Universal Health Care for America

[Guest HUMAN]

Lisa, It's pointless to argue this anymore. There is a Doctor shortage, Nursing shortage.

What's coming down the line "LOL" you have no idea what you and your group ARE going to put the

General public through.

 

I never thought that I would see the destruction of the type of medical care system that we have now.

 

It's going to get far, far worse. You know what consoles me about all of this?

 

It's irrelevant since your very own group "The democrats" will be feeling it as well.

Very simple; The horrors of an over worked, under staffed medical care system.

 

That's what consoles me; Your group won’t be immune from it either. No one will actually.

 

 

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

Misinformation. Confusion. Chaos. In many ways, those have been the hallmarks of the health insurance reform debate, leaving the public with little clear understanding about essential elements of the bills the House and Senate have passed.

 

To bring clarity where there has been confusion, and shed light on some little-known provisions that will result in big improvements for women, the National Partnership for Women & Families has produced a new fact sheet, Improving Health Care for Women & Families: The Top Ten Best Kept Secrets about Health Insurance Reform and Why Congress Should Pass It Without Delay.

 

1. Better Benefits

Women and families will be guaranteed coverage for the care they need, from the doctors they need. In addition to physician and hospital care, health plans will be required to cover maternity and newborn care, pediatric services (including dental and vision care), prescription drugs, laboratory services, and mental health services. They will have to offer a sufficient number of specialists and hospitals in their networks to meet the full range of health needs for those in their plans.

 

2. Better Care

The bill promotes innovative new ways to provide health care that will promote higher quality, better coordinated care built to meet the needs of patients and families. These new approaches will support better communication and coordination among health care providers – and between doctors and patients (and their families) – to prevent problems like harmful medication drug interactions, conflicting diagnoses, and duplicate tests and procedures.

 

3. Free Preventive Care

Both private health plans and Medicare will cover the full costs of a range of preventive services and immunizations, so women and families can stay healthy without worrying about the expensive co-payments or deductibles that now often keep them from getting the care they need.

 

4. Coverage for Young Adults

Recent high school and college graduates won’t be left without coverage as they struggle to find work and start their careers. The new legislation will let young adults stay on their parents’ insurance plans until they are 26 years old.

 

5. Help for Small Businesses

Small businesses, which are predominately owned and operated by women1, will be eligible for tax credits to help them provide health insurance coverage to their employees.

 

6. More Access to Family Planning

States will be allowed to expand Medicaid eligibility for family planning services without having to jump through cumbersome administrative hoops. This no-cost and highly effective provision will let states act quickly and more easily to expand access to basic preventive care for low-income women.

 

7. Help for Pregnant Women

Pregnant and parenting women in Medicaid will gain access to critical new services and providers – including maternal, infant and early childhood home visiting programs; support services for, and education about, post partum depression; and free-standing birth centers.

 

8. Assistance with Prescription Drug Costs

Older and disabled women on Medicare will get help paying for their prescription drugs.

 

9. Improved Conditions for Working Mothers

Employers will be required to provide a reasonable break time and place for nursing mothers to breast feed.

 

10. A Stronger Health Care Workforce

The health care workforce will be strengthened by enhanced training and support available for nurses and other primary care providers, and increased funding for school-based health centers.

[Guest Young Democrat]

I take insult to that sir. The greater good is run by crooks on both sides of the aisle. The truth is that there are less people coming into the health care system as there are going out. The cost for care of our senior citizens should be of highest concern. Those that give to our country in service and monetarily should be taken care of. While unfortunate, the Premiums need to be adjusted accordingly. This is the part that needs major tort reform. Also, the Poverty levels are increasing every year at exponential pace. Hospitals are closing. Doctors are cutting back their hours. Something needs to be done. Centers have to be created to honor the lives of each and everyone one of us. Our country needs to incorporate the Hippocratic oath.

 

It is said that in the 4th Century, B.C., the Greek physician Hippocrates wrote down an oath for physicians that included the famous saying, "Do no harm."

 

It sounds so simple, but within those three words is contained the magic of being a physician.

 

But that oath said much more.

 

I took that oath not quite as far back as the 4th Century and I still remember and embrace it today.

 

To take the Hippocratic Oath is to pledge that "into whatever house you may enter, you will go for the benefit of the sick."

 

So, do no harm and commit yourself to action.

 

It's the type of action that I think one of the greatest fathers of this country would smile upon.

 

"An ounce of practice is worth more than tons of preaching," Gandhi once said.

 

Now, I don't know what he thought of doctors, but I think he would smile upon you and the work you will undertake in your career.

 

He said that, "In a gentle way, you can shake the world."

 

Helping one patient at a time, you will shake the world.

 

At its core, the Hippocratic Oath promises a sacred trust between the doctor and his or her patients.

 

For those who have the privilege and honor to take this solemn oath, they pledge to "abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption."

 

You are doing harm by being an obstructionist to all and not sharing thoughts, You throw darts of insults in risk of damaging the faith in our constitutional system. Party gains over truth.

