The liars, crooks and thieves in Congress and the White House are bought and paid for and must go in 2010, 2012 and 2014 or sooner they stopped working for the interests of hard working citizens and small business ages ago.

The liberals can't get their bloated bill passed so they either bribe some of their members or threaten to strip them of their jobs. So much for the kind and compassionate left. Kill the whole bill and start over.

Many people are starting to see this whole fiasco for what it is. Opening competition across state lines, using legislation for sound regulations, enacting tort reform and controlling the runaway costs as well as the heavy hand of big pharma is what will actually "reform" health care. Nothing else.

What's being done is expansion of government, NO REFORMS, and pandering to voting blocs at the price of common sense. Unemployment and underemployment play a rather large role in this, as does what's laid out in my first paragraph. Combined, this would "fix and reform" health care to an Nth degree more than anything being considered by this group of career welfare recipients.

Besides all else, "loopholes" are already being cited; big surprise with a 2k + page document. Either the lawyers in Congress engineered it that way to get the "public option" through the backdoor or lawyers outside of Congress are doing what the lobbyists pay them to do.

Heck, who am I kidding? There's no difference, it's ALL about the lobbyists, especially those appointed in this administration. And to boot, they're just preparing us for EXACTLY where we're headed.... a nanny state.

What is it about this that you guys don't get:

This bill will make the insurance companies even wealthier.

There is no competition forced in this bill, there is no cap on rate increases - even in the time frame between the bill being signed (if it is) and implementation. So just like the credit card nanny bill, the insurance companies will have plenty of time just like the banks to compensate for the paltry regulations and take that money out of our pockets - BEFORE having potentially 30 million more customers gift wrapped and delivered to them, millions in the low-risk (read, profitable) age brackets, and millions more getting subsidies out of tax payer pockets.

So, I'm not sure how you arrive at Lieberman being against this to protect the insurance companies. If this passes, the insurance companies win.

And think about what you're saying. The economy and residents in the state he represents depend quite a bit on the revenues and taxation of the insurance companies located there. Would it make sense that he would attempt to protect the revenues his state depends upon to operate? Get real - that's what people in CT expect him to do, isn't it? Is that any different than Landreau selling her bid for $300 million for her state?

Yea for Lieberman!!! Keep resisting Joe, look out for us. The attachment to a party is long overdue for a shake-up. No more Repubs! No more Dems! Lets ALL be independent - and STAMP OUT SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS NOW!!!

No surprise to me. He's whore of big insurance and always will be. Let's get rid of him, Nelson, Bayh, Lincoln, Conrad, and Landrieu--they, too, are whores of big insurance companies in their home states.

No, jolo, if you support this bill you're a whore to the insurance companies.

Because it will bring them 30 million new customers without forcing them to compete, and allow them to charge whatever they want in the meantime.

Can you understand that? That the Democrats who wrote this bill are all very large recipients of insurance company and pharma contributions, and that those two entities helped write this legislation?

Can you explain to me, please, what you find in this bill that is worth supporting? Without calling names, Bush bashing or any of the usual nonsense, just please, explain why this bill is good.

Liberman calls himself a Godly man and an observant Jew but like the pharisees he has no concept of God and the requirements of love and care of the poor.

I wonder if he goes to the slums and throws coins to the crowd?

So, joko, I can go out and but a wrecked car, insure it and collect a check just like it was never wrecked.

It is only a pre-existing condition.

How about some realistic rules. Like remove the anti-capitalistic rules and open up competition.

Okay, I agree with every one of those - those SHOULD be part of an overall reregulation of the insurance companies.

However, the CBO analysis and several other outside analaysis (at least one of them admittedly suspect, but the HHS is a gov't entity) says that the government option would NOT have created enough competition to make any significant difference. Those same studies also point to this bill forcing peoples costs UP, not down.

If you hate the insurance companies so much, why doesn't it bother you that this legislation would deliver 30 million new customers to them, with no new regulation beyond the three we both agree are necessary? Why doesn't it bother you that there are no caps on premium increases, so these same insurance companies can rape people that are already covered for the next three years, before they have to live with those much needed requirements?

Did you read the Nelson article? The Democrats have taken out the part of the bill that would have removed the insurance company exemption from anti-trust laws. THAT would have forced them to be more competitive, too.

Also, could you explain the funding for this bill? Specifically, $250 billion was taken out, intentionally, so the bill would be scored without it and the total would come in under the $900 billion Obama wanted.

What about this $250 billion? And what happens when Congress can't or won't cut $500 billion from Medicare/caid? What happens to the alleged "deficit neutrality" then?

Lastly, exactly who do you think I "support"? I support sensible legislation that solves problems, not makes them worse, no matter which side of the aisle it comes from. If this legislation solved problems, I would support it.

Please, look beyond those three very valid concerns, because the vast majority of people in Congress and this country share those concerns and support those regulations. However, they are part and parcel of a monsterous, damaging bill.

Prag--here's your answer:

1) No more rescission; that means no more cancelling of people's policies based on lame-ass reasons such as an undeclared case of acne. That is a hideous practice that amounts to reneging on an agreement, and it costs lives.

2) No more denial of coverage based upon pre-existing conditions, another hideous policy of the greedy insurance companies.

3) No more cancelling of policies because a person gets another job.

Unfortunately, all of those things will force insurance companies to raise rates.

So when Prag said this:

There is no competition forced in this bill, there is no cap on rate increases

He/she was absolutely correct.

I won't argue against those changes. They are good ones, but if they are not countermanded with policies that make insurance companies figure out some other way to make money besides premium hikes, that is exactly what you will see.

I am still waiting to read the whole bill, but I have yet to see much redeeming in the discussion of this bill so far. I did like that they got past the log jam of the public option specter, but they have a long way to go to convince me this bill is worth it.

Keeping in that part about buying RXs from Canada (or Mexico) is a start. Coming from two border states myself (California and Vermont) I can tell you this provision would be extremely helpful. Safety and efficacy is BS when we know fully well americans in this state (VT) go over the border all the time to get scripts. They take busloads of seniors for turn-around trips. It's crazy. They see a doc in Quebec, get a quick script, and buy their drugs in Canada, with nary a death directly attributed to that purchase.

For once I agree with Joe.

The legislation is woefully inadequate, too many loopholes, to many outs for insurers and doesn't do what was intended - lowering costs, providing access to the uninsured or under-insured or create actual competition.

I would also go so far as to say it's discriminatory. With the SCHIP program children get coverage, with medicare the elderly get coverage, everyone in between is discriminated against based on age.

yvonnemari, the rule they put in to limit the insurance companies profits is the main reason we are screwed. It killed capitalism. It encouraged insurance companies to be more bloated and run like a GSE. We need capitalism and competition to drive cost down.

The rule that screws everything up is where they limit insurance companies loss ratios. If they fall below 75%, they must return money to the customer. Has anyone ever got a check? This one rule has made it where insurance companies have no desire to cut cost, actually the opposite, the more they spend, the more they make.

No other industry is like that, remove that stupid rule, open up competition and watch rates plummet.

Senator Reid removed the part of the bill that would have ended the insurance companies' anti-trust exemption precisely because Nelson, a former insurance company insider himself, said he wouldn't support cloture if it stayed in the bill. Reid caved on the issue, as he has all too often, to try to woo Nelson. Now the latter is squawking about restrictions on federal funding for abortions. I'm all for removing the anti-trust exemption for the insurance companies. As for the budgetary issues you and many others are raising, let me say this: Cost analyses and projections are never an exact science; they're akin to weather forecasts. They just use available data to determine the likely effect of a bill on the deficit. Secondly, and more important, budgetary issues can be addressed later on in the form of amendments and improvements. Once a life is lost, there IS no going back. You and the other conservatives always put money ahead of human life, which is your right, but I just don't happen to agree. There are millions of vulnerable Americans right now, suffering mightily, and some dying, for lack of insurance. Aetna just brazenly announced a sweeping rate increase, in the middle of this fray, openly and unashamedly acknowledging that as many as 600,000 current policiyholders could be forced off their plans. Their justification? They want to boost--SURPRISE!--their profits in order to meet Wall St. expectations. Some of those affected could conceivably die as a result. And yet, you and others on this site consistently defend these people.....You're entitled to do that, but I can't relate to it.

The bottom line is we need to make it less expensive. It is not in the government's DNA to do that. That is where competition and capitalism come in handy. So yes, your Democrats not removing anti-trust laws is wrong.

FU on your death BS. Our hospitals treat everyone, including illegals. I think more Americans die from illegals taking away jobs and earning potential, than lack of health care.

Yea, jolo, I'm impervious to your bleeding heart liberal twang too. Simply because one of the reasons costs in health care are so screwed up right now is because people get treated who can't pay for it. That already gets passed on to people who are insured, via cost shifting, which is part of the reason reform is so needed.

Whatever Reid's motivation was for stripping out the anti-trust language, strip it out he did. It's out, and it's wrong - and THAT is the fundamental problem with this entire process.

Government regulation is supposed to serve the people of this country AND the businesses that employ and serve us, not just one or the other, or one at the expense of the other.

This legislation serves the insurance companies and pharma, at the expense of the American people.

You want to position being against this as being "anti-human life", to try to guilt people into supporting it, when in fact about 20 million people STILL will not be covered after having spent $1 trillion - AT LEAST. Those people, who are still going to get treated, STILL continue to run up the bill for everyone else.

And I have no guilt over opposing this bill. None.

Well at least Joe has a lick of sense. Those voting for a healthcare take over bill that passes will live in infamy.

Too bad we won't be able to see how history judges this debate, because my side--the side of putting human life ahead of corporate profits--will be judged as being morally right, and your side, both of you, of always putting the "premium" on corporate profit and ideological rigidity will be seen as what it is: Callous, cold-hearted, and morally bankrupt. Of course, the health insurance industry may bankrupt us in the financial sense of the word, but that doesn't matter, so long as we stick to capitalism, right? No guilt over opposing the bill? Gee, how surprising. And believe me, I'd never try to "guilt" anyone on your side into supporting this bill; for you see, that would presuppose the existence of a conscience.

