quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov It says that you need to purchase any revised insurance plans through a regulated exchange, as I mentioned previously. This does not preclude one from purchasing a new private policy.

From the article I linked to:

quote:

the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law. So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised � with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

Nevermind too that, again, he's been pimping the single payer trojan horse (public option) for many years. Are we to beleive that now he's offering something moderate? If he wants a public option in the bill, who's end result will lead to single payer, how can it be argued otherwise? In his words, "It may take 15 or 20 years to get there, but that's the best way to make it happen." Again, if the urgency to pass the legislation were to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when it would go into effect 4 years.... specifically, until the year after the next presidential election? The only reasonable answer seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it. Occam's razor.

quote:

He did want it, but then he presented a watered-down bill in the interest of being moderate to placate criticism. Huge miscalculation on his part, as Cap pointed out very nicely.

It isn't watered down... just a more stealth version of the same. Jim Geraghty says it best:

"We're expected to believe a Democrat-controlled Congress, with deep divisions in its ranks, will put together a bill that will keep everything the same for those who have health insurance through their jobs, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA; mandate coverage of pre-existing conditions; ban caps on coverage; mandate coverage of routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies; offer health insurance to 30 million uninsured; provide tax credits for small businesses; painlessly mandate coverage for the young healthy uninsured; provide hardship waivers; provide choice and competition; keep insurance companies honest; avoid taxpayer subsidies for public option plans; keep out illegal immigrants; not pay for abortions; and not deny care to the elderly because of cost-benefit analyses, all while not adding one dime to our deficits � either now or in the future."

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 finally a non-american admits to being rude and obnoxious?

Well, I'm loud! But again, I can blame my Italian ancestry

As a matter of fact, I've always admired the American loudness. One of the few memories I've got of a trip I made to São Paulo in an airplane full of foreign officials, for example, is the pleasant loudness of the American officers cracking jokes and "feeling at home", while the rest remained silent (specially an official from South Korea, who looked disturbed by the Americans as if he were ashamed for them).

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Well, I'm loud! But again, I can blame my Italian ancestry

but are you rude and obnoxious?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 but are you rude and obnoxious?

Well, I don't think so. I don't mind talking and laughing loudly, but I'm polite to people when I interact with them. Does the former make me obnoxious/rude despite of the latter?

If not, no, I'm not. But, if it does, yes, I am

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Well, I don't think so. I don't mind talking and laughing loudly, but I'm polite to people when I interact with them. Does the former make me obnoxious/rude despite of the latter? If not, no, I'm not. But, if it does, yes, I am

hmmmm - being loud can be rude and obnoxious in certain circumstances. I guess that means you're an american! welcome to the club.

i never picked you for a desperate nationalist jerz you can mock all you want, but denying that your countrymen have a (well-deserved) reputation for loud obnoxiousness is like denying that australians have a reputation for being beer-guzzling layabouts

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 hmmmm - being loud can be rude and obnoxious in certain circumstances. I guess that means you're an american! welcome to the club.

Woohoo!!!

Anyway, here's some more heckling for you guys:

quote:

