Thursday, November 27, 2014
street news, views and stories of justice and injustice
Follow me on Twitter

Search WitnessLA:

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

Meta


Healthcare—the Day After

March 22nd, 2010 by Celeste Fremon

health-care


OKAY, SO HEALTHCARE REFORM

Since it was difficult to tear our eyes away Sunday night, may as well continue the trend. Here is a roundup of a few of Monday’s day-after-the-vote op eds and articles.

1. The LA TIMES:

The House vote Sunday to send a comprehensive healthcare reform bill to President Obama’s desk put the United States on a path toward universal health insurance, a goal that had eluded reformers since then-presidential candidate Teddy Roosevelt called for all workers to have coverage in 1912. It may prove to be the signal accomplishment of Obama’s administration, even though the controversy surrounding it threatens to end his party’s majority in Congress. Rarely has such a good thing for Americans been perceived by so many as a threat to their livelihood and liberty.

There’s wide agreement in the healthcare industry and across the political spectrum that the system is in dire need of repair. But while liberals called for government to eliminate the insurance middleman and act as the single source of coverage, conservatives sought to reduce the government’s presence in the market and give consumers more responsibility.

The measure that emerged from the Senate, HR 3590, pursues a course between those two extremes….

Read more.


2. THE NEW YORK TIMES

The process was wrenching, and tainted to the 11th hour by narrow political obstructionism, but the year-long struggle over health care reform came to an end on Sunday night with a triumph for countless Americans who have been victimized or neglected by their dysfunctional health care system. Barack Obama put his presidency on the line for an accomplishment of historic proportions.

The bill, which was approved by the Senate in December and by the House on Sunday, represents a national commitment to reform the worst elements of the current system. It will provide coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, prevent the worst insurance company abuses, and begin to wrestle with relentlessly rising costs — while slightly reducing future deficits.

Amendments approved by the House and awaiting approval in the Senate would provide additional coverage and make somewhat deeper reductions in the deficit.

All of this was managed despite the fact that not a single Republican in the House or Senate was willing to vote for the bill. Efforts by the White House and Congressional Democrats to draft bipartisan legislation were met by demagoguery. That is not likely to end now…..

More here.


3. NPR - WHAT ARE WE GOING TO GET OUT OF THE THING?

Obama administration officials and wonks call them “early deliverables.” They’re the benefits of the health legislation that would kick in this election year.

The provisions, which could just as easily be called the Democrats’ “Incumbents’ Protection Plan,” suddenly are everywhere—touted on liberal blogs, on the Rachel Maddow Show, in talking points by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

They’re designed to counter Republican denunciations that the legislation is a government takeover of the health care system that will drain the federal treasury.

But the question for Democrats is whether promoting the early changes will be more persuasive with voters than the Republican arguments. The answer may determine whether the Democrats retain their congressional majority.

James Capretta, a top budget official in the George W. Bush administration, is skeptical. He says he assumes the people who would benefit by the changes before November are in the “single-digit millions,” not enough to have a big impact. “There aren’t enough people in those categories to say, ‘Yes, the increased taxes are worth it.’”

But Chris Jennings, a consultant who was the Clinton administration’s senior health policy advisor, says the legislation includes “many important, immediately available policies that people will care about.” He adds: “If we can’t market them well, then we will have deserved to fail.”

Changes that would occur this year include:

- Dependent children could remain on their parents’ health insurance plans until age 26.

- Senior citizens would get more help paying for drugs in Medicare.

- People with health problems that left them uninsurable could qualify for coverage through a federal program.

These are among the more than a dozen features of the new health care overhaul law that would take effect in 2010 under the measure passed Sunday. (Although the Senate bill approved Sunday by the House would become law with President Barack Obama’s signature, Senate action is needed on the separately-passed House measure that would amend that law.) Other first-year items include a ban on lifetime limits on medical coverage, more oversight of premium increases and tax credits for some small businesses.

The big changes in the law – the ones that could affect tens of millions of people — don’t kick in until at least 2014. Those include insurance marketplaces called “exchanges”; rules requiring insurers to accept all applicants, even those with health problems, and an expansion of state Medicaid programs.

Read more here.


CALIFORNIA WILL BENEFIT THE MOST: SF CHRONICLE

The stakes are high for Californians when it comes to the health care overhaul, mainly because the coverage problems in this vast state are so large.

With a new UCLA study estimating that more than 8 million Californians, or nearly 25 percent of the population, lack health coverage, many health experts say California will be impacted more than other states by the reform legislation.