Morally right means forcefully taking money from one to give to the government? Morally right means killing people with an incompetent health care rationing scheme?

Joko, I want the cost to go down. The reason it is so high is because some bleeding heart liberal, like yourself, said they are making too much. So they "fixed" it.

That "fix" is what is killing us. Do not F*ck with capitalism! It is what keeps things in check.

Why is it you, jolo, are incapable of having a conversation with becoming belligerent and insulting? How dare you say I have no conscience. My son had cancer, I spent three years in an oncology ward with him watching children battle the disease, and many my son and I became friendly with lost that battle. I've been on the front lines of this, LIVED the importance of health care, have you? Or are those just your talking points from the DNC?

The fact is, if we can't afford this, WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. Instead of 85% of the people in this country having decent coverage - that absolutely needs improvement - 92% will have more expensive, rationed coverage. You simply cannot do what Congress wants to do, and not have rationing. You don't think people will die from THAT? But that's okay with you, because some of them might be the ones that have always had coverage, and screw them? How compassionate are you actually or is there something in this for you personally?

It's okay with you if some people are screwed out of something they have worked hard to pay into, as long as someone else gets it instead? Because millions of people will be priced out of the market, under Congress' plan, and they'll end up uninsured. But screw them, right?

We could afford sensible regulation, and once again you're reading selectively since I've been trying to get you to understand -

THIS BILL BENEFITS THE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND PHARMA.

But you go on ahead, thinking you're morally superior to everyone else. I'm done with this discussion.

Joe Libermann could well be the single individual to save our Nation from a Marxist inspired tragedy. We'll keep you in our prayers Joe. Greg Neubeck

The fact is, if we can't afford this, WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. Instead of 85% of the people in this country having decent coverage - that absolutely needs improvement - 92% will have rationed coverage. You simply cannot do what Congress wants to do, and not have rationing. You don't think people will die from THAT? But that's okay with you, because some of them might be the ones that have always had coverage, and screw them? How compassionate are you actually or is there something in this for you personally?

Unfortunately rationing will be a way of life. You cannot have any system that wil give you whatever you want and it still be affordable to most (if not all). No way.

Trust me, we have "rationing" now. You just have insurance companies (and ultimately, your employer) deciding who gets what when. Medicare doesn't pay for everything. It does not pay for any preventative care stuff: vaccines, diagnostic procedures for the purposes of ruling out other issues, annual exams. We already have a system that decides some people cannot have certain drugs, or IVF procedures or certain surgeries. We already have doctors with long waiting times before a patient can be seen. We already have a shortage of medical professionals in various parts of the country.

What we NEED to decide is what is the minimal amount of healthcare that everyone deserves to have and figure out a way to give everyone that (you come in bleeding to death from a car accident, you get cared for; you need a diabetes test once every 3 months to make sure you don't get gangrene, ok you get that; you want to have bariatric surgery, probably not on the taxpayers dime, sorry, no; IVF for the 10th time, probably not). Anything above and beyond that is something you pay for out of your pocket or you purchase via a supplemental insurance policy (as Canada has been experimenting with for quite some time).

Everybody can't have everything they want, and the taxpayers wouldn't pay for that anyway. It is really that simple.

yvonnemari, the rule they put in to limit the insurance companies profits is the main reason we are screwed. It killed capitalism. It encouraged insurance companies to be more bloated and run like a GSE. We need capitalism and competition to drive cost down.

We'll see if that makes it through to the end.

Currently, many states have a provision like this and trust me, insurance companies still make money. The BCBSs (of which I am most familiar since I worked for one) are required to keep a minimum surplus of cash on hand and most have to explain to local legislatures when profits exceed X. Many of those BCBSs are partially supported by local tax dollars (because they also are the local Medicare intermediaries) so the legislature wants a full accounting to make sure that taxpayer dollars were spent wisely (and, quite frankly, local politicians can grandstand about being tough on insurance carriers).

Trust me, those very same BCBSs make a profit. So don't tell me it isn't possible.

In any case, I am all for opening up health insurance sales across state lines for better competition. Consumers would need some good education on what taht means, but I certainly think that would be a win-win for most of us.

Creating DEMAND for medical service results in price increases. This is the truth of supply and demand. Adding a people to the roles and not addressing doctor, nurse, hospital, and drug shortages will result in COST INCREASES not decreases.

Keep drinking the koolaid folks. Healthcare will be cheaper because we added demand! No. True if you add competition and this can be done by allowing insurance to cross state lines. We don't need the government option. We need the E-surances and Geicos of the world (its a metaphor folks) to provide health insurance instead of regional monopoly insurance companies that call all the shots.

Then you have a solution to cost increases.

Next: Tort Reform

Oh, sorry, Prag, I guess your earlier response, calling my argument "bleeding heart liberal twang," wasn't "insulting," right? If you want to have a civil disucssion, you have to do your part. Your reply just proved my argument: "WE CAN'T AFFORD IT." Always about the money, isn't it? Money issues can be addressed with amendments and such, but death is permanent. And if you dispute the figures I've cited as far as the number of Americans dying of treatable diseases because they can't afford insurance, then you are arrogating yourself superior knowledge to two entities: The National Academy of Science and the Harvard Research group. I agree, that absent a public option for people to select, this bill is a gift to big insurers; that part of it I can't stand. But since the bill does away with rescission, denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, and cancelling coverage when people switch jobs, I am willing to go along with it, as distasteful as parts of it are. I'm looking at the broader picture. That bit about a public option watering down the policies people already have with private companies is getting old......and it's false. As far as your experience with cancer, that IS tragic, and it should make you even more determined to see that no one's child, or spouse, or sibling, is ever denied care. My anger is based on the fact that I simply don't want anyone to die for lack of insurance, nor lose his house in trying to stay alive. That does not make me a bad guy.

Another job killing sham bill of the left is starting to be exposed for the fraud it is and unravel. This plan packs more lies in a smaller package (2000+pages) then our corrupt politicians have ever managed to do before.The fact it does little to lower costs or provide better coverage doesn't seem to bother the die hards. Of course when they or a loved one are on the wrong side of an Annual Life Quality Analysis (what the death panel will call their dirty deeds) decision they may feel a little different.

"Bleeding heart liberal twang" is a phrase I use for any argument that is based on emotion. Each individual person in this country can make decisions for themselves based on emotion, we need our government to legislate based on facts and reality that effect the majority of the people in this country.

If the legislation in question, whether it's health care or anything else, serves a minority at the potentially extreme expense of the majority, it should not pass.

If this legislation was a re-regulation of the insurance companies, that forced those three points of agreement, AND mandated a rational, national standard of coverage including reasonable deductibles and co-pays, AND required the insurance companies to compete across state lines, AND did away with their antitrust exemption, I would support it, EVEN IF it contained a public option and subsidies, AND it ended up costing a bit more.

The difference between you and I is I'm not willing to accept mediocre legislation out of Congress anymore. They've pulled that crap for at least two decades and in this of ALL things, I think the American people deserve better than to be relegated to third place status behind insurance companies and pharma.

I'm just hoping our supposed representatives don't pass anything before election time next year. What they have accomplished so far is nothing more than another insurance scam to be forced on us. Pay more get less.

In my opinion Insurance cost will come down If

1. Insurance is used/charged only in of case major health problems or accidents. Normal day-today problems like flu etc should be cash based. Patient visiting doctor, pay in cash and get antibiotics in cash payment. A normal visit should not cost more than $50-70 a visit.

This way doctors will not need big staff to get insurance info and processing with insurance. They can cater patients quicker . Load on insurance companies will also comes down which can help manage cost.

Every person who is earning must have a insurance for major health problem. It should not cost more than 100-200 a month for a family of 4. The longer the person have paid into any insurance company better coverage he should get. Like building a credit history.

jolokailover, I would like to know which National Academy of Science/Harvard Research study are you referring to? I've read a couple of studies, and they are intriguing, but there were some flaws (for example, the fact that several uninsured people delay treatment FOR TOO LONG rather than go to the hospital earlier to give them a better chance for survival - was not taken into account in one of the Harvard studies that I read.)

I own a small business. I am a responsible owner who offers QUALITY health insurance for employees - a policy that is MUCH BETTER than any public option that I have seen. If a public option is offered, my business WILL BE FORCED TO SWITCH TO IT! Why - you ask? I will no longer be able to compete with other companies who will have no problem picking up the public option. In this way, the government will have FORCED my employees to accept a LOWER QUALITY health insurance policy. This is true for all of the small business owners that I have talked to in my field of work. You can say that a public option will not water down existing health insurance policies, but you would be incorrect (no matter how tired you are of hearing it.) In fact, many people would LOSE their current health insurance policy to the public option.

By the way, when you say - "WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. Always about the money, isn't it?" - isn't that the reason people do not have insurance in the first place (other than those who choose not to because they prefer to pay in cash)? Money is a factor in life and death - like it or not.

I agree that we need health care reform. I also do not WANT anyone to die for lack of insurance or to lose his or her house in order to survive (I do not know anyone who does.) I also do not want a public option, and I do not want the government to take over health care (medicare and medicaid should be struggling enough for you to understand the down side of government-run health care.) Health care can be reformed without a total government take over - that is how I feel, and that does not make me a bad guy!

Everyone should have known what they were getting with Lieberman. He was joined at the hip with G.W.Bush.

The Democrats had a bomb planted in their Party by the Republicans. It's name is "Joe Lieberman".

He could care less about the American people. He's just there to derail any progress the Country might make to build up his political funding arsenal and that of his Republican cronies

Once a Chicago thug always a Chicago thug.

In my opinion Insurance cost will come down If

1. Insurance is used/charged only in of case major health problems or accidents. Normal day-today problems like flu etc should be cash based. Patient visiting doctor, pay in cash and get antibiotics in cash payment. A normal visit should not cost more than $50-70 a visit.

This way doctors will not need big staff to get insurance info and processing with insurance. They can cater patients quicker . Load on insurance companies will also comes down which can help manage cost.

