Universal Health Care for America

[Guest Human]

The Republicans, even after all of this? Still want to work with the democrats in order to get Real Health Care reform passed. But it is sadly apparent that the democrats want NOTHING to do with the Republicans and the American People on how to get Real Health Care Reform is to take place.

[Guest intrepidreader]

"Medicare and Medicaid are draining the federal treasury at an unsustainable rate. "

 

So let's add a new government entitlement program that's like those two on steroids! Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Guest Senator Scott Brown]

“Hello, I’m United States Senator Scott Brown from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

 

“When the people of my state elected me in January, they sent more than a senator to Washington – they sent a message. Across party lines, the voters told politicians in Washington to get its priorities right.

 

“And from my travels and conversation with people throughout this country, they told me that they want their President and Congress to focus on creating jobs and reviving America’s economy. Instead, for more than a year now, we have seen a bitter, destructive, and endless drive to completely transform America’s health care system.

 

“In January of last year, unemployment hit 7.2 percent and our economy was hurting badly. But, early in President Obama’s term, he and the Democratic leadership of Congress made takeover of health care their first priority.

 

“Today, times are even tougher across our nation when it comes to our economy. Nearly one in ten Americans are still out of work. And still, the President and Congress are focused on ramming through their health-care bill, whatever it takes, whatever the cost.

 

“Maybe you remember what President Obama promised in his State of the Union address. He said he was going to finally focus on jobs and the economy for the remainder of this year. I applauded him for that. Well, here it is, it’s almost spring. And what is he out there talking about again? That same 2,700-page, multi-trillion dollar health care legislation.

 

“So, an entire year has gone to waste. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, and many more jobs are in danger. Even now, the President still hasn’t gotten the message.

 

“Somehow, the greater the public opposition to the health care bill, the more determined they seem to force it on us anyway. Their attitude shows Washington at its very worst – the presumption that they know best, and they’re going to get their way whether the American people like it or not.

 

“And, when politicians start thinking like that, they don’t let anything get in their way – not public opinion, not the rules of fair play, not even their own promises.

 

“They pledged transparency. Instead, we have a health care bill tainted by secrecy, concealed cost, and full of backroom deals– and that’s just not right. They should do better. The American people expect more.

 

“They pledged a true bipartisan effort. Instead, they have resorted to bending the rules, and they now intend to seize control of health care in America on a strict party-line vote.

 

“In speech after speech on his health care plan, the President has tried to convince us that what he is proposing will be good for America. But, how can it be good for America if it raises taxes by a half trillion dollars and costs a trillion dollars or more to implement? In addition, how can it be good if it takes another half a trillion dollars away from seniors on Medicare, and still includes all the backroom deals you have been hearing about for months?

 

“Well, for the past year or more, the new establishment in Washington has tried again and again to sell this plan to the American people. But the Americans aren’t buying it, and for good reason. And now, what’s going on is a last, desperate power play. They actually tell us that passing the bill is necessary, if only to prove that something can get done in Washington.

 

“Well, I haven’t been here very long, but, I can tell you this much already: Nothing has distracted the attention and energy of the nation’s capital more than this disastrous detour. And, the surest way to return to the people’s business is to listen to the people themselves: We need to drop this whole scheme of federally controlled health care, start over, and work together on real reforms at the state level that will contain costs and won’t leave America trillions of dollars deeper in debt.

 

“This, above all, was the message that the people of my state sent to the President and the Congress in the election over a month ago.

 

“You know some of my Democratic colleagues, you know, are being leaned on mighty hard right now. Speaker Pelosi and others are handing down their marching orders, telling them to vote for this bill no matter what. Rarely have elected leaders been so intent on defying the public will. For many members of Congress, the time for choosing is near – do what the party leadership demands, or do what the people have asked you to do. If my colleagues don’t mind some advice from a newcomer, I’d suggest going with the will of the people.

 

“After all, from the very beginning of this debate, the American people have called it correctly. In every part of the country, Republicans and Democrats have agreed on serious, straightforward, commonsense health care reform. They expect us in Washington to do the same – working together, acting fairly and by the rules, and staying focused on the need to make the American economy as strong as it can be. That is the business that brought me here on an unexpected journey to Washington. And, it’s the responsibility of everyone sent here to serve our country. We can do better – and I challenge my colleagues and the President to do just that.

[Guest Federalist]

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Friday that the House plans to forge ahead without adding strict language to appease Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and other opponents of abortion rights. Hoyer said the Senate approach, which Stupak has assailed as too weak, cannot be tweaked “per se” in the reconciliation package.

 

“We’ll have to deal with it pretty much as it is at this point in time,” Hoyer told reporters.

[Guest Federalist]

Congress will pass a health-care bill in the next two weeks, U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar’s predicted Saturday.

 

And that Senate health-care bill headed for a House vote will likely get his vote, after all.

 

“I’m prepared to vote for a health-care bill,” Oberstar told reporters. “I just want to see all the pieces come together.”

[Guest Federalist]

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who's been so far out in front of the debate about abortion coverage that he earned himself a primary challenger over it, said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., told him he wants to change current law that bans federal funding for abortion.

 

In an interview with Marquette, Mich., radio station WKQS' Mark & Walk morning show, Stupak described what he said was a conversation with Waxman about the Senate's version of the health care overhaul. That bill contains weaker language than the House-passed legislation, which includes a provision crafted by Stupak to ensure insurance companies that participate in a national exchange don't use federal money for abortion services.

 

"I gave him the language. He came back a little while later and said, 'But we want to pay for abortions.' I said, 'Mr. Chairman, that's -- we disagree. We don't do it now, we're not going to start.'

 

"'But we think we should,'" Stupak said Waxman told him.

