Universal Health Care for America

[Guest Human]

One small problem with your idea. The Senators, and Congress Persons Legislative Aides WILL DO ANYTHING to keep their jobs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you're a senior citizen and the government says no health care for you, what do you do?

 

Our plan gives anyone 65 years or older a gun and 4 bullets. Your are allowed to shoot 2 senators and 2 representatives. Of Course, this means you will be sent to prison where you will get 3 meals a day, a roof over your head, and all the health care you need! New teeth, no problem. Need glasses, great. New hip, knees, kidney, lungs, heart? All covered.

[Guest Human]

I have never seen the Nurses Association come out in favor or against any medical bills TILL NOW. That says a heck of alot.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NNU cited ten significant problems in the legislation, noting many of the same flaws also exist in the House version and are likely to remain in the bill that emerges from the House-Senate reconciliation process:

 

1# The individual mandate forcing all those without coverage to buy private insurance, with insufficient cost controls on skyrocketing premiums and other insurance costs.

 

2# No challenge to insurance company monopolies, especially in the top 94 metropolitan areas where one or two companies dominate, severely limiting choice and competition.

 

3# An affordability mirage. Congressional Budget Office estimates say a family of four with a household income of $54,000 would be expected to pay 17 percent of their income, $9,000, on healthcare exposing too many families to grave financial risk.

 

4# The excise tax on comprehensive insurance plans which will encourage employers to reduce benefits, shift more costs to employees, promote proliferation of high-deductible plans, and lead to more self-rationing of care and medical bankruptcies, especially as more plans are subject to the tax every year due to the lack of adequate price controls. A Towers-Perrin survey in September found 30 percent of employers said they would reduce employment if their health costs go up, 86 percent said they’d pass the higher costs to their employees.

 

5# Major loopholes in the insurance reforms that promise bans on exclusion for pre-existing conditions, and no cancellations for sickness.

 

6# Minimal oversight on insurance denials of care; a report by the California Nurses Association/NNOC in September found that six of California’s largest insurers have rejected more than one-fifth of all claims since 2002.

 

7# Inadequate limits on drug prices, especially after Senate rejection of an amendment, to protect a White House deal with pharmaceutical giants, allowing pharmacies and wholesalers to import lower-cost drugs.

 

8# New burdens for our public safety net. With a shortage of primary care physicians and a continuing fiscal crisis at the state and local level, public hospitals and clinics will be a dumping ground for those the private system doesn’t want.

 

9# Reduced reproductive rights for women.

 

10# No single standard of care. Our multi-tiered system remains with access to care still determined by ability to pay. Nothing changes in basic structure of the system; healthcare remains a privilege, not a right.

[Guest Soldier of God]

How can our public servants fail to see the humanity of a pre-born child see the divinity of the child in a manger at Bethlehem? Maybe the miracle of life given to a mother and child this past Christmas Eve move their hearts towards the Creator.

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=nN0wCzLw5HA

 

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9442043

 

In what is being hailed as a Christmas "miracle," a young mother died during labor with a still-born baby on Christmas Eve but both mom and baby came back to life just minutes later, before the eyes of the nearly heartbroken, stunned father.

 

"Half of my family was lying there right in front of me -- there's no other way to say it -- dead," Mike Hermanstorfer told ABC News' Colorado affiliate KRDO. "I lost all feeling. Once her heartbeat stopped, I felt like mine did too."

 

Hermanstorfer's wife, Tracey, had suffered cardiac arrest while she was in labor at Memorial Hospital in Colorado Springs.

 

"They were getting ready to put a catheter in and I closed my eyes and don't remember anything after that," Tracey said.

 

She had no pulse, no heartbeat, was not breathing and was turning "gray," Dr. Stephanie Martin, director of maternal fetal medicine at Colorado's Memorial Hospital, told CBS News' Colorado affiliate KKTV. "She was dead."

 

"I sat there with my wife's hand in mine, ice cold," Mike told KKTV.

