Pelosi Cramming Healthcare Down Our Throats...

[Dirk Diggler]

Any reason why proper time for congressman to properly read and review the updated healthcare reform would not be allowed?

http://washingtontimes.com/news/200...ers-aim-push-back-against-hasty-votes//print/

 

[Guest]

DD, The whole thing is just posturing. Basically a stall tactic.

PS. You do know that the washington times is ran by Sun Myung Moon, who believes he is the second coming of the Messiah, right?

 

[Guest]

R14 - 9/23/2009 11:50 PM

DD, The whole thing is just posturing. Basically a stall tactic.

This is the atypical response from the left. No need to actually read and understand a perticular piece of legislation. Just "trust us" and sign on.

You people that are followres of Pelosi, Reid and olbummer are nothing more than sheep being led to slaughter.

 

[Guest]

cheez - 9/24/2009 5:12 AM

This is the atypical response from the left.

You do know the definition of atypical, right?

 

[Guest]

R14 - 9/24/2009 10:46 AM

cheez - 9/24/2009 5:12 AM

This is the atypical response from the left.

You do know the definition of atypical, right?

My bad, it was early. I meant to say that it is the typical response from the left.

I also correct my spelling error on the word particular.

How's that?

 

[Guest]

cheez - 9/24/2009 11:07 AM

How's that?

Better, now I can respond

 

[Guest]

Cheez, it is still a stall tactic, the only reason to stall is to add more pork barrel spending measures to it. If it is without merit vote it down, but to stall is standing in the way of bipartisanship. Of course, the republicans could offer an alternative, but that assumes they would drop the "victim" role they cast themselves as.

 

[Guest]

Call it stalling or standing in the way of bipartisanship all you want but the fact remains that the Republicans are stopping or at least slowing down the process of a government takeover of healthcare in this country. The left has heavily inflated the numbers of uninsured to scare folks into support of this. The main problem that none of the democrats are addressing is the waste and regulation and lawyer problems that causes most of the healthcare problems to begin with. Let the democrats introduce real tort reform, less government intervention and a meaningful solution to the rampant fraud and waste and you will see bipartisanship. Since most of congressmen are trial lawyers it is doubtful you will see any of this.

 

[Guest]

cheez - 9/24/2009 12:51 PM
The main problem that none of the democrats are addressing is the waste and regulation and lawyer problems that causes most of the healthcare problems to begin with. Let the democrats introduce real tort reform, less government intervention and a meaningful solution to the rampant fraud and waste and you will see bipartisanship. Since most of congressmen are trial lawyers it is doubtful you will see any of this.

If the healthcare problem is that easy to fix, why have not the republicans offered anything (in the last 8 years or currently). Baucus did, but still the republicans chose to stall instead of offer solutions.

Since most of congressmen are trial lawyers

Misinformation, typical republican scare tactic. "most" implies majority, meaning 268+ are trial lawyers. A gross overestimate. If you find any real verifiable data, you might find that a larger percentage of republicans are lawyers. Stick to facts, not the right wing propaganda/rhetoric you hear and blatantly repeat.

 

[jon the fisherman]

Name one efficiant government run program?

Healthcare is not an easy fix, but giving control to the goverment will be a nightmare...look at how well Tenncare worked out. Hilary care was a bust and nearly sank Clinton.

 

[Guest]

R14 - 9/24/2009 1:21 PM

Misinformation, typical republican scare tactic. "most" implies majority, meaning 268+ are trial lawyers. A gross overestimate. If you find any real verifiable data, you might find that a larger percentage of republicans are lawyers. Stick to facts, not the right wing propaganda/rhetoric you hear and blatantly repeat.

Well if this is true and I do not think it is then why the liberal resistance to tort reform?

 

[Guest]

cheez - 9/24/2009 3:07 PM
Well if this is true and I do not think it is then why the liberal resistance to tort reform?

Why, because tort reform, as I understand it, is just a catch-all that limits individuals ability to sue a businesses. Why would someone want to limit an existing right? Isn't that un-American to take away a right? Each individual lawsuit should be judged on its own merit, not thrown out because the case wasn't filed with by a certain time deadline or that damages exceed a certain monetary level.

PS I am still waiting on you to verify that 268+ are lawyers.

 

[Guest]

R14 - 9/24/2009 3:18 PM

cheez - 9/24/2009 3:07 PM
Well if this is true and I do not think it is then why the liberal resistance to tort reform?

Why, because tort reform, as I understand it, is just a catch-all that limits individuals ability to sue a businesses. Why would someone want to limit an existing right? Isn't that un-American to take away a right? Each individual lawsuit should be judged on its own merit, not thrown out because the case wasn't filed with by a certain time deadline or that damages exceed a certain monetary level.

PS I am still waiting on you to verify that 268+ are lawyers.

Tort reform would prevent a woman from getting a million bucks for spilling coffee in her lap and other frivolous excessive lawsuits. Tort reform would prevent someone from collecting 10 million dollars for getting lung cancer after smoking for 35 years. Show me where it is a right to sue somebody for anything much less for something that is your own fault. I have read the bill of rights and although my memory is not perfect I have never read where you can sue somebody.

I will not waste my time verifying how many congressmen are lawyers. Common sense tells me the truth there.

