Healthcare Bill Passes. (elephant in the room)

[candyman]

As far as I am concerned, both countries are lost causes. The Taliban is getting stronger again. The human rights situation sure as hell has not changed over in either country. The Iraq government is corrupt. Insurgents are coming in from Iran and who knows from where else and fucking everything up in Iraq. I wish Obama would just nut-up and pull our troops out but I doubt that will happen any time soon. So in the meantime, we have to keep paying to help supply our troops over there.

Actually supplying our troops isn't what raises the price tag. People seem to think our troops are paid really well. If you would check with our many agreements with the UN you will find why we are paying so much money. Basically, when it comes to the UN we are their wallet and their strong arm. We are not donating to Haiti because we are so willing to...we have a contract. In Iraq in Afghanistan the money is going to pay for food, building supplies, and military equipment for the people in those countries...all of which is either stolen or destroyed the the troops from Pakistan that Israel is begging us to go after.

Honestly this Health Care bill wouldn't be costing so much money...if we were not already pissing billions into the hands of the UN and other countries that will still hate us just like before. And for all the other needless plans for the federal money that they are throwing at "good ideas" in various states...like those are going to be cheap.

[KatRN05]

Actually supplying our troops isn't what raises the price tag. People seem to think our troops are paid really well. If you would check with our many agreements with the UN you will find why we are paying so much money. Basically, when it comes to the UN we are their wallet and their strong arm. We are not donating to Haiti because we are so willing to...we have a contract. In Iraq in Afghanistan the money is going to pay for food, building supplies, and military equipment for the people in those countries...all of which is either stolen or destroyed the the troops from Pakistan that Israel is begging us to go after.

Honestly this Health Care bill wouldn't be costing so much money...if we were not already pissing billions into the hands of the UN and other countries that will still hate us just like before. And for all the other needless plans for the federal money that they are throwing at "good ideas" in various states...like those are going to be cheap.

Yeah, I realize the money isn't just to supply the troops, its going to all the things you've mentioned. I totally agree with what you said in your post.

[Raev]

I have never heard of anyone getting turned away if they needed care.

I was, by Oakwood Hospital in Dearborn.

I couldn't get the surgery to remove a tumor in my head, until I was actively dying and it had reached emergency status....or thousands of dollars were paid up front before they would even schedule me.

I made too much to get aid.

I didn't make enough to afford insurance.

My grandmother and aunt both took out second mortgages to help pay for a surgery that I needed to have, in order to have a fighting chance at surviving. When the housing market collapsed and an ARM readjusted on my aunt two weeks after she got laid off...well...you can see where that is going can't you?

[TitsMcGee]

I was, by Oakwood Hospital in Dearborn.

I couldn't get the surgery to remove a tumor in my head, until I was actively dying and it had reached emergency status....or thousands of dollars were paid up front before they would even schedule me.

I made too much to get aid.

I didn't make enough to afford insurance.

My grandmother and aunt both took out second mortgages to help pay for a surgery that I needed to have, in order to have a fighting chance at surviving. When the housing market collapsed and an ARM readjusted on my aunt two weeks after she got laid off...well...you can see where that is going can't you?

Jesus christ. Granted I know what it's like to be in that shitty grey area when it comes to help.

[KatRN05]

Ok, I take that back, hospitals do turn away patients.

[candyman]

After years of people abusing the "take care of everyone" rule don't you think they would tend to do that though? No this new bill wouldn't really put a new and bigger strain on the taxpayer...it will just slightly increase the large strain that we carry already in the form of both taxes and those hidden fees that make hospital visits so expensive. You can blame the insurance companies all you want but that is not the only place where the problem is. Insuring more people isn't going to help that much either because there are ALWAYS holes...the reason people threaten to move to Canada or other countries is that their system of healthcare does help more people and is more socialized BUT it is more "please" help people instead of the grab your balls approach that we have taken on.

Dude that sucks that you got turned down. I have had a few family member turned down and I also have an Uncle that works as an insurance agent that handles cases at the hospital. He doesn't like it very much because of just how complicated it is. Its black and white for some people but others have multiple guns pointing at their heads telling them who to insure. This is one area where the actual insurance people have less to do with the decisions that the various hospitals and government people that keep tabs on this do.

