[ToTheLeft]

Healthcare bill passed, and there was much weeping and gnashing of teeth in Lynchburg on a certain mountain.

Am I the only one that doesn't see this as the end of the world? It's a bunch of pork, money we don't need to spend, and a money wasting system, but what else is new? Did we expect anything else?

[tennisfan]

This is Horrible!!!!
How can we stand against this now that it is law????
We agree, our precious United States of America is falling!

One Great Comfort.... We know how the story ends..... God is the Victor and Satan will be destroyed.
Keep your eyes on the Lord!!

[TDDance234]

This will take years to settle out. If the states who were huffing and puffing before the vote about suing the federal government actually go out and do so--it could drag on for years.

[LUconn]

Healthcare bill passed, and there was much weeping and gnashing of teeth in Lynchburg on a certain mountain.

Am I the only one that doesn't see this as the end of the world? It's a bunch of pork, money we don't need to spend, and a money wasting system, but what else is new? Did we expect anything else?

yeah, I think that's just you.

[ToTheLeft]

6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

7 Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David's throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this.

Isaiah 9:6-7
---
13Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? 15Should we pay or shouldn't we?"
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it." 16They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied.

17Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
And they were amazed at him.

Mark 12:16-17
---

If the nation wanted abortion to be illegal because it's murder, then they would take a stand and vote for people who believe that. This shouldn't be a surprise, and it's nothing new. God wasn't pleased with the legalization of abortion, I don't think He's going to rain fire on us because we're going to have our government pay for a couple of them. Is He pleased? No, absolutely not. I'm not, either. However, as a church we need to get the word out there that abortion is murder, and impact our communities with the truth of the Bible, that abortion is not a legal issue but a moral issue, and then we'll see change.

I know no one will agree with me, and will have all sorts of reasons why. And that's fine. Just trying to bring a different perspective.

[SumItUp]

POTUS talked out of both sides of his mouth when he was campaigning. I know people that voted for him and argued with me that he was pro-life and would protect the unborn. They're ticked.

As a taxpayer that believes I pay more than my fair share, I'm ticked.

As a business owner that has to make tough decisions about potentially laying off employees because of this, I'm ticked.

If you are unemployed and hoping that the job market is going to change dramatically, you should be ticked.

[ATrain]

I'm ticked as well. However, really here is how the unemployed get treatment anyway:
1. They file for disability
2. Due to lack of medical evidence, they get sent to a doctor's appointment that the government pays for.
3. They go
4. They end up being allowed or denied disability
5. If denied, repeat steps 1-4. If allowed, they use the government check to either get more medical care or waste it away.

[SumItUp]

I'm ticked as well. However, really here is how the unemployed get treatment anyway:
1. They file for disability
2. Due to lack of medical evidence, they get sent to a doctor's appointment that the government pays for.
3. They go
4. They end up being allowed or denied disability
5. If denied, repeat steps 1-4. If allowed, they use the government check to either get more medical care or waste it away.

Government does not pay for anything. Taxpayers pay for it.

[ATrain]

I'm ticked as well. However, really here is how the unemployed get treatment anyway:
1. They file for disability
2. Due to lack of medical evidence, they get sent to a doctor's appointment that the government pays for.
3. They go
4. They end up being allowed or denied disability
5. If denied, repeat steps 1-4. If allowed, they use the government check to either get more medical care or waste it away.

Government does not pay for anything. Taxpayers pay for it.

True, but you get what I'm saying.

[Covert Hawk]

Here's a review from an Opinion Column at the New York Times from a guy who used to be the Director of the CBO

The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform
March 20, 2010
Arlington, Va.

On Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words, a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs — health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits — would actually improve the nation’s bottom line.

Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending.

Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.

Consider, too, the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised in the first 10 years for the legislation’s new long-term health care insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the benefits it is intended to finance are assumed not to materialize in the first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation.

Another vivid example of how the legislation manipulates revenues is the provision to have corporations deposit $8 billion in higher estimated tax payments in 2014, thereby meeting fiscal targets for the first five years. But since the corporations’ actual taxes would be unchanged, the money would need to be refunded the next year. The net effect is simply to shift dollars from 2015 to 2014.