Every person who is earning must have a insurance for major health problem. It should not cost more than 100-200 a month for a family of 4. The longer the person have paid into any insurance company better coverage he should get. Like building a credit history.

Ummm...ok you are right and wrong.

This kind of policy already exists. It is called Major Medical or catastrophic medical insurance. It only pays for big ticket stuff and a few high dollars odds-and-ends like (maybe) outpatient labs or xrays.

Yes, this type of policy is (were) VERY cheap and costs were lower when most americans had this policy. BUT, don't expect that to be true this time around (insurance companies will not altruistically cut their profits so these policies will cost more even after inflation adjustment, believe that), especially if lots of people (read healthy people) opt for it.

The problem is there are no cost controls in that scenario, plus you had states adding on mandates (well child coverage to age 7 or mammographies after 40 or colonoscopies after 50, etc). So before too long, consumers wanted coverage for these things in addition to major medical. WE wanted more so we got the higher priced insurance to cover more. The more was also newer, more expensive technologically so the costs went up too. It is hard to know anymore which is the chicken and which is the egg.

Opening up competition across state lines would bring Major Med back. I would have bought a policy like that in my 20's and early 30's when I wasn't married and was (am) very healthy. Put $1000 in a money market account and leave it for emergencies. I'd have been all for that and I am sure others now would like it. This can be one part of reform, but it will not be a cure-all.

The only problem after that is that we KNOW (study after study) that the high cost of healthcare comes at the later (sicker) stage in life. We also know that the more preventative care you have at an earlier age (before you are sick) keeps you well longer. So the theory is if you are "forced" to get preventative care early you will save the system money down the line.

People on Major Med, however, disproportionately do NOT get preventative care. So it is cheaper on the one hand but more expensive on the other. If you could fix that problem, this solution would make more sense.

so much for the promised bipartisanship from the community organizer in chief. rather than listen to any republican ideas, and work a compromise, obama rama ding dong and his cronies are going to strongarm anyone who has a dissenting opinion. sounds like the change the people voted for, and now he sits there with the lowest approval rating in the polls in history for a president 11 months into his term.

Reid go back to Nevada and retire. I'm sure you will do well playing KENO. Please take Pelosi with you. She can volunteer at the local ERs and give free medical to the illegals.

one thing i've not seen mentioned is the man who runs this country has not even run a kool-ade stand. on what grounds do you justify his running the health care industry? or for that matter the feds are total failures in everything they do. medicare is on the verge of bankruptcy and so is SS yet all you sheeple are ready for them to take over the health industry. what part of incompetence do you not understand?

What the heck happened to our Country. Now the Senate meets with just Democrats to figure out how to pay everyone off so that they get a health Bill that the majority of the people in this Country do not want. What happened to debate? Compromise? They do this then they complain that the Republicans will not compromise.

So these Liberals say this will decrease insurance by 1% a year. Excuse me but who did that math? The same person who promised that unemployment would not go above 9%?

What is the rush here? What is magical about rushing a 2,000 page Bill, that has not been read by everyone, through with amendments that people have not even seen all thrown in at the 11th hour. I would think that in a sane world that we would take our time to make sure that we had the right answers to a medical affordability problem that threatens all of us. But this is not a sane world. Lets just create a huge governmental entity from scratch in months to run our health care needs. The government has done so well with Social Security and Medicaide/Medicare why not take this on too.

Yup, they're afraid to make a decision because if it's the wrong one - OOPS, you can KI$$ the campaign contributions good-bye!

I remember Obama saying he wanted to "clean house." I wonder if this is the way he's doing it. Nah, it can't be.

Almost scary to think that Joe Lieberman was almost 1 person away from controlling the WORLD!

So the Messiah is going to bring all the Senate Democrats to the White House and tell them to fall on their swords for the good of the Messiah!

What a laugh! Hopefully we will get enough of the out in 2010 & 2012 to repeal this before it goes into effect!

I don't want the dems to "struggle with the healthcare bill", I want them to KILL IT and bury it....quickly!

You can buff, polish, shine, and dress up a turd... in the end, it is still a turd... just like the Liberal's Government Administered/Taxpayer Funded health plan. It does not reform health care at all... it just sticks the government right in the middle of it all. That's just what we need... Government ruining our health care.

[import of cheaper drugs from Canada] proposal is opposed by the pharmaceutical industry and has drawn a noticeable lack of enthusiasm from the White House, which has been working closely with drug-makers in the months-long effort to enact health care legislation.

leaves no apprehensions about who actually has written this bill.

The Obama WH is squarely in the pocket of big-pharma.. Why should the American public accept this bill?

time to bring Chicago politics into play again! invite everyone to the Big House and threaten them till they bow down to his emminence or 'off with their head'!

Where is obama's transparency? He's being very transparent. invite the dems to his house so he bribe, threaten, chasten, play god. What happened to working with the Republicans? There aren't enough words to explain how despicable obama and the dem's are. Nothing they are doing is for the United State, it's all about them.

Gotta love the secret meetings behind closed doors to get a bill passed that no one will read or understand!

But I digress, it's all the republicans fault that this hasn't passed yet.

As PragmaticToAFault says, what about this do you liberal fascist congresspeople not get? The American Public does not want this plan shoved down our throats. It's another power grab by intolerant, ignorant, people.

All those in Congress who oppose the Reid/Pelosi/Obama version of health care "reform" (reform, what a joke to call what they are doing a reform), is stall until the end of 2010 then Reid will be gone and with him many of his co-conspirators who are trying to force something on us we don't want, don't need and truly can not afford.

We can only hope that in 2013 Congress and the White House will have people in charge who understand the need for "real & affordable" health care reform. It is a big gamble I know, but then again so was electing Obama! Hopefully the next big gamble will pay off better than this last one.

The Obama Experiment will be one I will be glad to help end in 2012!

They have stripped every cost saving measure out of this bill to cater to the insurance company representatives- Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln. Landrieu, Baucus...This process has been a case history in the fact that corporations own Washington. If I lived in these whores' states I would support their primary challengers with everything I had. They sold their souls for a pot of @!$%#ing gold.

And Lieberman needs to join the Republican party. This has been the final straw. Hey Joe, go @!$%# yourself with your gold-plated Aetna dildo.

Just this in -

The public opton AND the Medicare age reduction are dead, to buy Leiberman's vote.

Now they loose the far left.

We may see an end to this before Christmas after all, but not in the way Reid wanted.

Then maybe AFTER Christmas, they can come back and take a measured, thoughtful approach that attempt to address one part of the problem at a time, instead of breaking the entire system for the people it does serve fairly well.

I'm not hopeful, but it COULD happen, right?

Stop blaming business for buying votes! They are just acting in the best interest of their constituents, i.e. stockholders.

Instead, blame the socialist democrats who are selling votes! Are they acting in the best interest of their constituents, i.e. voters? NO!

Face it libs, corporations couldn't buy votes if they weren't for sale, and since republicans are totally against the bill, the only ones selling are socialist democrats. This is all on your watch, deal with it!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

President Barack Obama will meet with Senate Democrats at the White House Tuesday to press for action at a make-or-break moment for his health care overhaul.

OH LOOK MOM, NO REPUBLICANS. AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey Lieberals, how's that 2,074th broken campaign promise doing for you? BIPARTISANSHIP????? Sorry, Obama has NO idea what that even hints at let alone means. This job killing, business bankrupting, massive entitlement that NO ONE has any idea what's in it, must go. The sheer audacity of this government to turn this into a purely POLITICAL issue instead of a true improvement in health care is an outrage.

BUT WHY WOULD OUR GOVERNMENT GIVE A F**K ABOUT US ANYWAY????????

Our purpose, according to them, is to just work and pay for THEIR out of control corrupt spending MANIA. Ours is not to question but to just OBEY. Obey their obvious superior ability to tell us what we need better than we can. SIX MONTHS of manipulation, changing and deceiving to end up with this abomination is an insult to OUR INTELLIGENCE!!!!!!!!!!

THIS BULLS**T THAT "DOING NOTHING IS NOT AN OPTION" IS INSANE!!!!!!!

This has now become a DESPERATE struggle for the Lieberals to just pass SOMETHING. The Lieberals WILL NOT kill this bill because it will be political SUICIDE if they do. This final bill will be a hodge-podge of WHO KNOWS WHAT, but they WILL PASS IT. This arrogance and partisan behavior will surely come back in 2010 and 2012 to hurt them, but it may be too late to do anything against this FRAUD CALLED HEALTH CARE REFORM.

ONCE AGAIN THE LIEBERALS SHOW THEIR TRUE COLORS, IT'S ONLY ABOUT THEM, NOT AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

good stuff rogue!

THIS Admin is Chicago politics at its best. Look for heads to roll when it fails. Look for out corrupt leader to crumble

That would be the dumocrates find a way to screw the American public at all costs. They do not care who they have to hurt to get what they want. Make sure Grandpa and Grandma have their will written up, oh and make sure yours is also as when the dumocrates are done the insurance companies are going to be able to screw us any way they want. We need JOBS not a forced INSURANCE plan that is disguised as health care reform. Do any of these idiots care about the people that they are supposed to be representing or just the fact they can CLAIM they did something?

.

yvonne

There are many things inflating our health care. Lawsuits causing defensive medicine. Patents on new drugs.

But the one Leiberman let out of the bag last week was overcharging the average person to make up for the Medicare forced give-away by reimbursing doctors for less than the cost to perform the care. This has been alleged for many years, but US representative had ever divulged it to my knowledge.

One more thing.

DO NOT for one minute think that Joe "I don't really know which party I'm in" Liebermann isn't working the political machine like a symphony conductor.

This guy has been in politics for nearly 40 YEARS!!!!!!!! He knows what HE wants and HE will get it. It just remains a question of how much he wants and when will he be willing to change colors to get it.

He has forgotten more political manipulation and deal-swinging than most in CONGRESS have ever learned. If he knows he carries that MOST CRITICAL deciding vote you know he won't give it without a price. His "INDEPENDENT" position allows him to whore himself out to the HIGHEST BIDDER.

IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW MUCH THE DESPERATE LIEBERALS ARE WILLING TO PAY OFF,,,,ERRRRR SACRIFICE TO GET THAT ALL IMPORTANT 60TH VOTE!!!!!

Arp-456047

And why exactly are we surprised at the retrenchment of the Senator from Aetna? We didn't expect this??

Arp- The Washington mafia is at it again, senator Lieberman is in the back pockets of the insurance companies and he was told to stop any bill that have to do with health care and that is just what he is doing, senator Reid have let the so called blue dogs democrats and the republicans run the country regardless of what the people want, what are they afraid of, all of them have no principals and the American people lose, if i was senator Reid i would ask senator Lieberman to go back to the republican and strip him of his chairmanship of the home land committee.

What I don't understand is this guy is always saying he wants to have bi-partisan bills then when he has all these meetings he doesn't ask one Republican to attend. Only goes to prove our President is a liar, a very good one but still a liar. And he isn't inviting the Democrats to have a bit of tea and cookies to ask them their advice. It is to tell them what they are going to do. It's called a little bit of Chicago thuggery.

Why does it have to pass by a specified date? I mean if this is such great lesgislation why not debate it a couple of days longer if need be? What is so significant about having it pass by Christmas?

None of this makes sense. It's like political grandstanding to the nth degree. I don't understand why they can't discuss it as long as it needs. Why "by Christmas?" What difference would it make if it was voted on right after Christmas.

Could it be that Reid and Pelosi, et al., don't want senators going home over the holidays to hear their constituents telling them "Kill this bill or you'll be out of a job?"

Can the people supporting this not see they are being conned?

Incredible. The political dumbing down of America.

Finally, I find something to agree with USARouge... Joe Lieberman is doing what is best for Joe. The Republicans don't even have to prod him. There is more than enough special interest to sponsor Joe in years to come for his shift to Republicans.

1. Joe is married to a "unregistered" lobbyst
2. Joe already lost his Democratic primary in 2008.
3. Joe was elected by splitting the Democratic voting and gain "on the fence Republicans" -- a very smart move
4. Joe will not win Democratic ticket in Conn ever again.
5. Joe was the outcast of the DNC, but Obama saved him.
6. Joe was recently polled by to be yank of his chairmanships by over 90% of registered Democrats.
7. Joe is voting against the 78% Conn Democrats
8. Joe is voting with the 41% Conn Independent (against 54% Conn Independent) who are against Public Option.
9. Joe is voting along his corporate campaign contributors.
10. Joe has completely flip flopped from his original position of Univeral Healthcare Coverage, that he and Al Gore promised.
11. Joe has completely reveresed his position on government obstruction which he spoke and ran on in 1994 (when he was part of the minority party).
12. Joe has realized the amount power he gains by being the minority party that controls the vote... You see, people expect Democrats and Republicans votes, but he holds the unpredictabiltiy factor. The POWER OF ONE THAT WHORE HIM/HERSELF TO THE WINNER...

WE need to remove these people!!! The USA, richest country in the world can't even come up with health care THAT we all have paid into our entire lives through taxes. Unaccepable. Communist and Social govenments can do it, what? Are we that weak?

Gee, exactly why are the Dems struggling??? Pres. Obama already told them "Just give me a bill, any bill, and I'll sign it" As long as the Dems can stand up and say they passed a bill, they could care less what the bill contains, its impact on the economy, or the taxpayer.

JUST CHALK ONE UP FOR THE DEMS----THAT'S ALL THAT'S IMPORTANT!!!!!!!

To the Republican Idiots that think party should vote along party lines...

DAH!@@@ With the Democrats not voting 100% along party line shows me that there are independent thoughts and idiological difference (regionally). With the parties (such as Republicans) consistently voting in blocks, shows me that the process is most likely rehearsed or forced... Because it sometimes does not represent local constituents, but due to external pressure such as GOP, Media, DNC,...

As to the idiots who constantly like to point out that the Democrats recieve large contributions from corporations. Hmmmm... The Democratic representatives vote against the interests of their contributors than those of their Republican counter parts. So please stop with your generalization of politicians.

At this point the Democrats are the only ones voting against their corporate contributors. On the other hand, Republicans are ALL voting for their corporate contributors. So spare me the song and dance about government being corrupt. You REALLY NEED TO CLEAN UP YOUR PARTY, BEFORE CALLING THE DEMOCRATS DIRTY.

ModerationInAllThings

Many people are starting to see this whole fiasco for what it is.

________________________________________________________________

Too bad the politicians in Washington can't (or won't) see it. They must be getting lots of money under the table.

Important agendas;

Progressive are interested in Single Payer
Democrats are interested in Public Option
White House is interested in Universal Coverage
GOP is interested in Re-Election and White House failure
Conservatives is interested in return to power - being the Puppet Master (either through GOP or through 3rd party such as Tea Party)

The Colonel-964761
Why does it have to pass by a specified date? I mean if this is such great lesgislation why not debate it a couple of days longer if need be? What is so significant about having it pass by Christmas?

Because if it doesn't get done before Christmas, it won't happen due to the Senate race that will start up early next year. You see, Obama thinks if he can make this happen quickly, then perhaps he can save many of the Democrat seats in Congress next year. What "O" doesn't know, or want to accept, is the Democrats are done already. Mark my words, many of the seats held by the Democrats will be taken away from them.

Scrap the whole damned thing. Just WHAT exactly is being reformed ? There's NO public option, NO tort reform, NO repeal of the Anti-Trust exemption which means there will be NO competition and now there's NO Medicare buy-in. So NONE of the 50 million un/under-insured are going to be getting any kind of relief whatsoever.

Republicans are SCUM SUCKERS for obstructing and gutting this bill and the Democrats are just a bunch of pussies who can't stand up for themselves. ALL TALK... NO ACTION. I can't believe they let a bastard like Leiberman and the other Republican THUGS hold this bill hostage and then rape it for all it was worth.

Scrap the bill.

Vote out the idiots in office.

Get sane people in office again.

Stop govt spending.

Start paying off the deficit.

Get America back.

This bill as amended now, has nothing to do with health reform; it is a attempt by the ultra liberal wing of the democrat party to save face; forget about the real reform needed, get anything passed, so they may claim victory. We are in desperate need of health reform, not a hodge podge of regulations that do not address health costs and availability.

Soooo... In other words, this bill is intended to do what? A lot of wasted time and energy.

For as many people who are rabidly opposed to the ideas proposed, more people are for them. Another disappointing session of the legislative branch.

If the Republicans weren't so absolutely insane, I might consider voting for them, if we were basing this on the Democrats inability to get anything done. But the Republicans lack of any plan, preference to the status quo, ie RISING profits for the insurers and pharma companies, makes them an even worse choice. America truly does seem to want to be rid of the mantle of world leader/pioneer.

How about if we all have the health care plan provided to senators.

Alternatively, how about age 60 instead of 55 for medicare extension

from #1.8 above

"Liberman calls himself a Godly man and an observant Jew but like the pharisees he has no concept of God and the requirements of love and care of the poor."

Pragmatic, here's what I think happened and will happen. The Dems came back from August break and began to figure out how to drop public option. It took them a while, but they came up with expanding Medicare for 55-64 year olds as the trade-off. Lieberman first says yes then says no. He literally sideswiped the party just to exercise his political ego. It's all spectacle, not politics, not good legislation, not even good 'sausag making' (what a disgusting phrase). So Dems drop the Medicare issue the same day Lieberman opposes it, and, as you point out, enrage a large part of their shaky base. You are probably right - bill will fail b/4 Christmas, maybe by New Year. But there won't be a do-over. No. We're going to have to listen to blame, shame, and false claims through next year's elections. Not to let the Republicans off the hook, either. They threw their tantrums, stonewalled, and shrieked hysterically (even to the point of calling the President a liar as he addressed Congress), frothed up their base, and frankly, never offered any equitable proposals that considered the PEOPLE. They had control of the WH and Congress for 6 years and only passed an expensive drug coverage plan for seniors (only one group), and tried to limit lawsuits to a piddly $250K. They are just as responsible for this fiasco as the Dems.

Sorry to hear about what your son had to endure and what you had to endure watching him go through that. I think you and I agree on two other things - it wouldn't be a bad thing if insurance companies were just cut out of the loop entirely and this so-called bill is a waste of a forest.

****************

If we want to get some real, effective, meaningful health care reform passed, we need to cut off Congress' salary and benefits for their families until they pull their heads out of their tightly clenched colons and do the job right. WE pay their salaries and insurance. Time they got a taste of what the rest of us have to put up with.

Someone said scrap the entire bill and start over next year. That is the best statement made so far. At the present rate on compromise, we will get nothing but a government run, high cost, low benefit program that will never benefit the middle class or working class. Only the amendments of pork will get anything out of it.

Don't believe their slight of hand tricks. No matter what it smells like or looks like, it still will have in it somewhere, somehow, in some other language all the ugly things they have been trying to pass in the original one. obama isn't calling the dems to play house tomorrow just for tea. We have been lied to and cheated on so many times already and obama promised no pork, that's a joke, and fewer lobbyist, that's a joke, honesty and transparency etc. etc.

LIBERMAN, MODERATE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS- PLEASE DON'T FALL FOR THEIR LIES AND PROMISES OR BRIBES AND THREATS.

Thturd,

The republicans of the senate break rank a whole lot more than the democrats. 2001 - 2006 12 republican senators constantly voted against the republican agenda. What the democrat party does is do enough to insure passage, the rest can vote as they need to keep their seats.

The reason 39 Democrats voted against the bill in the house was because as written, they knew they would not be returned by their constituents. The reason 12 in the Senate are concerned is because this bill threatens their return. Some don't care and will be dumped in 2010.

I've been watching the polls. If the Election were today, the democrats in the house might have a 5 - 10 seat margin and in the senate maybe 1 seat WITH the aid of the two independents including Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Doug, God also said that all who are able should work and earn their way. The mission that God gave us was to take care of widows and orphans, us, meaning the church, not the government. (James 1:27) and (2 Thessalonians 3:10 " If a man will not work, he shall not eat.)