“When this is fully implemented in 2014 or beyond, we will see some two-thirds or more (of the uninsured) getting coverage and, with that, better access to care and more affordable coverage,” said Marian Mulkey, senior program officer for the California HealthCare Foundation, an independent philanthropy group based in Oakland.

But not everyone will benefit. Medicare beneficiaries who have certain types of policies may experience disruptions and high-income earners will pay more in taxes. And California will still be left with a large number of uninsured, including illegal immigrants, who either don’t qualify for the reforms or are exempted from them.

Read on.


Photo: Charles Dharapak / AP

Posted in health care | 49 Comments »

49 Responses

  1. reg Says:

    Marc put up the most interesting, prescient piece on the disastrous strategy of the wing-nut right that appears to be controlling the GOP – they really are as stupid as they appear to be and the aftermath of this moderate health care reform bill will marginalize them even further.

    http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

  2. Woody Says:

    Celeste, when this Congress took on health care, you wanted the bill, a pretty sorry one that no one had read, passed immediately, because people were dying everyday from lack of health care. So, it’s a year later and socialized medicine still won’t kick in for four more years. That’s a combined five year delay! How many more people are going to die because the Democrats put collecting taxes for four years above covering lives today? Where’s your outrage? And, the bill, while changed, is still a pretty sorry one that no one’s read. The barbarians have overrun the nation.

  3. reg Says:

    “socialized medicine”

    WTF ?

    You’re living on your own planet. Please don’t pollute these comments threads with your delusional ravings. It makes it difficult for normal people to conduct meaningful discourse.

  4. Sure Fire Says:

    When does Reg get his new scooter and will it be cheaper than the old one? I don’t know that he even needs one but he has to have some type of device to run over puppies with.

    Just kidding Rag, I mean Reg, but you demanding “meaningful discourse” struck me as pretty absurd when you label any comment not agreeing with your take on any subject as “wing-nut right” type of talk. Is that what “normal people” usually engage in, and I’m not even going into your trademark filth?

    Later today I’ll go into the true problems with the bill that the naive populace embraced as they bowed down to their Messiah.

    Besides stinking up the page with your arrogance Reg you’re hypocrisy is getting to record levels. If anyone needs to bring themselves down to earth and the common folk it’s you.

  5. reg Says:

    I can’t wait for SureFire’s deep thoughts. I guess he’ll start out explaining how it’s not crazy and dishonest to consider this bill “socialism” – in that it leaves private insurance and existing private/public providers intact, with some regulations, following along the lines that Comrade Mitt Romney and Commissar Scott Brown imposed on Massachussetts, and Bob Dole proposed in ’93.

    No – these guys like Woody and SureFire are fighting their own concocted demons. Their driven by their resentments, mired in ignorance and hysteria, and Incapable of anything resembling meaningful or intelligent discussion of the issues.

    For adults, Ezra Klein is answering a lot of questions about the bill today. Great work:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/

  6. reg Says:

    SureFire – one thing that’s very satisfying to me is that I can obviously work your nerves a hell of a lot more effectively than you can work mine. Just saying…although admittedly it’s playground stuff.

  7. NARAL Supporter Says:

    By signing the Executive Order to restrict womens’s reproductive rights in the bill, President Obama has set the feminist movement back 40 years. He caved in to the right wing religious nut Stupak. This is not a victory. POOR women still do not have the right to choose what takes place within their own body. If they can’t pay for terminating a pregnancy, it will not be paid for by public funding. Right back to square one regarding women’s rights.

  8. Tomás Says:

    “Later today I’ll go into the true problems with the bill that the naive populace embraced as they bowed down to their Messiah.”

    “Besides stinking up the page with your arrogance

    Depending on your intentions with these two comments, you’re either stupid and arrogant (and stupidly arrogant) or whip-smart funny.

  9. RobThomas Says:

    Obama haters are cracking me up. They mock him for being unable to change anything. Then he gets a health care bill passed that Democrats have been trying to get passed for decades. Hence, he brings change. Then, they go back to the fear campaign. It’s fun to watch them squirm, that’s for sure.