 

Special love: T.C. Williams

 

Medical Students Must Be Prepared to Serve

Feb. 28, 2009

 

N.R.I. Academy of Sciences

Chinakakani-522503

Guntur District, AP

 

Michael D. Maves, MD, MBA

CEO and EVP

American Medical Association

[Guest HUMAN]

You can take insult to whatever you want. What I posted still rings true. You are still young, you don't know how over worked the medical system is.

 

When you get older and experience the medical system, only then will you understand.

 

It doesn't matter what ever political group people are in. The democrats’ medical bill will destroy the delivery of medical care in general.

 

Your group is going to pass what it wants to pass regardless. When everyone feels what the democrats have passed? Oh well!!! Learn the hard way.

 

But don't for one second complain about it, because it is what you signed unto.

 

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

I take insult to that sir. The greater good is run by crooks on both sides of the aisle. The truth is that there are less people coming into the health care system as there are going out. The cost for care of our senior citizens should be of highest concern. Those that give to our country in service and monetarily should be taken care of. While unfortunate, the Premiums need to be adjusted accordingly. This is the part that needs major tort reform. Also, the Poverty levels are increasing every year at exponential pace. Hospitals are closing. Doctors are cutting back their hours. Something needs to be done. Centers have to be created to honor the lives of each and everyone one of us. Our country needs to incorporate the Hippocratic oath.

 

 

 

You are doing harm by being an obstructionist to all and not sharing thoughts, You throw darts of insults in risk of damaging the faith in our constitutional system. Party gains over truth.

 

Special love: T.C. Williams

 

Medical Students Must Be Prepared to Serve

Feb. 28, 2009

 

N.R.I. Academy of Sciences

Chinakakani-522503

Guntur District, AP

 

Michael D. Maves, MD, MBA

CEO and EVP

American Medical Association

[Guest Sen. Chuck Grassley]

The flawed Medicaid policy in the Senate bill is a disgrace for everyone who needs access to health care because it gives 15 million people a false promise by putting them in Medicaid where they’ll face challenges finding providers who will see them. There’s no question Medicaid won’t be able to provide adequate access. It’s good if the White House has figured that out. The question becomes whether the President is willing to cut spending in the bill to guarantee the poorest people adequate access to care.

[Guest Joanne Cooper]

The health care legislation cannot fix all the system's ills. The lack of doctors and other medical professionals is a result of the high costs of medical education in this country.

 

I have no health insurance. Facing a shortage of doctors or longer wait times would be a luxury compared to not having health insurance. I broke my shoulder last year and decided to just rough it out because I knew an operation would cost at least $15K. I am a 57 year old woman who has gone without a mammogram or gynecological check-up in three years. I know a number of (mostly women) who are in the same boat.

 

People who are part of a group coverage may not understand that the same plans are NOT available to individuals. I have evaluated many plans available in my area and I have seen deductibles as high as $10,000 a year. And that DOES NOT include medication!! Medication has a separate deductible and often is limited in yearly payout to about $2,000. And there are different deductibles for "in network" and "out of network".

 

After signing up for a Blue Cross plan two years ago, I received the Individual Enrollment Agreement that was at least 1/2" thick, printed on both sides, detailing in legal terms what would be covered, what costs apply to the deductibles, and endless riders and Amendments.

 

Unlike people in group plans, individuals need to fill out complicated application forms. Here is a zinger from the United HealthCare application I received: "Has applicant had any medical test, exam or screening results that were abnormal (for example, low, high, elevated, abnormal finding) in the past five years?". If yes, give all dates and details of physician visits, medications prescribed, etc.

 

Perhaps I should ask my doctor to take an hour of his time to fill all of this out. And then I guess I should include all the dental surgery I have had to undergo in the last five years as well.

 

The catch is that if they determine that I have not answered these questions correctly, they can terminate the insurance at any time at all. The more complicated the questions, the more likely it is that the applicant is simply not capable of answering the question correctly. So they are essentially pre-planted land mines that can blow up if and when the subscriber needs very expensive medical care.

 

People under group plans, especially with larger companies, have insurance that is more reliable, provides more coverage with lower deductibles and since they do not have to apply individually, they are not at risk of having their coverage rescinded.

 

I would pay the higher individual price for health insurance if there was a plan comparable to a group plan and I could be guaranteed that my coverage would be not be rescinded for a mistake on my application or that a problem would not be arbitrarily considered "pre-existing".

 

Forget about shopping across state lines. It took me a week to compare all the different pricing plans offered by just two companies and try to read the fine print.

 

Anyone who does not consider the condition of uninsured Americans to be the biggest problem facing our country is either in a bubble or are just not bothered by the fact that 45,000 Americans die each year because they are underinsured.

[Guest Human]

So you just sign whatever they put in front of you and that's it?

I rewrite my medical insurance contract ALL of the time. The paragraph and lines that I don't like, I just re-write them to my advantage.

 

If they don't bother to read it? That's there stupidity.

Most folks don't understand that a contract works both ways. It's not just one way.

 

Does my insurance company like me? NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST.

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

The health care legislation cannot fix all the system's ills. The lack of doctors and other medical professionals is a result of the high costs of medical education in this country.