[Guest Joy Yearout]

The Results are Undeniable:

 

Americans Do Not Want Healthcare Reform that Includes Abortion Funding

 

Polling conducted by the polling company, inc. on behalf of the Susan B. Anthony List

 

For full surveys and cross-tabs go to www.sba-list.org/poll

 

AR-04 Mike Ross

 

* 72% oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (68% strongly oppose)

* 84% oppose taxpayer funding of abortions as part of healthcare reform (73% strongly oppose)

* 73% agree that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation (61% strongly agree)

* 65% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Ross if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (53% would be much less likely)

 

 

IN-08 Brad Ellsworth

 

* 80% oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (69% strongly oppose)81% oppose taxpayer funding of abortions as part of healthcare reform (71% strongly oppose)

* 72% agree that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation (60% strongly agree)

* 65% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Ellsworth if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (53% would be much less likely)

IN-09 Baron Hill

 

* 77% oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (67% strongly oppose)

* 75% oppose taxpayer funding of abortions as part of healthcare reform (66% strongly oppose)

* 72% agree that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation (61% strongly agree)

* 61% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Hill if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (51% would be much less likely)

 

OH-01 Steve Driehaus

 

* 73% oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (61% strongly oppose)

* 72% oppose taxpayer funding of abortions as part of healthcare reform (62% strongly oppose)

* 64% agree that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation (52% strongly agree)

* 55% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Driehaus if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (45% would be much less likely)

 

OH-06 Charlie Wilson

 

* 80% oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (65% strongly oppose)

* 79% oppose taxpayer funding of abortions as part of healthcare reform (66% strongly oppose)

* 74% agree that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation (61% strongly agree)

* 64% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Wilson if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (51% would be much less likely)

 

OH-09 Marcy Kaptur

 

* 67% oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (52% strongly oppose)

* 66% oppose taxpayer funding of abortions as part of healthcare reform (52% strongly oppose)

* 61% agree that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation (45% strongly agree)

* 47% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congresswoman Kaptur if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (38% would be much less likely)

 

OH-16 John Boccieri

 

* 80% oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (67% strongly oppose)

* 79% oppose taxpayer funding of abortions as part of healthcare reform (67% strongly oppose)

* 71% agree that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation (60% strongly agree)

* 62% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Boccieri if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (50% would be much less likely)

 

PA-03 Kathy Dahlkemper

 

* 79% oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (64% strongly oppose)

* 78% oppose taxpayer funding of abortions as part of healthcare reform (64% strongly oppose)

* 69% agree that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation (58% strongly agree)

* 65% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (50% would be much less likely)

PA-04 Jason Altmire

 

* 76% oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (61% strongly oppose)

* 74% oppose taxpayer funding of abortions as part of healthcare reform (63% strongly oppose)

* 64% agree that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation (54% strongly agree)

* 58% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Altmire if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (46% would be much less likely)

PA-11 Paul Kanjorski

 

* 71% oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (55% strongly oppose)

* 68% oppose taxpayer funding of abortions as part of healthcare reform (55% strongly oppose)

* 62% agree that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation (46% strongly agree)

* 53% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Kanjorski if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (39% would be much less likely)

 

PA-14 Mike Doyle

 

* 65% oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (46% strongly oppose)

* 63% oppose taxpayer funding of abortions as part of healthcare reform (48% strongly oppose)

* 52% agree that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation (40% strongly agree)

* 44% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Mike Doyle if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (27% would be much less likely)

 

RI-02 James Langevin

 

* 60% oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (42% strongly oppose)

* 58% oppose taxpayer funding of abortions as part of healthcare reform (42% strongly oppose)

* 53% agree that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation (38% strongly agree)

* 45% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Langevin if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (34% would be much less likely)

[Guest HUMAN]

One Last Time. Work with the Repiblican Party on Real Health Care Reform.

 

I have Royal Flush in keeping my group honest.

[Guest Soldier of God]

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God – it is not “produced” by the parents – and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.[235. Cf. Pius XII, Humani generis: DS 3896; Paul VI, CPC # 8; Lateran Council V (1513): DS 1440.]

[Guest ALWAYSRED]

I am proud of the courage it took from Representative Bachmann to take a stand.

 

Rep. Bachmann's Health Care Freedom of Choice Act

 

Washington, D.C., Mar 8 -

 

Jan 14, 2009 - Introduced in House. This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the House for consideration. This is the latest version of the bill currently available on GovTrack.

 

HR 502 IH

 

111th CONGRESS

 

1st Session

 

H. R. 502

 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve health care choice by providing for the tax deductibility of medical expenses by individuals.

 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 

January 14, 2009

 

Mrs. BACHMANN (for herself, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. PAUL, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. SESSIONS, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. ROHRABACHER, and Mr. SCALISE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Committee on Ways and Means

 

A BILL

 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve health care choice by providing for the tax deductibility of medical expenses by individuals.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 

This Act may be cited as the ‘Health Care Freedom of Choice Act’.

 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

 

The Congress finds the following:

 

(1) Current law confers a tax benefit for health insurance provided as an employee fringe benefit, but no similar tax benefit for health insurance purchased by individuals. Similarly, current law confers a tax benefit on third-party payment of medical expenses, but no similar tax benefit for most individuals’ direct payment of medical expenses. This has effectively promoted employer-provided third party payment systems and effectively discouraged direct doctor-patient relationships.

 

(2) The current tax treatment of medical expenses has significantly curtailed competition for both health insurance and health care services generally. This has effectively increased the cost of health care and health insurance, which in turn has exposed people to greater health risks and made it more likely that individuals will go without needed care.

 

(3) The current tax treatment of medical expenses has restricted the freedom of individuals to exercise direct control over their health care dollars. The exclusion from gross income for employer-provided health care plans with no corresponding tax benefit for health insurance and health care obtained by individuals (except the self-employed) constitutes a strong preferment for health care provided through employers’ group plans as compared to health care that individuals purchase for themselves. This is why 90 percent of Americans under age 65 with private health insurance receive it through their employer.

 

 

(4) Providing a tax benefit for employer-provided plans, but not for individually purchased health care, discriminates against individuals who work for companies that do not provide health benefits, individuals who are temporarily employed, and the disabled.

 

(5) In many cases, employers are not able to offer their employees a variety of health insurance plans. The Tax Code’s provision of benefits for mostly employer-provided health insurance has discriminated against individuals who work for these employers, especially small businesses. This is why 90 percent of American businesses that provide health insurance offer employees the ‘choice’ of only one health care plan. Americans who work for businesses with fewer than 25 employees are half as likely to have health coverage as those working for companies with 1,000 or more employees.