  10. NARAL Supporter Says:

    Before all of you self proclaimed progressives start celebrating over the passage of this bill you need to consider who the POTUS climbed into bed with to get it passed. Don’t you understand that he made a deal with the right wing religious nut Stupak to restrict women’s rights? And you celebrate this? Stupak is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and one of those religious nut jobs you so often speak against.
    Reg, you speak against the religious nuts at the top of the page but you fail to take into consideration that the POTUS has catered to them. What is that all about? You can call the passage of this bill a victory if you wish. At best it is a hollow victory and it has been demonstrated again that in this country even this POTUS has to knuckle under to the religious nut jobs to get anything done. I’ll say it again. And you are celebrating this? The rights of 50% of the population was ignored in order for the president to achieve a political victory. Women are 50% of the population. Time to take a long look in the mirror before calling yourself a Progressive if you find yourself cheering this perceived victory.

  11. Woody Says:

    Obama picked Kansas to win the NCAA tournament. Kansas was eliminated in the second round. This shows that it’s easier to buy politicians to vote against the will of the American people than to pay opposing college players to throw a game.

  12. NARAL Supporter Says:

    Pro life right wing religious nut Bart Stupak dictated to the POTUS what would NOT be included in the bill. PROGRESSIVE?
    Women might as well get back in the kitchen and do whatever the preacher at the local Baptist church tells them to do.

  13. reg Says:

    “Obama haters are cracking me up.”

    As I read in regard to Glenn Beck, “these folks don’t have issues, they have a lifetime subscription.”

  14. NARAL Supporter Says:

    The rich daughters of the wealthy have always had a choice. POOR inner city women still have none. Victory?

  15. Celeste Fremon Says:

    NARAL Supporter, I appreciate the fact that you have expressed your opinion with such passion, but with all respect, what you’re saying simply isn’t true.

    I’m a lifelong pro-choice woman and have written extensively about the abortion/choice issue.

    AND neither the Hyde Amendment nor President Obama are restricting women’s reproductive rights AT ALL.

    For you to say that poor women don’t have the right to choose what goes on in their bodies is preposterous. Yes, actually, they do. BUT public funds won’t pay for terminating a pregnancy unless it is a medical necessity (in which case it legitimately becomes a health care issue) or in cases of rape or incest.

    Like it or not, abortion is an elective procedure, not a health care requirement. And to babble on that this sets the feminist movement back 40 years is, frankly, to further marginalize feminism.

    I have no way of knowing how old you are, but I’m old enough to remember what it was like before Roe became law in 1973, before which time young women died or became sterile through botched back room abortions. I’m also old enough to have been part of battles to get equal opportunities for women in a host of areas.

    And this is not a setback for women’s rights.

    However, I’ll tell you something I learned from the first big story I did on reproductive rights, and that is this: when pro-choice woman minimize the psychic cost of abortion and refuse to leave room for the deeply felt concerns of the right to life women, by their inflexibility, they risk pushing the women in the middle on this question to the far right.

    So, do us all a favor and chill.

  16. Celeste Fremon Says:

    PS: I’ve spent years working around lower income women, many of whom are now part of my extended family and I of theirs, and they would be the first to dispute what you’re saying.

    One more thing, you do understand, I presume, that the president’s exec order changes NOTHING about existing law, right?

  17. NARAL Supporter Says:

    Some of you like Reg and Rob are so caught up in celebrating the anger of the masogynistic republicans that you fail to ackknowledge that a masogynistic democrat dictated the single most important segment of this bill. Masogyny is masogyny. Whether it comes from a repubic or a democrat IN NAME ONLY. Stupak should be kicked out of the party.

  18. NARAL Supporter Says:

    Celeste if a poor woman elects to terminate a pregnancy but doesn’t have the means to pay for it will this bill allow her to have a federally funded abortion?

  19. reg Says:

    The whole Stupak thing was kabuki, so far as I could tell. The Hyde amendment has been in place, regrettably, and the bill did nothing to violate it. President Obama’s order is like saying “We really, really, really have to keep this within the legal strictures of the Hyde amendment,” as opposed to Congress saying “We really have to keep this with in the legal strictures of Hyde.”

    The one good piece in the outcome was showing the anti-choice faction in the GOP as driven by fringe extremists, with that Texas congressman yelling “Babykiller!” at Stupak, a staunchly anti-abortion Catholic. I put that one up there with the crazy sonofabitch from Georgia yammering about HCR as another battle in the “War of Northern Aggression.” And the “nigger” and “faggot” taunts against John Lewis and Barney Frank. And the Bamboozilla from Wasilla’s “death panels”…the nutcase Nunes yammering about “totalitarian tactics” and Michelle Bachmann’s insane rants, uh, every time she opened her mouth…. and on and on. “Conservatism” truly has become – as I love pointing out – little more than an “I’m with Stupid!” tee-shirt. Never thought I’d say “I’m with Stupak!”, but I sort of was when he spoke last nite. I totally disagree with him on abortion, but he was right on the facts in front of him, right in finally supporting the bill and being treated totally disgracefully by crank demagogues who will stop short of no lie, distortion or smear, no matter how absurd or ugly.