 

I have no health insurance. Facing a shortage of doctors or longer wait times would be a luxury compared to not having health insurance. I broke my shoulder last year and decided to just rough it out because I knew an operation would cost at least $15K. I am a 57 year old woman who has gone without a mammogram or gynecological check-up in three years. I know a number of (mostly women) who are in the same boat.

 

People who are part of a group coverage may not understand that the same plans are NOT available to individuals. I have evaluated many plans available in my area and I have seen deductibles as high as $10,000 a year. And that DOES NOT include medication!! Medication has a separate deductible and often is limited in yearly payout to about $2,000. And there are different deductibles for "in network" and "out of network".

 

After signing up for a Blue Cross plan two years ago, I received the Individual Enrollment Agreement that was at least 1/2" thick, printed on both sides, detailing in legal terms what would be covered, what costs apply to the deductibles, and endless riders and Amendments.

 

Unlike people in group plans, individuals need to fill out complicated application forms. Here is a zinger from the United HealthCare application I received: "Has applicant had any medical test, exam or screening results that were abnormal (for example, low, high, elevated, abnormal finding) in the past five years?". If yes, give all dates and details of physician visits, medications prescribed, etc.

 

Perhaps I should ask my doctor to take an hour of his time to fill all of this out. And then I guess I should include all the dental surgery I have had to undergo in the last five years as well.

 

The catch is that if they determine that I have not answered these questions correctly, they can terminate the insurance at any time at all. The more complicated the questions, the more likely it is that the applicant is simply not capable of answering the question correctly. So they are essentially pre-planted land mines that can blow up if and when the subscriber needs very expensive medical care.

 

People under group plans, especially with larger companies, have insurance that is more reliable, provides more coverage with lower deductibles and since they do not have to apply individually, they are not at risk of having their coverage rescinded.

 

I would pay the higher individual price for health insurance if there was a plan comparable to a group plan and I could be guaranteed that my coverage would be not be rescinded for a mistake on my application or that a problem would not be arbitrarily considered "pre-existing".

 

Forget about shopping across state lines. It took me a week to compare all the different pricing plans offered by just two companies and try to read the fine print.

 

Anyone who does not consider the condition of uninsured Americans to be the biggest problem facing our country is either in a bubble or are just not bothered by the fact that 45,000 Americans die each year because they are underinsured.

[Guest Knock Knock]

Is this party line or a pundit preaching? You see a world from an box. It is time to start traveling. A majority of Americans only know hospitals. The health coverage plans that some Americans do have are given by large corporations. They see no negotiation. In complete respect, how are old are you? What cover plan do you have? Who is your provider? I would like to understand how you can negotiate health care favorably on your terms.

[Guest Human]

At any given moment in time, in work they give you a contract to sign, a health care package to choose from. You CAN at any point review the health care plan, At which point you change it, hand it back to them and that's it.

 

It's called using what god gave you "A Mind".

Knock Knock are you there?

 

This Administration to this point has said 47 million, 30 million, and 14 million.

Get your numbers straight.

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

Is this party line or a pundit preaching? You see a world from an box. It is time to start traveling. A majority of Americans only know hospitals. The health coverage plans that some Americans do have are given by large corporations. They see no negotiation. In complete respect, how are old are you? What cover plan do you have? Who is your provider? I would like to understand how you can negotiate health care favorably on your terms.

[Guest President Barack Obama]

Last Thursday's first-of-its-kind summit capped off a debate that has lasted nearly a year. Every idea has now been put on the table. Every argument has been made. Both parties agree that the status quo is unacceptable and gets more dire each day. Today, I want to state as clearly and forcefully as I know how: Now is the time to make a decision about the future of health care in America.

 

The final proposal I've put forward draws on the best ideas from all sides, including several put forward by Republicans at last week's summit. It will put Americans in charge of their own health care, ensuring that neither government nor insurance company bureaucrats can ration, deny, or put out of financial reach the care our families need and deserve.

 

I strongly believe that Congress now owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. Reform has already passed the House with bipartisan support and the Senate with a super-majority of sixty votes. Now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that has been routinely used and has passed such landmark measures as welfare reform and both Bush tax cuts.

 

Earlier today, I asked leaders in both houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform.

 

Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system:

 

First, it would protect all Americans from the worst practices of insurance companies. Never again will the mother with breast cancer have her coverage revoked, see her premiums arbitrarily raised, or be forced to live in fear that a pre-existing condition will bar her from future coverage.

 

Second, my proposal would give individuals and small businesses the same choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves. And my proposal says that if you still can't afford the insurance in this new marketplace, we will offer you tax credits based on your income -- tax credits that add up to the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history.

 

Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for everyone -- families, businesses, and the federal government -- and bring down our deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. These savings mean businesses small and large will finally be freed up to create jobs and increase wages. With costs currently skyrocketing, reform is vital to remaining economically strong in the years and decades to come.

 

When I talked about change on the campaign, this is what I was talking about: coming together to solve a huge problem that has been troubling America for 100 years and standing up to the special interests to deliver a brighter, smarter future for generations to come.

 

I look forward to signing this historic reform into law. And when I do, it will be because your organizing played an essential role in making change possible.