 

(6) The Tax Code’s preferment of employer-provided group plans has triggered a marketplace response reflected in the significant increases in large group health care delivery, and the creation of a few health care conglomerates in lieu of thousands of competitive providers of medical services and health insurance. This has increasingly placed medical decisions in the hands of health care bureaucracies, and significantly eroded the doctor-patient relationship. Medical decisions should be returned to doctors and their patients. This will result in higher quality treatment and more patient protection.

 

(7) Consumers should have the freedom to purchase the health insurance of their choice, to choose their own doctors, and to make their own decisions about their health care.

 

(8) By putting the medical choices made by individuals on an equal footing with the medical choices made for them by their employers and third parties, the Tax Code can encourage greater choice and competition, thereby reducing the cost of necessary insurance for all Americans. This will enable millions more Americans to obtain needed health coverage, to make their own choices about which doctors to see, and to have access to the quality care they deserve and expect.

 

 

SEC. 3. TAX DEDUCTIBILITY OF MEDICAL EXPENSES FOR INDIVIDUALS.

 

( a ) In General- Section 213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to the treatment of medical and dental expenses) is amended to read as follows:

 

 

‘( a ) Allowance of Deduction- There shall be allowed as a deduction the expenses paid during the taxable year, not compensated for by insurance or otherwise, for medical care of the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or a dependent (as defined in section 152, determined without regard to subsections ( b )( 1 ), ( b )( 2 ), and ( d )( 1 )( B ) thereof).’.

 

( b ) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after the calendar year which includes the date of the enactment of this Act.

[Guest ALWAYSRED]

70% of Americans don't want their concious violated.

 

This is only an excerpt from Representative Michele Bachman. She is a respected candidate of the Conservative movement.

 

[Guest ALWAYSRED]

A Republican voice of the Tea Party movement. Kill Obamacare.

 

MN 06 Rep Michele Bachmann gives a fiery speech to an enthusiastic crowd of "Kill the Bill" supporters, on the Capital steps in St. Paul Minnesota.

 

One Party rule. Liberalism does not look pretty right now.

 

[Guest American4Progress]

Last week, Democratic leaders decided to abandon their negotiations with Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) over the abortion provisions in the Senate health care bill and take the risk that some small number of pro-life Democrats will vote against the measure. The Democratic leadership believes that fixing the provision through reconciliation would be impossible and passing a separate bill is unlikely, especially after Stupak rejected an offer to take up abortion after reform. "We don't want to go without their votes, but we do want to forge ahead," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said. "As you know, Mr. Stupak has made it very, very clear that he's very strongly in favor of achieving health care reform in this Congress. And I think that a lot of his colleagues feel the same way." Indeed, over the last week, a growing number of conservative pro-life Democrats have signaled that they will break with Stupak and vote for the Senate health care bill. Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI), "a 'yes' vote on reform who backed the Stupak language," told reporters that "the Senate language will restrict the federal funding of abortions and that he'll probably vote for the final bill" and Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA), who also supported the Stupak abortion amendment in the House, said that the Senate bill does not spend federal dollars on abortion and suggested that he is also leaning towards a "yes"vote. "I still haven't seen good evidence that the Senate language, as is, allows a taxpayer funding for abortion. It could be worded better and less awkwardly, but I don't know if there is even an indirect abortion funding in it," Altmire told C-SPAN's Washington Journal on Thursday. Over the weekend, several traditionally pro-life groups also came out in support of the Senate health care bill. A group of 25 "pro-life Catholic theologians and Evangelical leaders" sent a letter to Congress urging them to look past the misinformation on abortion and pass health care reform. "As Christians committed to a consistent ethic of life, and deeply concerned with the health and well-being of all people, we want to see health care reform enacted," they said. The Catholic Health Association, "the national leadership organization of more than 2,000 Catholic health care sponsors, systems, hospitals, long-term care facilities, and related organizations," sent a separate letter urging lawmakers to pass the Senate health bill. The group writes that while the legislation isn't perfect, it is "'a major first step' toward covering all Americans and would make 'great improvements' for millions of people.'"

[Guest LAW]

Remarks by the President on Health Care Reform in Strongsville, Ohio

Walter F. Ehrnfelt Recreation and Senior Center, Strongsville, Ohio

1:00 P.M. EDT

 

 

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Ohio! (Applause.) It is good to be here in the Buckeye State. Congratulations on winning the Big Ten Championship. (Laughter.) I'm filling out my brackets now. (Laughter.) And it’s even better to be out of Washington for a little while.

 

AUDIENCE: O-H-I-O.

 

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that kid Turner looks pretty good. You guys are doing all right.

 

It is wonderful to be here --

 

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I love you!

 

THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. I do. (Applause.)

 

Couple of people I just want to make sure I give special mention to. First of all, you already saw him, Governor Ted Strickland in the house. (Applause.) Ted is fighting every day to bring jobs and economic development to Ohio.

 

So is your terrific United States Senator Sherrod Brown. Love Sherrod Brown. (Applause.) Your own congressman, who is tireless on behalf of working people, Dennis Kucinich. (Applause.)

 

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Vote yes!

 

THE PRESIDENT: Did you hear that, Dennis? Go ahead, say that again.

 

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Vote yes!

 

THE PRESIDENT: A couple members of Congress are here: U.S. Representative Betty Sutton. (Applause.) U.S. Representative Marcia Fudge. (Applause.) U.S. Representative Tim Ryan. (Applause.) U.S. Representative Charlie Wilson. (Applause.)

 

I want to thank Mayor Tom Perciak here in Strongsville. Please, Mr. Mayor, you’re on. (Applause.) That's a good bunch of folks we got here in Ohio, working hard. Which is why I'm glad to be back -- and let’s face it, it’s nice to be out of Washington once in a while. (Laughter.)

 

I want to thank Connie -- I want to thank Connie, who introduced me. I want to thank her and her family for being here on behalf of her sister, Natoma. I don't know if everybody understood that Natoma is in the hospital right now, so Connie was filling in. It’s not easy to share such a personal story, when your sister who you love so much is sick. And so I appreciate Connie being willing to do so here today, and -- (applause) -- and I want everybody to understand that Connie and her sister are the reason that I’m here today. (Applause.)

 

See, Connie felt it was important that her sister’s story be told. But I want to just repeat what happened here. Last month, I got a letter from Connie’s sister, Natoma. She’s self-employed, she’s trying to make ends meet, and for years she’s done the responsible thing, just like most of you have. She bought insurance -- she didn’t have a big employer who provided her insurance, so she bought her health insurance through the individual market.