  20. Celeste Fremon Says:

    NS, I don’t get the feeling that you’re reading before you comment. Federal funds haven’t paid for abortions in decades—except in cases where the mother’s health is at risk and in cases of incest and rape. Today is no different than yesterday. The Stupak Amendment WOULD have been a step back. The existing Hyde Amendment changes exactly ZERO.

    Read the material please.

  21. NARAL Supporter Says:

    He said in his press conference that the president promised that there would be no federally funded abortions. He specifically said that. I have it on tape.

  22. NARAL Supporter Says:

    Exactly Celeste. Women’s reproductive rights are the same today as they were yesterday. A rich woman who can pay for an abortion can choose to have an abortion for whatever reason SHE CHOOSES while a poor woman’s life must be in danger. The poor woman WHO CAN’T PAY cannot have an abortion for whatever reason SHE CHOOSES. Are you disputing this?

  23. NARAL Supporter Says:

    Rich women who can pay had a choice yesterday, have a choice today and will have a choice in the future. Poor women who can’t pay didn’t have a choice yesterday, don’t have today, and won’t have in the future.
    Just like yesterday, today and in the future women only have a choice if they CAN PAY FOR IT.
    Choice for the rich. No choice for the poor.

  24. NARAL Supporter Says:

    Celeste as a pro choice advocate I’m surprised you would support resticting the rights of poor women. It really is very simple from where I’m standing. The federal government should insure that a poor woman has the same rights as a rich woman when it comes to their own bodies. There is only one way for that to happen. That is for the government to pay for it. Short of this, you have one set of RIGHTS for rich women and a different set for poor woman. Incredible double standard. This bill did nothing to change the status quo.

  25. reg Says:

    “Women’s reproductive rights are the same today as they were yesterday.”

    Uh, yeah. That’s all that Obama put in his order, and there’s nothing else he could do in the context of a health insurance reform bill. If the Congress is to overturn Hyde, they have to actually do that. Hyde is a piece of legislation that puts restrictions on other pieces of potential legislation. I’m totally against it, but that’s the way it was yesterday and that’s the way it will be tomorrow until effective pressure is put on Congress to change that particular law.

  26. NARAL Supporter Says:

    Ok Celeste I will chill. I am not trying to be argumentative or antagonistic. I am simply saying two things.
    1. This bill does nothing to advance the RIGHTS of poor women who don’t have the ability to pay for an abortion.
    2. For the POTUS to coddle a religious right wing nut case like Stupak to get the bill passed is a very sad commentary on his willingness to stand his ground for support of women’s reproductive rights.

    Note to Reg, For you to say “I’m with Stupak” is for you to admit that you’re a masogynyst and a bigot.

  27. Sure Fire Says:

    Prove those “taunts” were made Reg, because I’ve listened real carefully to the words being shouted at the time the “taunts” at Lewis were supposedly made and I can’t hear them.

    Of course I wouldn’t put it past Move On types to engage in that type of conduct to smear the right but I’ve listened like 10 times and nada.

    Crazies on the left and right but post some proof of the claims you’re making so people can make an informed decision.

    My post with the astounding amount of problems in this bill will take some time, maybe tonight or tomorrow and I still probably won’t have all of them.

  28. Woody Says:

    I heard that with ObamaCare rationing, pregnant women will have to wait ten months for an abortion.

  29. reg Says:

    SureFire – I don’t have to prove anything to morons such as yourself. I don’t take you seriously – for reasons that are evident in that challenge and your claiming that sitting at home listening on Youtube or whatever, you’ve discovered that John Lewis, of all people, is a liar. And I have no intention of reading your post on the “astounding problems” with the bill. Total fucking waste of my time.

  30. reg Says:

    Yeah, NARAL Supporter, I’m a misogynist and a bigot. And you can’t read a sentence for context. Get into a pissing match with SureFire. You deserve each other.