In addition to this accounting sleight of hand, the legislation would blithely rob Peter to pay Paul. For example, it would use $53 billion in anticipated higher Social Security taxes to offset health care spending. Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent.) It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.

A government takeover of all federally financed student loans — which obviously has nothing to do with health care — is rolled into the bill because it is expected to generate $19 billion in deficit reduction.

Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.

Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.

The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; steal funds from education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less.

The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.

The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting America’s fiscal house in order.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, is the president of the American Action Forum, a policy institute.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opini ... eakin.html

[Covert Hawk]

If your congressman is listed in this article, be sure to let him know what you think of his vote.

Some Dems walk plank with 'yes' vote

The polarizing health care votes cast late Sunday will have a profound effect on reelection campaigns across the nation, leaving a host of House Democrats—and a few Republicans—to explain or defend a politically treacherous vote that could determine control of the House come November.


Some members of Congress will end up with primary challenges as a result. Others may have signed their own political death warrant.


Here is POLITICO's rundown of lawmakers whose reelection prospects have been significantly imperiled by their announced support of—or opposition to—health care reform.


The tough-district Democrats


The most immediate blowback from the votes will be felt by Democrats in marginal and conservative-minded districts. They are now assured of being attacked as accomplices to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is not especially popular in many of those districts.


Of these members, many are in their first or second terms, and their path to Washington was greased by strong Democratic years in 2006 and 2008. Now, however, their support for the health care bill will put them in an unfamiliar defensive posture in an already tough year, without a popular Democratic presidential nominee leading the ticket or a GOP majority to campaign against.


Members in this category include Reps. Harry Mitchell of Arizona, Chris Carney of Pennsylvania and Baron Hill of Indiana, each of whom was elected in the 2006 Democratic wave and represents a seat that George W. Bush carried twice.


And virtually every freshman Democrat who won a marginal district in 2008 will need to mount a vigorous explanation of the benefits of a "yes" vote - especially members like Reps. Mark Schauer of Michigan and Dina Titus of Nevada, who won Republican-held seats.


Some veterans - among them nine-term Rep. Earl Pomeroy, who hails from solidly Republican North Dakota, and West Virginia Reps. Alan Mollohan and Nick Rahall - will also feel the heat.


By the time the clock ticked down on the health care vote late Sunday evening, a handful of junior Democrats holding marginal seats had also cast 'yes' votes that will be the staple of GOP attacks, including Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Wisconsin Rep. Steve Kagen, Florida Rep. Ron Klein, and Illinois Reps. Bill Foster and Debbie Halvorson.


Two first-term women, however, stand out for being in extreme jeopardy: Florida Rep. Suzanne Kosmas and Colorado Rep. Betsy Markey, both of whom went from no on the November health care vote to yes in March and both of whom represent GOP-leaning seats that voted for presidential nominee John McCain in 2008.


After Markey announced her support for the bill last week, the National Republican Congressional Committee immediately blasted out an e-mail labeling her "Betsy Margolies-Mezvinsky" - a reference to former Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, who lost her seat in 1994 after taking a bullet for the party and casting a tough vote for President Bill Clinton's budget.

Republicans are convinced a handful of vulnerable junior Democrats who have backed the economic stimulus, cap and trade and both health care bills - a roster that includes Ohio Reps. Mary Jo Kilroy and Steve Driehaus, New Hampshire Rep. Carol Shea-Porter and Virginia Rep. Thomas Perriello - are imperiled by tripling down on an ambitious Democratic agenda that hasn't been completely embraced by their competitive House districts.


"The biggest question for a Democrat in a swing district is, 'Are you independent of your party and your president?'" said Brad Todd, a GOP media consultant. "And anyone who votes for this legislation is not seen as independent."


Vic Fazio, a former California congressman who chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the key for vulnerable Democrats who backed Sunday's bill was to highlight the benefits of the legislation - and vigorously respond to attacks.


"You have to be very aggressive. You don't sit back and allow the attack," said Fazio. "You have to make it the first thing and last thing to talk about."