This Progressive Liberal Democrat Marxist bill IS a tax payer funded abortion.

Yes, a couple of Republican Legislator put forth such bill.

So I would suggest for you guys to look it up. It basically says that if the health bill passes, then it would require the Legislators to use the coverage as well. Now Democrat Legesislators are now coming forth and attaching themselves to the Proposal, and signing on...

I am all for it. Call for it to pass!!!! You will now see the true colors. What started as a gaff for a couple of Republican legislator, will hopefully bite them in the rear.

All politicians are concern with their re-election. It is their career. You should ask those Republicans that were booted out of their positions the past 2 elections.

DB Akron: Nice try about about breaking ranks. You did not seperate out the partisan issues. Only during non-partisan issues did the Republican Legislators and Senators break rank from that of White House. However you and I both know that don't we. So for you to mislead that, it is simply MISDIRECTION.

On partisan issues, the Republicans was almost always in line. That included McCaine. He was not the maverik as his campaign manager wanted us to believe. He voted with the White House as most Republican Legislator.

Take your data and clean them up. Because it is bad data in and you will get bad data out. But nice try. Too bad, I am actually coherent today.

they are all bought and paid for so dont expect change....no change you can count on

a complete sloppy bj to the insurance lobbyists and another kick in the sack to the american people

Can the dumocrates not read their letters or emails from the people that they are supposed to represent???? They are letting the American people down by cramming their health INSURANCE act down our throats, how big of a payoff are they getting for this. If they cram in down our troats by Christmas do Hartford, Aetna and BlueCross Blue Shield write them a big bonus??? Way to go prove that our politicians are as crooked and stupid as we are beginning to realize. You crooks all need to be voted out of office starting at the top.

All politicians accepts contributions. All contributors want their causes represented. It would be rediculous for us to think that politicians should only take money from one side. We don't expect that of businesses, so why should we expect that of the politicians.

What we expect of our politicians are for them to represent their people without bias. We expect them to cast aside their contributions so that they do what they believe to be right. Given these simply facts of life, I find representatives and legislators who are voting against their contributors to be much more convincing than those who are voting according to their compaign contributors. There are some regions where thir people do not want changes! Thereby their positions. I don't have a problem.

What I have a problem with is people like Joe Lieberman, who ran on an Universal Care health plan when he was VP candidate with Al Gore. This is the same senator who in 1994 gave a passionate speech about the injustice of holding up Congressional voting. This is the same senator who is voting in complete opposite of his current Conn population which is well over 50% for the Public Option. In addition, Joe, claims that he is Democratic is actually voting against 89% of Conn Democrats who is for the Public Option/health bill and the 54% Indedpendents who are for the Public Option/health bill (41% of the Indepedents are against it).

Joe clearly realizes that he needs the Tea Party voters to stay viable in 2012. He also need much $ to fight off people like Ned. Since Republicans will not likely have anything to stand on, becuase they are still the 4 letter words, the Republicans will not put up a fight. In fact, they will most likely call off any Republican challengers such as Tom...

thinkstraight: you wrote "...cramming their health INSURANCE act down our throats... "

hmm... It is your choice to use the option or to keep your current issurance. How is that cramming down your throat? On the other hand, I believe the fact that I have to pay for the 28% premium increase for all of my employees health, workers comp, auto (bodily insurance), property (personal/bodily) coverage nearly every year to be "cramming."

Diogenes, I've been waiting for someone to post that Scripture. But many Scriptures do not specify that the church handle the problems, they speak directly to the individual. Here's one for you. I call it the equal pay Scripture:

Colossians 4:1 - Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

Just a few quotes from the Old Testament on the poor:

Deuteronomy 15:11 - For the poor will never cease from the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land.’

Deuteronomy 24:14-22 -

¹⁴Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates:

¹⁵At his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it: lest he cry against thee unto the LORD, and it be sin unto thee.

¹⁶The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

¹⁷Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow's raiment to pledge:

¹⁸But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing.

¹⁹When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands.

²⁰When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.

²¹When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.

²²And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing.

Proverbs 14:20 20 The poor man is hated even by his own neighbor, But the rich has many friends.
Proverbs 21:13 13 Whoever shuts his ears to the cry of the poor Will also cry himself and not be heard.

Proverbs 22:16 16 He who oppresses the poor to increase his riches, And he who gives to the rich, will surely come to poverty.

Proverbs 28:8 8 One who increases his possessions by usury and extortion Gathers it for him who will pity the poor.

Proverbs 31:8-9 8 Open your mouth for the speechless, In the cause of all who are appointed to die.[a] 9 Open your mouth, judge righteously, And plead the cause of the poor and needy.

Regarding social attitudes:

2 Timothy 3:1-5 -

¹This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

²For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

³Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

⁴Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

⁵Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

This nation, the most prosperous and blessed in history, which claims to be predominantly Christian, needs to rethink its approach to its less fortunate and quit promoting the false premise that everyone has equal opportunity or equal access to opportunity.

The health care debate has certainly shed some light on the underlying attitudes that truly exist.

Hurry up Nancy Harry and Barack, do your worst.

Your buddy Gore just got caught lying about Global warming in Copenhagan,

We're tired of all the lies and don't care anymore,

It's over anyway.

So much for the kind and compassionate left.

Whats left? The Hateful and arrogant right?

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

The religious right is neither, religious or right.

What Americans is reid talking about, the 56% that oppose the health care plan?

skeptic -

Thanks for your thoughts, and I'm happy to say my son is fine and driving me crazy as any normal 11 year old will.

RE: the scripture quotes you posted. As an agnostic, I don't believe they belong in this debate - on either side. I understand why you posted them, but it irritates me beyond reason when the far-right tries that sturm and drang, and I say so. It would be hypocritical of me not to call it out, whenever it's used as justification for support or opposition to anything that binds this entire country legally. Religion has no place in this.

RE: the Republicans. :::sigh::: They piss me off beyond any reasonable thought most days, but the reality is they DID have four complete bills, one that was written with moderate democrats - the only true bi-partisan bill in the batch. I'm not saying they were great bills, but they did contain several things I think are central to this issue that the democrats absolutely refuse to address, including national insurance competition on a national standard, and tort reform. They were never scored by the CBO, they never went through the debate and amendment process, and so they are raw bills which people love to point out that they're expensive, etc. Well, the Democrats bills' are STILL raw and they have been put through the "sausage maker" (a phrase I also cringe when using).

Not only did those bills never even see the light of say on the floor in either house of Congress, neither did the lamestream media bother reporting on them. It served their pro-Obama, liberal agenda much better to go along with the Democratic rant of "They're the party of NO!! They have no ideas!" Which is patently false.

The Republicans also put forth literally hundreds of amendments, and maybe a handful were accepted. They were not included in the closed door negotiations sessions AT ALL. Of course they oppose this bill, in it's entirety. They have had little to no input in the writing of it, they fundamentally disagree with the approach. They're doing their job. "Open door" policy on the part of the Democrats and Obama only meant, "you can come in and talk, as long as you agree." That, sir, is fascism.

They are guilty of stupidity, in their fight against this bill, and on that you'll get NO argument from me whatsoever. There was and is so much about this bill that is terrible, budget busting and useless - why did they have to latch onto death panels and kill grandma??? Stupid Palin.

Ultimately, I think "we the people" - from all sides of this debate - need to SPEAK UP and demand that they take the few things that were good out of this bill and do them as separate, smaller initiatives - assuming it fails which I truly hope it does. There are many times when doing nothing is preferable to doing the WRONG thing, and this is certainly one of them.

YES.

Government should not run healthcare, what's next, providing food, water, and shelter?? I like my freedom and I don't need the government to be my keeper.

This would have been so much easier if the Dems had really been open to a bipartisan effort instead of this approach of ramming government run healthcare down our throats despite majority opposition to that plan. Dems, start listening if you want to stay in office.

"400 Billion in new taxes and higher premiums for everyone." This is the democrats version of affordable health care. No really new options, the only positive thing is the eleimination of dropped coverage and refusal based on pre-existing conditions. Great deal isn't it.

smc3

I'd like to know how you can blame republicans for this bloated piece of trash in the senate? When the republicans don't have enough votes to stop the legislation or change it in anyway with out democrats approving of it, how can you say they gutted it? This is what I saw coming when this bill was first proposed. It's a nice idea, but terribly impracticle from a cost stand point. When you demand that coverage be provided to those who have pre-existing conditions, have met their lifetime policy limits, and remove lifetime policy cost caps the cost of insurance will go up. It is that simple! When you insure people who don't currently have insurance because they can't afford it, someone will have too pay the cost! This was clear months ago. Why are democrats suprised and bitter? Could it be that they engauged their mouths before their brains? I know Obama has on several occassions. That is what we get for having a bunch of day dreaming liberal socialists running the country lead by a radical community organizer.

Pragmatic, glad to hear your son is doing well, and be glad he's around to be a normal 11 year old. Parents who nearly lose, or who do lose, a child know that every moment is precious - even the hairy ones!

On the Scripture post, I have trouble with the selective, pick-and-choose method some use to make a point, especially when they try and insert religion as justification. You've read enough of my posts to know I won't let someone tell just part of the story. I wasn't using it as justification for debate, I was reminding that poster about what we are called to do - even in the Old Testament. The poster's use of Scripture was manipultive, and I called him/her out on THAT. When someone does what s/he did, it can turn people off who would otherwise be encouraged. To have let that one, isolated Scripture sit would have been to tacitly agree with a false construct. And I don't agree with the tactic the poster used.

Republicans' use of hyperbolic incitement, 'death panels', etc., is exactly what undermined their own credibility in the debate. Demonizing an opponent makes for good drama, but lousy debate. In a way, what they did and what the poster did are very similar - try to elicit visceral responses. As for the national insurance competition, when I found out that they had been protected under anti-trust legislation since 1945, I couldn't believe it. The Dems did have something in one of the bills, but that has been stripped - like all the other meaningful ideas.

Can't argue with wanting to ditch this nightmare legislation and starting over. And now for something completely different - letter to Senators.