Top 10 political hecklers Last night, President Obama was accused by a heckler - identified as Congressman Joe Wilson - of being a liar. The Congressman later apologised, but Obama should take more comfort from the rich tradition into which he has just been inducted. Here, to celebrate the President's milestone, is Comment Central's 'Top 10' of political hecklers. 1 - John Wilkes John Wilkes, the 18th century radical was once heckled by a man who cried: "Vote for you? I'd sooner vote for the Devil." Wilkes replied, "And what if your friend is not standing?" 2 - Harold Wilson Harold Wilson was in full flow, extolling Britain�fs maritime triumphs to the dockyard town of Chatham, when he made the mistake of asking a rhetorical question: "And why am I saying all this?" From the back of the hall came the words, "Because you are in Chatham", making it embarrassingly clear to all that Wilson was only after their votes. 3 - Wilson, again But Wilson was also a master of the reposte. A heckler once interrupted a speech of his about Labour's spending plans with the question: "What about Vietnam?" Wilson replied that: "The government has no plans to increase public expenditure in Vietnam". "Rubbish!" replied the heckler. "I'll come to your special interest in a minute, sir" quipped Wilson. 4 - Michael Heseltine Michael Heseltine, launching an impassioned defence of fox hunting, once made the mistake of asking: "What do we mean by flushing out?" Labour's Denis MacShane shouted: "Ask Mrs Thatcher!" It proved impossible to recover from. 5 - Denis Healey Denis Healey beat a heckler at his own game at a meeting in the Fulham by-election campaign of 1986. After repeated interruptions from an insistent audience member, Healey suggested that he might like to take the floor himself and lay out his own, better plans. The heckler climbed onto his chair and launched into an unstoppable tirade, until a member of the party newspaper Labour Weekly started a slow handclap and drowned him out. 6 - Michael Howard In 2005 the Conservatives protested that the BBC had fitted three fractious audience members with microphones at a meeting at which Michael Howard was speaking. They proceeded to shout: "Michael Howard is a liar", "You can't trust the Tories", and "You can only trust Tony Blair". 7 - Lord Hailsham An actor by the name of Tony Booth was once televised racing around the hall bellowing "adulterer" at the speaker, Lord Hailsham, who was unfairly suspected of being involved in some rather racy photos used against the Duchess of Argyll in her divorce case. The stewards threw him out, but he went on to forge his own close relationship with Downing Street�c 8 - Jack Straw During a speech by Jack Straw at the 2005 Labour Party conference, an audience member was forcibly ejected for shouting �gnonsense�h and �gthat�fs a lie�h. Unfortunately, that person was 87-year old, anti-war protestor Walter Wolfgang and he was later arrested under the Terrorism Act when trying to re-enter the conference. Rather embarrassing. 9 -Patricia Hewitt Patricia Hewitt endured 50 minutes of catcalls and slow handclapping at a speech to a nurses' union in April 2006. She was forced to abandon the speech when delegates refused all pleas to hear her out. 10 - Bill Clinton An angry, hoarse and exasperated Bill Clinton was pushed to the brink by an AIDS protester at a speaking engagement in 1992. The heckler accused him of putting ambition over true commitment, at which Bill hit back: �gIf I were dying of ambition, I wouldn�ft have stood up here and put up with all this crap I�fve put up with over the past six months... "I have treated you and a whole lot of other people who have interrupted my rallies with a hell of a lot more respect than you treated me. And it's time to start thinking about that!�h The audience erupted in applause.

[source]

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss From the article I linked to: Nevermind too that, again, he's been pimping the single payer trojan horse (public option) for many years. Are we to beleive that now he's offering something moderate? If he wants a public option in the bill, who's end result will lead to single payer, how can it be argued otherwise? In his words, "It may take 15 or 20 years to get there, but that's the best way to make it happen." Again, if the urgency to pass the legislation were to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when it would go into effect 4 years.... specifically, until the year after the next presidential election? The only reasonable answer seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it. Occam's razor.

Why the selective buying into old Obama rhetoric? His word is a window into his inner thoughts when it suits you, and a lie when it doesn't. The White House is way beyond those quotes now - read the newspaper.

quote:

It isn't watered down... just a more stealth version of the same. Jim Geraghty says it best: "We're expected to believe a Democrat-controlled Congress, with deep divisions in its ranks, will put together a bill that will keep everything the same for those who have health insurance through their jobs, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA; mandate coverage of pre-existing conditions; ban caps on coverage; mandate coverage of routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies; offer health insurance to 30 million uninsured; provide tax credits for small businesses; painlessly mandate coverage for the young healthy uninsured; provide hardship waivers; provide choice and competition; keep insurance companies honest; avoid taxpayer subsidies for public option plans; keep out illegal immigrants; not pay for abortions; and not deny care to the elderly because of cost-benefit analyses, all while not adding one dime to our deficits � either now or in the future."

Again, you're talking about what you expect from a liberal Democrat. The division in the ranks should be what tips you off that what the White House wants is not as liberal as most Dems would like - THAT is the source of conflict that is endangering the bill, and that is why the audience on Wednesday night was moderates and liberals and not conservatives. I mean, for God's sake, Obama and Rahm are seriously thinking about abandoning the public option altogether! This is all over the papers, how have you missed this?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i never picked you for a desperate nationalist jerz you can mock all you want, but denying that your countrymen have a (well-deserved) reputation for loud obnoxiousness is like denying that australians have a reputation for being beer-guzzling layabouts

i wouldn't say desperate, but i am certainly a nationalist. obviously i was just fuckin around. people everywhere suck for one reason or another.

I was quite surprised to hear about the mentality of australian men. apparently, as i was told by a female australia co-worker, most australian men are perfectly content doing nothing and being supported by their female counter-parts. I'm not sure if i could get down with that. sounds nice, but i need to keep my mind busy.

They answered to call for action on health care. No.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...ZHW-ywD9AL00A00

___________________
The Democratic Party

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I mean, for God's sake, Obama and Rahm are seriously thinking about abandoning the public option altogether! This is all over the papers, how have you missed this?

I have been paying attention to that, yes.... but it's just words. The public option being removed will lose between 80-100 democrat house votes; it won't happen. If it does, it will be for the "co-opt" which is just a baby-step method for..... the public option. Or, the Olympia Snow idea where a "trigger" will be in place if certain mandates are not met by insurers... yet another back door method to get the public option. I can't believe the maybe's and what if's right now man.