 

After trying to revive Tracey for several minutes to no avail, doctors ordered an emergency C-section with no anesthesia in an attempt to save the baby. The baby was delivered, but it too was not breathing.

 

But then Mike and the doctors were astounded when Tracey's pulse returned, just after birth. Doctors quickly wheeled Tracey into surgery to complete the C-section. Then, while the mom was being operated on, other doctors worked to get the baby breathing again and eventually it came back as well.

 

Father Claims 'Absolute Miracle'

 

Tracey and the baby, which the couple named Coltyn Mikel Hermanstorfer, recovered nicely and left the hospital Monday to join Tracey's two other children at home. According to KKTV, doctors still do not know what caused Tracey's cardiac arrest or what brought her back from the brink.

 

Dr. Martin told Colorado's The Gazette it's rare for a woman to suffer cardiac arrest during pregnancy and far rarer for both mother and baby to survive.

 

Mike has his own theory.

 

"There's only one explanation for having either one of them, let along both of them here," Mike told reporters. "It's just an absolute miracle."

[Guest Kesha Rogers for Congress]

Many expressed profound disappointment over the failure of the Obama administration to deliver on its promise of `hope and change.' This is more than just an empty promise. It is a deception.

 

While proclaiming a commitment to expand health care coverage, President Obama, with the full support of Congressional leaders such as Nancy Pelosi and the Treasonous Harry Reid, is trying to ram through a bill modeled on the Nazi `health care' policies of Adolf Hitler, which will kill the sick, the poor and the elderly, in the name of `efficiency' and `saving money.'

 

http://www.keshaforcongress.com/

[Guest Bernice]

One day after a new poll showed him tanking with Nebraska voters because of his decision to compromise his long-held pro-life views and become the 60th vote for the pro-abortion health care bill, Sen. Ben Nelson will run a television commercial during a college football bowl game to defend his decision.

[Guest ALWAYSRED]

Congressional Democrats are seriously examining the possibility of skipping the formal conference committee process in an attempt to railroad the pro-abortion health care bill through the House and Senate. Bypassing the normal process may allow them to skip procedural votes that could hold up or kill the bill.

[Guest Human]

Let’s get real here, when even the nurses association comes out against this "Bill", its serious stuff.

 

Because whether you folks know it or not? They do the grunt work; They know the system up and down.

 

Christ! If it wasn't for them and a few good doctors "But mostly nurses" I can promise you this para would not be here today typing on this message board. This para will kiss the ground they walk on” You can bleepin believe it".

[Guest ALWAYSRED]

Hmmm. I wonder what happened to Obama's many promises that Health care negotiations will be on C-SPAN to keep the process honest.

 

[Guest Deandre]

The Transparency of the biggest joke of an administration in HISTORY! Lie after Lie, broken promise after broken promise. HOAX AND CHANGE (more like bait and switch).

[Guest Levana]

This is our last chance to have a positive effect on the health care bill before it is voted on by the House and Senate and signed by the President. Each of us must take this opportunity to try and make health care more affordable for everyone and hold insurance companies accountable.

 

Make good health care affordable:

 

Low and middle income families must be able to afford health insurance if they do not get it through work, and employers must be asked to provide good health coverage for their employees so health care is affordable at work. Health reform should not be paid for by taxing our health care benefits.

 

Hold insurance companies accountable:

 

If the insurance companies win, we lose. Insurance companies must be held accountable with strong regulations and consumer protections, and we must be given the choice of a national public health insurance option available on day one.

 

Health Care for America Now

1825 K Street NW

Suite 400

Washington, DC 20006

 

Main number: (202) 454-6200

 

info@healthcareforamericanow.org

 

Press inquiries only:

 

Jacki Schechner

National Communications Director

 

jschechner@healthcareforamericanow.org

[Luke_Wilbur]

I fear that priority should have been given to creating more jobs instead of wasting time and precious tax payer dollars on getting this Health Care bill completed.