What the Dems really need to do is to tear the bill apart and make the repubs vote each provision up or down. Let's see if the repubs will actually vote to allow insurance companies to accept premiums for decades and then cancel policies when someone get's sick. Let's see if the repubs will vote down a provision requiring 90% of health care premiums to actually go to health care.

As for tort reform and interstate competition...the dems need to hit back. It's incredible that the conservative republican platform for health care reform is to abandone the conservative princple of states rights. What's more incredible is that the supposedly liberal media is not doing it's job and pointing that out. I guess they don't want to lose drug and health care company advertising dollars.

health care reform does not have to mean Everyone must be Insured..It could mean ; a fair and equitable of all health costs, pharmaceutical charges..insurance provisions/ policies etc..not to mention a fair legal aspect..if things such as these are addressed, most people I'm sure would be happy to work something out for health care..the way it's being structured, the Common People are having the wool pulled over their eyes..A Dear price is absurd, something is Wrong with this picture.........

...DON'T WANT GOVERNMENT TO RUN MY HEALTHCARE...

Yah, and at the same time Medicare is receiving a higher rating than health insurance??? What planet are you living on. If you have balls tell your Conservative Representatives to close up Social Securites and Medicare. Let see if you and your Republcan Reps have the stomach.

"Democratic aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Lieberman had responded differently last week when Reid asked him privately about the proposed Medicare provision. "He voiced support for the idea," said one official. Lieberman's public comments last week were also generally favorable."

Mr. Reid maybe Lieberman actually read Friday's damming HHS report and is relying upon FACTS not BLIND ULTRAL LEFT WING MARXIST IDEAOLOGY.

Are you, Obama and Pelosi SO intent on taking over 1/6 the of the economy no matter how damaging to hard working citizens and small businesses YOU DON'T CARE ONE WHIT ABOUT REAL WORLD FACTS?

"on condition of anonymity"---What a cop out by the medai so they can print what may very well be a fictional statement made up by the media.

the highly vaulted CBO is scoring this as deficit neutral

bop, neutral when funded for ten years and used for seven. I know liberals are not good in math, so I will explain.

If you pay me $100 for ten years and during the last seven, I give you $100, are we equal? If so, I will take that deal with you.

"on condition of anonymity"---What a cop out by the medai so they can print what may very well be a fictional statement made up by the media.

HUH? You find it hard to believe that someone in WDC wants to cover their ass while telling state secrets? You're kidding right? Why on earth would the media need to make up some anonymous person?

Trust me. I have lived in WDC. There are all kinds of people ready to talk, but none of them want to lose footing in the social and power pecking order. They will ALWAYS be anonymous unless the comment is made at a prearranged press conference.

the highly vaulted CBO is scoring this as deficit neutral

That's nice. Don't believe the hype. Without any real cost controls in this bill, that isn't very likely. You know this because this is what we have now (no cost controls, higher costs each year).

If you pay me $100 for ten years and during the last seven, I give you $100, are we equal? If so, I will take that deal with you.

Ooooo...can I play too? :-)

President Barack Obama will meet with Senate Democrats at the White House Tuesday to press for action at a make-or-break moment for his health care overhaul.

If it had been Bush calling only Republicans to pass something like the war in Iraq, the left would be up in arms. This is nothing short of making an end-run around the bipartisan majority and wishes for the public not in agreement with the ultra-left agenda.

Don't forget that they passed a $250B doctors payoff bill separately so it wouldn't be included in the CBO costing. This thing stinks to high heaven.

wwwaaaaaa.....call a wambulance....jesus people, get a life man

Kevin Q

Is that how you're gonna react when your premiums and out of pocket costs rise? Good for you. As a matter of fact you might try to get 2 lives, one to pay your taxes and health care premiums and one to pay everything else.

Ever heard of someone talking out of "both mouths"

Yes:

11/4/2008 - "In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long." Hooray, no more partisan politics!

12/14/2009 - "President Barack Obama will meet with Senate Democrats at the White House Tuesday to press for action at a make-or-break moment for his health care overhaul." Um, why only the Senate Democrats?

RV in GB#1 BO is only out to get what he wants, you did not really believe his campaign lies. OOPs I am sorry promises. This man does not care who gets hurt as long as he gets what he wants

and what exactly would that do?

Besides prove the point that it is my way or the highway in both the house and senate?

Thats the worst thing you would want to do as a democrat, your people would lose the all important independant voter block, you know the group that put Obama and the majority of Dems in office.

wow bronxgirl..., are ALL democrats so vindictive and evil? Thank God for Independents!

314159/Jeremy

what a joke your post is - bronx girl has it right and she learned it from the "right" - does the term "rino" ring a bell?
anytime someone from the GOP does not toe the far right agenda they are labeled a "rino" - like the repub candidate in NY 23....

better check that litmus test being passed around to GOP candidates - toe the line or no support.

and for the last chuckle - "thank God for Independents" - lmao - when the right insists on running tea party candidates, birther candidates, far right extrmemist - the Indpendents will become your worst enemy

and Lieberman is no "Independent" - he should have run with McCain so his true colors would have shown - he should stay with McCain and Graham and openly come out of hiding.

Lieberman has no "bloc" backing him...he couldn't be trusted on either side of the aisle..a couldn't survive standing alone.

What are you babbling about? Quit drooling all over yourself and come up with a coherent thought...

It's clear the democrat party has no goal other than to create the largest bureaucracy, knowing they can do whatever they choose to once they have the hundreds of billions allotted to it. This isn't about health, doing the right thing, or fixing anything.

This is ALL about democrat power, democrat largess, democrat bureaucracy. Bush spent by the billions, Obama spends by the Trillions. It's like an Austin Powers movie....

Kill the bill.

They'll be home tomorrow.

Very simple.

Typical - do nothing. Stall. Wait for the Easter Bunny. Great suggestion - and very much in keeping with the Republican approach to healthcare - do nothing and feed the corporations.

All their talk about small business and regular folks is just hot air. As usual.

You know what they say about ASSumptions, right, Dee?

I'm a Democrat, who is capable of four function math and does not accept everything the government and Congress tell me as the truth.

Explain this:

There is a $250 billion line item called the "doctor fix" that is not accounted for in this bill. It's not funded any other way, but it NEEDS to be funded, and was previously included in earlier versions of the bill.

The Democrats pulled it out of the bill, and made it a separate bill, so this one would be scored by itself and come in under the $900 billion - $1 trillion mark.

How is that funded?

And how exactly is the bill itself funded, if Congress can't or won't pull $500 billion out of Medicare/caid, which is in reality $710 billion when the "doctor fix" is accounted for?

The CBO reports won't account for any of this, because they're two seperate bills, and because they are not allowed to say, "what if the funding source dries up?".

Please, no name calling. Just answer that if you can.

Prag-

You know you cannot ask that difficult of a question to the lefty......

lol

Just stop this damn thing before it gets too far. Whether or not our elected have the "right" to be cranky is beside the point. Not only are there 2k plus pages of it, but now tired and cranky people are expected to be on their toes. When looking at this in it's entirity, it's obvious.... rushed, ill concieved, and like many other things, it's best to start over than keep trying to fix a very, very poorly contrstructed, well.... anything.

Perhaps they're tired because they simultaneously had to work on passing the $1.1T budget, including vats of pork fat AND their 2% raise.

Looks like maybe Joe may have actually read the bill as opposed to some of his fellow senators who are voting blindly but want no parts of it to affect their own healthcare choices. I know my 85 year old senator from NJ is probably concerned about my healthcare! Ha, what a joke. These guys are permanent fixtures who just follow the bouncing ball of their party!

Let's stop the blabber too that the Republicans would rather do nothing already. They have offered suggestions (as in see post #1.4) and have been turned down. Repeatedly. No input allowed. All amendments defeated! This is purely a Democratic bill in the making, but nothing Democratic about it because it's all one sided. I hope it fails. It does NOTHING to decrease costs. It does EVERYTHING to F... up a system that some constructive tweaks would put the current system on the path to be beneficial to all as well as fiscally sound.

I currently am paying through the nose on COBRA. Full amount as I missed the government supplement of 9 months reduced costs in the time frame. However, I do not want what they are proposing just for the sake of getting something passed. Make it right, make it good for all and don't tax me to death to do so. By the time I finish paying the taxes that will be imposed, I'd probably be able to afford a private plan on my own with money left over.

Correction: Didn't mean to say Joe "read" the bill. Meant to say he's getting a reading on what the bill just may do.

Dee - your party is sucking at the corporate teat like never in the history of the world. Seriously - they paid off Wall St and Bankers with nearly a Trillion, and now they are going to reward all the insurance and drug companies with 20-30 million new paying customers.

Wow are you clueless.

Noelle

Yours is a noble wish at christmas but it is a bit misguided. These are the people that elitist grinch was coined to describe. They obviously don't care one wit for anyone but themselves. They would rather pass a bad bill, that the majority of Americans are against and claim victory, than do what is right by scrapping this travesty. Kill the bill and start over with everyhting you've learned from the first go round. if they are truly their to help then pass legislation that the majority of Americans can get behind.

Let me get this straight?

Because he opposes a Gvmnt roll in health care he is bought and paid for by insurance companies? What left wing talk show host 1st said this? There are WAY too many people here saying the exact same thing.. Hes bought and paid for by Aetna, and his chair should be revoked.

Just wondering who started it?

A ton of Americans do not want the Gvmnt in health care AT ALL. are we bought and paid for by insurance companies? I work for local Gvmnt, with craptastic insurance, and there is no way in hell I would want the federal gvmnt in my health care. IF opposing Gvmnt health care in ANY FORM makes me bought and paid for, please tell me where to sign up for my mthly checks.

use spell check pug

Lauren

This whole bill is a monument to greed. Greed by the democrats that want to prop up social programs so they can tell Americans how much they have given to them. Of course it was ours to begin with so where is the good . This won't save medicare, it will kill it or us by putting the country in even worse debt than before(and I don't just mean federal either). It does nothing but raise the cost of insurance because they are removing lifetime caps( something already available if you wish to pay for it), and forcing insurance companies to insure those with pre-existing conditions( a sure payout down the line but they don't want to pay the higher indemnity). It puts limits on the amounts payed for treatments and procedures paid for by medicare which forces doctors to see more patients/day to make their living which decreases the amount of time spent per patient therefore eroding quality of care. Beside all of the above, congress has wasted millions in beating this dead dog, in time spent on it in the house and senate, the media, town hall meetings, etc. Not at all the way I wish my tax dollars to be spent. The research should have come first, then thoughtful by-partisan preparation and cost assignment. That would have given us a reform bill most would agree to support and been a better service to the nation then this piece of trash.