 

And it was important for her to have insurance because 16 years ago, she was diagnosed with a treatable form of cancer. And even though she had been cancer-free for more than a decade, the insurance companies kept on jacking up her rates, year after year. So she increased her out-of-pocket expenses. She raised her deductible. She did everything she could to maintain her health insurance that would be there just in case she got sick, because she figured, I didn’t want to be -- she didn’t want to be in a position where, if she did get sick, somebody else would have to pick up the tab; that she’d have to go to the emergency room; that the cost would be shifted onto folks through their higher insurance premiums or hospitals charging higher rates. So she tried to do the right thing.

 

And she upped her deductible last year to the minimum [sic], the highest possible deductible. But despite that, Natoma’s insurance company raised her premiums by more than 25 percent. And over the past year, she paid more than $6,000 in monthly premiums.

 

AUDIENCE: Boo!

 

THE PRESIDENT: She paid more than $4,000 in out-of-pocket medical costs, for co-pays and medical care and prescriptions. So all together, this woman paid $10,000 -- one year. But because she never hit her deductible, her insurance company only spent $900 on her care. So the insurance company is making -- getting $10,000; paying out $900. Now, what comes in the mail at the end of last year?

 

AUDIENCE MEMBER: A bill!

 

AUDIENCE MEMBER: A rate hike!

 

THE PRESIDENT: It’s a letter telling Natoma that her premiums would go up again by more than 40 percent.

 

AUDIENCE: Boo!

 

THE PRESIDENT: So here’s what happens. She just couldn’t afford it. She didn’t have the money. She realized that if she paid those health insurance premiums that had been jacked up by 40 percent, she couldn’t make her mortgage. And despite her desire to keep her coverage, despite her fears that she would get sick and lose the home that her parents built -- she finally surrendered, she finally gave up her health insurance. She stopped paying it -- she couldn’t make ends meet.

 

So January was her last month of being insured. Like so many responsible Americans -- folks who work hard every day, who try to do the right thing -- she was forced to hang her fortunes on chance. To take a chance, that’s all she could do. She hoped against hope that she would stay healthy. She feared terribly that she might not stay healthy.

 

That was the letter that I read to the insurance companies, including the person responsible for raising her rates. Now, I understand Natoma was pretty surprised when she found out that I had read it to these CEOs. But I thought it was important for them to understand the human dimensions of this problem. Her rates have been hiked more than 40 percent.

 

And this was less than two weeks ago. Unfortunately, Natoma’s worst fears were realized. And just last week, she was working on a nearby farm, walking outside -- apparently, chasing after a cow -- (laughter) -- when she collapsed. And she was rushed to the hospital. She was very sick. She needed two blood transfusions. Doctors performed a battery of tests. And on Saturday, Natoma was diagnosed with leukemia.

 

Now, the reason Natoma is not here today is that she’s lying on a hospital bed, suddenly faced with this emergency -- suddenly faced with the fight of her life. She expects to face more than a month of aggressive chemotherapy. She is racked with worry not only about her illness but about the costs of the tests and the treatment that she’s surely going to need to beat it.

 

So you want to know why I’m here, Ohio? I’m here because of Natoma. (Applause.) I’m here because of the countless others who have been forced to face the most terrifying challenges in their lives with the added burden of medical bills they can’t pay. I don't think that’s right. (Applause.) Neither do you. That’s why we need health insurance right now. Health insurance reform right now. (Applause.)

 

AUDIENCE: Obama! Obama! Obama! Obama!

 

THE PRESIDENT: I’m here because of my own mother’s story. She died of cancer, and in the last six months of her life, she was on the phone in her hospital room arguing with insurance companies instead of focusing on getting well and spending time with her family.

 

I’m here because of the millions who are denied coverage because of preexisting conditions or dropped from coverage when they get sick. (Applause.)

 

I’m here because of the small businesses who are forced to choose between health care and hiring. (Applause.)

 

I’m here because of the seniors unable to afford the prescriptions that they need. (Applause.)

 

I’m here because of the folks seeing their premiums go up 20 and 30 and 40 and 50 and 60 percent in a year. (Applause.)

 

Ohio, I am here because that is not the America I believe in and that’s not the America that you believe in.

 

AUDIENCE MEMBER: What’s your plan?

 

THE PRESIDENT: So when you hear people say “start over” --

 

AUDIENCE: No!!

 

THE PRESIDENT: -- I want you to think about Natoma. When you hear people saying that this isn’t the “right time,” you think about what she’s going through. When you hear people talk about, well, what does this mean for the Democrats? What does this mean for the Republicans? I don’t know how the polls are doing. When you hear people more worried about the politics of it than what’s right and what’s wrong, I want you to think about Natoma and the millions of people all across this country who are looking for some help, and looking for some relief. That’s why we need health insurance reform right now. (Applause.)

 

Part of what makes this issue difficult is most of us do have health insurance, we still do. And so -- and so we kind of feel like, well, I don’t know, it’s kind of working for me; I’m not worrying too much. But what we have to understand is that what’s happened to Natoma, there but for the grace of God go any one of us. (Applause.) Anybody here, if you lost your job right now and after the COBRA ran out --

 

(Audience member faints.)

 

THE PRESIDENT: It looks like we’ve got somebody who might’ve fainted down there, so if we’ve got a medic. No, no, no. Hold on. I’m talking about there’s somebody who might’ve fainted right down here, so if we can get a medic just back here. They’re probably okay. Just give her or him some space.

 

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hope you have insurance. (Laughter.)

 

THE PRESIDENT: So let’s just think about -- think about if you lost your job right now. How many people here might have had a preexisting condition that would mean it’d be very hard to get health insurance on the individual market? Think about if you wanted to change jobs. Think about if you wanted to start your own business but you suddenly had to give up your health insurance on your job. Think about what happens if a child of yours, heaven forbid, got diagnosed with something that made it hard for them to insure.

For so many people, it may not be a problem right now but it’s going to be a problem later, at any point. And even if you’ve got good health insurance, what’s happening to your premiums? What’s happening to your co-payments? What’s happening to your deductible? They’re all going up. That’s money straight out of your pocket.

