GOP Bullies Kid on Health Care

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:59 am

There isn't much anyone can say regarding the absolute shame of conservative commentators that Adam Weinstein of Mother Jones hasn't said. These attacks against an 11 year old kid are so far over the top and foul its unbelievable - even for conservatives of the lowest class. Perhaps its okay because hes black?

Unsatisfied with simply denying 30 million Americans health care coverage, crying crocodile tears for the Constitution, and labeling skeptics of their point of view "socialist," right-wing retrogressives have decided they need to up the ante to halt Democratic reforms. They need to bash a kid.

The kid in question is 11-year-old Marcelas Owens, who has become a young public crusader for health insurance reform since his mother, 27-year-old fast-food worker Tifanny Owens, contracted pulmonary hypertension, lost her job due to her poor health, lost her insurance due to her unemployment, and finally died, leaving Marcelas in the care of his grandmother.

Link: GOP Bullies Kid on Health Care | Mother Jones

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:11 am

I guess my first question would be to ask why are they offering up an 11 year old in the first place. Protection should have begun there. Unless the idea was to prop someone up front that the opposition can only look bad going up against.

Does anyone seriously think there is not one adult available to be the symbol for the pro care movement?

Sorry, I can't stand Limbaugh or Beck, but this is on the heads of the movement, IMO.

Shame on THEM, using this kid as a shield!

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:37 am

Ahso!;1297837 wrote: There isn't much anyone can say regarding the absolute shame of conservative commentators that Adam Weinstein of Mother Jones hasn't said. These attacks against an 11 year old kid are so far over the top and foul its unbelievable - even for conservatives of the lowest class. Perhaps its okay because hes black?

Link: GOP Bullies Kid on Health Care | Mother Jones

Tell us the one about the poor little blind boy who sold his white cane to buy medicine for his sick mom. Liberal 'crats are all smoke and mirrors. Behind the smoke and mirrors is nothing but a bunch of pathetic losers. You'll see 'em next election day. Many for the last time.:yh_rotfl

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:43 am

flopstock;1297854 wrote: I guess my first question would be to ask why are they offering up an 11 year old in the first place. Protection should have begun there. Unless the idea was to prop someone up front that the opposition can only look bad going up against.

Does anyone seriously think there is not one adult available to be the symbol for the pro care movement?

Sorry, I can't stand Limbaugh or Beck, but this is on the heads of the movement, IMO.

Shame on THEM, using this kid as a shield!

The 'crats like to use children every opportunity they can. It tugs heartstrings. When gun control comes up, they hide behind children's deaths and child safety there too. Smoking-same deal. Trot out the kids. Obesity, kids again. What a pitiful bunch, those 'crats.:yh_rotfl

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:59 am

hoppy;1297862 wrote: The 'crats like to use children every opportunity they can. It tugs heartstrings. When gun control comes up, they hide behind children's deaths and child safety there too. Smoking-same deal. Trot out the kids. Obesity, kids again. What a pitiful bunch, those 'crats.:yh_rotfl
What a pitiful bunch they both are.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:00 am

flopstock;1297854 wrote: I guess my first question would be to ask why are they offering up an 11 year old in the first place. Protection should have begun there. Unless the idea was to prop someone up front that the opposition can only look bad going up against.

Does anyone seriously think there is not one adult available to be the symbol for the pro care movement?

Sorry, I can't stand Limbaugh or Beck, but this is on the heads of the movement, IMO.

Shame on THEM, using this kid as a shield!Thats a good point, but I'm not sure its an accurate depiction of what occurred. But lets say you're correct. Why take the bait? Why not attack the message and leave the messenger alone, especially since its a young kid? It seems Limbaugh attempted to do just that but couldn't help himself. A good answer to Limbaugh could be that the kids mother would not have died had health care been reformed before now and why let this kind of thing continue to happen in the future? Hopefully some of his listeners were able to get there on their own.

I don't get whats wrong with putting a face and a story behind a marketing campaign. Businesses do it all the time and nobody attacks the kid on the billboard or in the commercial unless there is something unsavory about his or her past. So this is politics, and its up to the so called adults to be an example. Perhaps its time politics became more docile and respectful. Republicans like to talk about how government fails because it doesn't run like a business, but when it is run like a business with an effective marketing campaign, they hem and haw....poor babies.

The main point is: what did the kid say that wasn't true or accurate? He told his story about as well as any 11 year old could. the democrats and the media gave him a microphone to do so. So what?