  31. NARAL Supporter Says:

    From Wikipedia
    Stupak—Pitts Amendment
    Main article: Stupak–Pitts Amendment
    Democrat Bart Stupak and Republican Joe Pitts added an amendment to the health care reform bill so that abortion may not be covered in the public option or in any of the exchange’s private plans that take subsidized customers. There is an exception if a woman’s life is in danger or in cases of rape or incest. Individuals however are free to purchase separate riders that cover elective abortions. This measure passed the house by a 240-194 margin.[16] Stupak has indicated that he and at least 12 like minded congressman will block passage of the bill if his amendment’s language is not included in the final version. He has called President Obama’s health care proposal “unacceptable” on the issue of abortion.[17][18] Media Matters, a liberal advocacy group, says that the amendment would make current laws on abortion availability more restrictive, as it would “effectively cause a number of people who currently have abortion (insurance) coverage to lose that coverage.”[19] On March 21 2010, Stupak revealed that he will vote for the Senate health care bill without his amendment’s language.[20] This decision drew criticism from pro-life groups [21][22] whom he courted and relied on for votes.

  32. NARAL Supporter Says:

    Glad to know you are “with” this guy Reg. Quit trying to come off like Michael Schwerner or Andrew Goodman. You are a phony Reg. Go join the Libertardians.

  33. reg Says:

    Scherner and Goodman ? WTF ? I’m trying to come off like two guys killed by the Klan because I suggest you read what I wrote in context ? You came in here accusing Celeste of supporting restricting the abortion rights of poor women. It’s been downhill from there. You ‘re pretty fucking nuts. You really do have more in common with a bitter, fact-free raver like Surefire than you do with me.

    This thread has gone to the dogs with very little push from Woody. I – tongue in cheek – “apologize” for my comment #3.

  34. NARAL Supporter Says:

    Reg, just because you hate Repubics does not make you liberal or progressive. Are you completely ok with the POTUS coddling Stupak and comprimising with him?

    You must be ok with saying: “Never thought I’d say “I’m with Stupak!”, but I sort of was when he spoke last nite.”

    Because you said it.

    As far as being bitter, for the guy that is constantly calling other people vulgar names to label anyone else as bitter is as hypocritical as one can get. You try to come off like a liberal progressive. Do you think simply hating Repubics makes you either of these? Here’s why your position on abortion is Libertardian.

    Repubics want to outlaw abortion.
    Democrats want federally funded abortion.
    Libertardians don’t care why a woman has an abortion, they just don’t want to pay for it.

    You obviously are in line with Libertardians on the abortion issue since you are ok with the bill and “with” Stupak.
    My comment applies even if it makes you uncomfortable. Also, I can read a sentence for context. For instance, I realize that in comment 30 what you are telling me is to get my ass back in the kitchen and to speak only when spoken to.
    We know where you are coming from Reg.

  35. reg Says:

    Not only does your comment not make me uncomfortable, you’ve reached a level of hysterics that makes me laugh.

    I just happened to be channel surfing and stopped for a minute on Glenn Beck. He was showing film footage of Pearl Harbor being bombed, pointing to it and stating flat-out “This is where we are today with this bill.”

    This is a bigger deal than the full moon for bringing out the crazies.

    This thread isn’t going to get any better. Too bad.

  36. Sure Fire Says:

    So you don’t have proof Reg, same as you didn’t present any about me supposedly lying about you. Being spoon fed and swallowing every drop. You’ll read every word I write, your O.C. gives you no choice, or are you still gone from this board like you said before and this is your doppelganger posting?

    Like always the board fraud runs back under his bridge.

  37. NARAL Supporter Says:

    Reg if I my comment doesn’t make you uncomfortable that is an even bigger indicator that you are a masogynyst.
    Being called a racist does not bother a member of the Klan.
    Go ahead and play it off as hysterics.
    Here’s the bottom line.
    You were so busy trying to celebrate the Repubics being pissed off that you failed to realize that the POTUS allowed himself and the bill to be held hostage by the likes of Bart Stupak. Then you say you’re “with” Stupak.
    A man that believes a woman SHOULD NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO CHOOSE. He is a “Right To Lifer” and a religious right wing nut case. He has relied on the “Right To Lifers” vote in the past. That is from Wikipedia. Not just my opinion.
    The fact is, YOU spoke before having anything other than a surface knowledge of the subject matter.
    Flying off the handle, making accusations, and making flippant comments. Oh well, I guess you did what you do best.

  38. Mavis Beacon Says:

    NARAL supporter, time to hold the phones. I too am a supporter of abortion rights and, unlike Celeste, I would be just fine with public financing of abortion (though I understand why others would be opposed and no public financing strikes me as a reasonable compromise). That said, Celeste has pointed out very clearly that Obama gave nothing substantive to Stupak. I want you to think about that for a moment. All Stupak got was a promise to keep things the same – something the bill already required. In exchange for that gesture, we got health care extended to 95% percent of the population plus some cost controls and hopefully reduction in the pace of premium increase. That’s a phenomenal deal. There is no national Democratic politician who wouldn’t take that deal. It’s a great deal.