So the bottom line is this: The status quo on health care is simply unsustainable. (Applause.) We can’t have -- we can’t have a system that works better for the insurance companies than it does for the American people. (Applause.)

And we know what will happen if we fail to act. We know that our government will be plunged deeper into debt. We know that millions more people will lose their coverage. We know that rising costs will saddle millions more families with unaffordable expenses. And a lot of small businesses are just going to drop their coverage altogether. That’s already what’s been happening.

A study came out just yesterday -- this is a nonpartisan study -- it’s found that without reform, premiums could more than double for individuals and families over the next decade. Family policies could go to an average of $25,000 or more. Can you afford that?

AUDIENCE: No!

THE PRESIDENT: You think your employer can afford that?

AUDIENCE: No!

THE PRESIDENT: Your employer can’t sustain that. So what’s going to happen is, they’re basically -- more and more of them are just going to say, you know what? You’re on your own on this.

We have debated this issue now for more than a year. Every proposal has been put on the table. Every argument has been made. I know a lot of people view this as a partisan issue, but, look, the fact is both parties have a lot of areas where we agree -- it’s just politics are getting in the way of actually getting it done. (Applause.)

 

Somebody asked what’s our plan. Let me describe exactly what we’re doing, because we’ve ended up with a proposal that incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans, even though Republicans don’t give us any credit. (Laughter.) That’s all right.

 

You know, if you think about the debate around health care reform, there were some who wanted to scrap the system of private insurance and replace it with government-run care. And, look, that works in a number of places, but I did not see that being practical to help right away for people who really need it.

 

And on the other end of the spectrum, and this is what a lot of the Republicans are saying right now, there are those who simply believe that the answer is to unleash the insurance industry, to deregulate them further, provide them less oversight and fewer rules.

 

AUDIENCE: Boo!

 

THE PRESIDENT: This is called the fox-guarding-the-henhouse approach to health insurance reform. (Laughter.) So what it would do is it would give insurance companies more leeway to raise premiums, more leeway to deny care. It would segment the market further. It would be good if you were rich and healthy. You’d save money. But if you’re an ordinary person, if you get older, if you get a little sicker, you’d be paying more.

 

Now, I don’t believe we should give the government or insurance companies more control over health care in America. I believe it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your own health insurance. (Applause.)

 

And that’s what our proposal does. Our proposal builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer. So if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. I don't want to interfere with people’s relationships between them and their doctors.

 

Essentially, here’s what my proposal would change: three things about the current health care system, but three important things.

 

Number one, it would end the worst practices of the insurance companies. (Applause.) All right? This is like a patient’s bill of rights on steroids. (Laughter.) Within the first year of signing health care reform, thousands of uninsured Americans with preexisting conditions will be able to purchase health insurance for the first time in their lives or the first time since they got sick. (Applause.) This year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions. So parents can have a little bit of security. (Applause.) This year, under this legislation, insurance companies will be banned from dropping your coverage when you get sick. Those practices would end. (Applause.)

 

With this reform package, all new insurance plans would be required to offer free preventive care to their customers starting this year -- so free check-ups to catch preventable diseases on the front end. That’s a smart thing to do. (Applause.) Starting this year, if you buy a new plan, there won’t be lifetime or restrictive annual limits on the amount of care you receive from your insurance companies, so you won’t be surprised by the fine print that says suddenly they’ve stopped paying and you now suddenly are $50,000 or $100,000 or $200,000 out of pocket. That won’t -- that will not happen if this becomes law this year. (Applause.)

I see -- I see some young people in the audience. (Applause.) If you’re an uninsured young adult, you will be able to stay on your parents’ policy until you’re 26 years old under this law. (Applause.)

So number one -- number one is insurance reform. The second thing that this plan would change about the current system is this: For the first time, uninsured individuals, small businesses, they’d have the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves. (Applause.) Understand if this reform becomes law, members of Congress, they’ll be getting their insurance from the same place that the uninsured get theirs, because if it’s good enough for the American people, it’s good enough for the people who send us to Washington. (Applause.)

So basically what would happen is, we’d set up a pool of people; millions of people across the country would all buy into these pools that give them more negotiating power. If you work for a big company, you’ve got a better insurance deal because you’ve got more bargaining power as a whole. We want you to have all the bargaining power that the federal employees have, that big companies have, so you’ll be able to buy in or a small business will be able to buy into this pool. And that will lower rates, it’s estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you’re currently getting. That’s money out of pocket.

And what my proposal says is if you still can’t afford the insurance in this new marketplace, then we’re going to offer you tax credits to do so. And that will add up to the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history. That’s what we’re going to do. (Applause.)

Now, when I was talking about this at that health care summit, some of you saw it -- I sat there for about seven hours; I know you guys watched the whole thing. (Laughter.) But some of these folks said, well, we just -- that’s a nice idea but we just can’t afford to do that. Look, I want everybody to understand -- the wealthiest among us can already buy the best insurance there is. The least well among us, the poorest among us, they get their health care through Medicaid. So it’s the middle class, it’s working people that are getting squeezed, and that’s who we have to help, and we can afford to do it. (Applause.)

 

Now, it is true that providing these tax credits to middle class families and small businesses, that’s going to cost some money. It’s going to cost about $100 billion per year. But most of this comes from the nearly $2.5 trillion a year that Americans already spend on health care. It’s just right now, a lot of that money is being spent badly.

 

So with this plan, we’re going to make sure the dollars we make -- the dollars that we spend on health care are going to make insurance more affordable and more secure. And we’re going to eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance company. Insurance companies are making billions of dollars on subsidies from you, the taxpayer. And if we take those subsidies away, we can use them to help folks like Natoma get health insurance so she doesn’t lose her house. (Applause.)

 

And, yes, we will set a new fee on insurance companies because they stand to gain millions more customers who are buying insurance. There’s nothing wrong with them giving something back. But here’s the bottom line: Our proposal is paid for -- which, by the way, is more than can be said for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they passed that big prescription drug plan that cost about as much as my health care plan and they didn’t pay for any of it and it went straight to the deficit. And now they’re up there on their high horse talking about, well, we don’t want to expand the deficit. This plan doesn’t expand the deficit. Their plan expanded the deficit. That’s why we pay for what we do. That’s the responsible thing to do. (Applause.)