I can't call that a shield! Not yet, anyway. But I'm still researching!:)

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:01 am

hoppy;1297862 wrote: The 'crats like to use children every opportunity they can. It tugs heartstrings. When gun control comes up, they hide behind children's deaths and child safety there too. Smoking-same deal. Trot out the kids. Obesity, kids again. What a pitiful bunch, those 'crats.:yh_rotflYou'd rather ignore how these things endanger children?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:05 am

Ahso!;1297873 wrote: You'd rather ignore how these things endanger children?

EVERYTHING endangers children. So, what? We lock 'em in a rubber room?:yh_rotfl

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:23 am

hoppy;1297875 wrote: EVERYTHING endangers children. So, what? We lock 'em in a rubber room?:yh_rotflNo, we recognize it, discuss it and fix it. Thats the American know how and family values we all stand for, isn't it? Why fight abortion to only have the children be born into a dangerous and faulty world?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:29 am

Ahso!;1297882 wrote: No, we recognize it, discuss it and fix it. Thats the American know how and family values we all stand for, isn't it? Why fight abortion to only have the children be born into a dangerous and faulty world?

Why kill the baby because it's a dangerous and faulty world?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:33 am

hoppy;1297884 wrote: Why kill the baby because it's a dangerous and faulty world?Off topic!

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:34 am

Why fight abortion to only have the children be born into a dangerous and faulty world?

YOU brought it up.:yh_rotfl

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:36 am

hoppy;1297920 wrote: Why fight abortion to only have the children be born into a dangerous and faulty world?

YOU brought it up.:yh_rotflMine was within the context of the discussion. If it wasn't, I apologize. I did notice you neglected to comment on the first part of the post.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:45 am

Ahso!;1297922 wrote: Mine was within the context of the discussion. If it wasn't, I apologize. I did notice you neglected to comment on the first part of the post.

Now you are nit picking. Grabbing at straws. :yh_rotfl

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:56 am

hoppy;1297926 wrote: Now you are nit picking. Grabbing at straws. :yh_rotflOh well! Another well intentioned effort gone to waste.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:56 am

Burying your mum would make any 11 year old a political activist especuially when you know it didn't have to be. Tell me hoppy and flopstock et al aren't you outraged this woman died because she couldn't afford medical treatment? This supposedly in one of the most advanced countries in the western hemisphere. Does the sheer injustice of her paying taxes all these years to finance the medical care for government employees-amongst other things-but being denied care herself not anger you? Why on earth should it be an employers responsibility to provide medical benefits for employees?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:10 pm

gmc;1297936 wrote: Burying your mum would make any 11 year old a political activist especuially when you know it didn't have to be. Tell me hoppy and flopstock et al aren't you outraged this woman died because she couldn't afford medical treatment? This supposedly in one of the most advanced countries in the western hemisphere. Does the sheer injustice of her paying taxes all these years to finance the medical care for government employees-amongst other things-but being denied care herself not anger you? Why on earth should it be an employers responsibility to provide medical benefits for employees?

And why do you think government should change and suckle us, from cradle to grave?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:12 pm

hoppy;1297937 wrote: And why do you think government should change and suckle us, from cradle to grave?Do you think this is a government take over of health care?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:22 pm

Ahso!;1297938 wrote: Do you think this is a government take over of health care?

Pretty much so. I certainly don't believe anything the big "0" and his party say.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:25 pm

hoppy;1297940 wrote: Pretty much so. I certainly don't believe anything the big "0" and his party say.PolitiFact | Top 10 facts to know about health care reform

PolitiFact | All statements involving John Boehner

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:36 pm

Well, we are just hours away from a vote or a ram through, then we'll see what happens.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:44 pm

hoppy;1297937 wrote: And why do you think government should change and suckle us, from cradle to grave?

I don't but there are certain things that I consider I have the right to demand from government. Healthcare happens to be one of them. If ordinary people are expected to fight and die for their country and pay taxes to finance government then surely they have a right to demand that some of that money be used to provide something that benefits all. Hard times can happen to anyone-like this woman who hardly falls in to the category of worthless indigent. Fit and working with healthcare, ill unable to work so sacked and all the healthcare is taken away just when she needs it most. Do you seriously suggest that is just and fair?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:57 pm

gmc;1297953 wrote: I don't but there are certain things that I consider I have the right to demand from government. Healthcare happens to be one of them. If ordinary people are expected to fight and die for their country and pay taxes to finance government then surely they have a right to demand that some of that money be used to provide something that benefits all. Hard times can happen to anyone-like this woman who hardly falls in to the category of worthless indigent. Fit and working with healthcare, ill unable to work so sacked and all the healthcare is taken away just when she needs it most. Do you seriously suggest that is just and fair?

