John Boehner Was Awesome On Sunday Night.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

[scandal 951]

[Teacher Mark 53]

Does his name rhyme with #######?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

John Boehner:

[JimandChristy 1,689]

What an idiot, notice the two contrasting styles by both house leaders when giving their final speeches. Boehner acted like a madman, full of anger, uncivilised and showed little respect towards house members. Boehner was in effect reflecting the Tea Baggers behavior with their spitting and hurling racial abuse towards black congressmen, calling Frank a F****t and telling a Hispanic congressman "To go back to Mexico". Nancy Pelosi on the other hand gave her speech in a dignified manner, calm, took her speech onto a personal level, to the very heart about what this bill was about and what it meant for American families and people.

Boehner couldn't even do that, the red mist was descended on him a long time ago and not once throughout this whole debate did I hear him talk about what this whole bill was about, the personal lives of people who suffered under the malpractices of the insurance companies. Did he care about that? I don't think so, maybe he was too busy patting the wallet in his back pocket. Boehner kept going on about the majority of the American people didn't want this bill. In some regards this is true, however there are two crucial differences, one, the public said major changes had to be made but they think this bill didn't actually go far enough. Two, once the American people see the changes in effect then all the lies and propaganda spouted by the RWN will be exposed for what it is.

Edited March 23, 2010 by JimandChristy

[Niels Bohr 72]

Bipartisanship my #######!...when they asked for filibusters, I asked if it is really bipartisanship.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Bipartisanship my #######!...when they asked for filibusters, I asked if it is really bipartisanship.

It's laughable isn't it? Republicans were at the table on the Senate Bill, made suggestions and over 200 amendments to the bill. Still that wasn't enough for them, they still didn't want to compromise, all they were interested in right from the get go was to kill it. The Dems compromised by dropping the public option, allowing buying policies across state lines etc etc.

[Nagishkaw 510]

It's laughable isn't it? Republicans were at the table on the Senate Bill, made suggestions and over 200 amendments to the bill. Still that wasn't enough for them, they still didn't want to compromise, all they were interested in right from the get go was to kill it. The Dems compromised by dropping the public option, allowing buying policies across state lines etc etc.

0h, the torturous art of compromise !

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I agree, he was fabulous!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

What an idiot, notice the two contrasting styles by both house leaders when giving their final speeches. Boehner acted like a madman, full of anger, uncivilised and showed little respect towards house members. Boehner was in effect reflecting the Tea Baggers behavior with their spitting and hurling racial abuse towards black congressmen, calling Frank a F****t and telling a Hispanic congressman "To go back to Mexico". Nancy Pelosi on the other hand gave her speech in a dignified manner, calm, took her speech onto a personal level, to the very heart about what this bill was about and what it meant for American families and people.

Boehner couldn't even do that, the red mist was descended on him a long time ago and not once throughout this whole debate did I hear him talk about what this whole bill was about, the personal lives of people who suffered under the malpractices of the insurance companies. Did he care about that? I don't think so, maybe he was too busy patting the wallet in his back pocket. Boehner kept going on about the majority of the American people didn't want this bill. In some regards this is true, however there are two crucial differences, one, the public said major changes had to be made but they think this bill didn't actually go far enough. Two, once the American people see the changes in effect then all the lies and propaganda spouted by the RWN will be exposed for what it is.

Are you truly naive to sit here and just listen to that #######? To listen to Pelosi and her minions. BOTH damn parties are lying out their #### on this. You want to know who was speaking right? Look at a few of the Democrats who voted against the bill (not the abortion ones). The ones who talked about the REAL problem, COST.

MEDICARE, MEDICARE has denied more total claims 10 fold than anyone else out there with about 450,000 denied (granted they have more people on the dole than anyone else as well with somewhere around 6.5 million). Now that's a rate of 6.85% of claims denied. Aetna was in second place with 6.8% of claims denied, totaling about 40,000 people. Anthem the next one down with 4.5% claims denied, and then every other company between 2.5-3.5% of claims denied. So don't give me this "big bad" insurance company BULLSHIT because that's exactly what it is.

The insurance companies provide a service that actually costs them money. Do you honestly think they make their profits off of your measly premiums? In the words of Boehner, "HELL NO THEY DONT!" They make their profits through investments, through capital gains, etc. (which are regulated btw because of the type of industry they are in). If insurance companies were strictly premium based, your premiums would be MUCH higher than what they are now in all honesty for them to be able to stand any chance of turning a profit.