 

But, if would be even more expensive to not move forward with this Health care initiative now that the nation is attentive to it.

 

I do think it is a mistake to complete this bill with abortion coverage. I believe in everyone's right to choose, but I should not have to be made to pay for their decisions. This is against my faith and religious belief. What about my liberty. I know this issue will make it to the courts. I am sure the ACLU is preparing the phone lines now.

 

Please Mr. President consider those who consider this a failure.

[Guest Don McCanne]

It's too bad that we don't have visionaries in power who can say that this isn't going to work and we have to move on with fixing it now. But then the citizens of the United States are used to living with our over-priced, dysfunctional system that accepts, as a given, financial hardship, physical suffering, and even death.

[Guest Jason Rahlan]

A new report being released today by the Center for American Progress and the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center at the University of Southern California shows that health care reform will create up to 4 million more jobs than would be created without reform.

 

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/pdf/health_care_jobs.pdf

[Guest Drew Hammill]

Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a brief press availability with Chairman Charles Rangel, Chairman Henry Waxman, Chairman George Miller, and Chairwoman Louise Slaughter following their meeting this afternoon with President Obama at the White House to discuss health care legislation. The following is a partial transcript due to an incomplete audio recording.

 

"…We’ve had a very intense couple of days with meetings in our leadership, meetings with our staff. After our leadership meeting this morning, our staffs engaged with the Senate and the Administration’s staff to review the legislation, suggest legislative language. I think we’re very close to reconciliation, respectful of the challenges — policy and otherwise — in the House and in the Senate.

 

“But we would not be at this historic moment without the leadership of President Obama — with his commitment to health care for all Americans as a right, not a privilege. So we thank him for his vision and his leadership. We also thank him for his time and his attention to the details of the legislation.

 

“Thank you all.”

 

Q: Could you tell us a couple things that you’re hoping that will be adopted from the House bill that you think that…

 

Speaker Pelosi. Any of our Chairmen wish to speak to that?

 

What we’re talking about is affordability and accountability. And I think that in both of the bills, the makings for great legislation is evident and present in both bills. So, it’s not a question of adopting this or that. It’s about addressing and meeting the needs of the American people — that this be affordable for the middle class — and to do that we have to hold the insurance companies accountable. Any legislation would have to be judged as to how it did that. Again, with the third “A” — providing affordable — access to affordable, quality health care at lower cost for the American people.

 

Q: Do you anticipate that these bills will be passed by the end of the month?

 

Chairwoman Louise Slaughter. That’s our hope.

 

Speaker Pelosi. It’s possible, it’s possible.

 

Chairman Charles Rangel. The President has been very patient with his time and understanding that we have to get 218 votes and we really have to be able to sell it — not just to our Democratic Caucus, but to the American people. And we could not have asked the President to be more cooperative — even though he’s doing more listening than talking.

 

Speaker Pelosi. But we will bring the bill to the floor when we are ready. And hopefully that will be soon.

 

Q: What are the continuing areas of difference with the Senate at this point?

 

Speaker Pelosi. You know, we have so much area of agreement that I prefer to focus on that. I’d prefer to focus on that.

 

Q: How about the differences? Is the public option still a difference? Is that still a problem?

 

Speaker Pelosi Again, we are walking through the bills right now – the House and Senate and the staff of the Administration. And the staff goes through — we have selected a few items that we want to take primary responsibility for, but the staff I am sure will — their discussions will yield a few more areas.

 

It actually — the truth is that there is so much agreement in the bills but sometimes we approach the issue differently. So we have to figure out what the best approach is to the issues.

 

Q: What are the few areas that you have taken responsibility for?

 

Speaker Pelosi. Accountability for the insurance industry, affordability for the middle class, and access for quality health care for all Americans. And we all are committed to fiscal responsibility that has to accompany this bill. Because if every person in America loved the health insurance and loved the health care that they had, we would still have to undertake this because the present system is unsustainable. We can’t afford the upward spiral of medical costs in our country.