You don't really want healthcare. You want a mommy.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 3:45 pm

hoppy;1297955 wrote: You don't really want healthcare. You want a mommy.

Lucky me I have both. Thankfully I'm not an american.

But seriously though. Do you consider what happened to that woman just and fair?

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 4:21 pm

I started to ask why she wasn't on medicaid, then decided that perhaps the story wasn't the only version and went looking.

BBCW: Marcelas Owens: BBCW's 11-Year-Old Wacky Liberal of the Year in Training

This brainwashed child actually believes nationalized healthcare would have saved his mother. Forget all the truths about his mother, like she never would go to see doctors. She wouldn't apply for Medicaid. No one in this country was willing to help her.

here's another

Marcelas Owens, Don't Give Up!

Joshua Welter, spokesperson for the family, states Marcelas' mom lost her job in October 2006 where she had worked as an Assistant Manager at a fast food restaurant. After she got sick and couldn't work, she lost her job and couldn't afford regular doctors' visits. In December 2006 she was diagnosed with Pulmonary Hypertension at an Emergency Room visit. It is believed if she could have afforded to continue doctors' visits after she lost her job, she may have been diagnosed earlier. During the half year between her diagnosis and her death, it is believed if she had health insurance, she could have been receiving proactive, ongoing treatment for Pulmonary Hypertension. According to the Pulmonary Hypertension Association, while many Pulmonary Hypertension patients go too long without an accurate diagnosis, some receive prompt, effective treatment and are able to manage their disease for 20+ years.

The folks in favor of health care reform are using this kid. Plain and simple.

And that they are willing to put this kid out there speaks more to me about them then it does about the folks willing to question why he is being used like this.

None of the articles explains why she hadn't applied for medicaid, however.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 4:24 pm

flopstock;1297978 wrote: I started to ask why she wasn't on medicaid, then decided that perhaps the story wasn't the only version and went looking.

here's another

The folks in favor of health care reform are using this kid. Plain and simple.

And that they are willing to put this kid out there speaks more to me about them then it does about the folks willing to question why he is being used like this.

None of the articles explains why she hadn't applied for medicaid, however.

Thank you. I was about to try to research that story, knowing the 'crats habit of tugging on heartstrings with kids and made up stories.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:17 pm

flopstock;1297978 wrote: I started to ask why she wasn't on medicaid, then decided that perhaps the story wasn't the only version and went looking.

here's another

The folks in favor of health care reform are using this kid. Plain and simple.

And that they are willing to put this kid out there speaks more to me about them then it does about the folks willing to question why he is being used like this.

None of the articles explains why she hadn't applied for medicaid, however.Again, so what. Smart kids are spokes models all the time for causes. Whats the big deal? This kid has conducted himself far better than the adults on the republican side. It sounds like you're excusing the fact that the conservative media has gone after the kid.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:18 pm

hoppy;1297981 wrote: I was about to try to research that story,Yeah, right!

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:36 pm

Ahso!;1297993 wrote: Yeah, right!

Yeah, right WHAT? I don't have the luxury of staying online hour after hour. It's an on and off thing, so excuse me if someone beats me to the punch.:p

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:40 pm

Ahso!;1297992 wrote: Again, so what. Smart kids are spokes models all the time for causes. Whats the big deal? This kid has conducted himself far better than the adults on the republican side. It sounds like you're excusing the fact that the conservative media has gone after the kid.

Kinda sounds like conservatives went after a kid because shameless 'crats were using him for bait. When the kid gets older he may wise up to 'crat tricks.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:01 pm

hoppy;1298007 wrote: Kinda sounds like conservatives went after a kid because shameless 'crats were using him for bait. When the kid gets older he may wise up to 'crat tricks.Then they should go after the 'crats' instead of the kid.

There was nothing wrong done here by the democrats. Heres the child of a deceased woman and her mother making some positive effort out of respect for her life. Yes the democrats hooked onto it and provided them a platform, but so what! Whats wrong with expecting a little civility toward these two people?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:37 pm

Ahso!;1298009 wrote: Then they should go after the 'crats' instead of the kid.