    To be successful in politics you are going to have to compromise with people whose views you don’t share. If the compromise requires you to give up absolutely nothing substantive, you do it in a heartbeat.

  39. Mavis Beacon Says:

    Also, being anti abortion doesn’t make one a misogynist or bigot. That’s insulting to the millions of pro life women out there.

  40. don quixote Says:

    I just want to know if Rush Limbaugh will keep his promise and move to Costa Rica like he said he would if the HRB passed?
    Will the Republicans have to return the money to the Insurance Lobbist’s?
    Will Pat Robertson move the Rapture up a day or two in response to Obama’s victory on HRB?
    Will the famous Dr. Shapiro, who gave a man six months to live, but then after he found out he couldn’t pay the bill,
    gave him another six months, also move to Costa Rica?

  41. Mrs. Salazar Says:

    Costa Rica is a nice place to live.

    1) It does not have a rising tide of fascism as does the U.S.
    2) It has fewer robber barons than the U.S.
    3) It does have NOT have thousands of sociopathic, psycho, murderous drug cartels members as does Mexico.
    4) It does NOT have menudo on the restaurant menu.

  42. reg Says:

    Surefire – since you are responsible for your own comments and couldn’t produce anything I’d ever stated here to back up your slander against me, you are the liar. John Lewis walking through a crowd has more credibility than on what was shouted at him than you do, sitting at home on your computer.

    This is pretty simple stuff. You’re a bitter little man. Full of crap. And, no, I’m not going to bother myself with this long-awaited screed of yours…if for no other reason than the pure comedy of your telling us all about “what you’re going to do” here before our very eyes on the internet that, presumably, will prove the President is “an idiot.” Silly shit. You’re a joke.

  43. reg Says:

    Costa Rica also has national health insurance…

  44. NARAL Supporter Says:

    Mavis,
    Do you believe that a woman’s right to choose is a civil rights issue?

  45. NARAL Supporter Says:

    Somehow I get the feeling that you would understand how I feel if the president had needed to promise Sarah Palin or George Bush the same thing he promised Bart Stupak.
    Well guess what, all three of them hold the same postion on abortion.
    The fact that Stupak has a “D” next to his name does not change that. Study the man’s record. The information is out there.

  46. Woody Says:

    Now That Obamacare Is Passed, Nationalized Health Insurance Is Inevitable

    20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

    Back alley abortions have been replaced by government paid abortions, and quality health care must move to the back alleys.

  47. reg Says:

    For a “progressive” to attack this health care bill because it doesn’t change anything regarding existing law about federal funding for abortions – when to include that change as a predicate to passing a health care bill would have killed any health insurance reform – is despicable. NARAL Supporter’s yelling and screaming here is about nothing but narcissism. I personally despise the Hyde amendment. The bill doesn’t change the Hyde amendment one iota. It wasn’t designed to do that. But what NARAL supporter is asking would have killed the bill. That’s what he/she wants. Killing health insurance reform that no matter how compromised and short of the best reform package possible, will give many more people the ability to obtain and keep coverage and begins to regulate the insurance markets to make them more accessible. This is crazy shit – despicable shit – narcissistic shit – and obviously anger management shit from what we see on display here.

    People like this fake “progressive” make me sick. As creepy as the SureFires.

  48. reg Says:

    Woody, my only problem with the bill is that it doesn’t take away MORE of the insurance companies freedoms and institute a modified single payer system, equivalent to that of France, giving more freedom to more people. You don’t know what “freedom” means. You support money and profit as uber-principles governing society to a degree that is totalitarian. That’s the centerpiece of your belief system – you want markets to rule everything because it’s your ideology. “Freedom” my ass. You’re as much of a crank ideologue with the single “big idea” that should govern every human relationship and every social transaction as Josef Stalin. Pure totalitarianism – one big idea gets imposed on everything, whether there’s any empirical evidence that it works, provides more freedom for more people or not. Your yammerings here – inept as they may be – are the ravings of a totalitarian ideologue in action.

  49. Sure Fire Says:

    What’s it like to be in love with yourself Reg? Is the sex better when you only need you? Move to France you arrogant self centered ass.

Leave a Comment





Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.