 

As the President has said, health care reform is entitlement reform for reasons that affect the lives of working families in America, of seniors in our country, young people, our veterans, you name it, everyone benefits by the passage of this legislation.

 

Thank you all very much.

[Guest Ken]

I fear that priority should have been given to creating more jobs instead of wasting time and precious tax payer dollars on getting this Health Care bill completed.

 

But, if would be even more expensive to not move forward with this Health care initiative now that the nation is attentive to it.

 

I do think it is a mistake to complete this bill with abortion coverage. I believe in everyone's right to choose, but I should not have to be made to pay for their decisions. This is against my faith and religious belief. What about my liberty. I know this issue will make it to the courts. I am sure the ACLU is preparing the phone lines now.

 

Please Mr. President consider those who consider this a failure.

 

 

Many Democrats in the House agree with you. U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) issued the following statement regarding to the abortion language provisions in the Senate health care bill:

 

While I appreciate the efforts of all the parties involved, especially Senator Ben Nelson, the Senate abortion language is not acceptable. I will continue to work with my colleagues on this issue as the process moves forward.

 

A review of the Senate language indicates a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage.

 

Further, the segregation of funds to pay for abortion is another departure from current policy prohibiting federal subsidy of abortion coverage.

 

While I and many other pro-life Democratic House members wish to see health care coverage for all Americans, the proposed Senate language is unacceptable. I look forward to working with members of the House, Senate and the Obama Administration to find common ground on this issue and draft language that guarantees continuation of current law of no public funding for abortion.

 

Earlier today an unauthorized email from a member of my staff was sent to interested parties. I was unaware of this email and it was sent without my knowledge or approval. The above statement reflects my position on the proposed Senate language.

[Guest LAW]

Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey says in a new interview that the merged bill will contain the Nelson-Reid abortion funding language instead of the Stupak amendment. Casey made the remarks Wednesday after meeting with business leaders in Nazareth, Pa. at the headquarters of C.F. Martin & Co. guitars.

 

Here's what he had to say:

 

Q:Do you think whatever comes out of the conference committee will but suitable to hold all 60 Democratic votes in the Senate

 

A: “I’m confident we can. With passage in the Senate I think we moved into a whole new chapter, a chapter frankly a lot of people thought we wouldn't get to. I think we can maintain that. I don’t want to downplay the challenges within a conference of something this important and difficult but I think we can get there.

 

Q: What about the abortion restrictions language that helped bring on anti-abortion Democrats in the Senate? Will that survive intact?

 

That will be part of the debate in the conference. I thought we made, individuals like me and a few others made a lot of progress taking us from where we were in the original base bill to where we are today. For some, it is not good enough for some, and it will be a continual source of debate. I think we made tremendous progress and in addition to making specific changes to the abortion section which I think were very positive and got us to a point where at least I can say we developed that strong segregation of funds to insure tax dollars don’t pay for abortions. In addition to that though, the adoption tax credit I got in the bill and the pregnant womens fund of $250 million I think were great advancements not just on the policy but I think on the longer term debate on the issue. There are areas where we can get along and agree but more important than agreement is there are ways we can reduce the number of abortions. I think if you look at it more broadly, the abortions provisions specifically, plus the pregnancy fund plus the adoption tax credit I think will have the effect of reducing the number of abortions and ultimately that is where we need to get to and it is an area of agreement.

 

Q: Is there a danger of losing that 60-vote majority if the language changes in conference?

 

A: There is a concern about that, but I think we can reach an agreement between the two houses

[Guest ALWAYSRED]

I heard that Senator Casey is creating an opt-out clause for individuals so that they are not compelled to fund abortions through their personal premiums in any future Exchange.

 

Here is a little more info to you newcomers.

 

The Hyde Amendment, passed on September 30, 1976 by the U.S. House by a 207-167 vote, is a limitation amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions through funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for Health and Human Services.

