually obligated to deliver. I'm asking them not to deny legitimate claims. I'm asking them not to terminate policies because they might cost them too much.

And no, I haven't read the Republican health care "plan"...don't you think it's a bit late in the game to introduce it, after stonewalling reform all this time?

 

And now you confirm, once again, that you're against ANYTHING the government does. I rest my case.

 

Jimmy Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran, whom the CIA helped install as an absolute monarch in 1953 by helping to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran. Prior to 1953 Iran was a constitutional monarchy. The Shah shared power with a democratically elected parliament.

In 1979, when the Shah was overthrown by a popular insurrection, the only way Carter could have kept him in power would have been by a U.S. military occupation. The Iranians would have vigorously resisted our presence. Carter had learned from the War in Vietnam what George the Lesser should have leaned, which is that we are not good at occupying hostile populations that are willing to fight back.

Prior to the CIA engineered coup of 1953 the Prime Minister of Iran was Mohammed Mosaddeq. He was a moderate socialist, a moderate Moslem, and a neutralist in the Cold War. There was no question at the time that he was more popular than Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.

Mohammed Mosaddeg was quite a bit more decent than anyone who has ruled Iran since. His overthrow was seen at the time in the United States as a great victory for "freedom," which is to say for the wellbeing of rich people. After the Shah was established as a dictator, Mosaddeg was tried for treason and sentenced to death. This sentence was was commuted to three-years' solitary confinement in a military prison, followed by house arrest until his death in 1967.

 

You need to read the following on your fellow socialist Mohammed Mosaddeq:
https://www.iranchamber.com/history/mmosaddeq/mohammad_mosaddeq.php

and

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Mohammed_Mosaddeq

 

"Thomas Jefferson was an adamant opponent of government intrusion into individual beliefs or restriction of religious practice or thought. He wrote in his Draft For A Bill For Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia in 1779"

"The impious presumption of legislators … being themselves but fallible … have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others…
Proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust … unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion…
The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction…
To suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion…destroys all religious liberty"


the government has NO business taking over healthcare (the bill Pelosi projects is the worst yet). religion plays a big part of this bill and healthcare, but i guess the state is the new religion.
​

 

Yeah, yeah sure tenguy. I did read the articles you posted but you forgot to post this with them.

That's the truth.

 

Mohammed Mosaddeq

The overthrow of Mossadeq served as a rallying point in anti-US protests during the 1979 Iranian revolution and to this day [he] is said to be one of the most popular figures in Iranian history...

In March 2000, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mosaddeq was ousted: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America."

The US public and government had been very pro-Mosaddeq until the election of Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower’s trust in Britain and Cold War fears made it very easy to convince him of Iran’s communist problem. Even after the coup, as Ahmed points out, despite the change in official policy "many Americans criticized the Shah and advocated genuine democracy."[39]

For his sudden rise in popularity inside and outside of Iran, and for his defiance of the British, Mosaddeq was named as Time Magazine’s 1951.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Mohammed_Mosaddeq

-----

tenguy,

I read your posts, and thank you for them. They reinforce my belief that the United States should not have helped overthrow the democratic government of Iran in 1953.