Bopdaddytoo, anonymous giving is the best. Look at the article about about the restraurant that had people paying each others bills, anonymously.

The polls are against you Red..., maybe you don't speak for 'the people'...

Hey Reds - And what of all the other senators on the Hill? Regardless of their party. You don't think they are rich?

I want a bill where all people in the USA have the same health insurance that the "good people" who work in congress have...

...and I want a Ferrari

...and a really nice house

Thanks Santa,

RV in GB#1

... Isn' that like Ricky Bobby saying that he meant "With all due respect."

Redhead- I hate to break it to you, but your democrat senators control way more wealth than their Republican counterparts - so using your logic, the democrats don't hear the needs of the people.

Ignorance is bliss....

Than ALL OF CONGRESS should stay out of it...

well, more then half have.......

Check your math there buckwheat... If more than half would have stayed out nothing would presently be in the works...

my name isn't buckwheat - --

My apologies. No offense intended. I guess buckwheat is a term I use for someone who doesn't quite grasp 'fractions'...

Why not call you Buckwheat, you won't put you name up so people can see who you are, what is the matter no guts. Just another note for every one this is not English 101 so knock off about spell check.

314159

nice spin - you didn't need to explain your interpretation of "buckwheat"...think we all know what one means when they use the word.

Out with Pelosi: good name she is the second most dangerous woman in the country, only Hilary comes in first. The most dangerous man is Harry Reid, but with every passing day before congress goes home for Christmas is a good thing because what ever the Senate does the House has to pass also and I don't think the Democrats in the house are that stupid. By May they will have to distance themselfs from Obama, because most Americans can not remember what happens more than six months before the election. You work on Pelosi and I will work on Reid have known them for a long time, just waiting to see if some one will run against him, he only won last time by 500 votes.

Murphy

just another uninformed republican post - never let facts get in your way - since you have known Reid for a long time maybe you would like to correct your post..

"he only won last time by 500 votes"

2004 Nevada Senate Race

Reid (D) 490,232 votes - 61%

Ziser (R) 292,255 votes - 35%

you keep working on those "500 voters"....

He is an independent, so he doesn't need to vote along party lines.

There needs to be more independent thinkers in politics. Follow the leader is not my idea of a thinking politican.

Obviously, the insurance execs, otherwise known as "Joe's Johns," took him to the woodshed and set him straight: DON'T SUPPORT ANYTHING THAT WILL CONSTITUTE COMPETITION FOR US! Be a good whore, now, Joe, and put out for your johns.

Any of you people here of Wayne Morris of Oregon.

teeree

you are correct - he is an independent. that means he should not caucus with either party and certainly should not chair a majority party committee.

Regardless of party affiliation congressmen should vote with the good of their constituents in mind. I hardly think that has entered the minds of most of the people on capital hill.

Lee-338424-662557

Don't thank Joe...thank Aetna, they're the one's lining Joe's pockets :)

Suzi, can you prove that, NO just throwing words around to see where they land.

He is no different than any other politician.....They ALL have a special interest in their pocket.....

If you are making less that $10/hr there is an insurance plan for you. It is called Medicaid. The mother of all government hand out programs run with the compassion of the DMV and financial integrity of the military.

I agree with you, it is not right. Good for you as a cancer survivor. That is big time stuff as far as I am concerned.

Not sure, however, that a plan can be devised of the type you are talking about.

Mudfloper: Your so called allies in the senate voted down an amendment that would require the senators themselves to participate in this plan. What does that tell you? Not good enough for them but okay for you? Who's side do you think these guys are really on, obviously not yours. Their interests are in themselves, not their constituents.

Not sure what "side" you're referring to, but a couple of weeks ago:

The Republican Senators proposed an Amendment, that would require all Senators to sign onto the same plan offered by the bill. They thought/ hoped it would humiliate the Democrats/ Independents, by forcing them to admit it wasn't good enough for them.

To their surprise, the Dems/ Inds enthusiastically got behind the idea. They even went further, saying "Since Congress all gets health care from the government now, how about we all agree not to accept any more government health care until this bill is passed?" The GOP said, "Ummmm....we like our government health care."

So, if you mean the Republicans declined the proposal, you are correct.

Clotho, I don't know how else to say this, so I will just put it to you like this: The democrats in congress denying themselves their current insurance FOR LESS THAN ONE MONTH (remember, they are committed to getting it done by the end of the year) IS NOT THE SAME AS the democrats in congress agreeing to sign on to the same health care bill that they will be forcing on the taxpayers FOREVER. It is not going "even further" - it is a cop out.

Please, tell me when the democrats agreed to drop their current healthcare plan and to sign up for the new one (according to you they "enthusiastically got behind the idea")? I missed that story. I Googled it, and searched the MSN archives and could not find it.

Here it is:

"A Taste of Their Own Medicine. (Coburn Amendment #226) For many liberals in Congress, a new public health insurance plan, to compete against private health insurance, is an absolute “must” for health care reform. Virtually all independent analysts estimate that, given the special advantages of taxpayer subsidies and regulation, that the competition would be rigged, and millions of Americans with private health insurance today would be dumped by their employers into the new public plan. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) proposed an amendment that would require all members of Congress and their staffs to enroll in the newly-created public health insurance plan. This means that they would be required to give up their private insurance coverage (nationwide there are 283 plans competing for federal employees’ dollars), which is today provided through the popular and successful Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). With many members of Congress openly willing to create incentives that would drive Americans out of their existing private coverage, Sen. Coburn put his colleagues to a test. Although 10 Senate Democrats voted against it, the Coburn amendment passed by one vote. Taxpayers should watch very closely whether this amendment is preserved or buried."

I do not see where this says that this amendment was "declined" by anybody.

However, it is clear that the majority of Democrats voted FOR the amendment, and the majority of Rebulicans voted AGAINST the amendment. Personally, I will watch this closely. As an independent, I am happy to finally see that someone actually proposed this and that it has moved this far. Is the Coburn amendment still alive?

...One last request for senator Coburn - add to it that any Senator that earns over $150k/year cannot purchase ANY supplemental insurance. If employees working for small businesses cannot purchase supplemental insurance, neither should they.

I like this amendment!

Ok boys and girls, Lets get down to brass tacks. It NOT there fault! Its ours for re-electing them!! The "BUCK STARTS HERE" VOTE!

I agree with your proposal, and I hope America does the same. Any politician with this coverage they deny the rest of us should be out "scratching with the rest of us chickens." Maybe then they would understand.

And as for Lieberman, he's a rat that never is consistent, except for his voting record that supports any large interest with a generous checkbook. He supports the insurance interests and not the people.

This is why I dislike him, and hopefully his constituents will be successful this time. He squeaked through as a third party candidate, after losing the Democratic bid. I personally don't think that it will happen again.

Great choice: A whore of big insurance companies. Typical ReTHUGlican attitude. And in case anybody cares, 68% of Connecticut residents WANT a public option. Is that "representing the people"? DUMB.

Liberman is not a Republican. I would rather have a private insurance company covering me than the military might of my trusted and beloved government. And to think our senators and representatives are not bribe-bought whores is laughable. Blame the insurance companies and the pharmacutical companies. They are an easy target.

Oh, I'm sorry; you're right. The insurance company execs are benevolent, avuncular, altruistic pillars of society, aren't they? Do evil, they? No way! They only actively search for lame-ass reasons to cancel policies when the holders need them most of all, leaving them to die for lack of coverage! You're right--what the HELL is wrong with essentially signing a human being's death certificate so long as it helps your company's bottom line? What's wrong with raising your premiums whenever you please, by however much you please, forcing millions to lose their coverage and perhaps die? You're right, Lloyd: They're ANGELS.

Brett, you're a fool. That Rasmussen poll is slanted to the right, and everyone knows it. You're a typical cold, callous Rethuglican who would rather see 20,000 of your fellow Americans die each year( National Academy of Science, so if you dispute that, explain how you have superior knowledge to that entity) than see the insurance companies forced to keep their rates reasonable. On the battlefield, you would leave you fellow soldier to die in order to save your own hide. Just like a Rethuglicans.

Lieberman speaks for the people? No. Lieberman speaks for the insurance companies, as do the Republicans.

jolo-

You are as foolish to think that this bill is going to help people to the degree in which you "hope"... It has become a disastrous bill and needs to be stopped.

Yes, Lieberman has Insurance in his pocket...name me a politician that doesnt have a special interest in his/her pocket?

That is the problem.....

Brett, you don't know whom you're dealing with: For your information, I have never taken any handout from the government, never asked, and don't intend to. Ever hear of Long Neck Point in Darien, Connecticut? I thought not--your type wouldn't know of it. Well, I DID live there, as well as many other presitigious addresses both here and abroad, so I don't know your or anyone else's handouts. It's a neighborhood that wouldn't want riff-raff like you as one of the homeowners, that's for sure. You served your country, you say? You wouldn't leave a fellow soldier on the battlefield? Rubbish: That doesn't jibe with your attitude on this healthcare reform: If you are willing to let as many as 45,000 of your fellow AMERICANS die each year for lack of affordable insurance, why should I believe you act any differently on the field of battle? You don't care about the uninsured, that's for certain. You care more about the insurance companies.