 

The Stupak–Pitts Amendment, an amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act, was introduced by Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan. It prohibits use of Federal funds "to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion" except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother, and was included in the bill as passed by the House of Representatives on November 7, 2009.

[Guest ALWAYSRED]

Fiscal Republican Scott Brown is the answer to those who want to end the misery of ObamaCare. Peolosi robot, Martha Mary Coakley has decided NOT to debate Scott Brown.

 

I believe that all Americans deserve health care coverage, but I am opposed to the health care legislation that is under consideration in Congress and will vote against it. It will raise taxes, increase government spending and lower the quality of care, especially for elders on Medicare. I support strengthening the existing private market system with policies that will drive down costs and make it easier for people to purchase affordable insurance. In Massachusetts, I support the 2006 healthcare law that was successful in expanding coverage, but I also recognize that the state must now turn its attention to controlling costs.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65_Tum5qdIk

 

http://brownforussenate.com/

[Guest ALWAYSRED]

Martha Coakley supports taxpayers funding abortions.

[Guest Cranium]

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/11/health-care-reform-to-date-so-very-far-from-perfect/

 

The Senate bill is just a bad corporate giveaway with a very few good things in it. It has some good new regulations but leaves enforcement up to the states. This is recipe for regulations which are not enforced and are therefore meaningless.

 

The new regulations only impact the small group market; they don’t apply to the majority of private insurance in this country. The weird “free rider” provision instead of a real employer mandate creates some bad hiring incentives along with incentives to drop coverage.

 

The quality of the insurance people will be forced to buy is incredibly low and the subsidies are insufficient. People will have no other choice but to buy coverage from very inefficient and wasteful private insurance companies.

 

The bill lacks real cost control and the new poorly-designed excise tax will result in millions of Americans getting lower quality health insurance. The bill is not even a good foundation for future reform because it works on a state-by-state basis while directing huge amounts of money and power to the industries which opposed real reform.

 

The Senate bill does not provide anything close to universal coverage; it also contains a major roll back of women’s reproductive health rights.

[Guest ALWAYSRED]

Watch Pelosi's remarks at 5:50 when she is asked for transparency coverage of legislation differences between the House and Senate. Democratic leaders are considering bypassing a formal conference committee.

 

[Guest Trixi]

The answer to health care is pretty simple: My body should not be some one's profit margin! My well being and health is not your bonus! I am not a slave! We have to come up with a non profit entity to manage health providers. Such an organization would answer to us, tax payers as opposed to the shareholders. This is the only humane solution!

[Guest Joey]

Fiscal Republican Scott Brown is the answer to those who want to end the misery of ObamaCare. Peolosi robot, Martha Mary Coakley has decided NOT to debate Scott Brown.

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65_Tum5qdIk

 

http://brownforussenate.com/

 

Should the citizens of Massachussetts elect a republican next week, to comply with the late Senator Kennedy's wish that his seat not become a "dynasty" handed down from one Kennedy or patron to the next, American citizens would see the some light shine on this dishonest practice and be able to participate in the restructuring of our future.

[Guest wordstream]

The state-wide special election to fill the seat vacated by US Senator Edward Kennedy on January 19th has attracted huge national interest because if the Democrats lose this seat, they lose the filibuster-proof margin they currently have in the US Senate.

 

For the first time for as long I can remember, my very own home state of Massachusetts is today considered a battleground state. Recent polls show the two candidates, State Senator Scott Brown (Republican) and State Attorney General Martha Coakley (Democrat) engaged in a tight race – well within the margin of error.

 

Dates Scott Brown ® Martha Coakley (D)

Public Policy Polling (PPP) January 7-9 48% 47%

Rasmussen Reports January 11 47% 49%

 

But being a search marketer, I launched my own investigation to see if I could find out more information about the dynamics of this US Senate race based on internet marketing and social media metrics. The findings (based on data collected on January 14) were staggering. The data suggests that conventional pollsters and Washington insiders have it completely wrong – that it won't be a tight race, and that State Senator Scott Brown will win by a landslide.