Now, so let me talk about the third thing, which is my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for families, for businesses, and for the federal government. So Americans buying comparable coverage to what they have today -- I already said this -- would see premiums fall by 14 to 20 percent -- that’s not my numbers, that’s what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says -- for Americans who get their insurance through the workplace. How many people are getting insurance through their jobs right now? Raise your hands. All right. Well, a lot of those folks, your employer it’s estimated would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent [sic], which means they could give you a raise. (Applause.)

We have incorporated most of the serious ideas from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising costs of health care. We go after waste and abuse in the system, especially in Medicare. Our cost-cutting measures would reduce most people’s premiums and bring down our deficit by up to a trillion dollars over the next two decades. Those aren’t my numbers. Those are the numbers determined by the Congressional Budget Office. They’re the referee. That’s what they say, not what I say.

 

Now, the opponents of reform, they’ve tried to make a lot of different arguments to stop these changes. You remember. First, they said, well, there’s a government takeover of health care. Well, that wasn’t true. Well, that wasn’t true. Then they said, well, what about death panels? Well, that turned out -- that didn’t turn out to be true.

 

You know, the most insidious argument they’re making is the idea that somehow this would hurt Medicare. I know we’ve got some seniors here with us today -- I couldn’t tell; you guys look great. (Laughter.) I wouldn’t have guessed. But want to tell you directly: This proposal adds almost a decade of solvency to Medicare. (Applause.) This proposal would close the gap in prescription drug coverage, called the doughnut hole -- you know something about that -- that sticks seniors with thousands of dollars in drug costs. This proposal will over time help to reduce the costs of Medicare that you pay every month. This proposal would make preventive care free so you don’t have to pay out-of-pocket for tests to keep you healthy. (Applause.)

 

So yes, we’re going after the waste, the fraud, the abuse in Medicare. We are eliminating some of the insurance subsidies that should be going to your care. That’s because these dollars should be spent on care for seniors, not on the care and feeding of the insurance companies through sweetheart deals. And every senior should know there is no cutting of your guaranteed Medicare benefits. Period. No “ifs,” “ands,” or “buts.” (Applause.) This proposal makes Medicare stronger, it makes the coverage better, and it makes the finances more secure. And anybody who says otherwise is either misinformed -- or they’re trying to misinform you. Don’t let them hoodwink you. They’re trying to hoodwink you. (Laughter.)

 

So, look, Ohio, that’s the proposal. And I believe Congress owes the American people a final up or down vote. (Applause.) We need an up or down vote. It’s time to vote. And now as we get closer to the vote, there is a lot of hand-wringing going on. We hear a lot of people in Washington talking about politics, talking about what this means in November, talking about the poll numbers for Democrats and Republicans.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: We need courage!

THE PRESIDENT: We need courage. (Applause.) Did you hear what somebody just said? (Applause.) That’s what we need. That’s why I came here today. We need courage. (Applause.)

We need courage. You know, in the end, this debate is about far more than politics. It comes down to what kind of country do we want to be. It’s about the millions of lives that would be touched and, in some cases, saved, by making health insurance more secure and more affordable. (Applause.) It’s about a woman who’s lying in a hospital bed who just wants to be able to pay for the care she needs. And the truth is, what’s at stake in this debate, it’s not just our ability to solve this problem; it’s about our ability to solve any problem.

 

I was talking to Dennis Kucinich on the way over here about this. I said, you know what? It’s been such a long time since we made government on the side of ordinary working folks -- (applause) -- where we did something for them that relieved some of their struggles; that made folks who work hard every day and are doing the right thing and who are looking out for the families and contributing to their communities, that just gave them a little bit of a better chance to live out their American Dream.

The American people want to know if it’s still possible for Washington to look out for these interests, for their future. So what they’re looking for is some courage. They’re waiting for us to act. They’re waiting for us to lead. They don’t want us putting our finger out to the wind. They don’t want us reading polls. They want us to look and see what is the best thing for America, and then do what’s right. (Applause.) And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. And I know these members of Congress are going to provide that leadership. I don’t know about the politics, but I know what’s the right thing to do. And so I’m calling on Congress to pass these reforms -- and I’m going to sign them into law. I want some courage. I want us to do the right thing, Ohio. And with your help, we’re going to make it happen.

 

God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

 

END

1:33 P.M. EDT

[Guest LAW]

Potential Effects of the Senate-Passed Health Bill on Discretionary Spending

 

In its March 11, 2010, cost estimate for H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as passed by the Senate, CBO indicated that it had identified at least $50 billion in specified and estimated authorizations of discretionary spending that might be involved in implementing that legislation. Discretionary costs under PPACA would arise from the effects of the legislation on several federal agencies (especially the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services) and on a number of new and existing programs. The authority to undertake such spending is not provided in H.R. 3590; it would require future action in appropriation bills. Yesterday, CBO released a memo and table providing additional information about those authorizations.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11307/Specified_Authorizations_HR3590.pdf

[Guest LAW]

RECONCILIATION

 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to address the subject of reconciliation.

 

I have previously spoken about gridlock in Congress and the negative impact it is having on our stature internationally. We are unable to confirm judicial and executive nominations which is paralyzing the work of the Senate and putting the government’s ability to confront the Nation’s challenges at risk. It slows the judicial process and leaves many posts empty, including those in defense and national security.

 

The most central issue at the moment, however, is health care reform. Health care reform passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the Senate, it passed by a supermajority

vote of 60–39. The only issue before us now is aligning the already passed Senate version with the already-passed House version. Despite its passage by 60–39, Republicans are still trying to stop this bill by threatening to filibuster the amendments needed to bring it into a condition that will pass the House of Representatives.

 

These tactics, which amount to a minority of Senators halting a bill that has overwhelming support, can be overcome by the often used reconciliation process. The reconciliation process is

an optional procedure that operates as an adjunct to the budget resolution process established by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

 

The reconciliation process has been used by nearly every Congress since its enactment to pass a vast array of legislation. In their endless efforts to circumvent the will of the majority and thwart the passage of much needed and much supported health care legislation, the Republicans

have launched a campaign against the reconciliation process, making it out to be an illegitimate

tactic that the Democrats have invented to pass health care legislation. That is simply untrue.

