So with the New Health Care Reform passed through the House. Who is for or against it?? Why or why not?

I am not in favor. My opinion (whether it's right or wrong) is why should we pay for the people who are too lazy to get a job just so they can have health insurance? Now it's different if they are disabled and unable to work. But these people who won't get off their butts to get a job shouldn't get subsidized health care that we, tax payers, are paying for!

Edited November 8, 200916 yr by TN_girl21

But I must say that as for most of what Cleo's posts, she's spot on. Baaaaaaa.

Have you heard about this guy, Richard Blumenthal, a Democratic candidate for Senate in Connecticut? It turns out he actually lied about serving in Vietnam. Not good. In fact today, he said this was the most scared he's been since he became the first man to walk on the moon.

Have you heard about this guy, Richard Blumenthal, a Democratic candidate for Senate in Connecticut? It turns out he actually lied about serving in Vietnam. Not good. In fact today, he said this was the most scared he's been since he became the first man to walk on the moon.

Election 2010: Connecticut Senate

Connecticut Senate: Blumenthal 56%, McMahon 33%

Thursday, June 03, 2010

Democrat Richard Blumenthal apparently has weathered charges that he exaggerated his military service in Vietnam for years and is running as strongly as ever against both his Republican challengers in Connecticut’s race for the U.S. Senate.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Connecticut finds Blumenthal with 56% support versus 33% for Linda McMahon, the officially endorsed GOP candidate.

I guess I missed the part about Blumenthal walking on the moon, I was too busy reading the following:

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, May 29, 2010; 5:41 PM

The Republican candidate for President Obama's old Senate seat has admitted to inaccurately claiming he received the U.S. Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year award for his service during NATO's conflict with Serbia in the late 1990s.

Republican Rep. Mark Kirk, a Navy reservist who was elected to Congress in 2001, acknowledged the error in his official biography after The Washington Post began looking into whether he had received the prestigious award, which is given by top Navy officials to a single individual annually.

Edited June 9, 201016 yr by Cleo's Mom

What gets me is that even thogh he would actually lie about his service, people still have him in the running. That's a democrat for ya!

Have you heard about this guy, Richard Blumenthal, a Democratic candidate for Senate in Connecticut? It turns out he actually lied about serving in Vietnam. Not good. In fact today, he said this was the most scared he's been since he became the first man to walk on the moon.

Actually kinda funny joke. But it's interesting that you take credit so much of the time for things you post. Which late night host told this one?

What gets me is that even thogh he would actually lie about his service, people still have him in the running. That's a democrat for ya!

Once again you act like Democrats invented politics in America. They didn't. Remember George W. Bush's military career? You know, the one where he didn't show up? And it might be interesting to know how many times he actually had on a military uniform during his military "career."

What gets me is that even thogh he would actually lie about his service, people still have him in the running. That's a democrat for ya!

Let's see if the people still have Kirk in the running. That's a republican for ya!

Actually kinda funny joke. But it's interesting that you take credit so much of the time for things you post. Which late night host told this one?

I read it in the paper. There was no author listed.

Blumenthal, old news. Now we are onto that real joke in Illinois, Kirk, who had print, speeches and web ads stating he recieved honors that he didn't. Leave it to a Rethuglican to go all out pass the Demo to act a fool about his record. Both of them lied, but the rethug, reached a new low, he still won't take his bogus ads and print paper touting his false accomplishments down. He has been lying since day ONE about his service. Blumenthal, with his idiot self, let people define his record, then went along with it. This other yahoo made his up out of thin air.

Blumenthal, old news. Now we are onto that real joke in Illinois, Kirk, who had print, speeches and web ads stating he recieved honors that he didn't. Leave it to a Rethuglican to go all out pass the Demo to act a fool about his record. Both of them lied, but the rethug, reached a new low, he still won't take his bogus ads and print paper touting his false accomplishments down. He has been lying since day ONE about his service. Blumenthal, with his idiot self, let people define his record, then went along with it. This other yahoo made his up out of thin air.

Mark Kirk might risk discharge and even jailtime

Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 05:07:38 AM PDT

Look like the gods just don't seem to give GOP Nominee Mark Kirk a break these days. First, the Washington Post broke the story about his false military records weeks ago. Then Rachel Maddow found more lies told by Mark Kirk. In fact, in the latest twist in the Mark Kirk fiasco, the Illinois Senate candidate appears to have violated military regulations by campaigning while on active duty.