I suggest those of you who think that only Republicans support the insurance companies go back and see the donations made to the writers of this bill, including Max Baucus, by insurance and pharm industries. Both sides are in bed with special interests. Let's not fool ourselves. Remember Obama spouting no lobbyist would be an influence on his administration. Ha Ha Ha

I for one have never said that only the Republicans represent big insurance; what I have said is that ALL of those Republicans in the House and Senate clearly are working for those companies, since only one--ONE!!--Republican lawmaker from Louisiana, has voted for this reform. ALL 40 Republican Senators are against any health reform. But I have also said that there are Democrats who are whores of big insurance, and have named them: Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Even Bayh, and Kent Conrad. I especially take them to task for representing insurance companies, as I expect better of Democrats. So I'm not giving anyone a free ride.

Brett ignores the truth, like most Republicans. Thanks to the viewers of the MSNBC Countdown with Keith Olbermann, there have been several "free clinics" set up in selected states; and at the last event, where thousands--if not tens of thousands--showed up, fully 83% of them HAD jobs. Trouble is, those jobs had no benefits and did not pay well enough for the people in question to afford health insurance; that's just obscene. These people work HARD, at jobs that are not always glamorous, and it's terrible that they can't get a plan of some kind. As for my mentioning my background, I wouldn't have if you and others had not constantly accused me of being some welfare recipient who just wanted a free ride. I am very fortunate and want to make sure others have what I enjoy.

Your views are so skewed it boggles my mind. I agree that everyone should have access to health care. I do NOT agree with how you think it is best accessed.

No, Someone that speaks for the CORPORATE and not the poor.

jokeofalover

"400 billion in new taxes and higher premiums for everyone under 55." 24 million Americans left uncovered. How does that save 45000 lives/day? How is that more affordable health care? The average family of 4 making 66000/yr pays 6600/yr in premium or about 10% of their annual income besides any deductibles and out of pockect insurance. I am not making these up, they are quotes from this article and one yesterday about this same bill. This is a far cry from the original feel good promise of cheaper health care, everyone covered including the 47 million or so that currently don't have insurance. How can anyone defend this garbage and still sleep at night. This is typical big government in action, make the damn thing so complex that it doesn't do anything to remedy the situation and raises taxes to boot. Then slip it into 900 pages of wasted language so no one can read it and then pass it without open floor debate, perfect.

What's all this across state lines baloney? Why do I keep hearing this from Republicans? How is that going to make insurance companies competitve when they are all owned in the end by 4 or 5 large companies who no doubt all collude with each other and charge roughly the same.

Healthcare costs continue to go up, up, up steadily, but wages and salaries don't. And there are less and less jobs that pay well. Those jobs have and continue to go away overseas and Americans are left with low-paying service jobs.

Lieberman's state of Conneticut, has lots of insurance companies based in it, doesn't it? There's a clue for his stance.

Well said. Lieberman is the devil.

Lloyd S

The mri gives a clearer picture and sees soft tissue otherwise obscure to an x-ray. The point is malpratice lawsuits. If a doctor misses something even if it is not what the patient is complaining about he gets sued when it crops up.

servus

I'd like to know where you get your facts, there are thousands of insurance companies in this country from farmers co-ops to the multi national conglomerates. The problem is there are no standards each state has different regulations for insurance and each state has different licensing regulations, requirements, and fees. Some insurance companies are band because of accounting methods, some because of risk evaluation etc. Each state is different, that is the problem here. Insurance may seem to be a standardized industry but it is not when you look deeper, that goes for the state regulations as well as the companies themselves. If you want to reform insurance, take the best model and regulate the industry to it including state regulations.

LW-

You are in the same boat with many americans, though any will not admit it. This Obamacare is and has always been a pipe dream of the liberals. It has failed for the same reasons decade after decade.

If we were able to begin to break free from the special inrterests and the way our politicians do business, we might then be able to address this issue as one people....

Everyone is bashing Lieberman but fails to think that EVERY politician has a special interst in pocket. Every single one!!! That is the root of our problem.

Out w/Pelosi,

So good afforable healthcare is a pipe dream of the liberals? How stupid is that statement. Are you saying the Republican do not have a dream of good healthcare for all? That is exactly the problem. Where is their solution? Let's hear it. We've been waiting.

nw-

there is a difference between universal healthcare and affordable insurance.....

It is too bad the government, Congress, the President and all those responsible for this bill havn't asked the people of this country what they want.

Of course everyone would love to have the fabulous insurance gov. employees get and at the same cost. So why are insurance companies "for profit" and not non profit? Makes no sense. They should balance out to 0...

Sometimes I think that the "ol" days were right...you pay the doctor when you are sick and if you have health insurance you file a claim. Your doctor just takes care of being a doctor. Wish there were an easier way and all citizens were treated equally with equally qualified doctors, etc.

But the truth is, if you have lots of money you get good health care. If you have little money, you don't. People in Canada discovered that...their "free" gov. insurance was awful and those who really wanted to get that knee replacement without waiting drove down to the USA and PAID for the surgery.

There are no easy answers. We just need to look at all the options and choose wisely.

Congress could have easily adressed the universal health issue with less waste of time, effort, and money by simply passing a law that requires every hopsital and clinic to render treatment to anyone who comes in the doors. If a person cannot pay the bill be it through insurance or out of pocket then the government will pick up the tab. Now it didn't take me a thousand pages to accomplish the stated goal of this whole debacle and only about 2 minutes of thought including typing time.

Liebermann has always been a huge pain in the a**; at the beginning of the Lewinsky fiasco( another great moment for the ReTHUGlican Party), Joe, who had been friends with Clinton, led the charge in reprimanding him publicly. I can still recall the ANNOYING way he said, "Mr. President, I'm deeply disappointed....." Some friend he turned out to be.

I am on both private insurance and medicare, and I do not want either of them destroyed by Obama and his felllow idiots. Why do you think that AARP supports obamacare (they sell insurance to anyone who is stupid enough to belong to AARP, which I do not) I spent 50 years as a public school employee and spent just as many years paying into state retirement and medicare---if Obama gets his way, I will have to go to Costa Rica, Mexico, or India for any medical care, as Medicare will be bankrupt in this country. My state will also be bankrupt (Washington) along with Caliufornia and Oregon. My only hope is that Lieberman and Nelson will make their voices heard before it is too late.

To the 80 year old woman..you need to retire in Canada were you won't be afraid of not getting health care. As a nurse who has worked in health care for years in both countries and have been a patient myself in both countries, and as a patient advocate I can assure you that you would not have to be afraid of not getting health care there.

Your country is already bankrupt by the previous administration spending us into the hole. Remember we had a surplus before Bush got in and in eight years it evaporated. We have been robbed of our future as Americans by the fat cats on Wall Street and by these robber barons in the health care insurance industry... your system is broken and has been for over 20 years now and Obama is trying to reverse the situation....

You are being feed a lot of horse boop and I can assure you that my elderly parents would never consider coming to the US for health care and are perfectly satisfied with the care they get in Canada. It is a shame that these Repulicans are using the elderly as pons in telling the truth about their shameful record on spending and their "do nothing" "keep my head in the sand" approach to governing. We cannot afford to have this approach any longer. I am sorry that you have been misinformed and used.

At least Lieberman is not a sellout to partisan interests. He knows the whole fiasco is a step to government control and socialism. Also, how did the GOP cause the Lewinsky fiasco? I could have sworn Bubba Clinton had "sex" with an underage intern on the payroll in the oval office. He should have been reprimanded publicly.

Jackie, like many other liberals who say Bush had a budget surplus when he came into office conveniently forget 2 things. 9-11 hit us shortly after he took office. So only Bush and FDR had to put up with us being attacked on our own soil and only Bush on the mainland. That changed everything and our country went into war mode. Of course if Obama had been president during 9-11, likely he would have just surrendered to Osama.

The other thing liberals easily ignore is that Obama has put this country far deeper - and faster - than any other president in history. Blame Bush all you want but Obama is writing the checks on your kid's futures. He can only blame Bush so long. Believe his empty promises all you want but most Americans have already figured out Obama's smooth sounding speeches are meaningless and always result in our pocketbooks taking yet another hit!!!

"At least Liebermann isn't a sellout to partisan interests".....No, he is a sellout to all of the big insurance companies in Connecticut, who have contributed over one million dollars to the "Independent" Senator, who, by the way, is going against the wishes of Connecticut residents: 68% of them want the public option. To the 80-year-old woman, I ask this: Why do YOU think the INSURANCE companies support doing NOTHING AT ALL? Did that ever occur to you? Probably not. Don't worry, Righties: Your precious private insurers will not only get out of this without any real competition, they will also get millions of new customers forcecd on them, along with their anti-trust exemption fully intact. You folks have fought hard for your private insurers, and don't think they don't appreciate it. They're going to give you a big holiday gift: HIGHER PREMIUMS!!!! Enjoy being raped, SUCKERS.

Jackie Coming from someone that has been the medical field for 35 years You are full of @!$%#

Jackie

Don't confuse a budget surplus ( created by raiding social security and creative accounting) with deficit spending for 2 wars and the way that Obama is throwing cash into the wind. You can solve any problem but there is always a cost. The intelegent find a solution and the cost and pay it, Obama just throws money at it and hopes it will go away.

I agree that Canada has far superior health care to the insurance-run and rationed health care that Americans have. Insurance company rationing is killing 45,000 Americans a year. In Canada, these people would be alive. Last year, there were 12,000 hip replacements on people 85 years of age or older, and my mother had bypass surgery in 48 hours and at the age of 72. Canadians get far better health care than the majority of Americans.

Way to go Joe. Kill It. Kill. It KIll. It

You must be pretty healthy, huh?

Lieberman is a sniveling little Jew chicken sucker.

If the insurance takeover of US health care is allowed to continue, before long, 50% of Americans will not have access o health care. Insurance-run health care is rationed health care.

The Vietnamese Republican Congressman that decided to put his Louisiana constituents first when voting the house health bill that's who was the last one.Too bad the rest of the num nuts in that party are clueless. The American people are watching this very closely and we are taking names of all the people who are blocking this bill and they will be voted out of office in 2012. These people say I have government health insurance because I am a congressman or senator but you as American people are not worthy of this privilege either... Shame on them, but we are taking names