 

A look back in time, however, shows that the very same Republicans who are now denouncing the use of reconciliation were the very same Republicans who were defending its use not too long ago.

 

When he was chair of the Budget Committee, Senator JUDD GREGG, in defending the use of reconciliation to try to pass an amendment allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife

Refuge in 2005 said, ‘‘Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate set up under the Budget Act. It has been used before for purposes exactly like this on numerous occasions. The fact is all this rule of the Senate does is allow a majority of the Senate to take a position and pass a piece of legislation, support that position. Is there something wrong with ‘majority rules’? I don’t think so.’’

 

When using reconciliation to pass Medicare spending, Senator GREGG said, ‘‘You can’t get 60 votes because the party on the other side of the aisle simply refuses to do anything constructive in this area.’’ Senator CHUCK GRASSLEY, when defending the use of reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts, said that reconciliation was ‘‘the way it will have to be done in order to get it done at all.’’

 

Last year Republican Congressman PAUL RYAN said of Democrats using reconciliation, ‘‘It’s their right. They did win the election. We don’t like it because we don’t like what looks like the outcome.’’

 

Republicans are implying that reconciliation is a new idea, and has never been used to pass significant legislation. The fact is, since 1980, Congress has sent 22 reconciliation bills to the President. Of those, 16 enacted into law occurred under Republican majority control.

 

The 16 reconciliation bills created with a Republican majority included:

 

1981 Republican Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1980

1982 Republican Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981

1983 Republican Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982

Republican Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982

1984 Republican Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1983

1986 Republican Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

1996 Republican Balanced Budget Act of 1995 Vetoed by Clinton.

1997 Republican Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996

1998 Republican Balanced Budget Act of 1997

Republican Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997

2000 Republican Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 Vetoed by Clinton.

2001 Republican Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000 Vetoed by Clinton.

2002 Republican Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001

2004 Republican Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

2006 Republican Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

Republican Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005

 

This could not be further from the truth. The new Reagan administration and Republican majority in 1981 that first used reconciliation to pass major legislation — Reagan’s tax cuts and used it again in 1982 to cut spending and roll back some tax cuts. A Republican- controlled Senate also used reconciliation to pass the 1996 welfare overhaul, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Medicare Advantage and COBRA.

 

Republicans have used reconciliation many times to pass partisan bills. For example, the 1995 Balanced Budget Act, the 2001 Bush tax cuts, the 2003 Bush tax cuts, the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, and the 2006 Tax Relief Extension Act were all passed in reconciliation and with small vote margins. Two of these passed only with the tie-breaking intervention of Vice President Dick Cheney, and Democrats got more votes for the health bill than any of these measures received.

 

Republicans have also complained that reconciliation is not proper for a health care bill. However, over the past 20 years, reconciliation has been used to pass almost all major pieces of health care legislation, including COBRA; the Children’s Health Insurance Program; the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires hospitals that take Medicaid and Medicare to treat anyone entering an ER; and welfare reform, which disentangled Medicaid from welfare.

 

Further, the health care bill has already passed with 60 votes. It is only the amendments that need to pass via reconciliation. The 2009 budget resolution instructed both Houses of Congress

to enact health care reform. Again, comprehensive health legislation has already passed both Chambers, garnering a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate. Since the House and the Senate versions are slightly different, using reconciliation to implement the budget resolution by reconciling the two bills follows established procedure. Reconciliation will be

used only to pass a small package of fixes to the original health bills that are necessary to align the House and Senate versions. This is actually less ambitious than the usual reconciliation process, which usually applies to entire bills, not just small fixes.

[Guest HUMAN]

I am impressed at Dennis Kucinichs vote yes for this "Bill".

 

Over a Plane Ride on AirForce One?

http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/Kucinich-A-Man-a-Principle-No-More.aspx

 

How much did that ride cost?

Can you imagine? A Represenative selling out for a PLANE RIDE?

 

Anything else that the democrats are MORE THAN WILLING TO SELL OUT FOR?

[Luke_Wilbur]

I just want to understand why there is an abortion clinic in the very center of an inverted Pentagram?

 

 

[Luke_Wilbur]

To all the Catholics celebrating Saint Patricks day I ask you to reflect on your beliefs. I know that I have struggled with mine. In fact, I love the idea of healthcare, but I will not support abortions.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest LAW]

I am impressed at Dennis Kucinichs vote yes for this "Bill".

 

Over a Plane Ride on AirForce One?

http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/Kucinich-A-Man-a-Principle-No-More.aspx

 

How much did that ride cost?

Can you imagine? A Represenative selling out for a PLANE RIDE?

 

Anything else that the democrats are MORE THAN WILLING TO SELL OUT FOR?

 

Each generation has had to take up the question of how to provide for the health of the people of our nation. And each generation has grappled with difficult questions of how to meet the needs of our people. I believe health care is a civil right. Each time as a nation we have reached to expand our basic rights, we have witnessed a slow and painful unfolding of a democratic pageant of striving, of resistance, of breakthroughs, of opposition, of unrelenting efforts and of eventual triumph.

 

I have spent my life struggling for the rights of working class people and for health care. I grew up understanding firsthand what it meant for families who did not get access to needed care. I lived in 21 different places by the time I was 17, including in a couple of cars. I understand the connection between poverty and poor health care, the deeper meaning of what Native Americans have called "hole in the body, hole in the spirit." I struggled with Crohn's disease much of my adult life, to discover sixteen years ago a near-cure in alternative medicine and following a plant-based diet. I have learned with difficulty the benefits of taking charge personally of my own health care. On those few occasions when I have needed it, I have had access to the best allopathic practitioners. As a result I have received the blessings of vitality and high energy. Health and health care is personal for each one of us. As a former surgical technician I know that there are many people who dedicate their lives to helping others improve theirs. I also know their struggles with an insufficient health care system.

 

There are some who believe that health care is a privilege based on ability to pay. This is the model President Obama is dealing with, attempting to open up health care to another 30 million people, within the context of the for-profit insurance system. There are others who believe that health care is a basic right and ought to be provided through a not-for-profit plan. This is what I have tirelessly advocated.