 

Social Media Polling Methodology

In this poll I looked at the three major social media venues – Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube – as well as the Alexa Ratings. I used the user engagement metrics that are available from the various sites in order to compare the internet presence of the two candidates.

 

YouTube Channels

Both candidates prominently feature a link to their respective YouTube channels on their home pages and syndicate television ads and other content on the site. Scott Brown is showing a 10:1 advantage over Martha Coakley in terms of video content viewership.

 

Channel Views Total Upload Views Subscribers

Martha Coakley on YouTube 8,561 24,014 58

Scott Brown on YouTube 26,622 223,678 387

 

Facebook Fan Pages

Facebook fan pages are a great way to connect with people and their networks. Both Scott Brown and Martha Coakley maintain their own Facebook fan pages, which are featured prominently on their homepages. Scott Brown has over a 4:1 edge in terms of number of fans.

 

Number of Fans

Martha Coakley Fan Page 9,398

Scott Brown Fan Page 41,050

 

Twitter Mentions

President Obama famously used Twitter to connect to millions of followers. Both Scott Brown and Martha Coakley employ Twitter to communicate with their fans – again, Scott Brown has the edge. He has more followers, appears on more user lists, and generates more buzz overall on Twitter.

 

Followers Listed Twitter Mentions

Martha Coakley on Twitter 2674 236 7210

Scott Brown on Twitter 7105 404 21500

[Guest LAW]

Latest press Gaggle from the White House

 

Briefing by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 1/15/10

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

 

Q Barney Frank says that if Scott Brown wins on Tuesday that health care is dead. Do you agree with that?

 

MR. GIBBS: I don't think Scott Brown is going to win on Tuesday.

 

Q Well, it's looking like you might be wrong. So what are you guys doing to prepare for that eventuality? And what do you think the chances of a health care bill passing are?

 

MR. GIBBS: Look, Jennifer, the President has spent a lot of time over the last few days working through the few issues that remained between the House and the Senate to get an agreement that can move this legislation forward. He was here until late last night, and they're back in the room today, right now, continuing to make progress. So that's what we're doing to get health care through.

 

Q But getting a deal is somewhat separate from getting the votes once it goes to the floor --

 

MR. GIBBS: Sure.

 

Q -- of either the House or the Senate. That's what this election could drastically impact.

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, we'll have time to talk about what happens next week.

 

Q Do you think the election on Tuesday is a referendum on the --

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think one of the reasons the President accepted the invitation of the Coakley campaign to go -- I think the President sees a pretty clear distinction between a candidate in Martha Coakley who's going to fight for Massachusetts and a candidate on the other side who feels comfortable fighting for the insurance industry and big banks.

 

Q Do you think it is in some ways a referendum on the health care bill?

 

MR. GIBBS: No, I think it's a referendum on whose side are you on.

 

Q A lot of the polling suggests that the problems that Democrats have had in places like New Jersey and Virginia, as well as Massachusetts, is based on public dislike of what they perceive to be the health care plan, and you're not getting any traction in places like Massachusetts. You got a candidate who was perceived to be a run-away -- a walk-away winner who is now in danger of losing. What's wrong with your message?

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, that's why we have elections. That's why we have elections. We're not on the ballot in -- there's a campaign that's going on in Massachusetts. We're happy to lend our support. And I think as you heard the President say yesterday, we're going to get health care done, and we'll be happy to have a campaign on whether you're for the status quo, whether you're for protecting insurance industry profits, whether you're for protecting bank company profits, or whether you're on the side of the American people. We'll be happy to have that -- we'll be happy to have that --

 

Q We've heard from polling that people aren't buying that. I mean, do you think the President can go and turn it around?

 

MR. GIBBS: I think the President believes he can be helpful, and is happy to accept the invitation.