 

Thank you,

 

President Barack Obama

[Guest The White House]

March 03, 2010
Remarks by the President on Health Care Reform
East Room

1:50 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much, all of you, for joining us today. And I want to thank Julie, Barbara, Roland, Stephen, Renee, and Christopher, standing behind me -- physicians, physicians assistants, and nurses who understand how important it is for us to make much needed changes in our health care system.

I want to thank all of you who are here today. I want to specially recognize two people who have been working tirelessly on that -- on this effort, my Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius -- (applause) -- as well as our quarterback for health reform out of the White House, Nancy-Ann DeParle. (Applause.)

We began our push to reform health insurance last March, in this room, with doctors and nurses who know the system best. And so it’s fitting to be joined by all of you as we bring this journey to a close.

Last Thursday, I spent seven hours at a summit where Democrats and Republicans engaged in a public and very substantive discussion about health care. This meeting capped off a debate that began with a similar summit nearly one year ago. And since then, every idea has been put on the table. Every argument has been made. Everything there is to say about health care has been said -- (laughter) -- and just about everybody has said it. (Laughter.) So now is the time to make a decision about how to finally reform health care so that it works, not just for the insurance companies, but for America’s families and America’s businesses.

Now, where both sides say they agree is that the status quo is not working for the American people. Health insurance is becoming more expensive by the day. Families can’t afford it. Businesses can’t afford it. The federal government can’t afford it. Smaller businesses and individuals who don’t get coverage at work are squeezed especially hard. And insurance companies freely ration health care based on who’s sick and who’s healthy; who can pay and who can’t. That's the status quo. That's the system we have right now.

Democrats and Republicans agree that this is a serious problem for America. And we agree that if we do nothing -– if we throw up our hands and walk away -– it’s a problem that will only grow worse. Nobody disputes that. More Americans will lose their family's health insurance if they switch jobs or lose their job. More small businesses will be forced to choose between health care and hiring. More insurance companies will deny people coverage who have preexisting conditions, or they'll drop people's coverage when they get sick and need it most. And the rising cost of Medicare and Medicaid will sink our government deeper and deeper and deeper into debt. On all of this we agree.
So the question is, what do we do about it?

On one end of the spectrum, there are some who've suggested scrapping our system of private insurance and replacing it with a government-run health care system. And though many other countries have such a system, in America it would be neither practical nor realistic.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are those, and this includes most Republicans in Congress, who believe the answer is to loosen regulations on the insurance industry -- whether it's state consumer protections or minimum standards for the kind of insurance they can sell. The argument is, is that that will somehow lower costs. I disagree with that approach. I'm concerned that this would only give the insurance industry even freer rein to raise premiums and deny care.

So I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America. I believe it's time to give the American people more control over their health care and their health insurance. I don't believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone. I believe that doctors and nurses and physician assistants like the ones in this room should be free to decide what's best for their patients. (Applause.)

Now, the proposal I put forward gives Americans more control over their health insurance and their health care by holding insurance companies more accountable. It builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. I can tell you as the father of two young girls, I would not want any plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor.

Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system. First, it would end the worst practices of insurance companies. No longer would they be able to deny your coverage because of a preexisting condition. No longer would they be able to drop your coverage because you got sick. No longer would they be able to force you to pay unlimited amounts of money out of your own pocket. No longer would they be able to arbitrarily and massively raise premiums like Anthem Blue Cross recently tried to do in California -- up to 39 percent increases in one year in the individual market. Those practices would end.

Second, my proposal would give uninsured individuals and small business owners the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves -- because if it’s good enough for members of Congress, it’s good enough for the people who pay their salaries. (Applause.)

The reason federal employees get a good deal on health insurance is that we all participate in an insurance market where insurance companies give better coverage and better rates, because they get more customers. It's an idea that many Republicans have embraced in the past, before politics intruded.
And my proposal says that if you still can’t afford the insurance in this new marketplace, even though it's going to provide better deals for people than they can get right now in the individual marketplace, then we'll offer you tax credits to do so -- tax credits that add up to the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history. After all, the wealthiest among us can already buy the best insurance there is, and the least well off are able to get coverage through Medicaid. So it's the middle class that gets squeezed, and that’s who we have to help.
Now, it is absolutely true that all of this will cost some money -- about $100 billion per year. But most of this comes from the nearly $2 trillion a year that America already spends on health care -- but a lot of it is not spent wisely. A lot of that money is being wasted or spent badly. So within this plan, we’re going to make sure the dollars we spend go towards making insurance more affordable and more secure. We’re going to eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance and pharmaceutical companies; set a new fee on insurance companies that stand to gain a lot of money and a lot of profits as millions of Americans are able to buy insurance; and we're going to make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share on Medicare.

The bottom line is our proposal is paid for. And all the new money generated in this plan goes back to small businesses and middle-class families who can't afford health insurance. It would also lower prescription drug prices for seniors. And it would help train new doctors and nurses and physician assistants to provide care for American families.

Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions -- families, businesses, and the federal government. We have now incorporated most of the serious ideas from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care --- ideas that go after the waste and abuse in our system, especially in programs like Medicare. But we do this while protecting Medicare benefits, and extending the financial stability of the program by nearly a decade.

Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people's premiums and brings down our deficit by up to a trillion dollars over the next two decades -- brings down our deficit. Those aren't my numbers; those are the savings determined by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the Washington acronym for the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress in terms of how much stuff costs. (Laughter.)

So that's our proposal. This is where we've ended up. It's an approach that has been debated and changed and I believe improved over the last year. It incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans --- including some of the ideas that Republicans offered during the health care summit, like funding state grants on medical malpractice reform, and curbing waste and fraud and abuse in the health care system. My proposal also gets rid of many of the provisions that had no place in health care reform -- provisions that were more about winning individual votes in Congress than improving health care for all Americans.

Now, despite all that we agree on and all the Republican ideas we've incorporated, many -- probably most -- Republicans in Congress just have a fundamental disagreement over whether we should have more or less oversight of insurance companies. And if they truly believe that less regulation would lead to higher quality, more affordable health insurance, then they should vote against the proposal I've put forward.

Now, some also believe that we should, instead of doing what I'm proposing, pursue a piecemeal approach to health insurance reform, where we tinker around the edges of this challenge for the next few years. Even those who acknowledge the problem of the uninsured say we just can't afford to help them right now --- which is why the Republican proposal only covers 3 million uninsured Americans while we cover over 31 million.

The problem with that approach is that unless everyone has access to affordable coverage, you can't prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions; you can't limit the amount families are forced to pay out of their own pockets. The insurance reforms rest on everybody having access to coverage. And you also don't do anything about the fact that taxpayers currently end up subsidizing the uninsured when they're forced to go to the emergency room for care, to the tune of about a thousand bucks per family. You can't get those savings if those people are still going to the emergency room. So the fact is, health reform only works if you take care of all of these problems at once.

Now, both during and after last week's summit, Republicans in Congress insisted that the only acceptable course on health care reform is to start over. But given these honest and substantial differences between the parties about the need to regulate the insurance industry and the need to help millions of middle-class families get insurance, I don't see how another year of negotiations would help.

Moreover, the insurance companies aren't starting over. They're continuing to raise premiums and deny coverage as we speak. For us to start over now could simply lead to delay that could last for another decade, or even more. The American people, and the U.S. economy, just can't wait that long. So, no matter which approach you favor, I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. (Applause.)

We have debated this issue thoroughly, not just for the past year but for decades. Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of 60 votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up or down vote that was cast on welfare reform, that was cast on the Children's Health Insurance Program, that was used for COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and, by the way, for both Bush tax cuts --- all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority.

I, therefore, ask leaders in both houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. (Applause.) And I urge every American who wants this reform to make their voice heard as well --- every family, every business, every patient, every doctor, every nurse, every physician’s assistant. Make your voice heard.

This has been a long and wrenching debate. It has stoked great passions among the American people and their representatives. And that's because health care is a difficult issue. It is a complicated issue. If it was easy, it would have been solved long ago. As all of you know from experience, health care can literally be an issue of life or death. And as a result, it easily lends itself to demagoguery and political gamesmanship, and misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

But that’s not an excuse for those of us who were sent here to lead. That's not an excuse for us to walk away. We can’t just give up because the politics are hard. I know there’s been a fascination, bordering on obsession, in this media town about what passing health insurance reform would mean for the next election and the one after that. How will this play? What will happen with the polls? I will leave it to others to sift through the politics, because that’s not what this is about. That’s not why we’re here.

This is about what reform would mean for the mother with breast cancer whose insurance company will finally have to pay for her chemotherapy. This is about what reform would mean for the small business owner who will no longer have to choose between hiring more workers or offering coverage to the employees she has. This is about what reform would mean for middle-class families who will be able to afford health insurance for the very first time in their lives and get a regular checkup once in a while, and have some security about their children if they get sick.

This is about what reform would mean for all those men and women I’ve met over the last few years who’ve been brave enough to share their stories. When we started our push for reform last year, I talked to a young mother in Wisconsin named Laura Klitzka. She has two young children. She thought she had beaten her breast cancer but then later discovered it had spread to her bones. She and her husband were working and had insurance, but their medical bills still landed them in debt. And now she spends time worrying about that debt when all she wants to do is spend time with her children and focus on getting well.

This should not happen in the United States of America. And it doesn’t have to. (Applause.)

In the end, that's what this debate is about. It's about what kind of country we want to be. It's about the millions of lives that would be touched and, in some cases, saved by making private health insurance more secure and more affordable.

So at stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. The American people want to know if it's still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I do not know how this plays politically, but I know it's right. (Applause.) And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law.

Thank you very much, everybody. Let's get it done. (Applause.)

END
2:09 P.M. EST

[Guest Right to Life]

I want to hear it from the President's mouth. No institution that receives federal funding will the money directly or indirectly for abortions. He will not say it.