[Rev.Reverence]

Actually supplying our troops isn't what raises the price tag. People seem to think our troops are paid really well. If you would check with our many agreements with the UN you will find why we are paying so much money. Basically, when it comes to the UN we are their wallet and their strong arm. We are not donating to Haiti because we are so willing to...we have a contract. In Iraq in Afghanistan the money is going to pay for food, building supplies, and military equipment for the people in those countries...all of which is either stolen or destroyed the the troops from Pakistan that Israel is begging us to go after.

Honestly this Health Care bill wouldn't be costing so much money...if we were not already pissing billions into the hands of the UN and other countries that will still hate us just like before. And for all the other needless plans for the federal money that they are throwing at "good ideas" in various states...like those are going to be cheap.

+1

If the world wants us to be the Uncle...they should at least stop hatin' on us when we bail them out.

[KatRN05]

+1

If the world wants us to be the Uncle...they should at least stop hatin' on us when we bail them out.

Agree. +1000

[the eternal]

I have only a few things to say...

This bill is the exact bill that the Senate passed last year. What is being debated in the Senate is the fix it bill the House passed on Sunday. They're going to make changes and it's going to go back to the house until it dies.

The law DOES allow for abortions to be paid for with Federal (Our) moneys.

NO IT DOESN'T. Under the Hyde amendment, Our money is barred from going toward abortions.

In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions[1]. It is not a permanent law, rather it is a "rider" that, in various forms, has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976.

The original Hyde Amendment was passed on September 30, 1976 by the House of Representatives, by a 207-167 vote. It was named for its chief sponsor, Republican Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois. The measure was introduced in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, and represented the first major legislative success by abortion opponents.

The Hyde Amendment inspired the passage of other similar provisions extending the ban on funding of abortions to a number of other federal health care programs. Consequently, those federal government employees who wish to have abortions must pay for them "out-of-pocket". In addition, abortion services are not provided for U.S. military personnel and their families, Peace Corps volunteers, Indian Health Service clients, or federal prisoners.

The Stupak–Pitts Amendment, an amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act, was introduced by Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan. It prohibits use of Federal funds "to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion" except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother,[5] and was included in the bill as passed by the House of Representatives on November 7, 2009. However, the Senate bill deemed passed by the House on March 21, 2010 contained no such language as part of an agreement between Rep. Stupak and President Obama. The President signed an executive order on March 24, 2010 affirming that the Hyde Amendment would extend to the new bill.[6]

WHY DO CONSERVATIVES STILL CLAIM THIS?

Because, once again, this is NOT a govt-run plan.

This healthcare reform is made up of guidelines for the insurance providers WE ALREADY HAVE

And, apparently, a few insurance companies still have abortion as one of their covered procedures.

SO, to correct this "problem," the bill segregates private insurance premium funds from taxpayer funds.

Individuals would have to pay for abortion coverage by making two separate payments, private funds would have to be kept in a separate account from federal and taxpayer funds.

No health care plan would be required to offer abortion coverage.

States could pass legislation choosing to opt out of offering abortion coverage through the exchange.

In other words, if we banned abortions from every plan the govt is regulating or supporting,

we'd be banning abortion coverage from just about every insurance provider in the country!

So, to get around this problem, the bill says to the indiv. insurer.

You CAN offer abortion as part of health care BUT you have to set up two set of books,

with two sets of payments so that not a single dime of taxpayer money goes to abortion.

NOW HERE'S THE FUNNY PART

1. How many of you have health insurance or knows someone with health insurance that provides abortion coverage.

I've had different plans for over a decade and had over a dozen plans (as companies switch providers quite often) and NEVER had one with coverage nor knew someone that did.

The best I had was one plan would let me get a vasectomy for $25. That's less than a BluRay movie!

I didn't get it, but it was tempting!

2. Do you have any idea how time consuming and complicated, dealing with health insurance providers is?

Now then, JUST TO COVER ABORTION, there has to be two sets of silverware and plates,

one for meat and one for cheese, and that's not including Passover, which makes it four

---No wait, that's for keeping Kosher---

OK, so to allow providers to cover abortion there would have to be two sets of books-

one for govt funds,

one for non-govt funds, and so

MOST of the small number of insurance companies that DID offer abortion coverage are going to say

"Screw this,it's not worth it"

So, non-taxpayer abortion coverage is going to get killed by paperwork and procedure,

and we'll all have to pay full price at Planned Parenthood.

