Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The repeal vote is the most partisal thing I have ever heard of, and people just don't have the appertite such nonsense anymore.
The Republicans need to find a way to be productive and this is a very poor start for them. Very poor indeed. It proves that they are good at opposing and poor at governing.
Its just the same old mud-slinging with the American people as paying spectators. Political theatre but devoid of substance because everyone knows it will not pass.
They made a big deal about freezing their own pay, but I wonder why they didn't reject their government paid health insurance policy for their own families before they try to deprive it from others.
Not sure what you mean by the first reply? I am for reform just not requiring people to carry insurance, and those against that postion may be correct about it being Un-Constitutional but hen again they required people to wear seat belts and carry auto insurance so I may be wrong. I do agree with the pre-existing condition postion of the bill, but even Insurance Companies said they wuld be will to go with that.
Casper
It means the pre-existing condition provision cannot survive without the mandate. You can't require insurance comapnies to cover everyone that walks in the door, that is why they call it insurance. Having a pre exiting condition provision and no mandate would be like letting people get car insurance after they had an accident. Why bother getting it before you need it if you know you will be covered?
The HC debate is the same as it always has been. The GOP focus is on the money, the Dem focus is on the humanity. That pretty much sums up the Party differences in all things.
Somebody has to keep this lunacy of thinking you can just go pick it off the money tree in check.
How should we deal with the chronic smokers, drug abusers, boozers and fast food over-eaters to make sure they don't suck up an inordinate amount of the gov't provided health care?
I just can't see it as a never ending horn of plenty for all.
It's a free country, get over it. I know someone who jogged everyday until he died of a heart attack. I know a girl who starved herself. I know more people who've died of lung cancer who did not smoke opposed to those who did. We are human not machines.
Forcing people to buy a product is slavery. Forcing businesses to provide products is slavery. Forcing people against their own will is slavery.
But then why are drivers required to purchase auto insurance? Why do children have to attend school? Why do we have to pay income taxes? Labeling it "slavery" seems to be a stretch.
Healthcare law: Opposition to healthcare law eases, poll finds - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0117-healthcare-poll-20110117,0,4401137.story - broken link)
Or should the answer be - if you can afford it, you get healthcare. Otherwise you suffer and die. That philosophy will eliminate about 30-40% of the people in this country. Like Scrooge has said "Good, let them die, then, and decrease the surplus population."
Isn't that how it is now?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