There was nothing wrong done here by the democrats. Heres the child of a deceased woman and her mother making some positive effort out of respect for her life. Yes the democrats hooked onto it and provided them a platform, but so what! Whats wrong with expecting a little civility toward these two people?

Don't worry, we ARE going after the 'crat liars and user of children.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 6:48 am

flopstock;1297978 wrote: I started to ask why she wasn't on medicaid, then decided that perhaps the story wasn't the only version and went looking.

here's another

The folks in favor of health care reform are using this kid. Plain and simple.

And that they are willing to put this kid out there speaks more to me about them then it does about the folks willing to question why he is being used like this.

None of the articles explains why she hadn't applied for medicaid, however.

Actually the second article does, read all the way down.

Unfortunately, Tifany Owens didn't qualify for Medicaid according to Gina Owens and there is a huge waiting list for Basic Health.

Sharon Michael of the Washington State Health Care Authority says they have currently "100,000 people on the wait list" for Washington Basic Health coverage.

Hope these facts can answer any further questions or speculations as to why Tifany didn't have health care.

Come on hoppy you still haven't answered my question

But seriously though. Do you consider what happened to that woman just and fair?

I'm a non american, enlighten me as to how people dying because they can't afford a doctor means you have a just and fair society.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:03 am

gmc;1298068 wrote: Actually the second article does, read all the way down.

Come on hoppy you still haven't answered my question

I'm a non american, enlighten me as to how people dying because they can't afford a doctor means you have a just and fair society.

Are people not dying in your country because of inadequate or poor medical service?

I can't afford a Cadillac either, and could certainly use one to get to my doc in another city. Guess what. I ain't gonna get one.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:52 am

hoppy;1298071 wrote: Are people not dying in your country because of inadequate or poor medical service?

I can't afford a Cadillac either, and could certainly use one to get to my doc in another city. Guess what. I ain't gonna get one.

They are indeed. No one would claim we have all the answers or by any means a perfect system. But no one dies because they can't afford to go to the doctor in the first place or don't go to one because they are terrified of the cost. No one goes bankrupt and loses their home because of medical bills for a loved one. Nor do you have to worry you doctor will carry out unnecessary tests and treatments to line his pocket.

At the heart of it is an assumption that in a civilised society no one should be denied medical care because of poverty.

You still haven't answered the question. do you think what happened to her is just and fair. did she deserve to die because she couldn't afford a doctor.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:08 am

gmc;1298082 wrote: They are indeed. No one would claim we have all the answers or by any means a perfect system. But no one dies because they can't afford to go to the doctor in the first place or don't go to one because they are terrified of the cost. No one goes bankrupt and loses their home because of medical bills for a loved one. Nor do you have to worry you doctor will carry out unnecessary tests and treatments to line his pocket.

At the heart of it is an assumption that in a civilised society no one should be denied medical care because of poverty.

You still haven't answered the question. do you think what happened to her is just and fair. did she deserve to die because she couldn't afford a doctor.

You agreed people are dying under your system because of poor or inadequate medical service. People die here because of expense. Dead is dead, no matter. Tell me why we should trade our system for yours then. So we can get inferior medical care?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:38 am

hoppy;1298083 wrote: You agreed people are dying under your system because of poor or inadequate medical service. People die here because of expense. Dead is dead, no matter. Tell me why we should trade our system for yours then. So we can get inferior medical care?

You have to find your own solutions, try taking the best ideas from those in the rest of the world.

There is a difference between someone dying because of a failure in the health care service, and someone dying because they are denied access to it in the first place. I hope for your sake you never fall on hard times and need medical care you can't pay for. It would appear your dying because of an inability to pay for it through no fault of your own is something you would consider only right. I just can't understand why you think it acceptable in a civilised society that the powerless are viewed as people to be looked down on but when they exercise their democratic right to demand change to make their lives better the whole fabric of society is threatened.

But then while my political views are middle of the road in the UK I think I would be on the loony left in america-or whatever the equivalent is.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:54 am

Ahso!;1298009 wrote: Then they should go after the 'crats' instead of the kid.

There was nothing wrong done here by the democrats. Heres the child of a deceased woman and her mother making some positive effort out of respect for her life. Yes the democrats hooked onto it and provided them a platform, but so what! Whats wrong with expecting a little civility toward these two people?