IF there's an abortion provider in your area in the first place.

(Less that 5% of counties in the US have at least one provider)

(Quote from the eternal-First of all, it's a service, not a product.)

Get a dictionary.

Main Entry: prod·uct

Pronunciation: \ˈprä-(ˌ)dəkt\

Function: noun

Etymology: in sense 1, from Middle English, from Medieval Latin productum, from Latin, something produced, from neuter of productus, past participle of producere; in other senses, from Latin productum

Date: 15th century

1 : the number or expression resulting from the multiplication together of two or more numbers or expressions

2 a (1) : something produced; especially : commodity 1 (2) : something (as a service) that is marketed or sold as a commodity b : something resulting from or necessarily following from a set of conditions <a product of his environment>

3 : the amount, quantity, or total produced

4 : conjunction 5

They help us to understand each other when communicating.

Also; please, stop ranting at me, like I'm against healthcare....I am only against being FORCED, to purchase a product..& a service, is a product!

Get a dictionary?

Wow! Way to keep things respectful on here.

AND you put it in color to draw attention to it. Nice!

So you say a product is "something (as a service) that is marketed or sold as a commodity"

OK, let me get out my dictionary, so I can look up commodity.

Commodity -- Definition 1

A physical substance, such as food, grains, and metals, which is interchangeable with another product of the same type, and which investors buy or sell, usually through futures contracts.

The price of the commodity is subject to supply and demand. Risk is actually the reason exchange trading of the basic agricultural products began.

For example, a farmer risks the cost of producing a product ready for market at sometime in the future because he doesn't know what the selling price will be.

Definition 2

More generally, a product which trades on a commodity exchange; this would also include foreign currencies and financial instruments and indexes.

NOW, lets see how healthcare stacks up with a commodity like a bag of grain

health·care (hĕlth'kâr')

n.

The prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical well-being through the services offered by the medical and allied health

Health insurance is insurance that pays for medical expenses.

It is sometimes used more broadly to include insurance covering disability or long-term nursing or custodial care needs.

It may be provided through a government-sponsored social insurance program, or from private insurance companies.

So unless US Medicare is interchangeable for Americans with another product of the same type, (UK's healthcare??) and which investors buy or sell, traded on a commodity exchange, I think I'm in the clear on this one.

BUT, so this thread doesn't get jacked by off-topic exchanges, I am going to, for the sake of argument, agree with you, for a moment.

Let's say it IS a product and a service.

WORDS MATTER!

People view services as having value.

They view services as something done for them to make their life better.

Which is what health care's aim is to do.

We view products as furniture, commodities if you will.

Whether you realize it or not, by calling life saving health care a product, the actual wording minimizes the value of it.

Politicians of ALL stripes use different language

(partial birth abortion instead of third trimester, corporate mergers and downsizing instead of

"We f$#@ed your company in the ass and now you're out of a job")

to either draw attention to or minimize value of the thing at question.

So by referring to health care reform as a product,

something I never hear others do,

it seems to share more in common with a handbag than what may give someone FREE preventive care to ensure that that person stays--- healthy and alive.

ANYWAY, I actually wasn't ranting at you Rev, nor was I accusing you or anyone else as being against healthcare.

I kept my commentary strictly about the issue you raised.

And I referenced ONLY govt programs that every working American has payroll taxes taken out to support.

So although it was lengthy,

I kept it narrowly focused to services like SS/Disability/Medicare that we are FORCED to pay for through our taxes

---your primary concern.

And I'm a big enough man to give credit where credit is due.

So, as I did in my last post, I will say again you raised a good question.

Why should everyone* need to be enrolled in a healthcare plan?

(*OK not everyone. No one's require to get health care until 2014 and the 2.5% fine--with a $695 cap for no coverage WILL NOT go into effect until 2016

EVEN THEN---Six years from now Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, IE those for whom the lowest-cost insurance option exceeds 8 percent of an individual's income and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold. In 2009, the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples)

WELL----

why does everyone have to give a little bit of their taxes for Medicare, Social Security, or Disability?

To have enough money to cover those who need it.

BUT, you may say, this money isn't for other people. It's for MY own coverage.

Yeah, isn't that great?

It's not like SS, where you don't even know if it'll be there when you're old enough to need it.