The fight against tort reform goes right back to the age old liberal mantra. Because you have more than me I am somehow entitled to part of what you have even though I have not earned it. If I cannot get what I "deserve" by taxing you I will get it by suing you.

 

[SNUFFY]

what about the guy, with the doctor he has never seen before he cuts the wrong leg off......and then they`ve still got to cut the bad leg off too. How much is it worth to have to bump around on your butt the rest of your life. Don`t laugh ...why do you think they take a magic marker and mark the spot now ??? Is this guy not entitled to some of the Doc`s money. The Doc that was too busy doing assembly line surgery to actually see the patient beforehand.

 

[Guest]

SNUFFY - 9/24/2009 4:07 PM

what about the guy, with the doctor he has never seen before he cuts the wrong leg off......and then they`ve still got to cut the bad leg off too. How much is it worth to have to bump around on your butt the rest of your life. Don`t laugh ...why do you think they take a magic marker and mark the spot now ??? Is this guy not entitled to some of the Doc`s money. The Doc that was too busy doing assembly line surgery to actually see the patient beforehand.

Snuffy nobody ever said people are not entitled to compensation for blatant neglegence. Those people deserve all they can get. The problem is that people are not entitled to multiplied millions when their problem was either caused by their own neglegence or just because the doctor or business has "too much money" anyway.
Healthcare costs are where they are now because doctors are required to perform way too many tests to CYA. Their malpractice insurance is astronomical because of bleeding heart liberal judges that award 20 times more money to a person than they will make in their lifetime even for a less than debilitating injury.

 

[SNUFFY]

but the tort reform they are screaming for would block all suits.....irregardless of fault.

 

[Guest]

Who determines what is and what is not a frivolous lawsuits, why pre-judge before the facts (or lack of) are presented?

I agree that the truly absurd lawsuits should be done away with, but can't a judge just throw the case out for like of merit?

IMO, tort reform brings too many negative limitations to the consumers; all the while letting industries run rough shod over the consumer. As far as health care goes, if a doctor is following the normal standard of care, there is no concerns with being sued. On the other hand, if the doctor is not providing a normal standard of care (ie negligent) then that opens up the possibility of a lawsuit.

cheez - 9/24/2009 3:52 PM
..I will not waste my time verifying how many congressmen are lawyers. Common sense tells me the truth there..

Yet you have no problem falsely pronouncing that "most are lawyers". What else are you going to make-up to fit your position?

 

[Guest]

SNUFFY - 9/24/2009 5:50 PM

but the tort reform they are screaming for would block all suits.....irregardless of fault.

Where in the world have you heard this? SInce you say you don't watch CNN it must be from one of the MANY other liberal media sources. You libs want to talk about Republican misinformation and scare tactics. This one right here takes the prize.

 

[Guest]

R14 - 9/24/2009 5:55 PM

Who determines what is and what is not a frivolous lawsuits, why pre-judge before the facts (or lack of) are presented?

I agree that the truly absurd lawsuits should be done away with, but can't a judge just throw the case out for like of merit?

IMO, tort reform brings too many negative limitations to the consumers; all the while letting industries run rough shod over the consumer. As far as health care goes, if a doctor is following the normal standard of care, there is no concerns with being sued. On the other hand, if the doctor is not providing a normal standard of care (ie negligent) then that opens up the possibility of a lawsuit.

cheez - 9/24/2009 3:52 PM
..I will not waste my time verifying how many congressmen are lawyers. Common sense tells me the truth there..

Yet you have no problem falsely pronouncing that "most are lawyers". What else are you going to make-up to fit your position?

The liberal judges are the problem now. They are the ones who allow the junk suits. The biggest problem with the suits is the excessive punitive damages.
A man that makes $20K a year loses his arm and he gets 10 million bucks if he gets the right lawyer and judge.. Sorry but that is not right.

 

[Dropshot]

R14 - 9/24/2009 1:21 PM

cheez - 9/24/2009 12:51 PM The main problem that none of the democrats are addressing is the waste and regulation and lawyer problems that causes most of the healthcare problems to begin with. Let the democrats introduce real tort reform, less government intervention and a meaningful solution to the rampant fraud and waste and you will see bipartisanship. Since most of congressmen are trial lawyers it is doubtful you will see any of this.

If the healthcare problem is that easy to fix, why have not the republicans offered anything (in the last 8 years or currently). Baucus did, but still the republicans chose to stall instead of offer solutions.

Since most of congressmen are trial lawyers

Misinformation, typical republican scare tactic. "most" implies majority, meaning 268+ are trial lawyers. A gross overestimate. If you find any real verifiable data, you might find that a larger percentage of republicans are lawyers. Stick to facts, not the right wing propaganda/rhetoric you hear and blatantly repeat.

</p>

You need to check your comment that the republicans chose to stall on the Baucus plan...many demoncats found the plan to be ridiculous...</p>

"Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., Tuesday called Baucus’ idea “absurd.” </p>

“That’s as if common sense has left the building,” he said.</p>

Majority LeaderHarry Reid, D-Nev., promised to add income caps to the bill if it reaches the Senate floor without them. “[It] causes me to want to gag,” Reid said. “I don’t think Warren Buffett should have a rebate.”</p>