The womans mother should have been used, not the child. It is disingenuous at best to use a child as emotional leverage in a battle between adults. The child should have been shielded, not used as a shield.

And for folks that say so what, the kid is handling himself well - then what is your complaint? If the kid can handle it, he is up to criticism and debate. If he isn't, he never should have been brought forth as a tool here in the first place. They were wrong to use him and any backlash should be on them, IMO.

Or are we saying that the Pro health care reform crowd can't find an out of work adult with life threatening ailments and no insurance to bring forward and speak in this debate? Because I have to tell you that as the mother of an 11 year old, the notion of her being put on display to forward any cause, simply because her mother was dead - that just makes me want to throw up on whoever would dare to suggest it.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:24 pm

flopstock;1298098 wrote: The womans mother should have been used, not the child. It is disingenuous at best to use a child as emotional leverage in a battle between adults. The child should have been shielded, not used as a shield.

And for folks that say so what, the kid is handling himself well - then what is your complaint? If the kid can handle it, he is up to criticism and debate. If he isn't, he never should have been brought forth as a tool here in the first place. They were wrong to use him and any backlash should be on them, IMO.

Or are we saying that the Pro health care reform crowd can't find an out of work adult with life threatening ailments and no insurance to bring forward and speak in this debate? Because I have to tell you that as the mother of an 11 year old, the notion of her being put on display to forward any cause, simply because her mother was dead - that just makes me want to throw up on whoever would dare to suggest it.:mad:There is no complaint - only the observation and criticism that conservative pundants and politicians are willing to go after an 11 year old. There are plenty of people available for this cause and have been telling their stories too. The democratic party gave Marcelas Owens what one opportunity to share his story and the media picked it up from there, but I must say Marcelas has handled himself with more dignity and class than his critics. Thats it really!

If health care passes tomorrow three of the main players to have finally gotten it done will have been the first black president, the first female house speaker and an 11 year old black child. A lot of affluent white or light skinned people just hate that fact I think.

After watching this thing unfold its obvious to me whose in the pocket of insurance companies and the extent to which they will compromise principle for a future lobbying job for themselves, a relative or a friend.

Its the peoples time to finally win one (I hope).

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:17 pm

Ahso!;1298114 wrote: There is no complaint - only the observation and criticism that conservative pundants and politicians are willing to go after an 11 year old. There are plenty of people available for this cause and have been telling their stories too. The democratic party gave Marcelas Owens what one opportunity to share his story and the media picked it up from there, but I must say Marcelas has handled himself with more dignity and class than his critics. Thats it really!

If health care passes tomorrow three of the main players to have finally gotten it done will have been the first black president, the first female house speaker and an 11 year old black child. A lot of affluent white or light skinned people just hate that fact I think.

After watching this thing unfold its obvious to me whose in the pocket of insurance companies and the extent to which they will compromise principle for a future lobbying job for themselves, a relative or a friend.

Its the peoples time to finally win one (I hope).

Don't kid youself, neither side is doing anything 'for the people'. :rolleyes:

Are the legislative and executive branch and their staff subject to this new national insurance? If they are, I may be persuaded.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:33 pm

flopstock;1298130 wrote: Don't kid youself, neither side is doing anything 'for the people'. :rolleyes:

Are the legislative and executive branch and their staff subject to this new national insurance? If they are, I may be persuaded.Its all a compromise. The people have to share this victory with the insurance, medical, pharma and whatever other industry is making out on the deal, but make no mistake about it, this is a win for the general public in more than one way. Also, its another example of the fact that capitalism as we've known it is slowly dieing.

Why would the legislative and executive branches and their staff not be subject to this bill? This is the second time this has been brought up to me. The first person ran for the hills when I asked him to clarify.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:50 pm

Ahso!;1298134 wrote: Its all a compromise. The people have to share this victory with the insurance, medical, pharma and whatever other industry is making out on the deal, but make no mistake about it, this is a win for the general public in more than one way. Also, its another example of the fact that capitalism as we've known it is slowly dieing.

Why would the legislative and executive branches and their staff not be subject to this bill? This is the second time this has been brought up to me. The first person ran for the hills when I asked him to clarify.
Can you really think that much of yourself?:rolleyes::yh_rotfl

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:52 pm

Here's what I'm talking about.