"Not everyone will have the intestinal fortitude to do it," added Fazio. "But every one of these members - including those who voted against [the bill] - will have to explain it to somebody."


The switchers


Several Democrats in competitive seats will face tough questions about why they supported the bill after opposing it during the House's first vote in November - a list that includes Kosmas, Markey and freshman Ohio Rep. John Boccieri, who explained his vote in a news conference in front of the Capitol that was televised live on CNN.


On Saturday evening, the NRCC blasted out an e-mail to reporters with the header: "Dems Clap for Boccieri's Flip-Flop."


"Members who switched from no to yes will really have the difficulty," predicted Tom Davis, the former Virginia congressman who chaired the NRCC. "I just think switching from no to yes makes you look like you were strong-armed."


Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist, said those Democrats who went the other way - switching from yes in last fall's health care vote to no on Sunday - will not be able to escape the heat, either.


Members in this category include Reps. Zack Space of Ohio and Michael Arcuri of New York, both of whom represent districts that voted for Bush twice.


"I've listened to some of the flippers, and they have very good explanations for their change of heart. Problem is, [Sen.] John Kerry had a good explanation for his: 'I voted for it before I voted against it.' Few voters are going to listen to their paragraph-length explanation," said Sabato.


The upwardly mobile


For those Democrats running statewide in swing or conservative states, there is also risk of political fallout from the health care bill.


In Indiana, Rep. Brad Ellsworth, who is running for the Senate seat left open by the retirement of Sen. Evan Bayh, is already coming under withering attack for his support for the health care bill.


Also bound to face sharp scrutiny for their votes in favor of the bill - though perhaps not as much as Ellsworth - are Reps. Paul Hodes, running for the Senate in New Hampshire, and Kendrick Meek, running for the Senate in Florida.


According to a Public Policy Polling survey conducted this month, 42 percent of Florida voters said they supported the health care reform push, while 50 percent said they opposed it.


Republicans will have a harder time boxing in two House Democrats running for statewide office in conservative states who voted against the bill Sunday: Louisiana Rep. Charlie Melancon, who is running for the Senate, and Alabama Rep. Artur Davis, a gubernatorial candidate who was an outspoken backer of Barack Obama's in 2008.


The 'no' votes


Lost in the focus on the political risk attached to supporting the health bill is the very real downside to voting no.


Arcuri, for one, lost the support of New York's influential Working Families Party, which vowed not to allow him to run on its ballot line and said it would recruit an opponent to run against him in November.


Freshman Rep. Mike McMahon, another "no" vote who holds a Staten Island, N.Y.-based district that McCain won, is also facing the threat of losing the Working Families Party line. The Service Employees International Union, meanwhile, has signaled that it is open to finding a primary challenger to McMahon; and it's running a tough ad in the Staten Island Advance targeting the congressman's vote.


Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak emerged as a "yes" vote after reaching a deal with the White House on Sunday afternoon. But Stupak's opposition to the bill's treatment of abortion funding has already earned him a Democratic primary challenge from Charlevoix County Commissioner Connie Saltonstall, who last week won the backing of the National Organization for Women.


Democrats, for their part, are pledging to target a handful of potentially vulnerable Republicans from competitive seats over their opposition to the bill.


Last week, as the votes neared, the DCCC sent out a wave of press releases blasting GOP members including Washington Rep. Dave Reichert and California Reps. Mary Bono Mack and Dan Lungren.


The likelihood of success is much higher for another Republican who ranks high on the DCCC target list: Louisiana Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao, who voted against the bill despite holding a heavily Democratic, New Orleans-area seat that gave Obama 75 percent of the vote.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/03 ... z0ivRemnRi

[4everfsu]

Here is how your reps voted

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03 ... -overhaul/

[panfan01]

It would have been a great day for America had we gotten single payer but at least it is a small step forward after 70 or 80 years of attempts from both political parties. The right wing of this currant debate was less interested in health care reform than they were in defeating the President. It is good to know how ever that some people with a smidgen of integrity stepped up and did the right thing. Perhaps whats left of American industry was saved by this vote, only time will tell. I do know some small bussiness owners that will be happy, family included.

