You were wrong K1ng. It got partisan before Coke even got here. Here is one of those brownshirted intimidating Republicans sabotaging a hard working Congressman's meeting.

Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi goes George Orwell in the USA Today.

Quote:

These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.



The opponents are afraid of differing views? The opponents aren't the ones hiring union thugs to beat up stage 4 cancer victims because they stand in the way of said union thugs closing the doors of a supposed town hall meeting in Tampa, Florida to the public. The opposers aren't the ones that are now insisting on having these meetings done over the phone so they will not have to look constituents in the eye when they try to feed them the bullshit they are selling in this bill. Apparently drowning out opposing views in a forum on health care is different from drowning out opposing views at lectures on illegal immigration at Columbia University and the University of North Carolina or drowning out opposing views by Marine recruiters at their own recruiting station..

Quote:

The first fact is that health insurance reform will mean more patient choice.



No, it won't. Yes you can keep any coverage you have before this gets enacted due to a grandfather clause but if you enter the work force after this gets enacted you will only be allowed to choose between the government plan and a private plan that has all of the components of the government plan. In other words you will be able to choose between the government plan and the government plan. Eventually as this generation leaves the work force you will only have the government plan.

Quote:

Reform will mean stability and peace of mind for the middle class. Never again will medical bills drive Americans into bankruptcy; never again will Americans be in danger of losing coverage if they lose their jobs or if they become sick; never again will insurance companies be allowed to deny patients coverage because of pre-existing conditions.



Wrong. All you are doing with this bill is substituting the phrase end of life program for pre-existing condition. Oh, you will still get care but you will have no say over what kind of care you will receive, the government will decide for you.

Quote:

Reform will also mean higher-quality care by promoting preventive care so health problems can be addressed before they become crises. This, too, will save money. We'll be a much healthier country if all patients can receive regular checkups and tests, such as mammograms and diabetes exams, without paying a dime out-of-pocket.



How? On the average someone that lives until they are 90 will have more visits to the doctor's office and hospital than someone that lives until they are 75. Won't that increase costs instead? It's great that more people will get these diseases diagnosed earlier but these diseases will still have to be treated whether they were diagnosed at date A or one year from date A. And the more people you save from these diseases the more follow up trips to the doctor for check ups you are going to have. The problem with health care reform is that the more people whose lives are saved and the longer the life span of the people on the insurance means the more the whole program is going to cost. It is that way with private insurance companies now and it will be that way with a federal insurance program later.

Quote:

Now — with Americans strongly supporting health insurance reform, with Congress reaching consensus on a plan, and with a president who ran and won on this specific promise of change — America is closer than ever to this century-deferred goal.



I remember a president who ran and won on the promise of change. I do not remember him emphasizing this (or any of his other policies for that matter) as being a specific part of that change. In fact I do not remember him mentioning any particulars to what "change" would occur with his election.

If anyone wants to read this entire mind numbing vast wasteland of legislative flotsam and jetsam here it is.

How can anyone expect me to have faith in a piece of legislation that includes this blue-ribbon prize winning clause of doubletalk?

(Courtesy of page 203 under the heading of Not Treated as Tax Imposed By this Chapter for Certain Purposes).

"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55."

Don't ask me what section 55 is I haven't got the faintest idea. Trying to navigate this piece of legislation is like going over Niagara Falls blindfolded on a Tilt-a-Whirl.

_________________________
I would eat Allie Sin's asshole until I got an emotion out of her.-Jerkules