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program

As soon as members of Congress are sworn in, they may participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The program offers an assortment of health plans from which to choose, including fee-for-service, point-of-service, and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). In addition, Congress members can also insure their spouses and their dependents.

Read more at Suite101: Health Care for U.S. Congress: Politicians Receive the Country’s Best Care - at Taxpayers' Expense http://public-healthcare-issues.suite10 ... z0ikhJdXmN

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 2:10 pm

flopstock;1298139 wrote: Can you really think that much of yourself?:rolleyes::yh_rotflNo! Thats why I laughed about it too. It only shows he was not taking from knowledge, but parroting the gop.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 2:17 pm

flopstock;1298142 wrote: Here's what I'm talking about.This is what we progressives want for everyone, but its not to be....yet!

Anyone who is enrolled in a current already established plan gets to keep it or switch to an individual plan. Theres nothing hidden there and yes they technically are subject to the bill. Its too bad the gop didn't want to get involved and make it better for everyone, but so be it. Its all we could get. We'll be back at this again now that the foot is hopefully in the door.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:19 pm

Ahso!;1298148 wrote: No! Thats why I laughed about it too. It only shows he was not taking from knowledge, but parroting the gop.

Not really. It only showed that they couldn't be bothered. I almost couldn't be bothered myself, but I gave you one. The fact of the matter is that if YOU are really up on this subject, you had to have heard some the press about the coverage that congress itself is alleged be keeping(true or not).

That was your opportunity to disprove what we've all been told for quite some time now, rather then act as if you'd never heard of the concept.

And per your recent comment when I went to preview this.. everything I've seen related to this suggests that the GOP was wanting to make congress have to have the same coverage as everyone else if they really believe in it. Didn't even get to a vote though...:rolleyes:

You bet the 'reformists' have covered their own asses! These folks aren't progressive or reformists - they are just more of the same crap, different party. And anyone who calls themselves a progressive needs to be willing to call everyone on their dishonesty - and quit putting up with one sides deceit's because it is the devil you know..

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:00 am

flopstock;1298158 wrote: Not really. It only showed that they couldn't be bothered. I almost couldn't be bothered myself, but I gave you one. The fact of the matter is that if YOU are really up on this subject, you had to have heard some the press about the coverage that congress itself is alleged be keeping(true or not).More cover? If you were up on the bill you wouldn't need to ask this question. What don't you understand about not changing current plans?

Its employer provided health care. Of course it comes from taxes, where do you expect the funds to come from? This bill doesn't change any current plan. If you want to discontinue the health care provided to federal employees then find out how to do that and get a petition drive going. Better yet, why didn't the republicans get involved and offer an amendment to rescind the federal employees health care coverage if its so abhorrent?

You gave me one? Please spare me the condescending tone. All you've done is defend and excuse outrageous conservative behavior. At least you bothered to ask about and provide me the opportunity to explain away the misinformation you've been feeding yourself, which is more than anyone can say about the other person.

If he couldn't be bothered, why ask the question to begin with? Would you like to provide another excuse for him now?

flopstock;1298158 wrote: That was your opportunity to disprove what we've all been told for quite some time now, rather then act as if you'd never heard of the concept.There is nothing to disprove. The bill does not change anyones current health care plan including the employer provided plan federal employees enjoy.

flopstock;1298158 wrote: And per your recent comment when I went to preview this.. everything I've seen related to this suggests that the GOP was wanting to make congress have to have the same coverage as everyone else if they really believe in it. Didn't even get to a vote though...:rolleyes:They are subject to everything in the bill. What is so hard to understand about this? Where in the bill is it stated that federal employees are exempt? There will be a mandate that we all have minimum coverage (like auto insurance) which some people will get help with, but you'll be able to up your coverage if you like. This bill was designed to only address those without insurance, meaning mainly individuals and small business owners who can't afford to offer it to their employees.

flopstock;1298158 wrote: You bet the 'reformists' have covered their own asses! These folks aren't progressive or reformists - they are just more of the same crap, different party. And anyone who calls themselves a progressive needs to be willing to call everyone on their dishonesty - and quit putting up with one sides deceit's because it is the devil you know..What can i say. You have a cynical outlook on democratic politicians. Not all democrats are progressives.

This system is all we've got and we might as well demand more than we're currently getting from these elected officials. One easy thing to demand is an honest debate and civility. I demand and expect that from the politicians I vote for. And yes I do write emails to them when they don't live up to that expectation and behave accordingly.