It's there for you NOW!

The reason why everyone needs it is because if it was optional, many younger people wouldn't elect to take it.

Only the older and sicker people, who are using up all the benefits.

And what insurance company is going to sign on to a group benefit filled 100% with people constantly making costly claims.

They'd all go under in a year!

And IF:

--We are going to expand coverage to 32 million more Americans

--We are going to close the donut hole for seniors

--We are going to credit small businesses (who are NOT reqd to offer it) up to 35% for their voluntary choice to offer it anyway.

--We are going to ensure EVERY American's right to health care, regardless of risk or pre-existing condition

We need to balance out the risk pool with young and healthy people.

For example, I have a TON of life insurance. As long as you're relatively thin, under 40, and not on prescrip. medications, it's really really cheap.

Now if I was a 50 yr old 100 lbs overweight and on Lipitor and Wellbutrin, it would be ridiculously high.

So, to make sure that we can cover someone like that, we need enough people like me to keep premiums down.

Why do I have life insurance if I'm such a low risk?

Because as healthy as I am, and despite the fact that the most intense drugs I take are Ibuprofin(Advil) and Caffeine (Oh sweet sweet, fizzy Diet Coke Aaaaahh) I COULD die at any moment, and if I do I want bean to be ok financially, and what's more, I could get a disease or health condition tomorrow.

It wouldn't kill me, but it could prevent my insurability (AKA If I got an incurable disease, I would be too high a risk to qualify for affordable life ins, if I qualified for life ins at all!)

The same thing is true for health insurance. I'm a good risk, but not 100% perfect. Say I got that incurable disease tomorrow, with health insurance that now is BARRED from dropping my coverage and now has NO lifetime limit on it,

I'll know that I'm covered.

But if I didn't have coverage, and I got this disease, they may DENY ME AT A TIME I NEED IT MOST!

OR

If I HAD coverage, THEY MAY DROP ME, claiming I was too high a risk for claims, once again AT A TIME I NEED IT MOST!

I'm not picking fights here,

I'm not ranting at anyone,

and I leave the door open that I'm wrong on this.

BUT, I believe in this bill and the benefits that are possible with it.

I TRULY hope it opens the door for a day when NO ONE has to wait to be "actively dying" from a brain tumor to get the proper medical care they need, like Raev did. And that when this day of full coverage does come and care is available,

that NO ONE will have to take out second mortgages to pay for the surgery like Raev's grandmother and aunt had to.

Unfortunately, without healthy people like me paying insurance premiums and keeping costs down, this wouldn't be possible, and what happened to raev and his family would be sure to happen to thousands of people

across the country

over and over again.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

very wordy and witty... covered almost everything. Except the Abortion tax thats in the law. You know, that small fee attached to all insurance premiums to be used to cover abortions. Thats still in the bill.

You seem to think that people apposed to this bill are opposed to health care reform. I'm sorry eternal, thats bullshit right out of the Democrats talking points. We are not opposed to health care reform. We are opposed to a Federal Mandate and this piece of shit law. It does nothing to lower costs or make insurance more affordable.

What it does do is allow 18-26 year olds too mooch off thier parents for a few more years and bribe them into voting Democrat in November and kicks in for everyone else intime to get Obama votes in 2012.

[Rev.Reverence]

Dude...go ask a lawyer.

A service, is a product...go ask ANY landscaper.

...or a stage performer...of which, I am /have been , both.

I'm not reading your long post...I don't have time to argue you...there is no point...you are mad about something else.

[Raev]

Wow Eternal, that was a very well written and informative post! I actually learned a few things there.

<3!

[phee]

Wow Eternal, that was a very well written and informative post! I actually learned a few things there.

<3!

Likewise

[n0Mad]

Get a dictionary?

OK, let me get out my dictionary ...

Ooo, I want to play! I don't have my Oxford English Dictionary handy so I'll just use this online dictionary here. I mean, what's the difference, right? Okay, Urban Dictionary states:

1.product

drugs i.e. cocaine or weed

hay man da product jus came in today, lets go scoop it up.

1.Service

To fuck.

From the 'The Talented Mr Ripley':

Dick Greenleaf (Jude Law) on a boat trip: "Marge needs a service" - winks at his mates and proceeds below deck and give his sulky bird a good seeing to.