The The Huffington Post is reporting that Mark Kirk might risk discharge and maybe jailtime because he campaigned while in active duty.

If Kirk did indeed campaign while serving, as a newly released Department of Defense memo suggests, the offense would be punishable by up to two years of confinement and dishonorable discharge from the military. The memo was released to the Nitpicker blog.

Here the some highlight of the memo from the Pentagon obtained by Nitpicker Blog :

As a candidate for the vacant Senate seat in Illinois, Commander Kirk must complete the appropriate acknowledgment of limitations required for all candidates on active duty (DoDD 1344.10, paragraph 4.3.5.). Ordinarily this acknowledgment must be completed within 15 days of entering active duty. Because of the short period of active duty and

concerns arising from his partisan political activities during his last two tours of active duty, Commander Kirk must complete this form prior to his entry on active duty.

Here more, The Capitol Fax blog's Rich Miller is pointing out that last summer on his twitter page, Mark Kirk tweeted: "Back on duty in the National Military Command Center - lets hope for a calm day for our troops,"

Since it took days to the MSM to even report on Mark Kirk's lies, I won't hold my breathe on this new scandal

Bad news for Mark Kirk ?

dailykos

Obama to GOP: Please make ObamaCare a massive deficit sinkhole

Share

posted at 9:04 am on June 12, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

printer-friendly

At last, the failure of Congress to integrate their “doctor fix” into ObamaCare has created enough political pressure to get Barack Obama involved in another health-care fight — this one entirely predictable and avoidable. Democrats played it cute during the crafting and eventual passage of ObamaCare by keeping their intent to rescind the scheduled 21% cuts in reimbursement to Medicare providers away from the CBO while the bill got scored, allowing Democrats in Congress and Obama to claim that ObamaCare saved a negligible amount in the first ten years. Now, with doctors and Medicare administrators screaming about the scheduled cuts that went into effect on June 1, Obama uses his weekly address to beg Republicans to allow the Democratic shell game to finish:

Since 2003, Congress has acted to prevent these pay cuts from going into effect. These votes were largely bipartisan, and they succeeded when Democrats ran Congress and when Republicans ran Congress – which was most of the time.

This year, a majority of Congress is willing to prevent a pay cut of 21% — a pay cut that would undoubtedly force some doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients altogether. But this time, some Senate Republicans may even block a vote on this issue. After years of voting to defer these cuts, the other party is now willing to walk away from the needs of our doctors and our seniors.

Oh, no no no no, Mr. President. You don’t get to claim that this time. You and your colleagues on the Hill promised that ObamaCare would pay for itself based on the scheduled reimbursement numbers staying in place. What you want Republicans to do is to sign off on creating an even larger deficit, thanks to the mandates you, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid put into place with ObamaCare.

I’m absolutely willing to take the difficult steps necessary to lower the cost of Medicare and put our budget on a more fiscally sustainable path. But I’m not willing to do that by punishing hard-working physicians or the millions of Americans who count on Medicare. That’s just wrong. And that’s why in the short-term, Congress must act to prevent this pay cut to doctors.

Now you’re willing to take difficult steps, but not during the ObamaCare debate? This problem was well known for the entirety of the debate. Instead of actually addressing it comprehensively, you bought off the AMA by cutting a sleazy side deal to buy their support. Had you really wanted to consider the needs of our doctors and seniors, your “comprehensive” health-care overhaul bill would have included a revamp of the scheduled cuts.

The problem here isn’t doctor compensation. Congress waived the cuts fairly regularly because everyone understood that. The problem Medicare faces is excessive eligibility and far too much bureaucracy. Previous Congresses and administrations knew they were kicking the can down the road, but this year is different. This Congress and this administration created an even larger bureaucracy and based its cost structure on finally implementing the scheduled Medicare cuts in order to sell the bill of goods to the American public. In promising that ObamaCare would be deficit neutral based on CBO assessments with these cuts in place, Obama implicitly endorsed these cuts.