[LUconn]

Shut it ATrain. You voted for Warner and tried to get the rest of us to as well. Own it.

[LUconn]

It would have been a great day for America had we gotten single payer but at least it is a small step forward after 70 or 80 years of attempts from both political parties. The right wing of this currant debate was less interested in health care reform than they were in defeating the President. It is good to know how ever that some people with a smidgen of integrity stepped up and did the right thing. Perhaps whats left of American industry was saved by this vote, only time will tell. I do know some small bussiness owners that will be happy, family included.

are you sure you know what was being voted on yesterday?

[RubberMallet]

I do know some small bussiness owners that will be happy, family included.

cuz they get to drop the expense of providing it for their workers?

what hilarious is the bill that was passed is nowhere near what was originally in the bill...they sallied it down so much. and it has nothing to do with the right. they didn't need the right at all... their failures have nothing to do with republicans at all.

[ALUmnus]

It would have been a great day for America had we gotten single payer but at least it is a small step forward after 70 or 80 years of attempts from both political parties. The right wing of this currant debate was less interested in health care reform than they were in defeating the President. It is good to know how ever that some people with a smidgen of integrity stepped up and did the right thing. Perhaps whats left of American industry was saved by this vote, only time will tell. I do know some small bussiness owners that will be happy, family included.

This had nothing to do with the right wing, nothing to do with integrity, nothing to do with "doing the right thing", and nothing to do with helping industry.

[ATrain]

Shut it ATrain. You voted for Warner and tried to get the rest of us to as well. Own it.

Yes I did, and based on his resume I'd do it again when compared to James Gilmore. Yeah, I don't agree with him on this one giant issue, and I'm not happy with his performance as a Senator, but he did a great job as governor compared to his opponent.

Its not my fault the people in the 5th District were idiots and elected Periello as well.

[panfan01]

Maybe this health care reform has nothing to do with anything but politics as usual but the bottom line for me is that the type of people that I have despised much of my life lost this particular issue. Since this bill was not defeated it opens the door for future expansion and perhaps one day this country will adopt the single payer concept. And yes it was, the right thing to do! Of course if you don't think it was the right thing to do you can always go spit on a democrat, its a new republican sporting event but you have to make sure that its not wind aided.

[LUconn]

You despise republicans and only care that they lost. I think the difference between you and us is that our mental capacity and maturity level is beyond that of a 9 year old.

[Sly Fox]

Easy now ... let's not get personal.

[RubberMallet]

Maybe this health care reform has nothing to do with anything but politics as usual but the bottom line for me is that the type of people that I have despised much of my life lost this particular issue. Since this bill was not defeated it opens the door for future expansion and perhaps one day this country will adopt the single payer concept. And yes it was, the right thing to do! Of course if you don't think it was the right thing to do you can always go spit on a democrat, its a new republican sporting event but you have to make sure that its not wind aided.

you can't possibly be a college graduate.

look at the taxation level of every country with a gvt funded health insurance plan. 30-50% income taxes and 20% taxes on goods and services.

[LUconn]

"the bottom line for me is that the type of people that I have despised much of my life lost this particular issue."

Come on Sly. Tell me how that's anything but childish. I just said it in a way that doesn't sound very nice.

[LibertyJoe]

first off i have a pre-existing condition, and this bill is outrageous, first to even state the declaration of independence on this bill is non-sense. Life this bill pays for abortion that does not equal life, and presidents executive only stops hospitals that are controlled by the government, so it is almost useless. Second Liberty, this bill provides for bigger government, which as Thomas Jefferson said bigger government equals fewer liberties. In my state i could stay on my dad's health care to age 30. So really that didn't matter.

[RubberMallet]

i'd certainly be more in favor in letting each state decide hc issues within that state than on a federal level. thats how they do it in canada. the fed backs the system but it is a provincial run plan. if anything was to be done from gvt standpoint i'd much rather have the state do it than the fed.

that being said, this still does nothing to lower the cost of hc in america.