So is health care a product or a service? Well, health care often involves drugs so it could be a product, but with this current bill it sounds like we're all getting fucked so it could be a service. Hard to say so I'm going with both.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Spook

[the eternal]

Ooo, I want to play! I don't have my Oxford English Dictionary handy so I'll just use this online dictionary here. I mean, what's the difference, right? Okay, Urban Dictionary states:

1.product

drugs i.e. cocaine or weed

hay man da product jus came in today, lets go scoop it up.

1.Service

To fuck.

From the 'The Talented Mr Ripley':

Dick Greenleaf (Jude Law) on a boat trip: "Marge needs a service" - winks at his mates and proceeds below deck and give his sulky bird a good seeing to.

So is health care a product or a service? Well, health care often involves drugs so it could be a product, but with this current bill it sounds like we're all getting fucked so it could be a service. Hard to say so I'm going with both.

[Rev.Reverence]

Ooo, I want to play! I don't have my Oxford English Dictionary handy so I'll just use this online dictionary here. I mean, what's the difference, right? Okay, Urban Dictionary states:

1.product

drugs i.e. cocaine or weed

hay man da product jus came in today, lets go scoop it up.

1.Service

To fuck.

From the 'The Talented Mr Ripley':

Dick Greenleaf (Jude Law) on a boat trip: "Marge needs a service" - winks at his mates and proceeds below deck and give his sulky bird a good seeing to.

So is health care a product or a service? Well, health care often involves drugs so it could be a product, but with this current bill it sounds like we're all getting fucked so it could be a service. Hard to say so I'm going with both.

ROCK ON, SIR!

[the eternal]

On Wednesday, Obama spoke in Iowa City about the Health Care bill.

It was about a half hour speech, which breaks down to:

---5 minutes of shout outs

(Can I get a WOOT WOOT for Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack)

---5 minutes about the road to get to health care reform,

interrupted by fans shouting and cheering

("I love you Robert. Twilight rulez!!" ---"Wait what is this rally for again?")

If you want, you can view that part HERE

BUT AFTER THAT, he actually goes into some of the basics of what this health care bill is, what it isn't,

and what it covers.

It was so packed, at the 2 min mark, he actually briefly halted the speech because someone fainted.

VIDEO 2

He continues about the bill until the 3:30 min mark, when he switches gears to talk about how the GOP plans to repeal the bill,

tells them GO FOR IT and

ends with stirring up the crowd about why it's so great that change is coming

(If you're wondering what the man shouted out at 2:10 it was "What about public option?"

To which of course Obama responded "It's not in it because we couldn't get it through Congress")

SO, although the full speech is entertaining,

IF YOU JUST want to learn a little about the bill and see what its #1 proponent has to say

AND

you can't stand reading my long posts, (I don't blame you--they're not for everyone)

WATCH the entire first video inserted above and about 4 minutes of the second one.

It's a good watch

[candyman]

I honestly do not believe that a bill this major should be able to be understood after watching a few videos under 10 min each. I think that the first year should have been spent planning and piecing together a bill using many different resources. The second year could then focus on perfecting the bill, getting opinions on it, various other things. Like I have said before this SHOULD HAVE taken more time considering the scope of it. THAT is one of the reasons I have a problem with this and I think it is why many other people have it...people had to have it NOW not so much to improve things but to prove that they could do things.

I kinda put this in the "Quality vs. Quantity" area...YAY we have it but did they do everything right? Did they consider ALL the options carefully? Probably not.

[phee]

I honestly do not believe that a bill this major should be able to be understood after watching a few videos under 10 min each. I think that the first year should have been spent planning and piecing together a bill using many different resources. The second year could then focus on perfecting the bill, getting opinions on it, various other things. Like I have said before this SHOULD HAVE taken more time considering the scope of it. THAT is one of the reasons I have a problem with this and I think it is why many other people have it...people had to have it NOW not so much to improve things but to prove that they could do things.

I kinda put this in the "Quality vs. Quantity" area...YAY we have it but did they do everything right? Did they consider ALL the options carefully? Probably not.

Kind of damned if they do and damned if they don't.... If he would have spent more time on it: "Obama can't get anything done, look how long this is taking! Down with Obama!" When he went ahead and did it: "Woah he rushed this because of his agenda! he is crazy and a power hungry attention whore and must be stopped!"

