Posted on 03/23/2010 2:09:54 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
"There is non-controversial stuff here like the preexisting conditions exclusion and those sorts of things," the Texas Republican said. "Now we are not interested in repealing that. And that is frankly a distraction."
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
“Why would you have them run on an issue that has no chance of coming to fruition before 2012?”
Because people are angry now. Duh. If we wait two years, the Democrats will have won.
“My grandpappy always told me never promise what you can’t deliver.”
Your grnadpappy’s advice is good for regular joes, but not for politicians, who can go back on a whole lot of promises. Has Obama closed gitmo? Has he altered our policy in Iraq one iota? No. The secret to his campaign success was that he ran against everything Bush stood for. Does it matter that he hasn’t been substantially different from Bush (before the healthcare mess, at least)? No. All that mattered was that Bush was unpopular and he was the anti-Bush.
There’s no place for logic here. Health care is a fundamental human right!
Why not also require fire insurance to be written on houses that have already burned?
I just sent Senator Cornyn an email. Let him know he must pledge repeal of obammycare at the earliest opportunity or you will contribute time and money to any primary opponent of his who does.
Below is Cornyn’s contact page:
http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactForm
“They are in a cult. Part of the cult is the odd ideal big business works for their freedom.”
Ha! Big though businesses may be, at least for now there’s more than one of them. There’s nothing “bigger” than the federal government, which is what the cult opposes. If they happen to help private businesses—which, I realize, would happily cut my throat if there was a profit in it and the government said it was okay—in the process, so be it. And you can say it’s not worth it if you like. but don’t do so by bandying about the word “big.” Because calling business “big” when the conflict is between private competition and centralized direction by the freaking federal government is just plain ridiculous.
Excellent idea. Remember: water weighs about 7 pounds/gal. Get some H2O purification tablets.
And...good luck.
To all of us.
No. If you have something and then you go to buy "insurance" to cover that, what you want is not insurance but someone else to pay for what you have. Insurance companies manage risk. If you have it, their risk is 100%.
Life isn’t fair, but I am supportive of this provision because there are some things that SHOULD BE moral.
Forcing someone to pay for your obligations is NOT moral. It's slavery. If you're worried about losing your job and then losing your health insurance, then maybe the idea of having your employer buy your health insurance is the flawed system.
Kicking someone off because they get cancer isn’t moral.
I agree, but is this what people are really concerned about? I think this is a red herring sob story. If this really happens, and you had insurance that was supposed to cover it, you need to sue for breach of contract. If it's legal, or in the contract for them to do it, then you should not have bought that insurance.
Are you still from the left ? Take what you can get? Not if that means just a little less socialism. Pre-existing exclusions are needed for individual policies and can only be tolerated to a limited extent for group polices.
What if you told doctors that they will BE FORCED to see some people below cost or they lose their licence to practice medicine? Oops, I probably gave you and Cornyn another socialistic idea.
A little bit less coercion is not the way to more liberty!
This surrender monkey better get off the tracks. Or he’s going to get run over.
I just emailed him and blasted him. People like this are going the way of the dinosaurs. They’re going to be voted straight out of office.
“These people cannot focus on the central factor of the bill, the forced purchase of insurance, because, I suspect, deep down, they really like it, but cannot admit it, because it conflicts 100% with their purported ideals of freedom.”
What world do you live in, where the opponents of preexisting conditions provisions and the so-called “public option” don’t also oppose the individual mandate?
“Because calling business “big” when the conflict is between private competition and centralized direction by the freaking federal government is just plain ridiculous.”
There is no conflict when centralized direction works for the profit of large private industries.
They currently own the government, not the other way around.
Piss off surrender monkey. If you want to submit yourself to be a slave, go do it. I’d rather die than live under Stalinist rule. Obama will NEVER get me to participate in this garbage. I’d rather live on my feet than die on my knees.
He is wobbly on immigration, too. PHONEY RINO.
Another great example of why I will never again give to rnc/nrcc/nrsc(et al). For the next 2 election cycles, I will ONLY contribute to individual candidates who are A) pro-life and B) promise to REPEAL StupiCare!
Some lady caller on Rush today made a lot of sense when complaining about the HC bill. She said, ‘you don’t tear down an entire house when you want to add a room’. Unfortunately, it goes right over the heads of the stupid lemmings in congress.
“What world do you live in, where the opponents of preexisting conditions provisions and the so-called “public option” don’t also oppose the individual mandate?”
By weight of attention around here, much less attention is given to how this bill infringes on their individual freedom and much, much more on a fantasy about how the poor little ol’ freedom-loving big insurance companies are actually the target of this bill.
Well, I’m sorry about your condition, but it sounds like you are able to earn enough money to employ people, so you probably can also earn enough to pay your way. You could be an example of self-reliance and rugged individualism if you chose to be.
“Are you still from the left ?”
No.
I never said we should accept any of this horrible bill.
You really should learn to read things before you jump to conclusions.
I said we should *start* by changing the less emotional things. That way we’ll have a better chance to change it all.
If we go ape, the media will just make fools of us. They are very talented at doing that. Why give them ammunition?
“There is no conflict when centralized direction works for the profit of large private industries.”
There is conflict on the part of free market ideologists and statists, if not large private industries (who, by the way, are definitely not motivated by any such thing as “ideas”). Centralized direction always benefits someone, just not what we usually refer to as The Economy, which is what I’m interested in.
“They currently own the government, not the other way around”
Which is impossible to demonstrate, and which I don’t at all believe, but there’s not enough time to deal with it here, but suffice it to say that there’s no lack of preexisting culture to back government largess and no lack of people continuing to propagate socialistic ideas, that we’d hardly need big business to own the government to get exactly the sort of corporatist system that we have. Moreover, there are enough voters earning a living off the federal government unassociated with big business that we could just as easily argue they own the government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.