[Guest Senator Tom Harkin]

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today issued the following statement after President Obama delivered a White House speech to lay out the path forward for comprehensive health reform this year. Harkin is Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

 

“Congress and the White House have now gone through every possible hurdle to pass comprehensive health reform this year. Both chambers have passed strong bills by overwhelming majorities; the White House has fully engaged and held a day-long bipartisan summit to discuss the issue in detail and now the President has laid out a path forward for passing reform, which includes a proposal that builds on what works and fixes what does not.

 

“In the letter sent to Congress yesterday, President Obama laid out four additional efforts we can take to control costs while increasing access to quality, affordable care. These are bipartisan ideas to combat waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal programs; provide alternatives to resolving medical malpractice disputes; increase payments to doctors who treat Medicaid patients and expand health savings accounts. They should be part of our final bill.

 

“What is clear is that we have come too far to walk away now. We have a path forward; we have a strong proposal that includes bipartisan ideas. It’s crunch time on health reform. Let’s act now and give the American people the comprehensive reform they need and deserve.”

[Guest J. Knoxville]

So, part of the point for pushing for the House to go first is to enable weasels like Harkin to make a procedural argument for why Senate Democrats couldn’t pass any crumb of real health care reform?

 

Do they really think the American people are that stupid? And House Democrats are stupid enough to go along with it?

 

The obvious question is why they aren’t coming up with a way to use the process to make sure a public option passes rather than going out of their way to use the process to make sure a public option won’t pass?

 

Harkin, you’re not scoring any points for yourself or for the sellouts and enablers among the Democratic Party.

[Guest jedimsnbcko19]

The idea of so many congress people committing political suicide is fascinating. This will be political suicide for all who vote for it.

 

Passing this HCR scam bill is going to re-energize the bases of both parties in a very negative way, both parties will be screaming kick them all out! For years.

 

The elites as usual are making a huge mistake!

[Guest Thomas]

Thomas Jefferson said, "among the inestimable of our blessings, also, is that ...of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will. This healthcare bill we will lose our liberty of religious freedom.

[Guest USCCB]

Catholics and Mormons stand as one in defense of religious liberty, said Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

 

He spoke February 23, in Salt Lake City in an address titled "Catholics and Latter-day Saints: Partners in the Defense of Religious Freedom," at Brigham Young University. The address can be found at http://www.usccb.org/seia/catholics-latter-day-saints.pdf.

 

The concept of religious freedom shared by Catholics and Mormons "cannot be reduced to freedom of worship or even freedom of private conscience," he said.

 

"Religious freedom means that religious groups as well as religious individuals have a right to exercise their influence in the public square, and that any attempt to reduce that fuller sense of religious freedom, which has been part of our history in this country for more than two centuries, to a private reality of worship and individual conscience as long as you don't make anybody else unhappy, is not in our tradition," he said.

 

Churches and other religious bodies prosper "in a social order that respects religious freedom and recognizes that civil government should never stand between the consciences and the religious practice of its citizens and Almighty God," he said.

 

"The founding Fathers understood when they amended the Constitution that the separation of church and state springs from a concept of limited government and favors a public role for churches and other religious bodies in promoting the civic virtues that are vitally necessary in a wellfunctioning democracy," he said.

 

He highlighted "threats to religious freedom in America that are new to our history and to our tradition."

 

"Threats to conscience in healthcare have become prominent recently, particularly in the context of our discussion about healthcare reform legislation," he said.

 

"Once Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, some advocates for abortion would interpret that decision even more broadly than it was drawn, in a way that would threaten the consciences of Catholic and other healthcare workers and institutions. Specifically, they argued, Roe did not merely declare a right to have the government not interfere with a woman's privacy, but also the right to have the government positively assist in a woman's having an abortion—whether by government's funding the abortion, and therefore using our money in such a way that we all become complicit in what we regard as a morally heinous act, or by government's inducing or compelling others to provide the abortion. If the civil law were to impose such pressures and duties to assist in provision of abortion and other immoral procedures, then freedom of conscience would be directly threatened."

 

Congress passed the Church, Hyde and Weldon Amendments to protect individuals and institutions from being forced to violate their principles, he said.

 

"All these are still in place, but what's in question now is how they will survive the present healthcare debate. In that debate, the Catholic bishops have tried to play a role as a moral voice, not as politicians."

 

"In the realm of moral principle," he added, "the bishops have stressed two points: first, that everyone should be taken care of. We need healthcare reform. There are pregnant women who don't have the prenatal care they should have; there are people with preexisting health conditions who cannot get insurance; there are too many gaps in our care and too many people aren't being taken care of by the government or by hospitals or by private philanthropy," he said. "The second moral point is that no one should be deliberately killed. Healthcare doesn't include euthanasia and doesn't include abortion; those are killings, not treatments."

 

Gay rights and the call for samesex marriage pose another threat to religious liberty. Again, with the LDS church, Catholics hold that every person is made in God's image and likeness, Cardinal George said.

 

"Every single person, no matter their sexual orientation, must be respected as an individual; everyone must be loved because they're loved by God. Loving someone, however, doesn't mean that one approves of everything they do," Cardinal George said.