[taysteewonderbunny]

I honestly do not believe that a bill this major should be able to be understood after watching a few videos under 10 min each. I think that the first year should have been spent planning and piecing together a bill using many different resources. The second year could then focus on perfecting the bill, getting opinions on it, various other things. Like I have said before this SHOULD HAVE taken more time considering the scope of it. THAT is one of the reasons I have a problem with this and I think it is why many other people have it...people had to have it NOW not so much to improve things but to prove that they could do things.

I kinda put this in the "Quality vs. Quantity" area...YAY we have it but did they do everything right? Did they consider ALL the options carefully? Probably not.

You are saying, sir, that Obama's people ought to have spent at least two (2) years developing and carefully revising a health care reform plan before implementing it? Funny thing, that. See my link to the overview of the plan in PDF dated March 7, 2008: clicky here.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Kind of damned if they do and damned if they don't.... If he would have spent more time on it: "Obama can't get anything done, look how long this is taking! Down with Obama!" When he went ahead and did it: "Woah he rushed this because of his agenda! he is crazy and a power hungry attention whore and must be stopped!"

See, thats whats this is really about. It's not about health care at all. The really important thing here is Obama did something he said he was going to do. Now he can at least claim that. He did something. Something really big. What that something was is of no consquence. We all live to make Obama look good.

[the eternal]

To Obama, it was about providing health care to as many people as possible.

He ran on this platform, because it was important to him, and to many Americans.

You said yourself that people of all political stripes found healthcare reform important.

What impact this bill will have on society remains to be seen.

I think if it survives repeal in November, it will have major consequences, but if it gets repealed before being implemented,

obviously it will have had no impact at all. That is the goal of the republican party. The midterm elections will not only be a referendum on Obama. It will be a referendum on the Healthcare bill.

[candyman]

You are saying, sir, that Obama's people ought to have spent at least two (2) years developing and carefully revising a health care reform plan before implementing it? Funny thing, that. See my link to the overview of the plan in PDF dated March 7, 2008: clicky here.

Where did I say they should implement it after 2 years? 2 years was a minimum time for doing their prep work. Also, it SEEMED really scattered rather than going through different stages of revisions. And even though it has been since 2008 there is the fact that this really seemed like a rush job in the end. Yes the Republicans were being a bunch of stiff but when you are passing something this BIG and this IMPORTANT the last thing you need to do is prove something by pushing it through. We always say look at Europe...and as far as their setup goes we DIDN'T look at them...and they also went at it with a slow and deliberate pace.

Yes urgency to pass this plan is felt by many individuals...but since this is for ALL of us, excluding the government, we should all be on the same damn boat before someone slams down on the throttle. Yes I did mention 2 years...but I never said that they had to go BOOM and implement it after 2 years. The whole system this bill deals with is a machine...and take if from someone that works on many machines taking your damn time is the only way to get things done unless you want to bypass some things and add the possibility for more things to fuck up. 2 years to get the bill ready...THEN they can go about the process of making sure it works with US and THEN they can go about trying to implement it.

If this was a small revision on just a few parts of the system I would not have a problem with them putting it in with such a short time of working on it...and by a few parts I mean less than what is in the bill in case anyone feels like telling me how many parts I meant.

[Simon Bar Sinister]

In a memo to the other members of the Republican party in the Congress, Sen. John Cornyn is telling his fellow Repubs to take credit for the "popular" parts of the health reform bill out on the campaign trail while saying they'll repeal the rest of it.

the eternal: to repeal the bill, the Repubs would have to pick up 26 of the 34 Senate seats and about 130 of the House seats up for grabs this fall to override a presidential veto. Don't worry - this bill will not be repealed.

candyman: the private insurance companies had over a century to get it right. look where that got us. Not to mention that this isn't the final product; after all, we still see revisions and refinements to Medicare 45 years after it became law.

everybody else: see if you can find the Chaffee/Dole bill the Republicans put forth as an alternative to the Clinton plan in '93/'94. It's almost exactly the same as the bill that just passed.

Oh, and if you really want to see what a "government takeover" looks like, check out what just happened with college loans.

[phee]

And more from the right: Sarah Palin, never one to resist inflammatory rhetoric, recently "tweeted" her right-wing supporters, saying "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!"