They are not a Republican problem; they are an Obama problem. And the GOP does not need to rescue Obama from his own folly. If Obama and the Democrats want to continue to spin and fib about what a great bill ObamaCare is, then let it stand as it was passed — and let the American public see for themselves just how great it actually is.

New draft health-care regs: If you like your plan, you can’t necessarily keep your plan

Share

posted at 6:48 pm on June 11, 2010 by Allahpundit

printer-friendly

I vaguely recall hearing that we would be able to keep our plans if we liked them, but then I also vaguely recall hearing that Iran wouldn’t be allowed to build nuclear weapons, that this would be the most transparent administration ever, that the deficit is a very serious problem, etc etc.

We’ve been averaging around one story per week about bad outcomes/unintended consequences flowing from O-Care, but this little Friday news dump makes two in five days. Remember Ed’s post on Monday about one million low-income workers possibly losing their health insurance?

[A]n early draft of an administration regulation estimates that many employers will be forced to make changes to their health plans under the new law. In just three years,

a majority of workers — 51 percent

— will be in plans subject to new federal requirements, according to midrange projections in the draft.

Republicans said Obama broke his promise. Employer groups were divided…

“What we are getting here is a clear indication that most plans will have to change,” said James Gelfand, health policy director for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “From an employer’s point of view that’s a bad thing. These changes, whether or not they’re good for consumers, are most certainly accompanied by a cost.”…

An administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the rules are still being written, said the final version will uphold Obama’s promise, accommodating employers’ desire for flexibility while protecting consumers from runaway costs.

Their strategy for letting you keep your plan if you like your plan is to include a “grandfather clause” that would exempt current plans from consumer protection requirements so long as copayments and deductibles are below certain limits. The problem: If your insurer alters the terms of the plan in the normal course of business and those limits are crossed, it’s no longer a grandfathered plan and the new consumer-protection benefits suddenly become mandatory — which means an exciting new monthly premium when your insurer inevitably passes the costs of those benefits on. But then, we already knew that this Obama promise was bogus. Remember Scott Gottlieb’s piece in the Journal last month on how insurers would soon run out of options in managing new costs imposed on them by regulations, with the inevitable result being collapse and consolidation? Massachusetts’s problem is our problem now.

For your companion reading, enjoy Jeffrey Anderson’s rundown of all the wonderful things we’ve learned about O-Care since it passed, just as Pelosi promised that we would. His post is two weeks old and already outdated. Such is the pace of “Change.” From last August, here’s official White House video of Linda Douglass — formerly of ABC, currently of Atlantic media — responding to the evil conservative disinformation campaign which claimed, contra The One, that you might not be able to keep your plan if you like it. Wingnuts.

New draft health-care regs: If you like your plan, you can’t necessarily keep your plan

Share

posted at 6:48 pm on June 11, 2010 by Allahpundit

printer-friendly

I vaguely recall hearing that we would be able to keep our plans if we liked them, but then I also vaguely recall hearing that Iran wouldn’t be allowed to build nuclear weapons, that this would be the most transparent administration ever, that the deficit is a very serious problem, etc etc.

We’ve been averaging around one story per week about bad outcomes/unintended consequences flowing from O-Care, but this little Friday news dump makes two in five days. Remember Ed’s post on Monday about one million low-income workers possibly losing their health insurance?

[A]n early draft of an administration regulation estimates that many employers will be forced to make changes to their health plans under the new law. In just three years,

a majority of workers — 51 percent

— will be in plans subject to new federal requirements, according to midrange projections in the draft.

Republicans said Obama broke his promise. Employer groups were divided…

“What we are getting here is a clear indication that most plans will have to change,” said James Gelfand, health policy director for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “From an employer’s point of view that’s a bad thing. These changes, whether or not they’re good for consumers, are most certainly accompanied by a cost.”…

An administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the rules are still being written, said the final version will uphold Obama’s promise, accommodating employers’ desire for flexibility while protecting consumers from runaway costs.

Here's the whole article:

Health law forces change in some employer plans

Saturday, June 12, 2010

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Over and over in the health care debate, President Barack Obama said people who like their current coverage would be able to keep it.

But an early draft of an administration regulation estimates that many employers will be forced to make changes to their health plans under the new law. In just three years, a majority of workers -- 51 percent -- will be in plans subject to new federal requirements, according to midrange projections in the draft. Most people get their healthcare through their employees now, so this is not earth shattering.