 

"With the advocates of samesex 'marriage' legislation, we can expect a one-two punch from hostile governments, whether locally or perhaps federally," he said. "We will see, first, attempts to compel traditional religious organizations to afford samesex, civilly married couples the same special solicitude that they afford actually married couples, whether in the provision of employment benefits, adoption services, or any of a number of other areas where religious groups operate in the broader society and where rights hinge on whether or not one is civilly married. If this first wave is successfully resisted, there will be a second series of government punishments for that persistence. We will lose state or local government contracts, tax exemptions, anything else that could be characterized as a 'subsidy' for our discrimination.'"

 

"Catholics and Mormons stand with one another and with other defenders of conscience," he said, and "can and should stand as one in the defense of religious liberty."

 

Collaborative efforts may include, he said, "common statements and court testimonies demonstrating principles that are consonant with our religious beliefs, even as they are expressed in the language of law and human reason."

 

"If this continues to be our shared calling, one to which we invite others, then we will defend religious liberty first of all for the good of law itself, knowing that good law protects everyone's rights, no matter how feeble they might be. That's the purpose of law: to defend those who otherwise could not defend themselves. We will be together in this struggle for the good of society itself, believing with Alexis de Tocqueville that churches and religious bodies play a crucial role, a mediating role, in fostering a nation's civic life. Finally, we will work together because it is for the good of the people whom we shepherd in our own communities, Mormons and Catholics who take pride in our citizenship as Americans and in our legacy of service to the nation, and who continue to claim full citizenship in this pluralistic country," he said.

 

He spoke of Catholics' and Mormons' early history in America.

 

"Religious conviction combined with America's founding vision of religious liberty and justice for all was what sustained our people in a hostile environment and eventually enabled them to emerge from their enclaves to make a very great and significant contribution to the political and cultural life of our nation," he said. "It is therefore true especially of our two groups, the Latter-day Saints and the Catholic Church, that the defense of religious liberty affirms what is deepest in our self-identity."

[Guest CNA]

Yesterday, a majority of Catholic Senators rejected a conscience protection law proposed by Senator Tom Colburn that would protect health care workers who object to abortions from participating in the procedure.

 

Conscience protection has become a topic of debate after President Obama announced that he was reviewing the law and could possible eliminate it. Colburn's amendment states, "To protect the freedom of conscience for patients and the right of health care providers to serve patients without violating their moral and religious convictions."

 

The amendment was voted down by a margin of 41-56, in which a majority of Catholic Senators voted against the amendment 9-16. The failure to pass this legislation now leaves the door open for the Obama Administration to rescind the law by executive order and force health workers to compromise their moral convictions.

 

Last month, Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago and President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), expressed deep concern that removing the conscience rule would be "the first step in moving our country from democracy to despotism."

 

"No government should come between an individual person and God—that's what America is supposed to be about," he commented. "This is the true common ground for us as Americans."

 

Rockville Center Bishop William F. Murphy, chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), also commented on the possibility of conscience laws being revoked saying,"[it] raises a real issue, because the statutes are intended to protect human rights – rights of conscience and rights of freedom of religion," Bishop Murphy said. "So why should everyone be concerned about this? Because if one person's rights can be compromised, everybody's rights can be compromised."

 

Murphy called on all Catholics to respond together to protect these basic "human rights," "The lay men and women of our churches, of our parishes and dioceses across the country have to be the voices of the Catholic Church today. Their voice is stronger than ours in many instances because they are the constituents, because they vote and because the politicians know they need the votes to be re-elected."

 

Yet, 16 Catholic Senators still voted against the protection of these "human rights" including: Begich (D-AK), Dodd (D-CT), Kaufman (D-CT), Durbin (D-IL), Harkin (D-IA), Landrieu (D- LA), Collins (R-ME), Mikulski (D-MD), Kerry (D-MA), McCaskill (D-MO), Menendez (D-NJ), Gillibrand (D-NY), Reed (D-RI), Leahy (D-VT), Cantwell (D-WA), Murray (D-WA).

 

The nine Catholic Senators that voted for the amendment were; Murkowski (R-AK), Martinez (R-FL), Risch (R-ID), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Vitter (R-LA), Johanns(R-NE), Voinovich (R-OH), and Casey (D-PA).

[Guest Soldier of God]

The Catholic Church has always condemned abortion as a grave evil. Christian writers from the first-century author of the Didache to Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae ("The Gospel of Life") have maintained that the Bible forbids abortion, just as it forbids murder. This tract will provide some examples of this consistent witness from the writings of the Fathers of the Church.

 

As the early Christian writer Tertullian pointed out, the law of Moses ordered strict penalties for causing an abortion. We read, "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [Hebrew: "so that her child comes out"], but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Ex. 21:22–24).

 

This applies the lex talionis or "law of retribution" to abortion. The lex talionis establishes the just punishment for an injury (eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, compared to the much greater retributions that had been common before, such as life for eye, life for tooth, lives of the offender’s family for one life).

 

The lex talionis would already have been applied to a woman who was injured in a fight. The distinguishing point in this passage is that a pregnant woman is hurt "so that her child comes out"; the child is the focus of the lex talionis in this passage. Aborted babies must have justice, too.