 

I have carried the banner of national health care in two presidential campaigns, in party platform meetings, and as co-author of HR676, Medicare for All. I have worked to expand the health care debate beyond the current for-profit system, to include a public option and an amendment to free the states to pursue single payer. The first version of the health care bill, while badly flawed, contained provisions which I believed made the bill worth supporting in committee. The provisions were taken out of the bill after it passed committee.

 

I joined with the Progressive Caucus saying that I would not support the bill unless it had a strong public option and unless it protected the right of people to pursue single payer at a state level. It did not. I kept my pledge and voted against the bill. I have continued to oppose it while trying to get the provisions back into the bill. Some have speculated I may be in a position of casting the deciding vote. The President's visit to my district on Monday underscored the urgency of this moment.

 

I have taken this fight farther than many in Congress cared to carry it because I know what my constituents experience on a daily basis. Come to my district in Cleveland and you will understand.

 

The people of Ohio's 10th district have been hard hit by an economy where wealth has accelerated upwards through plant closings, massive unemployment, small business failings, lack of access to credit, foreclosures and the high cost of health care and limited access to care. I take my responsibilities to the people of my district personally. The focus of my district office is constituent service, which more often than not involves social work to help people survive economic perils. It also involves intervening with insurance companies.

 

In the past week it has become clear that the vote on the final health care bill will be very close. I take this vote with the utmost seriousness. I am quite aware of the historic fight that has lasted the better part of the last century to bring America in line with other modern democracies in providing single payer health care. I have seen the political pressure and the financial pressure being asserted to prevent a minimal recognition of this right, even within the context of a system dominated by private insurance companies.

 

I know I have to make a decision, not on the bill as I would like to see it, but the bill as it is. My criticisms of the legislation have been well reported. I do not retract them. I incorporate them in this statement. They still stand as legitimate and cautionary. I still have doubts about the bill. I do not think it is a first step toward anything I have supported in the past. This is not the bill I wanted to support, even as I continue efforts until the last minute to modify the bill.

 

However after careful discussions with the President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Elizabeth my wife and close friends, I have decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation. If my vote is to be counted, let it now count for passage of the bill, hopefully in the direction of comprehensive health care reform. We must include coverage for those excluded from this bill. We must free the states. We must have control over private insurance companies and the cost their very existence imposes on American families. We must strive to provide a significant place for alternative and complementary medicine, religious health science practice, and the personal responsibility aspects of health care which include diet, nutrition, and exercise.

 

The health care debate has been severely hampered by fear, myths, and by hyper-partisanship. The President clearly does not advocate socialism or a government takeover of health care. The fear that this legislation has engendered has deep roots, not in foreign ideology but in a lack of confidence, a timidity, mistrust and fear which post 911 America has been unable to shake.

 

This fear has so infected our politics, our economics and our international relations that as a nation we are losing sight of the expanded vision, the electrifying potential we caught a glimpse of with the election of Barack Obama. The transformational potential of his presidency, and of ourselves, can still be courageously summoned in ways that will reconnect America to our hopes for expanded opportunities for jobs, housing, education, peace, and yes, health care.

 

I want to thank those who have supported me personally and politically as I have struggled with this decision. I ask for your continued support in our ongoing efforts to bring about meaningful change. As this bill passes I will renew my efforts to help those state organizations which are aimed at stirring a single payer movement which eliminates the predatory role of private insurers who make money not providing health care. I have taken a detour through supporting this bill, but I know the destination I will continue to lead, for as long as it takes, whatever it takes to an America where health care will be firmly established as a civil right.

 

Congressman Dennis Kucinich

[Luke_Wilbur]

I am honored to receive this correspondence from the White House today.

 

 

From:"The White House - Presidential Correspondence"

Subject: Thank you for your message

 

Dear Friend:

 

Thank you for writing. I have heard from countless Americans struggling to afford health insurance, as well as health professionals striving to provide care, and I appreciate your perspective. I recently released my proposal to reform our health insurance system. To learn more about this plan, please visit: www.whitehouse.gov/healthcare-meeting and www.healthreform.gov

 

Reform must provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance; give those without insurance affordable options; and lower the cost of health care for our families, our businesses, and our government. I share the sense of urgency that many Americans have voiced to improve health care in our country. Together, we will fix it.

 

Sincerely,

 

Barack Obama

 

To be a part of our agenda for change, join us at www.WhiteHouse.gov

Edited March 18, 2010 by Luke_Wilbur

[Guest Luke]

Our Lord must be in tears from above. A heartbeat is life. Burning away nerve endings with salt. That is just plain murder in my heart.

 

But, reason says this a woman's choice.

The Lord gave us all free choice.

 

But, this does not mean that I should pay for the execution. I wish people could see that.

 

Why does Family Planning even exist? People need to study more history of the organization. Its founder is far worse than Acorn could ever be. In fact, how could any African-American stand for this nonsense. It is condoned genocide.

 

Sex is great. But, with it comes great responsibility. It is time that parents show greater love to their children. I thank the Most High for my Son. He is almost two. When he hugs me I just melt. I guess that is Love.

 

I believe in Democracy, so I will pay the "Sinner's Tax" and pray this gets resolved.

[Guest Idaho]

Under Obama's plan, all those people would enjoy the dignity and the privilege of Americans that have chosen to live wisely, get an education, work hard, and gain skills. And, after all, isn't human dignity and good fast food an unalienable right? Should not every native born or illegal alien in this great country have a hand tailored, $2000 suit? Shouldn't every drunk bum that lives on White Port be able to have a heart transplant when the one they wore out with whiskey and cigarettes gives out? Isn't that the American version of "compassion"? Aren't we Christians?

[Guest Desert Rat]

If our leadership would just state the truth to us all. We are broke, we don't want to outright tax you, but everyone has pay for the plan. Otherwise health care is going to sink. We need to have an exact ratio of people that pay into the federal health pool as people that are collecting their benefits. The only way is to expand the federal plan to those that want it. Americans should be given choice on this. If they do not want it all, then they should have it deducted from their taxes. If they eventually want in it should be pro-rated. That way you can keep existing infrastructure intact. Then our gets an infusion of cash and hopefully the Federal Reserve stops lending to foreign countries and focus on American citizens first. If the Fed says "no can do", we say "We will miss you."

[Guest Bluto]

Congress must stop drinking piña coladas.