It's the COST and it always has been, which has been attributed to many many factors, be it devaluation of currency, be it government protecting big pharma, be it government having overly strict requirements on medical equipment, be it restrictions on the way a medical procedure must be performed with certain instruments that might be more expensive, be it that we purchase the majority of our medical equipment from ourselves that's extremely expensive. Then there's your usual overhead of hospitals, etc.. and so much more that is due to simple economics and also over-regulation. Health Care is the only industry that is probably truly over-regulated and WE PAY FOR IT.

Stop listening to the damned politicians and people who have something to gain from things like this. This bill does nothing to 'expand' coverage. The coverage was already there. The only thing it does is FORCE coverage and FORCE the people to buy coverage and then FORCES everyone else to subsidize even more those who weren't paying for it already or in this case cannot afford it still.

Stop asking yourself, "why is person X not covered" and start asking yourself, "Why does it cost so much and why do we 'need' health insurance to pay for it." - If you actually look into and study the industry, you'll realize that insurance really isn't the bad guy here.

And btw, nothing has ever stopped people from creating an insurance company/pool for those who have been denied coverage otherwise due to pre-existing conditions. You don't need a government intervention for that to happen. Of course, I suppose most of you never actually used your damn head to think about that.

Does this bill do anything but embrace a soft tyranny? "HELL NO IT DOESN'T!"

[Niels Bohr 72]

I highly doubt it's over-regulation that increases the cost of Healthcare. Last time I checked, Bush gave the Insurer's a 10 year tax break and also gave them the power to monopolize by removing anti-trust law restrictions. I didn't know about this matter until this morning.

Yet, they continue to profit emensely. There's nothing wrong with profit. However, there is one problem. Since they're profiting so emensely from these tax incentives, why are they still worried about pre-existing conditions or that they like the subscribers to pay a co-pay or whatever? Why is it they want more money from working families if they already have over billion dollars in profits.

Also, lets talk about derivatives. A father who has a heart condition and working income of 35k. Now, they say his son will have a chance of receiving the same genes that cause these symptoms. So, the insurer will not cover his son. What does the father do? The father will end up paying over 50k just to have his child treated. Pre-existing conditions, eh. Tell me about them. They used risk-analysis to determine whether or not it's good to invest in a patient. These private insurers treat patients or subscribers like each person is an investment instead of patients. Seems like they want to pull a scam.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"I still got you beat, baby."

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I highly doubt it's over-regulation that increases the cost of Healthcare. Last time I checked, Bush gave the Insurer's a 10 year tax break and also gave them the power to monopolize by removing anti-trust law restrictions. I didn't know about this matter until this morning.

Yet, they continue to profit emensely. There's nothing wrong with profit. However, there is one problem. Since they're profiting so emensely from these tax incentives, why are they still worried about pre-existing conditions or that they like the subscribers to pay a co-pay or whatever? Why is it they want more money from working families if they already have over billion dollars in profits.

Also, lets talk about derivatives. A father who has a heart condition and working income of 35k. Now, they say his son will have a chance of receiving the same genes that cause these symptoms. So, the insurer will not cover his son. What does the father do? The father will end up paying over 50k just to have his child treated. Pre-existing conditions, eh. Tell me about them. They used risk-analysis to determine whether or not it's good to invest in a patient. These private insurers treat patients or subscribers like each person is an investment instead of patients. Seems like they want to pull a scam.

Stop looking at "insurance" and start looking at the health care industry. They are not the same thing. They really are separate entities when you get down to it.

Think of it like this:

Does the price of your car insurance effect the price of your car?

Does the price of your home owners insurance effect the market price of your home?

Step away from insurance for just a minute and look at the health care industry itself and you can start seeing the problems that plague it.

Every bit of regulation effects cost in one way or another. Sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, it just really depends on the industry and depends on a variety of factors involved. If that regulation effects the "bottom line" though in a negative way (see: protectionism for instance in the pharmaceutical industry) then your cost as a consumer is going to be much higher, sometmes astronomically, than it has to be.

[Fandango 1,439]

Indeed, I thought he was great as well.

[Donna A 4]

did he read the bill or just say no to it?