 

This is because they, like older children, have souls, even though marred by original sin. David tells us, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Ps. 51:5, NIV). Since sinfulness is a spiritual rather than a physical condition, David must have had a spiritual nature from the time of conception.

 

The same is shown in James 2:26, which tells us that "the body without the spirit is dead": The soul is the life-principle of the human body. Since from the time of conception the child’s body is alive (as shown by the fact it is growing), the child’s body must already have its spirit.

[Guest LDS]

Catholics and Latter-day Saints are important partners in the defense of religious freedom in the public square. That was the message His Eminence Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I. delivered today at Brigham Young University to thousands of students, faculty and others tuning in by satellite and on the Internet. Two apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Elder M. Russell Ballard and Elder Quentin L. Cook, were present for the address, as was Bishop John C. Wester of the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City.

 

In his address, Cardinal George explained that religious freedom cannot be reduced to just freedom of worship or even freedom of private conscience, but that individual and religious groups must have the right to exercise their influence in the public square.

 

“The lesson of American history is that churches and other religious bodies prosper in a nation and a social order that respects religious freedom and recognizes that civil government should never stand between the consciences and the religious practices of its citizens and Almighty God,” he said.

 

Speaking of the partnership Catholics and Mormons have in defending religious freedom, Cardinal George acknowledged that “sometimes our common advocacy will make one of us the target of retribution by intolerant elements” but emphasized that such actions should not deter religions from making their voices heard. “In the coming years, interreligious coalitions formed to defend the rights of conscience for individuals and religious institutions could become a vital bulwark against the tide of forces that work in our government and society to reduce religion to a purely private reality.”

 

Cardinal George pointed out that “society is based not on individuals but on families, on mothers and fathers with duties and obligations to their children, on children who learn how to be human, in the school of love, which is the family, which tells us we are not the center of the world individually.”

 

He also lauded the growing relationship between the Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and their joint efforts, such as providing aid to the poor and needy and combating pornography.

 

“I’m personally grateful that after 180 years of living mostly apart from one another, Catholics and Latter-day Saints have begun to see one another as trustworthy partners in the defense of shared moral principles and in the promotion of the common good of our beloved country,” he said.

 

“Our churches have different histories and systems of belief and practice, although we acknowledge a common reference point in the person and the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

 

Cardinal George is president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the first Chicago native to become archbishop of Chicago. He presides over 2.3 million Catholics in the Chicago Archdiocese.

 

While in Utah to deliver an address at Brigham Young University, Cardinal George toured the Family History Library and Temple Square and met briefly with the First Presidency and later with other senior Church leaders at Church headquarters.

 

“It was a pleasure to host Cardinal George at Church headquarters and BYU,” said Elder M. Russell Ballard of The Quorum of Twelve Apostles. “He is a man of great faith and capacity and I enjoyed the opportunity to talk with him about our shared values and interests.”

[Guest HOPE]

It's accurate to say there are at least 12 of us who voted for healthcare that have indicated to the speaker and others that unless you change this language, we will vote against it. - Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) MSNBC

[Guest aprilicious]

If people had this mindset there would be no overpopulation problem and my taxes would probably be lower. I am sick and tired of paying for other people's sex life.

[Guest greenzen]

I am spreading the word. Thanks.

[Guest Daily Kos]

Average western European or Canadian spends $3500 a year, over a say 75 year lifespan that’s in the neighborhood of quarter million dollars. The typical American outlays $7000 a year -- right there we could all be saving a cool few thousand a year if we went down the universal care path. Multiply the $7000 by 75 and that’s about half a million over a life. In other words, for the privilege of living shorter lives Americans are literally being ripped off to the tune to a quarter of a million bucks that they could keep if only we did what the Europeans and Japanese are doing!

 

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/3/842615/-Promoting-Universal-Health-Care:-Progressives-Really-Big-Mistake

[Guest Drew Hammill]

Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on President Obama's remarks at the White House on health insurance reform legislation, which combines the best ideas of Democrats and Republicans:

 

The President's announcement is a call to action. We will now move forward to pass health insurance reform that includes the best ideas of both Democrats and Republicans, and address one of the most pressing challenges facing our families and small businesses.

 

President Obama made clear that there are key differences between our two parties: Democrats believe we must hold insurance companies accountable in order to rein in premiums, insure 30 million more Americans, and protect patients and consumers nationwide. Congressional Republicans disagree.

 

Improving health insurance reform must be based on a fundamental principle of our democratic system: a simple majority. After passing health insurance reform in both chambers of Congress with a super-majority in the Senate it is now time for an up-or-down vote on the final improvements to the reform. We will only use a simple majority to improve the legislation, through a process used to enact key pieces of health and budget legislation by both Democrats and Republicans in the past.

 

Americans support reform that makes health insurance more affordable, ensures access for tens of millions more people, and brings accountability to the insurance industry. Our families and businesses deserve reform that will create millions of jobs, strengthen Medicare, reduce our deficit, and no longer deny care or drop coverage to those who need it most. We must act now.

[Guest Alaska Tea Party]

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) discusses the problems with government-funded abortion in the Senate Health Care Bill. Matthews: "This is the one, this is the issue, that could make or break health care reform."