Republicans said Mr. Obama broke his promise. Employer groups were divided.

The people who get to keep THEIR plan are those who buy directly from a private insurance company. For those (the majority of us) who get their insurance through their employer, it was NEVER THEIR PLAN - IT WAS THE EMPLOYER'S PLAN. Duh! Unless they negotiated it with the employers, which they can still do.

It's more evidence that the law will raise costs, said the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But the Business Roundtable -- representing CEOs of major firms -- saw encouraging signs of flexibility, though it is withholding final judgment. Some experts believe that increased regulation will lead to improved benefits for consumers.

"On the face of it, having consumer protections apply to all insurance plans could be a good thing for employees," said Alex Vachon, an independent health policy consultant. "Technically, it's actually improved coverage." Exactly. If the plans offered to employees change, it will be for the better -for things like getting rid of the denial for pre-existing conditions or having your child covered to age 26, or not being dropped if you get sick. AND THESE CHANGES WOULD BE BAD...WHY? :biggrin:

The types of changes that employers could have to make include offering preventive care without copayments and instituting an appeals process for disputed claims that follows new federal guidelines.Wow, I can just imagine the employees outrage at this being part of their plan now. The law already requires all health plans to extend coverage to young adult children until they turn 26. Such incremental changes can nudge costs up.

The Obama administration said the draft regulation is an early version undergoing revision. Nonetheless, the leaked document was getting widespread interest Friday in lobbying firms that represent employers and insurance companies and on Capitol Hill.

"What we are getting here is a clear indication that most plans will have to change," said James Gelfand, health policy director for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "From an employer's point of view that's a bad thing. These changes, whether or not they're good for consumers, are most certainly accompanied by a cost."Imagine my surprise at this coming from the worker friendly Chamber of Commerce.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said it showed that Mr. Obama's assurance that Americans would be able to keep the plans they currently have was "a myth" all along.

Employer-provided coverage is the mainstay of the nation's health insurance system and is expected to remain so, even after the new health care law is fully phased in.

The main issue in the 83-page regulation is how to deal with what the government calls "grandfathered" health plans. Those are plans that predated the health care law and are exempt from many, but not all, of its consumer protections. Lawmakers created the special category to deliver on Mr. Obama's promise that people can keep the coverage they have if they like it.Again, it's if your EMPLOYER likes it, unless you buy it privately.

Lawmakers asked regulators to spell out how much an employer can change a plan and still claim it to be grandfathered, exempting it from closer federal regulation.

Mr. Gelfand, the Chamber of Commerce expert, said the draft rules are too inflexible. Generally, plans can lose their protected status by increasing copayments and deductibles above certain limits, and Mr. Gelfand said they're too narrow.

But Maria Ghazal, health policy director for the Business Roundtable, said she saw signs that the administration is trying to be responsive to employers. For example, plans that only cover retirees would be exempt from the new regulatory requirements -- an important clarification. "We think there is some recognition of the challenges ahead for employers," she said.

The people who get to keep THEIR plan are those who buy directly from a private insurance company. For those (the majority of us) who get their insurance through their employer, it was NEVER THEIR PLAN - IT WAS THE EMPLOYER'S PLAN. Duh! Unless they negotiated it with the employers, which they can still do.

What a cop out!!!! It was THEIR plan. The plan they had. Their plan. Now, because of Obamacare, that will change. WHO does the changing (employer or private person who purchases insurance) is irrelivent.

Leave it to a democrat! A war on words. You know FULL well that when Obama said that you'd be able to keep your plan, that he meant the plan you have right now, whether you get it from your employer or you get it privately through your own purchasing.

"What we are getting here is a clear indication that most plans will have to change," said James Gelfand, health policy director for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "From an employer's point of view that's a bad thing. These changes, whether or not they're good for consumers, are most certainly accompanied by a cost."Imagine my surprise at this coming from the worker friendly Chamber of Commerce.

PLANS WILL HAVE TO CHANGE!!!! This is my point. Obama said they wouldn't. He lied! These changes,whether for the good or not, will cost us more. You and I will both be paying more for our insurance coverage, another broken promise from Obama! He is a LIAR!!!!